06-16-2011, 05:46 PM
I clocked last night - after finishing work late - that there'd been a lot of feedback (far more than I'd anticipated) to this post. I knew it would take me some time to work my way through it, so didn't post a reply then.
Just logging in now, I haven't read most of the posts but it's very quickly apparent that this has sparked debate which has degenerated yet again into argument and antipathy...
I really don't understand why this has to be the case, and what people think it achieves, nor what they get out out of it. I don't mean to preach, but as I've said here before, direct argument rarely, if ever, persuades people to change their point of view - though perhaps I should read what people have said first
I'll read the posts later as I still have more work to get done this evening.
Meanwhile, thanks for all the positive contributions - I know there have been many...! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> - and a quick reply to Pinhole's question from yesterday.
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1308139898' post='9257']
Ian, it looks like you are using a very small part of an image - do you need to crop it so much for real-life usage, or did you only do that to demonstrate the problem?
[/quote]
I don't need to crop that much, as you'll see from the image below. It was just to demonstrate the issue, wondering if (i) a quick fix (like automatic post-processing of CAs) was possible. I was also wondering (ii) why the lens had produced such strong aberrations and (iii) why the profile corrections hadn't sorted this in Lightroom. I think I know the answer to (iii) now, and am fairly confident the answer to (ii) will be in the thread once I've sorted through everyone's responses...
Compressed version of the full image attached.
Thanks folks.
Ian
Just logging in now, I haven't read most of the posts but it's very quickly apparent that this has sparked debate which has degenerated yet again into argument and antipathy...
I really don't understand why this has to be the case, and what people think it achieves, nor what they get out out of it. I don't mean to preach, but as I've said here before, direct argument rarely, if ever, persuades people to change their point of view - though perhaps I should read what people have said first
I'll read the posts later as I still have more work to get done this evening.
Meanwhile, thanks for all the positive contributions - I know there have been many...! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> - and a quick reply to Pinhole's question from yesterday.[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1308139898' post='9257']
Ian, it looks like you are using a very small part of an image - do you need to crop it so much for real-life usage, or did you only do that to demonstrate the problem?
[/quote]
I don't need to crop that much, as you'll see from the image below. It was just to demonstrate the issue, wondering if (i) a quick fix (like automatic post-processing of CAs) was possible. I was also wondering (ii) why the lens had produced such strong aberrations and (iii) why the profile corrections hadn't sorted this in Lightroom. I think I know the answer to (iii) now, and am fairly confident the answer to (ii) will be in the thread once I've sorted through everyone's responses...
Compressed version of the full image attached.
Thanks folks.
Ian