Babbs

[zutty]

D610 #2 Babbs Bridge Fisheye HD5d by J T, on Flickr

[zutty]

D610 #2 Babbs Bridge Fisheye HD7c by J T, on Flickr

[IzzieK]

Zutty I like the overall view of #1...but both shots have purple fringes...(I can't think of what the right word is... colour cast?)

[dem]

I think the two images suffer from both colour cast (the white balance shifted to blue) and purple fringing (chromatic aberration in high contrast areas).

http://digital-photography-school.co...ing-photoshop/

[Rebel]

I like the first one, a lot of CA in these images. (I always miss it myself.)

Very interesting area to explore, especially with a better sky!

[Shadowman]

Nice capture.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jeff,

The coloured fringing is (mostly) massive amounts of Chromatic Aberration (CA), not uncommon in fish eye lens.

You should be able to (easily) fix this, especially if you have access to LR or ACR in Photoshop.

That is the most obvious issue with these shots and totally spoil them for me, sorry to be blunt.

Looking at other aspects...

In #1, the exaggerated leaning of the portal on left bothers me, perhaps that might be adjusted in Post Processing too.

I think #2 works slightly better for me, although I wonder if slight change of camera position might have yielded a slightly better result; I'd like to have seen the entire distant arch (on left), but without losing too much of the river bank (on right) - I dunno, maybe I'm asking the impossible there.

The exposures on both are challenging and have been well handled.

Below; I present a version of #1 in which I have applied the following adjustments I carried out in Photoshop CC;
Chromatic Aberration; check box 'on' in Lens Panel on Colour tab and Purple and Green Amounts set at '6' each.
Vertical Perspective of '-10', set to get the planking vertical at the left edge of the portal (the shot seems pretty level, not easy to achieve by accident)
Crop to remove keystone introduced by VP correction.
Final sharpen with UnSharp Mask with an Amount of 80%, Radius of 0.3 px, Threshold 0 (the image is nicely noise free).

There are several aspects of the shots where you have shown considerable skill to avoid common problems, well done.


On a personal note, I was saddened to see (while pixel peeping the sharpening); that some mis-guided souls had garffitti'd the inside of the bridge and discarded the spray can down in the undergrowth below
I wonder if they left any finger prints on the can?


I also copy the original so people can switch between them in LyteBox (click on image) here at CiC to see the differences these few additional adjustments have brought - and they only took 5 minutes.

Original, shot by Jeff:


Processed by Dave, shot by Jeff:


I hope this helps you Jeff (and others), but if you object to my work on your image, please let me know and I'll remove it.

The CA adjustment has obviously (largely) dealt with the obvious areas of CA in trees against sky (in the corners), but also (I think) considerably improved things in less obvious areas, like the close foliage and stonework, by removing false colours. That said, I just noticed there was one stone in bridge pier that was very magenta/purple in colour (can't say if natural or spray paint) and the CA has removed this too - but I don't think it harms the photo.

The perspective adjustment was more successful than I expected, I think I prefer the processed version of #1 now, slightly, but they're both good.

Cheers, Dave

[zutty]

#2 shows actual dark red paint that is embedded into the wood. Although there might be a little cast, it is not severe as one first would think. And on #1, if you look closely one single rock has some reddish paint on it as well as some bright red graffiti on the lower inside of the bridge, as Dave spotted. I really don't see the reddish cast on the edges or entire photos as some here claim to see. The perspective can really use some straightening out, as Dave has shown. (Thanks Dave) You should see the original photo with no PP at all!! You'd laugh and be amazed! As a matter of fact I'll post it here just to show how much I had to do just to get it fairly close.
I do appreciate your comments and help and I will continue to mess around with them and re-post after I've done so.

[zutty]

Here is the original of both photos, straight out of the camera. Nikon D610 16mm 2.8D at f5.0-1/80, 400 iso. for the 1st and f5.6 and 280iso for the 2nd..(on this post of the originals.)

D610#2 Babbs Fsh_016 by J T, on Flickr

D610#2 Babbs Fsh_009 by J T, on Flickr

In case you wondered, that is the back of a shirtless guy that I HAD to crop out! Grin!