DSLRUsers.com

i've noticed on my shots that anything bright has a purple/pink halo




is this normal, or has my D200 got a problem. btw the images is blown up 400%

I don't have a D200, but it looks like CA which is fairly normal between areas of high contrast (some lenses suffer from it more then others). BTW - CA stands for Cromatic Aberration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

which lens? have you tried same shot, side by side?

it's not the camera - it's the lens. what aperture were you using? was it wide open at 2.8? it's something that can be corrected in some programs. I use bibble as my raw converter and it has a plug-in to correct it.

ACR and Lightroom also have sliders to control this.
Photoshop CS2 & CS3 have a Distort->Lens Correction filter which can also do this, but the RAW converters can do a better job as they're dealing with the image data before demosaicing.

yep, thats what it will be then.

its the d70 kit lens, but the aperture was the smallest it would go.

i was hand holding at 1/15 trying to get a shot for the real estate agent.

thank u ppl.

Aperature the smallest it would go? I am assuming you mean the widest F3.5 I think for the kit lense? 1/15 too slow to hand hold without VR.

A tip set the ISO to 800 or 1600 shoot at 1/30th or 1/60th (should be comfortable to hand hold without blur) and pick an aperature one or two stops down from wide open (F5.6 is nice).

yraen69 wrote:Aperature the smallest it would go? I am assuming you mean the widest F3.5 I think for the kit lense? 1/15 too slow to hand hold without VR.

Im understanding smallest aperture as meaning f/22 (smallest hole, and not number)

This small/big, open up/stop down jargon for aperture is confusing sometimes...

yeah, i was was using number method, not size of hole.

but yes the lens was wide open. iso was was up as well, noise in the photo will attest to that.

I find i can hand hold down to 1/15, granted its not 100% sharp but its something I've practised. Trick is to not hold your breath, but to expel all your air and just not breath in till you have taken the photo.

Yi-P wrote:This small/big, open up/stop down jargon for aperture is confusing sometimes...

Just remember it as a fraction...which it is
ie. f4 is 1/4th.....f8 is 1/8th

and of course a quarter is bigger than an eighth

That's how I remember it, anyway !

I guess with the kit lense at 18mm, firmly gripped and supported by a doorframe 1/15th of a second would be ok, but as you say not reliable. The rule of thumb I usually go by is 1/focal length is the minimum shutter speed you want to use.

If as you've said ISO is up, shutter speed is low, and lense is wide open it might be worth looking at a tripod/flash fill option?

tripod was on shelf, i've taken the crappy head off it, flash would have been next to useless as i was taking photo of the whole patio and i don't think the inbuilt flash has enough throw for 15m, and i wanted to get the glow of the sun going down.

it was good enough for the shot, as its going on the real estate website and I've already reduced that size to 20% of the original, and then saved as a medium jpg to get the size down further. any issues that i caused in the picture taking process got well hidden by the procedure to get the end result.

it was just the pink tinge that i saw while i was hiding imperfections that i had not noticed before, and then when i did notice it i went back thru a few shots and it reared its head a few times.

nikon glossary:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfol ... #chromatic

quite interesting

At least you know that you have a "Banding Free" D200.
This is a classic situation where you would see the "Dreaded Banding Effect" with a D200 in some early examples.

Simon,

This is an expected result for the subject matter being shot.

Expected doesn't really equate to "normal", but the issue is that this effect is induced by the contrast range you have captured. You're basically shooting something that is beyond the capabilities of the camera to accurately capture.

Usually when we see this, we're looking at the affected area with a high degree of magnification or a very closely cropped section of the image, and the reality is that the affected area only occupies a small section of the whole image. With that in mind, would you be able to post a reduced version of the whole image so that we can see how this relates?

Thanx.

this is the what made the website. The original got deleted.

Simon,

Thanx. I presume that the area in question is the next door property in the upper rh corner?

What I'm seeing (and I also note that in in your original post you state that the sample shown was at 400%) is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about, and exactly the sort of image I expected to see, in terms of the relative size of the affected area and the manification that was used to observe the issue.

As I said, this is an expected outcome induced by the extreme contrast range encountered in that small section (sub 1%) of the image, and it's not something I'd be especially concerned over.