mikenorton

I had some time today to try all the fixes mentioned in the thread. It looks to me like I'm going to need to apply several of these, one on top of the other, to fix the problem. The more I look at the images the more CA I see. Now I have to decide if they are worth the time & effort. Thanks everyone for the help, screen shots and the link to the video.

I learned about this while taking a photography class in college. In the U.S. a photographer can stand on a public street and photograph into someone's house/building by way of an uncovered window. The people in the house/building must cover the windows if they want privacy. However in the U. S. a photographer can not stand on a public street and photograph by way of an uncovered window into a hospital. Hospital patients can expect this privacy.

I had an image of John Belushi doing his Joe Cocker imitation for sale on a print on demand website. The website took the image down and sent me an email saying Belushi's widow had contacted them saying that I did not have the right to sell the image. I had the negative in my hand, I own the rights to it. I shot the picture in 1975 as the cast of SNL gave a free performance in a public park in Houston. I renamed the file, reposted it and never heard another word about it.

While I was photographing a metal arrow embedded in the sidewalk in front of a tall bank building in downtown Dallas a plain clothed security guard told me I was not allowed to take pictures of the building. I told him I wasn't photographing the building, I was photographing the sidewalk and then walked across the street. When I got there I whistled and when the guard looked over I shot a picture of the building.

If you know what you are doing then better equipment can lead to better quality in your images. But learning more about what you are doing will help you to become a better photographer. Remember the old adage: How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, Practice, Practice!

Chris, Yeah, the sky here is cyan, I'll make it bluer later in the work flow. What you see here is the RAW file with nothing done to it but being converted to a jpg so I could upload it. Your explanation seems to fit the problem. I've been shooting with this lens & camera for about 4 years and have never seen, or maybe I should say, I've never noticed it until now. I almost always try to shoot when there are clouds present but there were no clouds the whole first week I was in Joshua Tree. I see now that the clouds soften the break between the sky and rocks/mountains, and I thought I liked them because they kept the sky from being boring! I think that this whole composition is graphic enough that it doesn't need clouds but I'll be thinking twice about that next time. I haven't had time to experiment with all the fixes but checking the CA box in the RAW convertor helped. I'll try them all and learn something new.

I think one of the procedures described in the video might work.

mandritoiu, Where would I look to find out if chromatic aberration correction is enabled, either in my camera or on my post-processing software? I've checked my camera's Manual but didn't see chromatic aberration in the index. I'm using a Nikon D810 and Photoshop CS6. I'm just now watching the video you attached (I wanted to reply to your second post before I watched the video) so I feel like an idiot for asking where I could find the info when you had already given it to me. I'll definitely try the Raw convertor fix! Thanks again! Now back to the video.

mandritoiu, Where would I look to find out if chromatic aberration correction is enabled, either in my camera or on my post-processing software? I've checked my camera's Manual but didn't see chromatic aberration in the index. I'm using a Nikon D810 and Photoshop CS6.

They have given me fix for the symptom, I want a cure for the disease. As a stright photographer I want to know what to do so I don't see it again. I think it must be either something with the camera/lens combination or the subject. Since I have never seen it until now, I went back and looked at other images I've made with this camera/lens combination. I don't see it in earlier images either but what I do see in the earlier images is clouds. This leads me to believe that it's the way the camera sensor handles the abrupt change in opposite tones present in the subject. I think I can fix it if I just follow Mike Norton's First Rule of Landscape Photography: No clouds, No pictures! I broke my own rule!

Whiteaster & Doug, thanks for your time, input and help. After reading a little more I think I see how to use a pixel layer. After I make the layer I have run the clone tool all along the edge of the rock. I was hoping it would be something quicker. You know a "one click fix". The image has been stitched and is quite large so I better get to it . . . well, right after lunch!

I'm sorry but I don't understand layers. I've never had to use them. Everything I google assumes I know what a pixel layer is and how to make one. Unfortunately nothing I can find will tell me how to make a pixel layer. I need detailed instructions from beginning to end.

Thanks Whiteaster, I had thought about doing that but I was hoping for a quicker fix. The link above is promising if I can figure out the Pixel Layer.

Thanks Doug, I didn't do any sharpening. I think I could use the link to fix the problem IF I knew what a "Pixel Layer" was and how to make one. Can anyone help me with that? I'm using Photoshop on an iMac.

Thanks for the input. The image I posted was shot Raw and only the minimal sharping added by the Raw Convertor was applied. I usually add more sharpening in the Raw Convertor but I did not on the image I posted. I did not do anything else, sharpening, darkening the sky, replace the sky or use the magic wand, to the file before posting it here. I did make it 100% but the line can be seen at 33%. I don't even know how to replace a sky. What is strange is that it is between the background rocks and the sky but not the foreground rock and the sky. In looking up chromatic aberration the line on the image fits part of the description. But the article also said that transverse (lateral) chromatic aberration occurs with short focal length lenses and does not occur in the center of the image but increases towards the edge. The image was shot with a 35mm lens and the part I posted is near the center of the image. Is 35mm really a short focal length lens today? I see it on other images I made on that trip but not on images from other trips where I used the same lens & camera. I'm baffled!