Unusual Artifacts on M8 Photo (Large Image)

[chanyr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I came across some unusual artifacts on a photo taken with my M8.

This is the full frame photo taken on the Fine JPG setting.

 

This is a 50% crop of the image. You can see there are some red specks on the lower left hand corner as well as the Red, Green, Blue and Purple specks in the middle of the photo.

 

 

Is it normal to see these artifacts? This was taken at the base setting of ISO 160.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Shootist]

Looks as though you are shooting INTO the sun. All those spots could be reflections off the front element of the lens back into the filter and then off dust on the filter then back through the lens and on the sensor.

 

I really think the ones in the openings of the trees are some type of CA along with what I stated above.

[chanyr]

Yup, the Sun was in front of me at that time. I wanted to capture the way the trees were lit at that time. I wasn't using a filter at that time but maybe I need to clean the lens as it could be dust on the rear element reflecting off the sensor?

[jaapv]

Yes - Flare and sensor blooming on specular highlights...Veiling flare too.You've come to the limit of digital photography and lens design here, not that film would not have shown some interesting effects. Actually I think the result is pretty good for this lighting situation.....

[wlaidlaw]

Look at this one. I had forgotten to change back from JPEG to DNG after trying to shoot something in high speed motion with continuous shutter. I think this is typical CA with JPEG against the sun and you have the same. I think it is one of the best arguments for using DNG's and C1 handles CA fringing very well.

 

Wilson

[plasticman]

Yup - Flare and sensor blooming on specular highlights...Veiling flare too.You've come to the limit of digital photography and lens design here, not that film would not have shown some interesting effects. Actually I think the result is pretty good for this lighting situation.....

 

I'm interested to know what sort of artifacts we would've seen with film?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Halo around the specular highlights, caused by reflection and refraction inside the emulsion. And a white line called "edge effect" along steep contrast gradients. This is caused by localized developer depletion and looks a lot like the halo we see when USM is overused. That, btw, is one of the reasons why diluted developer makes negatives that seem slightly sharper.

[Mauribix]

Just curious about the lens used here...

Was it 28cron?

I had the same problem with 28cron only, that's why i much prefer 28elmarit ASPH, who seems to be much more resistant to these "artifacts"...

 

cheers

maurizio

 

P.S. (for Jaap)

 

as a new Elmarit ASPH28 owner, you will be able soon to verify what I'm sayin'

[plasticman]

Halo around the specular highlights, caused by reflection and refraction inside the emulsion. And a white line called "edge effect" along steep contrast gradients. This is caused by localized developer depletion and looks a lot like the halo we see when USM is overused. That, btw, is one of the reasons why diluted developer makes negatives that seem slightly sharper.

 

Of course when I asked I had no illusion whatsoever that you wouldn't be able to come back with an answer that sounded good. I'm intrigued however, by the seemingly irresistible urge to denigrate film whenever a problem arises with an M8.

 

This image looks to be pretty problematic for any medium - but imho it would be tedious for me to say "you would get worse with digital" every time such an example was discussed on the film forum.

[jaapv]

It seems pretty to be pretty hard to understand that there is no intrinsic difference between film and digital, just a different medium. My interjection was just to prevent posts like this, not encourage them, by pointing out, like you say correctly, that it is problematic for any medium. It appears I failed...... But thanks for the compliment implied in your post

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by plasticman

by the seemingly irresistible urge to denigrate film

 

I'm very interested which posts of mine you mean by this... You'll be hard put to find them. I have probably shot enough film to put a bow tie around the moon - have a fridge with Kodachrome and am just in doubt whther to get an M3 or IIIf to shoot it with, so I guess you read my bias wrong.....

[jaapv]

Just curious about the lens used here...

Was it 28cron?

I had the same problem with 28cron only, that's why i much prefer 28elmarit ASPH, who seems to be much more resistant to these "artifacts"...

 

cheers

maurizio

 

P.S. (for Jaap)

 

as a new Elmarit ASPH28 owner, you will be able soon to verify what I'm sayin'

 

Let's hope FEDEX comes through with their 24 hours service:cool:

[chanyr]

Thanks to Wilson and Jaap for explaining what I'm seeing here. When zoomed in to 100% I can see that the artifacts are similar to the bloom on the fountain highlights. I think I will have to switch to using DNG as well. Besides the CA, I'm noticing that fine detail is mushy.

 

Maurizio, This picture was taken with a 35mm Skopar PII, I'm interested in the 28mm Elmarit as well but its completely sold out where I am at the moment.

 

Its interesting to know that film would show a halo. I guess this is the Leica glow people talk about . I think Jaap is talking about the kind of glow or halo that many of the old photos taken with single coated lens from the old days had. I don't think digital is being denigrated in anyway, its just that film and digital media have their own characteristics.