06-16-2011, 07:59 AM
I tried to correct the image you loaded Ian...
CS4: Image Adjustments --> Hue / Saturation. Then select the channels and reduce lightness and saturation. The channels selected were magenta, green and blue respectively.
Oh, and I have to correct myself regarding the cause of PF. After a quick research on the net, there's no proof that the microlenses over the sensor cause PF. In general, people are divided in two:
- people say that PF is caused by the lens (because it is effected by chaning the focus in / out).
- people say that PF is caused by the sensor (because PF is less seen on film compared to digital).
And a few words about the recent discussion: the content was fruitfull and it could be even better if you BC could be careful about the way you contribute. I personally believe that you have a decent knowledge but with this way of approach they become less valuable than they deserve. I read posts of Wim for a long time here, and I never saw him refusing to step back concerning his arguements in case they are wrong (and I don't know if he is right / wrong in this case, this is not my point). Digital photography might be consisting of 0s and 1s, but social environments are not. I hope we can see posts from both of you here in future...
Serkan
CS4: Image Adjustments --> Hue / Saturation. Then select the channels and reduce lightness and saturation. The channels selected were magenta, green and blue respectively.
Oh, and I have to correct myself regarding the cause of PF. After a quick research on the net, there's no proof that the microlenses over the sensor cause PF. In general, people are divided in two:
- people say that PF is caused by the lens (because it is effected by chaning the focus in / out).
- people say that PF is caused by the sensor (because PF is less seen on film compared to digital).
And a few words about the recent discussion: the content was fruitfull and it could be even better if you BC could be careful about the way you contribute. I personally believe that you have a decent knowledge but with this way of approach they become less valuable than they deserve. I read posts of Wim for a long time here, and I never saw him refusing to step back concerning his arguements in case they are wrong (and I don't know if he is right / wrong in this case, this is not my point). Digital photography might be consisting of 0s and 1s, but social environments are not. I hope we can see posts from both of you here in future...
Serkan