Purple & green fringing/CA 85 1.8 -- UGH!

Now I know what you all mean . . . I got my 85 1.8 less than a year ago and I've definitely seen this more than once. I don't rememeber ever seeing it with my cheap-o 50 1.8 though! The worst part is that I couldn't even fix this particular image in LR. When I adjusted the red/blue, the green got worse and vice versa. Guess I have to live with it (unless I feel like cloning -- I might but UGH!)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/56936​30755/

What is that, like a 500% crop? Hardly reads at all in the full image.

Pixel Peeping will make you crazy!

Like Jay said, I wouldn't fret the CA. Do what you can to minimize it and take some more pictures..

I often pixel peep myself , but not while checking CA.

Also, closing down aperture a bit quickly reduces CA, even with the 85/1.8.

Yeah, your 85mm really sucks bad. I'll take it off your hands and even give you $50 for shipping.

I saw it at 100%, when I was cloning out some dirt. OK, I guess it's only a real problem if it showed up in print, but it looks really bad close up and, again, I don't see that with my 50 1.8. I guess I'll hold on to it a bit longer, Tony.

YankeeMom wrote in post #12361121
I saw it at 100%, when I was cloning out some dirt. OK, I guess it's only a real problem if it showed up in print, but it looks really bad close up and, again, I don't see that with my 50 1.8. I guess I'll hold on to it a bit longer, Tony.

That is odd cause the 50 1.8 is notorious for fringing and CA

Well, I haven't noticed it with my 50 like the 85, but I suppose it could have happened . . . I don't always pixel-peep, but the times I sort of have to are a.) when I am sharpening, b.) when I am cloning, and c.) when I have 2 photos that are seemingly identical and I have to choose one.

So, I see the CA again today -- much worse than even my OP:

Original:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/56949​08020/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/56949​13810/

LR can't fix this type of CA(Longitudinal) I believe Capture or some other RAW converter can and does a decent job.

This would take like 30 seconds to fix in PS with a saturation layer + mask.. just something to keep in mind if you've got one you want to save.

It isn't even that bad...

Quit peeping.

http://toothwalker.org​/optics/chromatic.html
http://wiki.panotools.​org/Chromatic_aberrati​on

You can fix transverse (lateral) chromatic aberration in LR quite easily using the CA sliders.
For longitudinal chromatic aberration, you need to locally desaturate the image.

http://www.digital-photography-school.com …c-aberration-in-photoshop

BrandonSi wrote in post #12362815
This would take like 30 seconds to fix in PS with a saturation layer + mask.. just something to keep in mind if you've got one you want to save.

Sigh. I only have Elements.

sbattey wrote in post #12363680
It isn't even that bad...

Quit peeping.

Well, it can't get much worse than that! Though, ultimately, it comes down to how it looks in print. I know that -- I wouldn't have noticed it at all if I didn't enlarge to 100% to sharpen.

René Damkot wrote in post #12363904
http://toothwalker.org​/optics/chromatic.html
http://wiki.panotools.​org/Chromatic_aberrati​on

You can fix transverse (lateral) chromatic aberration in LR quite easily using the CA sliders.
For longitudinal chromatic aberration, you need to locally desaturate the image.

http://www.digital-photography-school.com …c-aberration-in-photoshop

Oooo, thanks! I'll look into those! I know the CA isn't that big of a deal, but I would still like to know how to fix it if I can.

Which PSE? The latest versions have layers. It doesn't have to be 16 bit for this, just an edge mask and a (saturation) adjustment layer.

If you easily see it at 100%, it's not a figment of your imagination nor is it the result of pixel peeping. It's there.

From the Photzone review: