Thread replies: 22
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: towers.jpg (117KB, 406x401px) Image search:
[Google]
117KB, 406x401px
What sort of aberration is this? Coma? It looks like a slight halo.
Why does it so often occur on the edge between buildings and sky?
It was taken with a glorious 85mm 1.8G - so its not like it was a shitty unsharp lens.
Can digital cameras just not compensate for the sudden change from building to sky?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D600 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 830 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 45 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:10:04 20:43:22 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 45.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 406 Image Height 401 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>
>>2940166
Depends, the sharpest may be around 5.6-8 or even 11 in some cases. You need to shoot multiple photos of the same spot to see sharpening in the edges. The center will always be more sharp than the edges.
>>
I think its "edge contrast halo" from what i'm reading online.
It appears that they are a side effect of almost ANY sharpening on digital photographs. Photoshop sharpens by increasing edge contrast, so it makes the dark darker, and the light lighter. Sometimes the light getting lighter is incredibly obvious.
If thats the case Photoshop needs a "maintain contrast" sharpen setting. I'm going to have to manually correct it...
#digitalproblems
>>
>>2940170
>side effect of almost ANY sharpening
It's not a side-effect.
It's what sharpening purposely does.
>>
Issue resolved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU19UXuR1vM
>>
>>2940170
>Photoshop needs a "maintain contrast" sharpen setting
"sharpness" is local contrast.
It's not to be confused with resolution.
>>
>>2940170
t. clueless under 21 film shooter
>>
>>2940175
That's a lot of work to fix a problem he caused himself.
Couldn't he just apply some kind of mask to sharpen the bark without sharpening the tree against the sky?
>>
>>2940166
>glorious 85mm 1.8G
There's nothing glorious about that lens except that Nikon users, like Canon users, are typically extraordinarily ignorant of lenses outside of their own ecosystem.
That lens is trash.
>>
>>
File: stan_nose_pinch.png (214KB, 432x458px) Image search:
[Google]
214KB, 432x458px
>>2940184
Heres your hat and coat, please close the door on your way out.
>>
>>2940166
shoot raw.
it's called oversharpening.
>>
>>2940184
no need to get mad because your sony has no lens.
>>
>>2940184
It is a very good for the money and indeed very sharp.
In fact, using such a sharp lens is probably what contributed to the problem.
If the source is already sharp, and you add a lot of sharpening in post, then no wonder you get halo's becasue what else can be done to make an already sharp edge even sharper?
>>
>>2940170
>#digitalproblems
>he doesn't use an unsharp mask in the darkroom.
pleb.
>>
>>2940197
>If the source is already sharp, and you add a lot of sharpening in post, then no wonder you get halo's becasue what else can be done to make an already sharp edge even sharper?
Knowing how to sharpen a selection instead of THE WHOLE FUCKING IMAGE like a turbopleb, for one.
>>
>>2940202
If you don't have a sharp lens, it's perfectly sensible to sharpen the entire image.
And from what I understand OP didn't do it on purpose but had sharpening switched on by default.
>>
>>2940211
>If you don't have a sharp lens, it's perfectly sensible to sharpen the entire image.
Sure, if you like noisy skies and other traits of absolute beginners.
>>
>>2940199
USM is even more destructive than traditional sharpening.
>>
>>2940220
wow, you're really negative and edgy. you stand out in a bad way
>>
>>2940228
I though USM was the traditional method for film?
What other techniques are there?
>>
>>2940259
Deconvolution
Thread posts: 22
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3