matlep Posted November 10, 2015 Share #1 Posted November 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I took some photos of water today and got some strange artefacts that i have never seen before. Any ideas? (It is taken at f2 iso 100 1/250th) Click for full resolution. Q - Strange pattern by Mattias Leppäniemi, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Hi matlep, Take a look here Strange artefacts in image. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
viramati Posted November 10, 2015 Share #2 Posted November 10, 2015 Indeed is this from a DNG or OOC jpeg? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 10, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted November 10, 2015 Indeed is this from a DNG or OOC jpeg? This is the OOC jpeg. But the DNG looks the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmak817 Posted November 10, 2015 Share #4 Posted November 10, 2015 Strange indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 10, 2015 Author Share #5 Posted November 10, 2015 Strange indeed. Yes. No ideas on what it may come from? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
katsanes Posted November 10, 2015 Share #6 Posted November 10, 2015 Our rather monochromatic subject meant that motion artifacts caused by the moving waves would be the predominant source of color in the scanning back images. There is a slight delay in the time that each color channel gets recorded for each line of the image, and if the subject moves during this time, it will appear in a slightly different location in each color channel. Continuous subject movement therefore causes the color channels to appear slightly out of registration, and this misregistration among colors creates colored artifacts, particularly along high-contrast edges This sounds like what we're dealing with, found here: http://www.betterlight.com/waves.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trunkafunk Posted November 10, 2015 Share #7 Posted November 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) That is an artifact particular to scanning backs, which the Q is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
katsanes Posted November 10, 2015 Share #8 Posted November 10, 2015 This is true - seemed like a similar situation, but what do I know!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 10, 2015 Author Share #9 Posted November 10, 2015 Thanks! The camera has been feeling a bit sluggish today. That might be it? Or maybe the shutter speed is to slow for mowing water? I will try to replicate and also bring another camera to cross check with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted November 10, 2015 Share #10 Posted November 10, 2015 I've seen this on several photos of waves on lakes. Your artifacts are a more pure black than what I see, which varies from dull green to dark gray, but it is clearly the same "inversion" of bright areas. They seem to function as distorted mirrors. I've seen it whether the histograms show the exposure clipped or not. This photo was taken with a Zeiss Sonnar C 50/1.5 at f/5.6 mounted on a Fuji X-E1. The waterfowl seem to be used to it. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252874-strange-artefacts-in-image/?do=findComment&comment=2925627'>More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share #11 Posted November 11, 2015 I've seen this on several photos of waves on lakes. Your artifacts are a more pure black than what I see, which varies from dull green to dark gray, but it is clearly the same "inversion" of bright areas. They seem to function as distorted mirrors. I've seen it whether the histograms show the exposure clipped or not. This photo was taken with a Zeiss Sonnar C 50/1.5 at f/5.6 mounted on a Fuji X-E1. The waterfowl seem to be used to it. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted November 11, 2015 Share #12 Posted November 11, 2015 Looks as if it is the highlights and some sort of sensor reaction. Try to mail it to Leica and ask them at Customer Service cs@leica-camera.com Reminds me when the M9 wash shot directly into sunshine. It would create a strange smudge as if someone had removed part of the picture with a finger. But that one was white, not black. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 11, 2015 Share #13 Posted November 11, 2015 It might be a raw conversion artefact; I would try another raw converter first Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share #14 Posted November 11, 2015 Looks as if it is the highlights and some sort of sensor reaction. Try to mail it to Leica and ask them at Customer Service cs@leica-camera.com Reminds me when the M9 wash shot directly into sunshine. It would create a strange smudge as if someone had removed part of the picture with a finger. But that one was white, not black. Thanks Thorsten, I did a new shoot today with the M and the Q. Got pretty much the same result on both cameras. It might be a bit more pronounced on the Q. But I'm guessing it might be like this for everybody under the same conditions. It might be a raw conversion artefact; I would try another raw converter first Looks the same in Capture1. And as it is visible both in JPG and DNG. Not sure what to make of it. I can't say I´m an avid water photographer, but I definitely haven't seen this before.Strange that it can be seen on both my M (240) and the Q. But again, it might be just the way it is. Maybe ill try and send Leica a message to see if they have any ideas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 11, 2015 Share #15 Posted November 11, 2015 Any Exxon oil carriers near? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share #16 Posted November 11, 2015 Any Exxon oil carriers near? Nope. Cant blame that either. Stockholm is actually known for its clean water. It was a selling point for the 2012 olympics application. The water at the actual location is a mix between salty sea water and not so salty lake water. In Swedish it is called "Bräckt"-water. Think that might be the issue here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted November 11, 2015 Share #17 Posted November 11, 2015 Further proof: this shot is from a Sigma DP2 Merrill, which has the completely different Foveon sensor instead of a color filter array. Yet it displays the same phenomenon. You can see that the dark spot is actually a distorted reflection of the bird, including a small white spot that is its beak. Further down the frame near the bottom center is another reflection, now too distorted to be recognisable. Case closed. (The shot is typical Foveon: marvelous resolution and 3-D so unlike the plastic of so much digital rendering, but the colors are not quite correct and are difficult to work with.) Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252874-strange-artefacts-in-image/?do=findComment&comment=2926344'>More sharing options...
marcg Posted November 11, 2015 Share #18 Posted November 11, 2015 Nope. Cant blame that either. Stockholm is actually known for its clean water. It was a selling point for the 2012 olympics application. The water at the actual location is a mix between salty sea water and not so salty lake water. In Swedish it is called "Bräckt"-water. Think that might be the issue here? In English - brackish. Another word you borrowed from us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share #19 Posted November 11, 2015 In English - brackish. Another word you borrowed from us Well, you got "Smörgåsbord" [sCHMORGASBORD) from us. And that is worth over a million words! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted November 11, 2015 Further proof: this shot is from a Sigma DP2 Merrill, which has the completely different Foveon sensor instead of a color filter array. Yet it displays the same phenomenon. You can see that the dark spot is actually a distorted reflection of the bird, including a small white spot that is its beak. Further down the frame near the bottom center is another reflection, now too distorted to be recognisable. Case closed. (The shot is typical Foveon: marvelous resolution and 3-D so unlike the plastic of so much digital rendering, but the colors are not quite correct and are difficult to work with.) Thanks for the input. I wonder if it looked the same back in the film days? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.