pjduncan

On 11/9/2022 at 6:36 PM, katsone said:

I had the same problem with my Tamron lens and 90D. The lens was still under warranty so I sent it and the 90D to Tamron for calibration. Problem solved. It's not an unknown problem with the Tamron's and 90D's.  That lens is on my camera all the time! 

Did you try your lens on other bodies and determine that this is a problem that only manifests with the 90D?

I had read reviews and learned of chromatic aberration for his one, but that's the type that is at edges of images and only if you really start looking at pixel closeups.  This is way, way worse than what reviews indicate.

I've taken a lot of shots at 300mm and while I haven't examined with fine tooth comb for chromatic aberration, the shots look very good (for a sub $1000 zoom lens).  It really would be a great travel lens if not for this series defect.  I'll probably try a replacement before giving up on this model.

It apparently is bad lens.  Yes, it's only a few pics but that's because I've mainly been shooting macro and wildlife shots in telephoto range.  Looking back through pics it was all the images I took at extreme wide angle range of lens.  Just did test indoors with flash.  At 16mm, 18mm, 20mm there is severe fringing.  At 22mm it goes away entirely.  It's purely dependent on zoom setting.  Must be one of the elements doesn't move properly at wide angle end.

Very interesting issue.  But time to return the lens.

This lens has been discontinued with no apparent upgrade/replacement.  Maybe the design has "problems". 

Thanks all for suggestions.

It's a Tamron 16-300mm.  It's the jpg straight from the camera.  I had one image like this a few days ago.  Today I was at a nature preserve and shot about 250 shots.  I think three were like this.  Many good shots between the three showing this problem.  In looking over the bad images, the commonality appears to be that they were taken at the far wide angle end of zoom and are images with significant contrast in brightness... i.e. bright sky showing through trees in shadows.

I have shot with another fixed 100mm with no bad images, but have shot 10 times as many with this zoom.

Thanks so much for help with this.

Just for amusement for taking time to view... here's a good shot from today.  Little critter being gobbled is a lizard.  Same lens and camera.

I have a new Canon EOS 90D, as upgrade from Rebel.  I've had numerous photos where there is severe color fringing, clearly not just lens chromatic aberration.  Can someone clue me in as to what is happening and how to avoid it?  It is a new camera and lens.  Is there possibility something is defective?  Many thanks.

 

All of our senses, but especially vision, are very complicated. There is a lot of processing, that isn't entirely understood, that goes on between the original sensing by nerves and the perception that is formed in the brain. We seem to have evolved a mechanism to do a heck of a lot of adjusting and filtering, to present our conscious mind with enough of the relevant data to find food, escape from prediters, etc. but not overwhelm us with too much. Our eyes for instance do a lot of self correcting for the intensity and color balance of the source of illumination of what we observe. The way we perceive colors, edges and movement is not at all straightforward.

 

Sounds like somewhere in the migraine process some of this preprocessing is going out of whack.

 

There is a reality... it's just that translating an infinite spectrum of wavelengths of light into electrical pulses from merely 3 sets of cones and then reconstructing that into a perceived image of the reality requires some amazing stuff to happen.

First... let me say that photo.net is one of my absolute favorite sites. Very

well run and lots of helpful participants.

 

I just had an idea for a feature that I would find extremely useful. Perhaps

others might like the idea as well. I realize it would probable take a fair

amount of time and effort to implement.

 

Idea... Have a forum similar to the critique/rating forum where someone could

submit multiple versions of the same subject (perhaps different exposure,

different editing, cropping, DOF, angles etc.) and then have people vote or rank

the different versions and leave comments. The current ratings can be fun but

often don't solicit a lot of constructive feedback. My idea might spur more

people to really think amount the strengths and weaknesses of a shot and offer

advice.

 

I've got one particular image, for instance, that I've posted three slightly

different edits playing with levels and would love to get more feedback and

their relative strengths http://www.photo.net/photo/6355059

Mike,

 

I've looked on Wilhelm. I'll admit that it's not the easiest site on which to locate information. What I found seems to imply that stuff like PrintShield does extend logevity of inkjet prints made with pigment inks (the reference I found was for the R2400 Epson). The references, which were much older, to yellowing had to do with photo prints made using photo lab processes. Are there other tests done by Wilhelm that implicate sprays with yellowing with regard to inkjet prints?

I have recently started printing on Epson Enhanced Matte paper. I am

wanting to use a some coating to get UV protection. I noticed on

Atlex.com that they list different recommendations for coating on

different papers such as acrylic spray for Epson Radiant Watercolor

and "pressure sensitive or thermal" for the Enhanced Matte.

 

Before reading that I tried Krylon UV spray on the enhanced matte.

I'm not sure whether it's my technique or just basic incompatibility,

but it totally ruined the prints leaving an opaque haze. I was

surprised it reacted so poorly with the inks/paper.

 

Does anyone know a spray that would work on the Enhanced Matte? Or

does anyone know of a "pressure sensitive or thermal" coating process

that yields photographic quality results?

Certainly I've found that one can print for quite a while after the low ink warning comes on. I use a R1800 and sometimes, though not always, it gives a message in the status display saying something like "you can print 8 more photos like the one just printed with the remaining ink" in whichever color is running low. I find these messages useful in predicting, though never totally accurate.

 

Interestingly, once I actually ran out of one color mid stream in a 13x19 print. It simply stopped and said it was totally out. I replaced the cartridge, the printer started right back up and I couldn't tell the difference. If it works that way consistently I suppose there is no reason not to simply run them dry, or until the printer considers them totally dry.

 

However... I have run into a few cases that only seem to happen when one or more cartridges are giving low warning where the printer will stop working and give a "communication error". I have yet to figure out how to reliably correct the problem though it usually involves some combination of replacing the cartridges, rebooting the computer, unplugging the printer and waving a rubber chicken over the general work area. Chickens aside, if anyone has experienced a similar situation or has insight into what is causing this problem I'd love to hear.

Roger,

 

I assume the fading test on carbon pigment MIS ink you refer to is only their B/W inksets... that appears to be all that Paul Roark has tested.

 

I've tried to find something on Wilhelm comparing MIS, Lyson and Epson, but find that site rather difficult for locating what one is looking for. Does anyone know which Epson R800/R1800 compatible inks have been tested by Wilhelm?

After investigating the Ink Republic site, one thing that makes me a little nervous is that they do a lot of comparing themselves to the competition, but it seems that what they say about sponges, etc. is not true of the current systems being offered by either MIS or Lyson which both also use spongeless cartridges with dampers and filters. It would seem those claims are either outdated or simply wrong.

 

One of the reviews that Ink Republic posted to their own site stated that the user didn't expect or get prints with quite as good quality as Epson ink. It is my impression that the Lyson CAVE inks actually are as good and possibly even better than Epson when it comes to blacks.

 

The Ink Republic CFS is cheaper than the Lyson, so I might try using it with Lyson CAVE inks.

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with third party ink sets to

replace the Epson Ultrachrome hi-gloss used in the R1800/R800

printers. I see that both Lyson and MIS have compatible inks as well

as continuous feed systems.

 

First question is whether anyone knows the archival qualities of these

two verse Epson inks.

 

Second, does anyone have an opinion about the two different continuous

flow ink setups (ease of installation and subsequent reliability) and

also simply using the MIS spongeless cartridges which can be refilled.

 

I see that Pacific Ink has their own supposedly pigment inks for the

R1800 which are less than half the price of Epson... but I assume

these don't have the same archival quality... anyone know about that?

 

Many thanks for any and all info. I've had my R1800 for about 2 weeks

and love it. But I've already burned through a lot of money on ink.

Does anyone know or have a reasonable guess as to how many Watt-Sec

the Sunpak Auto 522 produces at full power? Thanks.

Unfortunately, my level of experience with display technology is not yet at the point where I could follow all of the information about calibration. I switched from CRT to LCD before I got to the point of wanting to do serious proofing on my monitor. What I ended up with is a fairly inexpensive 17" Princeton LCD. I recently bought the ColorPlus calibration package from Pantone. Assuming I have done the calibration correctly, I still have one major problem with this LCD setup vs CRTs. It seems that the image is highly dependent on the angle of viewing. It seems the slightest movement of my head up and down, whether I'm sitting totally straight or slouching a bit at the end of a long day, makes a huge difference in the brightness and color balance.

 

Does this problem exist with all LCDs, even the high end ones? What are the other tradeoffs between LCDs and CRTs?

 

thanks

A question for any photographers that might be selling their images...

have you found any relation between the ratings received on PN and the

saleability of a photo? Are photos that receive consistent ratings,

such as tightly clustered around 5/5 better or worse sellers than ones

that get a mixture of really good and really bad ratings?

Sometimes I've loaded a picture that is just a wee smidge over the

limit that triggers a generation of a smaller pix to display.

Sometime they look fine but other times I've found the compression

artifacts to be objectionable. Unfortunately I haven't figure out the

exact criteria that is used to determine when something is too big...

is it pixel count, compressed file size or a mystical mix of multiple

measures. I'd love to be able to upload files that don't trigger this

slightly compressed version.

Ben... thanks, don't know why I hadn't found that little feature. I do try to leave meaningful comments for people. Maybe I've focused too much on leaving detailed suggestions rather than quantity of images... though I've still left more comments than I've received.

First off... this is a GREAT site. Thanks to any and everyone

involved in creating and supporting it.

 

Now for the suggestion. I would really love to be able to see a

breakdown of the scores given to my photos. It is very different to

receive say a 7 and a 1 compared to receiving two 4s. I now see that

I've earned my first double 1s and I'm very curious as to which one of

my photos met with such a negative view from at least one person. I

can narrow it down to a few given it's effect on dragging down the

average score, but it would be way more useful if I could actually see

the spread of scores for each photo. If it were a shot that I

considered controversial or stretching peoples' sensibilities in some

way, then I might even appreciate that someone hated it... but can't

tell if I don't know which photo it was.

 

BTW... I really love constructive comments for improvement. Please

check out my portfolio if you get a chance... thanks!