Comments on: Strange Image Effect that I Don’t Understand… Any Ideas? http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181 Not a photo blog. A personal blog with photos. Wed, 23 May 2012 12:55:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: fake-name http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-36645 fake-name Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:33:09 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-36645 I suspect VR. I have a Sigma VR lens that produces the <b>exact</b> same issue. It seems to happen only when you're at the very edge of what the VR can compensate for. I suspect VR.

I have a Sigma VR lens that produces the exact same issue. It seems to happen only when you’re at the very edge of what the VR can compensate for.

]]> By: Jay http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-36042 Jay Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:54:48 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-36042 It looks like corrected <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration" rel="nofollow">chromatic aberration</a> to me. But as for it pre-existing on the embedded JPG, I'm at a loss, unless the camera somehow applies that fix that on the fly? It looks like corrected chromatic aberration to me. But as for it pre-existing on the embedded JPG, I’m at a loss, unless the camera somehow applies that fix that on the fly?

]]> By: roy http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-35097 roy Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:45:28 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-35097 check out this post by Thom Hogan and what he calls "bounce back flare" http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=31660493 check out this post by Thom Hogan and what he calls “bounce back flare”

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=31660493

]]> By: Jon http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34984 Jon Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:29:00 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34984 I've seen this in some of my images as well, especially outdoors. Not sure why. I’ve seen this in some of my images as well, especially outdoors. Not sure why.

]]> By: Juan Negron http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34962 Juan Negron Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:42:41 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34962 My guess? The VR mechanism AFAIK only moves one element of the lens to compensate for shake, so you could be seeing a ghosted image from one of the elements that do not move. And the reason why some of the image has this effect and the rest dosen't could be accounted to paralax, i.e. the sensor plane was moving on the horizontal or vertical axis... Just my humble, non-professional opinion. My guess? The VR mechanism AFAIK only moves one element of the lens to compensate for shake, so you could be seeing a ghosted image from one of the elements that do not move. And the reason why some of the image has this effect and the rest dosen’t could be accounted to paralax, i.e. the sensor plane was moving on the horizontal or vertical axis… Just my humble, non-professional opinion.

]]> By: Daniel Chia http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34956 Daniel Chia Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:46:02 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34956 I would be inclined to think the halos are a side effect the lens produces on the out of focus images. It seems that the parts of the photo nearer the focal plane suffer less from this halo effect. As an interesting sidenote, you might be interested at taking a look at this site, http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS70-200VR_rev04.html which discusses the effects of VR on the bokeh of the 70-200. Daniel. I would be inclined to think the halos are a side effect the lens produces on the out of focus images. It seems that the parts of the photo nearer the focal plane suffer less from this halo effect.

As an interesting sidenote, you might be interested at taking a look at this site,
http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS70-200VR_rev04.html
which discusses the effects of VR on the bokeh of the 70-200.

Daniel.

]]> By: Martin Doonan http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34954 Martin Doonan Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:46:58 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34954 It's not motion blur. Motion blur gives a distinctive streaking effect, sort of like comet tails. The streaks would be uni-directional. Subjects would appear out of focus. Different types of motion give different, distinctive streaking patterns. If this was wind motion, you'd see a more random effect across the frame. Plus, wind motion is almost impossible to catch faster than 1/125s. As I pointed out with my earlier link, it's spherical aberration (or more correctly, poorly corrected SA). You can tell in the way there is uniform effect around objects and the progressive nature as subjects get further from the focal plane. It’s not motion blur. Motion blur gives a distinctive streaking effect, sort of like comet tails. The streaks would be uni-directional. Subjects would appear out of focus. Different types of motion give different, distinctive streaking patterns. If this was wind motion, you’d see a more random effect across the frame. Plus, wind motion is almost impossible to catch faster than 1/125s.

As I pointed out with my earlier link, it’s spherical aberration (or more correctly, poorly corrected SA). You can tell in the way there is uniform effect around objects and the progressive nature as subjects get further from the focal plane.

]]> By: Robert S. http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34953 Robert S. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:02:18 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34953 My best guess is simple subject motion. You see it more on one side of the branch then the other because its dark on a light background rather then the lightening on the other side which just looks like defocus. Heck it could just be camera motion. Even at 1/400 of a second at higher resolution its ever so easy to see eve the smallest camera and object movements. easy way to test it though, if you have an overhead fan, photograph the moving blades (assuming dark blades, backlit) slightly defocused, preferably with a low dof , see if this effect shows up. My best guess is simple subject motion. You see it more on one side of the branch then the other because its dark on a light background rather then the lightening on the other side which just looks like defocus. Heck it could just be camera motion. Even at 1/400 of a second at higher resolution its ever so easy to see eve the smallest camera and object movements. easy way to test it though, if you have an overhead fan, photograph the moving blades (assuming dark blades, backlit) slightly defocused, preferably with a low dof , see if this effect shows up.

]]> By: Awake http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34951 Awake Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:07:50 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34951 I would guess motion blur, accentuated (widened) by the way that the affected areas are out of focus. We photograph dancers in studio with high speed flashes, and during their jumps we get blurry feet if we miss the 'peak', even at the equivalent of 1/5000 sec. Things just need to move a little to become mighty blurry. Mirror slap is known to cause blurriness, and if you think about it that s a very small amount of motion of the camera. Compare that to a gust of wind shaking the plant, and at high magnification even 1/400 isn't enough to freeze that motion. I would guess motion blur, accentuated (widened) by the way that the affected areas are out of focus.
We photograph dancers in studio with high speed flashes, and during their jumps we get blurry feet if we miss the ‘peak’, even at the equivalent of 1/5000 sec. Things just need to move a little to become mighty blurry.
Mirror slap is known to cause blurriness, and if you think about it that s a very small amount of motion of the camera. Compare that to a gust of wind shaking the plant, and at high magnification even 1/400 isn’t enough to freeze that motion.

]]> By: Earnest Barr from Amami http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34949 Earnest Barr from Amami Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:29:55 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2009-04-08/1181#comment-34949 Something that crossed my mind while looking at this photo is aberration? The Bokeh in this photo doesn't seem very smooth in the background and aberration may have something to do with that. I know the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 is an ED lens and reduces chromatic aberration, but maybe you found the setting that it can't compensate for. Just a thought. Something that crossed my mind while looking at this photo is aberration? The Bokeh in this photo doesn’t seem very smooth in the background and aberration may have something to do with that. I know the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 is an ED lens and reduces chromatic aberration, but maybe you found the setting that it can’t compensate for. Just a thought.

]]>