Discussion
dibbly dobbler said:
Thankyou gentlemen - nice to get a bit of good feedback 
When I saw how good the sky was looking I was terrified of buggering it up (again!) so it was pleasing to have a half decent result.
LQ if you are out there I would appreciate any opinion on the pic as I used a much wider aperture to try and avoid the dreaded purple fringing (as suggested by you and Rob). To my untrained eye it looks ok so I think that could be 'a result'
DD - been at Silverstone since Thursday night so I didn't see this until I got back last night. When I saw how good the sky was looking I was terrified of buggering it up (again!) so it was pleasing to have a half decent result.LQ if you are out there I would appreciate any opinion on the pic as I used a much wider aperture to try and avoid the dreaded purple fringing (as suggested by you and Rob). To my untrained eye it looks ok so I think that could be 'a result'
Love the shot and I think you can see from the less oblique angle that the individual support cables resolve pretty well so the 'fuzziness' in the previous set is not evident except for the small sections where the angle brings some cable close together. For this shot at the longer distance that really doesn't matter at all but I think it sort of confirms what we discussed before and so could perhaps become a factor to consider when positioning and composing a shot. However I don't think it should dominate your choices.
The PF is not terrible evident (at least to my eyes this morning viewing at 1:1) and in any case you can only minimise not eliminate so I think the aperture setting is an improvement. However PF can be a strange thing (as can other edge colour fringes) and in my experience is not so constant that one can be sure to avoid it but nor is it certain to appear. All one can really say is that some lenses shooting in bright(ish) light almost always display the phenomenon quite evidently and others don't until the dark/light edge contrast fulfills certain criteria about relative brightness and angle of light. The effect can vary from being really in your face to so subtle that you only really see it pixel peeping at 1:1. In the latter case it may not be important in colour appearance terms but can slightly diminish apparent edge sharpness so being able to treat it helps the crispness of the image and the separation of small details - foliage and branches being notables in that respect.
It's not easy to compare this image to the previously discussed examples 'cos the different composition has avoided the more evident PF objects - the scaffolded structure on the left for example. Plus it's a little darker over all and more distant so any aberration effects of light to dark edges will be diminished by both the reduced light differential and the different light source angle of illumination. You're at the point where the bridge is almost entirely silhouette and that combined with the distance means that edges are not that well defined anyway. At 1:1 the original looks like a 35mm negative appears when viewed through a 10x or 20x loupe. There's nothing at all wrong with that for the image but it does make 'technical comparison' and 'reasoned commentary' of nuanced detail somewhat subjective!
Apologies for the length of this response but I don't think that a shorter answer would cover the variables quite well enough.
It would be interesting to set po a series of shots, possibly at the previous location, and take a series of shots at different apertures repeating that with slightly adjusted positions (if possible) to get different angles of sunlight.
As I rarely shoot deliberate landscapes it's not something I have tried specifically although I have looked at a number of shots from broadly the smae location taken at different times of day to try to assess the variables tha maximise or minimise PF on some of my 'lesser' lenses. The thing about mainly shooting action stuff outdoors is that you take what there is to take when it is there so planning where to be and what angle to be shooting at is only part of the deal. There are plenty of opportunities for PF and similar anomalies to find their way into a day's shooting if the lenses are prone to the problem. Your bridge locations seem to offer a great subject and opportunity for a more controlled set of comparative images.
LongQ said:
dibbly dobbler said:
Thankyou gentlemen - nice to get a bit of good feedback When I saw how good the sky was looking I was terrified of buggering it up (again!) so it was pleasing to have a half decent result.
LQ if you are out there I would appreciate any opinion on the pic as I used a much wider aperture to try and avoid the dreaded purple fringing (as suggested by you and Rob). To my untrained eye it looks ok so I think that could be 'a result'
DD - been at Silverstone since Thursday night so I didn't see this until I got back last night. When I saw how good the sky was looking I was terrified of buggering it up (again!) so it was pleasing to have a half decent result.LQ if you are out there I would appreciate any opinion on the pic as I used a much wider aperture to try and avoid the dreaded purple fringing (as suggested by you and Rob). To my untrained eye it looks ok so I think that could be 'a result'
Love the shot and I think you can see from the less oblique angle that the individual support cables resolve pretty well so the 'fuzziness' in the previous set is not evident except for the small sections where the angle brings some cable close together. For this shot at the longer distance that really doesn't matter at all but I think it sort of confirms what we discussed before and so could perhaps become a factor to consider when positioning and composing a shot. However I don't think it should dominate your choices.
The PF is not terrible evident (at least to my eyes this morning viewing at 1:1) and in any case you can only minimise not eliminate so I think the aperture setting is an improvement. However PF can be a strange thing (as can other edge colour fringes) and in my experience is not so constant that one can be sure to avoid it but nor is it certain to appear. All one can really say is that some lenses shooting in bright(ish) light almost always display the phenomenon quite evidently and others don't until the dark/light edge contrast fulfills certain criteria about relative brightness and angle of light. The effect can vary from being really in your face to so subtle that you only really see it pixel peeping at 1:1. In the latter case it may not be important in colour appearance terms but can slightly diminish apparent edge sharpness so being able to treat it helps the crispness of the image and the separation of small details - foliage and branches being notables in that respect.
It's not easy to compare this image to the previously discussed examples 'cos the different composition has avoided the more evident PF objects - the scaffolded structure on the left for example. Plus it's a little darker over all and more distant so any aberration effects of light to dark edges will be diminished by both the reduced light differential and the different light source angle of illumination. You're at the point where the bridge is almost entirely silhouette and that combined with the distance means that edges are not that well defined anyway. At 1:1 the original looks like a 35mm negative appears when viewed through a 10x or 20x loupe. There's nothing at all wrong with that for the image but it does make 'technical comparison' and 'reasoned commentary' of nuanced detail somewhat subjective!
Apologies for the length of this response but I don't think that a shorter answer would cover the variables quite well enough.
It would be interesting to set po a series of shots, possibly at the previous location, and take a series of shots at different apertures repeating that with slightly adjusted positions (if possible) to get different angles of sunlight.
As I rarely shoot deliberate landscapes it's not something I have tried specifically although I have looked at a number of shots from broadly the smae location taken at different times of day to try to assess the variables tha maximise or minimise PF on some of my 'lesser' lenses. The thing about mainly shooting action stuff outdoors is that you take what there is to take when it is there so planning where to be and what angle to be shooting at is only part of the deal. There are plenty of opportunities for PF and similar anomalies to find their way into a day's shooting if the lenses are prone to the problem. Your bridge locations seem to offer a great subject and opportunity for a more controlled set of comparative images.
You are quite right I have thrown two possible 'cures' at the problem by moving position and changing the settings so it's not really conclusive. This is actually fine as it gives me a great excuse to go back and take sequences of shots from my various other bridge locations and really do it to death (which I like to think is a strong point of mine
).Trust your trip to Silverstone was a success ? (Is there nothing you can show to your PH chums ? I would be interested to see some of your work although I realise this may not be possible for commercial reasons
)Continued here : http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff