New lens!

[clf]

Originally Posted by Phil

Thank you.

Yes, I am using Lightroom. I adjusted the sky to bring it out as it was bleached white.

The fringe was initially horrendous but adjusted it to the level you can see now.

I'll have another crack at it to see if I can reduce it any further.

The tripod I have is a good quality manfrotto. It's fine for keeping the camera still enough to take an imagine at slower speeds, but I couldn't use it for long exposure or very low light.

I think I'll need to go back to the camera shop and see if I can look at anything else.



Thanks Jeff. Yes, it's mounted to the lens.

Think about how you will use that lens though,before spending money. Most people I know, including myself, tend to use a long tele lens for detail shots, wildlife or sport. Long exposures would be unusual. if you do plan to use it for long exposures though, on a tripod, use the mirror lockup function, as it could introduce a slight softness onto an image that would not otherwise be there.

A bean bag may be worth having in your kit bag too.








Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

[Phil]

Originally Posted by clf

Think about how you will use that lens though,before spending money. Most people I know, including myself, tend to use a long tele lens for detail shots, wildlife or sport. Long exposures would be unusual. if you do plan to use it for long exposures though, on a tripod, use the mirror lockup function, as it could introduce a slight softness onto an image that would not otherwise be there.

A bean bag may be worth having in your kit bag too.








Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

Absolutely.
One thing I enjoy doing is night photography.
For example, the steelworks. At night it looks absolutely incredible. It's lit up like a Christmas tree. I'd love to get some shots of it at night without the need for high ISO... Of course that's not the only photo subject demanding this type of setting.

[clf]

Originally Posted by Phil

Absolutely.
One thing I enjoy doing is night photography.
For example, the steelworks. At night it looks absolutely incredible. It's lit up like a Christmas tree. I'd love to get some shots of it at night without the need for high ISO... Of course that's not the only photo subject demanding this type of setting.

surely with it being lit up you wouldnt need a high ISO anyway. That lens is relatively slow particularly at its longer length. Your camera has a very good sensor, and controls noise very well, have faith in it.

I would suggest though to experiment with a shorter faster lens, then cropping in the edit. Try this with centre weighted metering (if using manual, take a spot reading from an area between two lights).

I get your point though. Ask the camera shop if you can try a ball head on a monopod, particularly one with a friction control.

THIS is what I use on my triopd (Giottos) It has a friction control that is very useful to allow a bit of movement whilst reatining a bit of stability.

I have an older version of THIS on basic Manfrotto monopod, which is what I would use for moving subjects and airshows etc. The tripod is just too cumbersome and restrictive for airshows (imagine a plane moving horizontally, then suddenly increases altitude or loses it). Without the ball head on a monopod, and the movement of your subject changes vertically, you run the risk of hitting a person standing in from of you as you follow the subject up lol (I still do this even with the head fitted!).

For comfort too, try to get a monopod, or tripod at least capable of being as tall as yourself, if you are planning to shoot upwards whilst standing.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by clf

surely with it being lit up you wouldnt need a high ISO anyway. That lens is relatively slow particularly at its longer length. Your camera has a very good sensor, and controls noise very well, have faith in it.

I would suggest though to experiment with a shorter faster lens, then cropping in the edit. Try this with centre weighted metering (if using manual, take a spot reading from an area between two lights).

I get your point though. Ask the camera shop if you can try a ball head on a monopod, particularly one with a friction control.

THIS is what I use on my triopd (Giottos) It has a friction control that is very useful to allow a bit of movement whilst reatining a bit of stability.

I have an older version of THIS on basic Manfrotto monopod, which is what I would use for moving subjects and airshows etc. The tripod is just too cumbersome and restrictive for airshows (imagine a plane moving horizontally, then suddenly increases altitude or loses it). Without the ball head on a monopod, and the movement of your subject changes vertically, you run the risk of hitting a person standing in from of you as you follow the subject up lol (I still do this even with the head fitted!).

For comfort too, try to get a monopod, or tripod at least capable of being as tall as yourself, if you are planning to shoot upwards whilst standing.

Thankyou I'll look into that.

