PDA

View Full Version : Purple fringing



Rhys
08-11-2004, 03:30 PM
Apart from the Canon S1, are there any other ultra-zoom cameras that suffer from purple fringing?

I found it a little disconcerting to have a sheep on green marshland with a purple back. It does not, however, appear to be very obtrusive although I have not tried printing the picture to A4 yet.

What do people think?

BTW, this picture was taken in failing light.

Purple fringed sheep (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bd0574/IMG_0240.JPG)

John_Reed
08-11-2004, 03:50 PM
Apart from the Canon S1, are there any other ultra-zoom cameras that suffer from purple fringing?

I found it a little disconcerting to have a sheep on green marshland with a purple back. It does not, however, appear to be very obtrusive although I have not tried printing the picture to A4 yet.

What do people think?

BTW, this picture was taken in failing light.

Purple fringed sheep (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/bd0574/IMG_0240.JPG)Here's what the Shay Stephens plug-in had to say about your purple fringing:
http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/7208578-L.jpg
(Actually, I selected manual color correction, as the "Auto Purple" color didn't seem to apply) It could also be that you happened to discover that rare ovine breed, the "Purple-Backed" sheep?

Rhys
08-11-2004, 04:03 PM
Here's what the Shay Stephens plug-in had to say about your purple fringing:
(Actually, I selected manual color correction, as the "Auto Purple" color didn't seem to apply) It could also be that you happened to discover that rare ovine breed, the "Purple-Backed" sheep?

Hmm. I see the tone of the whole photo seems to have changed to being a little cooler. I can see the sheep lost his purple overcoat but also he lost his slight yellow colouring.

I don't think the purple fringing is too bad, actually. I was surprised to see it but I don't think it actually makes a lot of difference to the photos as it does seem somewhat minimal - especially when one considers that we're viewing on a single pixel level as opposed to as other would - on paper from a distance.

I do love that long zoom although my question of longer focal lengths remains - are they that practical, over 300mm due to the atmospheric haze issue which was clearly illustrated in my purple sheep photo. Just look at the pylons.

John_Reed
08-11-2004, 04:40 PM
I do love that long zoom although my question of longer focal lengths remains - are they that practical, over 300mm due to the atmospheric haze issue which was clearly illustrated in my purple sheep photo. Just look at the pylons.Long telephoto shots need not always encompass atmospheric haze, Rhys. Here's a "close-up" shot of a distant Sparrow I took with my FZ10 at full 420mm zoom, + 1.7X for the TCON-17, + 1.8X digital zoom, for a total of 1285mm, effectively:
http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/7143481-L.jpg
(shot at 1/640 shutter speed, f4, handheld)

jaykinghorn
08-12-2004, 11:22 PM
Rhys,

I'm not sure that it is atmospheric haze that is causing your problem. Chromatic Abberation occurs when the light entering the lens doesn't focus accurately enough on the CCD. This is a large reason Nikon has decided to make an entire new series of lenses for their digital cameras.

I don't know if the your camera has the capability to shoot in raw mode. If it can, the Chromatic Abberation tab in Photoshop CS's Camera Raw plugin can take care of that.

Jay Kinghorn
RGB Imaging

Rhys
08-13-2004, 03:02 AM
Rhys,

I'm not sure that it is atmospheric haze that is causing your problem. Chromatic Abberation occurs when the light entering the lens doesn't focus accurately enough on the CCD. This is a large reason Nikon has decided to make an entire new series of lenses for their digital cameras.

I don't know if the your camera has the capability to shoot in raw mode. If it can, the Chromatic Abberation tab in Photoshop CS's Camera Raw plugin can take care of that.

Jay Kinghorn
RGB Imaging

Actually, I'm pretty sure it is atmospherica haze. I had the same kind of problem, if I recall correctly, when I used 35mm lenses of over 300mm focal length. 600mm produced really interesting haze photos of the same subject. I'll just put it down to the fact I'm shooting over a road that's been used and been in the sun all day. But I'll try some other photos just in case, for comparison.

D70FAN
08-13-2004, 10:10 AM
Long telephoto shots need not always encompass atmospheric haze, Rhys. Here's a "close-up" shot of a distant Sparrow I took with my FZ10 at full 420mm zoom, + 1.7X for the TCON-17, + 1.8X digital zoom, for a total of 1285mm, effectively:
http://john-reed.smugmug.com/photos/7143481-L.jpg
(shot at 1/640 shutter speed, f4, handheld)


John,

If there is ever a question about the FZ10, or about using a little digital zoom to "get the shot", or the use of optical multipliers... this should be the poster.

In-frikin'-credible!

You are the "birdman" of DCRP.

John_Reed
08-13-2004, 06:38 PM
John,

If there is ever a question about the FZ10, or about using a little digital zoom to "get the shot", or the use of optical multipliers... this should be the poster.

In-frikin'-credible!

You are the "birdman" of DCRP.Why thank you, George! I appreciate that a lot. (and if I could put up a Smiley, I would!) I put this same image up over on dpreview in response to some dude who wanted everyone to show him a "full zoom" FZ10 shot, with or without tripod, to be specified by shooter. Everyone threw up a shot, and the guy responded that all these shots were "evidence of optical breakdown" at the long-zoom end, due to compromises by Panasonic. I guess he saw something he was looking for, but I have a lot of fun out at the end of the zoom and beyond, and enjoy the results, so it can't be all bad!

D70FAN
08-13-2004, 09:57 PM
Why thank you, George! I appreciate that a lot. (and if I could put up a Smiley, I would!) I put this same image up over on dpreview in response to some dude who wanted everyone to show him a "full zoom" FZ10 shot, with or without tripod, to be specified by shooter. Everyone threw up a shot, and the guy responded that all these shots were "evidence of optical breakdown" at the long-zoom end, due to compromises by Panasonic. I guess he saw something he was looking for, but I have a lot of fun out at the end of the zoom and beyond, and enjoy the results, so it can't be all bad!

Sounds like someone we know. What the hell compromises can you make in a $499 camera. The lens is worth $600 by itself. I hate those self-righteous #$%&.

I would like to see how much he would have to spend to get a 1Ds to get that shot hand-held. I love my dSLR, but there are many shots from all-in-ones, especially the FZ10 that rival dSLR in capability.

Rhys
08-14-2004, 06:20 AM
This reminds me of an article in Amateur Photographer. Somebody was complaining that they'd taken some nice pictures for an exhibition and somebody from a local camera club was more interested in his equipment than in the photos being exhibited.

There are 3 kinds of photographer:
1. Photographers that use any camera and just take nice photos.
2. Photographers that take nice photos and are interested in their equipment.
3. Photographers that take nice photos but who're more interested in the latest gadgets and gizmos than in photography.

It sounds like John's experience on dpreview has been with people who're more interested in equipment than in actual photography. I can't remember the name of the photographer but there was a lady who took pictures of girls with swan's wings attached to their backs. She wasn't bothered about focus but took nice photos. I wonder whether those photos would have stayed on the wall and been famous or whether they'd have gone in the dustbin if the people from dpreview had seen them.