Fixing chromatic aberration in Camera RAW?

[invisible]

I think I've lost track of the number of times that I've read that CA can be fixed in Adobe Camera RAW. However, I haven't been able to find the controls in ACR that would allow me to do this. Does anybody know how to do it?

(I use Photoshop Elements 5 with ACR 4.6, by the way.)

Thanks in advance for the help.

[Alex]

no idea if/how it works with your software.

I use bibble 5 and it works like a charm (bibble 4 did also do it).

[Mohain]

does this help?

http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/articles/adobe-raw/

not sure which version of acr it relates to.

[invisible]

Thanks, gentlemen. I figured it out: ACR 4.6 (the most up-to-date version that supports Photoshop Elements 5) doesn't have the CA correction feature. Time to update Elements I guess, or maybe get me a copy of PTLens.

[Hertz van Rental]

I would just like to point out that chromatic aberration is almost always caused by cheap lenses.
My solution would be to spend the money on a decent lens instead of spending it on Photoshop and plug-ins to correct it. That is to say, don't get it in the first place.
My method is foolproof. ;)

[invisible]

I would just like to point out that chromatic aberration is almost always caused by cheap lenses.
My solution would be to spend the money on a decent lens instead of spending it on Photoshop and plug-ins to correct it. That is to say, don't get it in the first place.
My method is foolproof. ;)
In this particular case, my problem is my wide-angle lens, which costs approximately $900. Chromatic aberration is a very common problem of wide-angle lenses, and this one -- which received excellent marks in all of the independent tests out there -- is no exception.

The professional alternative costs $2,200 and weighs almost twice as much.

I do photography for fun and $2,200 for one lens is out of my league --especially for a specialty lens. I think I'll spend $25 on correcting software (and save my neck in the process). Looking cheap is a good price to pay to save $1,300.

[Hertz van Rental]

Looking cheap is a good price to pay to save $1,300.

You are not factoring in the cost of your time and effort spent making the corrections so I don't think you are saving anything.
Amateurs have this conceit that their time is not worth anything but they are mistaken. There are lots more worthwhile and important things you could be doing rather than sitting in front of a computer doing something unnecessary so the cost can't always be measured in cash value terms.
$1,300 may seem a lot to spend up front but if you see it as a long term investment it makes sense and is value for money.
There is also a re-sale or trade-in value on lenses - there isn't on software.
To put it in perspective $1,300 is approximately just one beer a day for 18 months.
But if you want to spend your time trying to correct a fault rather than curing the fault permanently at the source then it's up to you.


Naturally, I know nothing about lenses and their related faults so I'm talking nonsense.

Hertz' first two Equipment Axioms:
1 - If you need something buy the best. If you can't afford the best then you don't need it.
2 - Never buy the second best saying "it'll do for now" because it won't and you will regret it almost immediately.

[Overread]

Hertz' first two Equipment Axioms:
1 - If you need something buy the best. If you can't afford the best then you don't need it.
2 - Never buy the second best saying "it'll do for now" because it won't and you will regret it almost immediately.

true buuut

If you spend your life saving and chasing the best you'll never had time nor abilty to enjoy the now.

Or to put it another way I can save for years for a 300mm f2.8 IS L and spend years missing shots or I can plug for a lesser 300mm f4 IS L sooner. Sure its not as good, but its certainly good enough for the now. I could even go for a sigma 50-500mm OS (if it stands up well in tests) - resell it will probably go for less 2nd hand than the 300mm just because its not L and its zoom might mean I hang onto it anyway - slowing the arrival of th 300mm f2.8 - but its an alternative and its "good enough for now".

There is a point I feel where your advice is sound to follow and I do also agree that just because its a hobby does not mean one cannot spend silly amounts of money on it - we only get one life and I'd rather spend cash on stuff I enjoy and want to rather than just stuff for work (unless work and hobby are the same thing); but I also feel that one has to draw a line somewhere otherwise we'd all be buying largeformate cameras for landscape work