> It's probably chromatic aberration. It's most evident in this kind > of shot, where the background is extremely bright. I corrected it > somewhat in the RAW conversion, but couldn't eliminate it > completely. I think even my A 400/5.6 would show some CA with this > kind of background and minimal depth of field.
I'm not entirely sure it's CA the minimal depth of field seems more the culprit but obviously unavoidable at 320mm. It would be interesting to know just exactly where the camera chose to focus or was the shot manually focused? Would it be better with a film camera?! John ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:02:13 -0500 Subject: Re: PESO" New Year's Day Walkaround > It's probably chromatic aberration. It's most evident in this kind > of shot, where the background is extremely bright. I corrected it > somewhat in the RAW conversion, but couldn't eliminate it > completely. I think even my A 400/5.6 would show some CA with this > kind of background and minimal depth of field. > > On Jan 2, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Paul, I took another look at the pic ... meant to ask about the purple > > fringing. Is that chromatic aberration or something else. It really > > makes > > the lens far less useful ... > > > > Shel > > > >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3000223&size=lg > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