I've just tried to apply more defringing in lightroom.
It's not making any difference at all.
Any other tricks?

[clf]

Originally Posted by Phil

Thankyou I'll look into that.

I've just tried to apply more defringing in lightroom.
It's not making any difference at all.
Any other tricks?

did you look in the camera calibration, particularly for the lens profile? All my lenses have profiles in it, and they work nearly completely.

It is something I havent had to use in a long time, but there used to be some great actions available to download online. (A basic Google search seems to suggest that they are not widely available any longer - probably little need)

If it is not too much, you can enlarged the image, and trace around the edges with the desaturate tool in PS - with a soft edge, working on a new layer so you can adjust the intensity of its effect. If you go too much, it can have the opposite effect creating a halo.


When taking a shot that was liable for it, (eg high contrast areas with highly defined edges - trees, subjects against a sky), I would remove any filters I had on the lens, as these could introduce their own - particularly skylight or UV filters - also tele converters too.

Experimenting with stopping down the lens can have an effect. Having the lens at the extremes (opened and stopped down) of their apertures can affect the fringing. The lens I had most bother with was a 70-200 Canon kit type lens, which was pre digital (fringing is common on film lenses when used with a digital sensor - emulsion was less sensitive to it). I found using it between f 8 and 16 were its sweet spots for it, and definitely no filter (I gave it to my ex, who used it mainly in auto, and it would be horrendous when used outdoors with a blue sky - to me it was anyway).


Be realistic too, particularly if you dont notice it, or it doesnt bother you. I may be too critical as it was one of my bug bears. It was quite obvious in my earlier digital shots, and it used to be discussed frequently in photographic magazines and in particular reviews. Because of this, I see it everywhere, even on TV i can see it quite often (telephoto lenses of camcorders from the mid noughties and TV lenses from the 90's too, were notorious for it, mainly due to their size or lack of developed coatings).

[Phil]

Originally Posted by clf

did you look in the camera calibration, particularly for the lens profile? All my lenses have profiles in it, and they work nearly completely.

It is something I havent had to use in a long time, but there used to be some great actions available to download online. (A basic Google search seems to suggest that they are not widely available any longer - probably little need)

If it is not too much, you can enlarged the image, and trace around the edges with the desaturate tool in PS - with a soft edge, working on a new layer so you can adjust the intensity of its effect. If you go too much, it can have the opposite effect creating a halo.


When taking a shot that was liable for it, (eg high contrast areas with highly defined edges - trees, subjects against a sky), I would remove any filters I had on the lens, as these could introduce their own - particularly skylight or UV filters - also tele converters too.

Experimenting with stopping down the lens can have an effect. Having the lens at the extremes (opened and stopped down) of their apertures can affect the fringing. The lens I had most bother with was a 70-200 Canon kit type lens, which was pre digital (fringing is common on film lenses when used with a digital sensor - emulsion was less sensitive to it). I found using it between f 8 and 16 were its sweet spots for it, and definitely no filter (I gave it to my ex, who used it mainly in auto, and it would be horrendous when used outdoors with a blue sky - to me it was anyway).


Be realistic too, particularly if you dont notice it, or it doesnt bother you. I may be too critical as it was one of my bug bears. It was quite obvious in my earlier digital shots, and it used to be discussed frequently in photographic magazines and in particular reviews. Because of this, I see it everywhere, even on TV i can see it quite often (telephoto lenses of camcorders from the mid noughties and TV lenses from the 90's too, were notorious for it, mainly due to their size or lack of developed coatings).

Thank you.
Yes, I did check the lens profile, I had indeed inputted it.
The lens was set wide open, so that may be what I need to keep in mind next time.

I do have a UV filter applied, only to protect the lens. I may try removing it, but I hope it wouldn't cause this issue. The filter cost almost made me cry, but worthwhile having to protect the lens.

For these images, it doesn't bother me too much. I doubt they will ever be printed, but I'd like to know how to work around it.


On another note, the moon was spectacular last night. I couldn't resist taking a shot..
The moon was an interesting colour tonight... by Philip Davies, on Flickr