sfage Posted October 9, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was out shooting at the Colombia Ice Fields a couple of days ago. To say the the brightness of the landscape was extreme would be an understatement. I had the brightness of the sun to contend with, plus, standing on a glacier, the reflection from the ice back up to the camera was a "double whammy". Quite frankly, in this situation, it is very difficult to see flare on the screen because it is so bright. Plus, I only had a limited time to work because the bombardier bus is VERY expensive. Basically, It's **fifty dollars for ten minutes**... and I mean that quite literally. You don't have time to play "fancy photographer guy, look at me". Here is an example of nasty lens flare. What do you do to get rid of this? What post-processing techniques do you employ? I have my own ideas but I'd like to hear yours. This is not even a "good" photograph. I've just dug up a crappy example of the issue I'd like to discuss. 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/99598-lens-flare/?do=findComment&comment=1068345'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Hi sfage, Take a look here Lens flare. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rob_x2004 Posted October 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 10, 2009 Its not like youve only got half a dozen reflections, the entire sky is made up of them. I lost count, 30, 50? So I guess you reuter in another sky and patch the obvious ones in the mountains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted October 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 10, 2009 It would interest me, what the technical data of the picture are. You didn't use a sunshade, a filter? Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted October 10, 2009 Yes, this was shot with a UV filter. I think that might have been the problem, quite frankly. ... and yes, the sunshade was on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted October 10, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 10, 2009 Please the technical data to see how extreme light the situation was, are of interest. The picture file keeps them (iso-value, fstop and shutterspeed). Look, without the uv-filter the lens had swallowed uv-light. With the uv-filter + lens shade it seems, that the filter has reflected some not shaded light still. I was (not often) on a gletscher too, so the case interests me. I try to shade with my other hand in such cases, as trees are lacking. Or I ask my wife to do so. But I know those circles too well. On digicams the filters are relatively large, therefore I don't trust and don't use them. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chkphoto Posted October 11, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 11, 2009 It's really the angle the sun is entering the lens. There's no way around it when you're shooting into the sun when it's at an angle that allows for bouncing off the elements inside the lens. I use a Lee shade (accordion type) to get more shade onto the lens. In a pinch, you can use a "cutter", a small black card that I keep in my bag. Just hold it over and in front of the lens (and shade) until you see it then pull it back until it's out of frame. Most supplied lenses are conservative in their shading because of possible vignetting. When we are on the set, the assistant camera always stands directly in front of the camera and looks into the lens before we shoot. If he/she sees a light hit, its blocked with a cutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 11, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted October 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Please the technical data to see how extreme light the situation was, are of interest. The picture file keeps them (iso-value, fstop and shutterspeed). Look, without the uv-filter the lens had swallowed uv-light. With the uv-filter + lens shade it seems, that the filter has reflected some not shaded light still. I was (not often) on a gletscher too, so the case interests me. I try to shade with my other hand in such cases, as trees are lacking. Or I ask my wife to do so. But I know those circles too well. On digicams the filters are relatively large, therefore I don't trust and don't use them. Jan F9 ISO 100 1/400 Bias: -1.00 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 11, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 11, 2009 Which camera? What focal length? Exposure compensation of -1 stop means the exposure would have been 1/200 without the correction, doesn't it? That's not all that much light for the image, but obviously it's way too much to see the focusing screen, as you said. And the picture is probably a bit underexposed, since so much of the snow/ice is gray instead of white. No complaint here against your usage, but this is one reason I avoid filters whenever possible. You weren't shooting through a window, were you? Or with a couple filters stacked? I can't imagine a situation that could cause this. Looks as if the sun is just out of the image to the right. So you'd have had the two surfaces of the filter and the front surface (or surfaces) of the lens involved in the reflection, probably bouncing light repeatedly back and forth. Was the filter multi-coated? The diaphragm image is a bit lopsided, which isn't unreasonable with such a small aperture. But why is it at f/9 when the exposure is 1/400? The camera should be advancing the speed IMHO instead of the aperture. Frankly, this doesn't look to me like a Leica picture. Looks more like a relatively inexpensive zoom without an effective hood for its focal length. But you say you were looking at the screen, implying that it doesn't have a viewfinder. I'm thoroughly confused. I'm not ignoring your question, but I don't see any way to salvage the image except by slow and tedious work. And I wouldn't be up to the amount of effort it would take. Good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted October 11, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 11, 2009 F9ISO 100 1/400 Bias: -1.00 With this amount of light your equipment cannot be stretched too far. Were lens shade and filter mounted firmly with no light leaking through? But what can you do? Until after reading the email of rob_x2004 I realized what the problem is. I don't believe, there is a computer program, that can handle these circles. The picture in the given format shows 3 of them very clearly. I could live with them. Perfect photos require time and planning. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 11, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 11, 2009 Since the artefacts appear to come from highlights on the ice, I wonder if you could have used a polarizing filter to keep them off your lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 11, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 11, 2009 Given the irregular pattern of these aperture-shaped artefacts, I am fairly sure this isn’t lens flare. And it isn’t reflections off the sensor either. Reflections off the glacier are out of the question as well, as the ice is in sharp focus and some of those artefacts appear in front of shadows. This phenomenon most closely resembles the circles of confusion (“orbs” for the paranormal-minded) created by small particles such as dust hit by the light from an in-camera flash. In this case, there are probably tiny particles of ice (maybe caused by the photographer’s breath) in mid-air, close to the camera, reflecting sunlight into the lens. The camera isn’t at fault, and neither is the lens or any filter that might have been used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 11, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted October 11, 2009 It is quite possible that something may have landed upon the front of the UV filter. It was quite windy that day. It usually is at Columbia Icefield Tours & Glacier Experience - Glacier Tours on the Columbia Icefield Canadian Rockies Ho-co said: " Frankly, this doesn't look to me like a Leica picture. Looks more like a relatively inexpensive zoom without an effective hood for its focal length. But you say you were looking at the screen, implying that it doesn't have a viewfinder. I'm thoroughly confused." Yes, it was the D3. No I wasn't looking at the screen when shooting. I mentioned earlier in this thread that the screen up there is basically useless. You can't see it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 11, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 11, 2009 Me too think this isn't "standard" reflections one often finds when shooting in sunny glacier scenes : in the example hereunder it is so, with hexagonal iris shape clearly visible (M8 with 35 asph and UVIR filter); in your pic, the casual patterns look similar to "out of focus" dust spots on sensor : to say, spots that come for something outside the camera, in the air or (could be ?) on the filter glass, if it is rather far from the lens. How to fix them ? Patient use of clone stamp tool in PS... with skies isn't difficult. 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/99598-lens-flare/?do=findComment&comment=1070589'>More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 11, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted October 11, 2009 I think what it all comes down to is: I'm not a landscape shooter. I don't actually enjoy doing it. I know that's not really a part of this forum discussion but I "do" thank all of you for the time you spent speaking with me. I'm more of an abstract industrial shooter anyway. I'm more in to this stuff than mountains. 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/99598-lens-flare/?do=findComment&comment=1070649'>More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 11, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 11, 2009 This phenomenon most closely resembles the circles of confusion (“orbs” for the paranormal-minded) created by small particles such as dust hit by the light from an in-camera flash. In underwater photography we'd refer to this as 'backscatter' because its usually caused by flash (strobe) light reflected back towards the camera from out-of-focus (oof) light coloured particles close to the camera. In this case I'd be pretty certain that its light coloured particles (dust or ice) on the filter which are out of focus and consequently are imaging as light coloured, diaphragm shaped areas in darker sections of the image. Solution is to ensure clean filters (I carry a clening cloth in my camera bag) or spend a good deal of time in photoshop with clone and healing tools (tricky in dark blue areas IMHO as these tend to be quite noisy relative to the rest of the image and can lack much tonality). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted October 11, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 11, 2009 Thank you for showing us the door of your safe. Well, this is a special case. It is not normal for landscape shooting! The light situation was not extreme. We should think about it further. I was in Kirkenes (with the Hurtig ruten) some years ago. It was very cold and the air seemed to be full of ice particles. No artefacts in the pictures (Canon analog 24mm 1.4). As an industrial photographer you have the equipment to simulate your case. Perhaps with a dark background? Ice is impossible to simulate, of course. It is a pity, that the electronic view finder is not yet common. Here we clearly see the disadvantage of lcd screens and of optical view finders. Leica follows the wrong path here. The Hoodman lens would be a solution. It is not popular (somewhat large) and there is no provision to mount it. A pity, a provision wouldn't cost much. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 12, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 12, 2009 I think pgk and mjh are right: Dust (or ice) on the filter. What bothers me is the repetition of the lopsided 7-sided diaphragm image. pgk, do you get diaphragm reflections from back-scatter? The illumination here would have been almost parallel to the filter, right? I'm still curious what lens was used for the first shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chkphoto Posted October 12, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 12, 2009 Understanding Camera Lens Flare Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share #19 Posted October 12, 2009 I think pgk and mjh are right: Dust (or ice) on the filter. What bothers me is the repetition of the lopsided 7-sided diaphragm image. pgk, do you get diaphragm reflections from back-scatter? The illumination here would have been almost parallel to the filter, right? I'm still curious what lens was used for the first shot. It's the kit lens on the D3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EsaKivivuori Posted October 12, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 12, 2009 All optical faults can be considered as forms of distortion. Like this one: (M8 + 2/35 asph, photo taken on xmas day - hence the name) 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/99598-lens-flare/?do=findComment&comment=1072508'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.