Whats the refraction in this photo?

[fullerhouse]

Help! Hoping some wise person has an idea. Took this to the camera store today and nobody there had an idea. Do NOT want to send my brand new 20D off to the shop; waited to long to get it.

http://www.crystalballmedia.com/events/tropicvi092405/web_0765.jpg


Fact, this refraction thingie shows up only on this series of shots. The lens is the efs 17-85 IS kit lens; which I rarely use. The EXIF data includes: f5.6 100 ISO 1/200 66mm. I found another series of photos (taken with the same lens) that are close to the same EXIF data that do not show the refraction.


The subject and I were both in the shade of a building just past 1PM. I'm wondering if I caught a reflection off something; but the thing is in all the photos in this series, and I was moving around a bit. If it is a reflection, what is bouncing off?


The camera store seems to think that there might be a bubble in the glass, or an oil drop on something. Didn't quite catch what they thought the oil drop might be on. Seems like if it was a bubble in the glass, it would show up all the time with this lens, shouldn't it? Or, do I need to try to replicate near identical shooting params? If it will ever quit raining.


Thanks all in advance,

Dianne

[Hellashot]

You should probably do some test shots indoors under controlled lighting as well as clean the lens. It's unlikely the camera's fault - probably something with the lens whether light going into it during that shoot or an actual problem with the glass.

[robertwgross]

It looks like a bright piece of lens flare. Possibly there was some bright light above, perhaps a reflection off some bright point in the upper frame, and it will be hard to reproduce.

Equally possible is that there was a big drop of dog spit on the lens, or maybe something is loose and rattling around inside the lens. This does not look like sensor dust.

---Bob Gross---

[Bob_A]

Is there any chance that there could have been a small drop of water on the front (or maybe back element) of the lens?

It looks like a water drop because it broke the light up into a spectrum.

[fullerhouse]

Well, I'm really scratching my head. Personally, I doubt it's the camera. In about 10 days, I've taken over 1600 photos, and this is the only series they show up. Granted, I very seldom use this lens. Ready your comments though, I did have a thought to check the filter.

As for spots on the lens, or filter; I've been doing dog competetion photography for years. I might forget to put my event cards about my person, but I NEVER forget my microfiber cloth; and always carry spares in my gear bag. I've got a ritual when I change lens to take the filter off, clean the lens, inside filter and outside filter. And when I'm just standing around waiting for action, I'm usually cleaning the filter or my glasses. Dog spit, water; well, theoritically, anything is possible; but given my long term obsession with keeping my glass clean and that this lens had just been put on the camera for this shot; well I just don't know. Ah, and it was not raining this particular day.

The camera store seems willing to switch the lens out for me, but I don't really want to ask them to do that until I've got a better feeling if there is a problem with the lens. And, I'm not quite sure how to go about assuring myself that the lens is OK or not. I do know that I don't want a what $400 piece of glass setting in my gear bag that I don't trust.

On the other hand, for someone who didn't want to buy a kit lens in the first place, I've been quite pleasantly surprised at how well the IS works in the lens. As long as I'm not trying to catch action, I can actually use this lens indoors with no-flash, hand-held and get decent results.

Dianne

[robertwgross]

I was shooting a scene that was in the full shade of a tree. I shot, and I saw something odd in the rear display image. I zoomed in on it and saw something that looked like lens flare. I couldn't understand that since I was in full shade. I walked around in front of the camera, and then looked around. It still looked like full shade.

As I looked around one more time, a glint of sunlight caught my eye. There was one tiny little ray of sunlight sneaking through the tree branches, and it was hitting the lens just perfectly to ruin my shot. However, just a minute or two later, the sun had moved enough that it was gone, so I was able to continue without moving the tripod.

---Bob Gross---

[twalker294]

* Did you have a filter on the lens?

* Were you using a lens hood (I don't even know if the 17-85 comes with a hood -- does it?)

* Was this a tripod shot or did you have your eye up to the eyepiece?

[Lester Wareham]

Help! Hoping some wise person has an idea. Took this to the camera store today and nobody there had an idea. Do NOT want to send my brand new 20D off to the shop; waited to long to get it.

Fact, this refraction thingie shows up only on this series of shots. The lens is the efs 17-85 IS kit lens; which I rarely use. The EXIF data includes: f5.6 100 ISO 1/200 66mm. I found another series of photos (taken with the same lens) that are close to the same EXIF data that do not show the refraction.


The subject and I were both in the shade of a building just past 1PM. I'm wondering if I caught a reflection off something; but the thing is in all the photos in this series, and I was moving around a bit. If it is a reflection, what is bouncing off?


The camera store seems to think that there might be a bubble in the glass, or an oil drop on something. Didn't quite catch what they thought the oil drop might be on. Seems like if it was a bubble in the glass, it would show up all the time with this lens, shouldn't it? Or, do I need to try to replicate near identical shooting params? If it will ever quit raining.


Thanks all in advance,

Dianne
I think it must be a glint of bright light causing flare.

Did you have a lens hood?
The only time I don't fit a hood is macro work, that is the only time I need to be careful about flare.
If you use filters make sure they are MC.

[PhotosGuy]

Equally possible is that there was a big drop of dog spit on the lens, That was my thought, too! Or maybe you blew a bit of dust off it? ;)

[efmfire]

I agree with Bob Gross - it's lens flare. I've got the same lens and have seen this in two of my photos. After taking a long look around I found the where sun light was coming from and adjusted my position.

B&H carries the lens hood for this lens, I expect mine today and hopefully the problem will become a past problem.

[DavidEB]

the round shape and the smoothly graded spectrum look more like a liquid drop, but water drops don't generally look quite like that. perhaps something with a higher index of refraction, like oil (suntan lotion?) or soap?

[i2iSTUDIOS]

aliens

[DigitalMDX]

aliens

Exactly...:D Sell this shot to a paranormal site...

[Jon]

Reflection off her watch causing the flare?

[fullerhouse]

Hi Jon,
Where were you a week ago when I was going nuts!

Just kidding!

Actually, I had that pic blown up to 8 x 10, and while I was waiting for the lab, went out and shot a lot of pictures with this lens. Not a single refraction in any of them. Went back to the camera store, and the general consensus of everyone was that is a reflection off her watch.

Now, this hopefully is just a real once in a blue moon fluke. If not, what on earth do you do to avoid it?

Dianne

[SkipD]

Dianne, I suspect that you were using a filter on the lens for "protection" and possibly had no lens hood mounted to the lens.

I suspect very strongly, as do other posters in the thread, that the flare was caused by a strong light source outside the subject area. Simply removing the filter may have solved the problem, but having a properly designed lens hood attached to the lens would probably have prevented it in the first place.

A properly designed lens hood will prevent a lot of the problems that folks use a filter for - smudges, physical contact problems (including dropping the camera - I have personal experience with that one), etc. I have never once used a filter for protection in over 40 years of photography with SLR's, and have never had a problem that might have been solved by having one. I have used filters for creative purposes many times, just not for "protection".

That said, if I felt like shooting in a sandstorm or hurricane I might be tempted to get either a UV filter or an underwater rig to protect the camera and/or lens, but I just keep my cameras out of that sort of situation as a rule.

[Jon]

Hi Jon,
Where were you a week ago when I was going nuts!

Just kidding!
Out at the Dawn Patrol Fly-in (http://www.gwaero.org/wewantyou.html) at the Air Force Museum, burning up cards at a great rate.

[DocFrankenstein]

1) it can't be reflection of her watch. The reflection would've been symmetrical to the center of the frame. (unless the image is cropped, and it doesn't look like it is)

2) it unlikely to be an oil spill on the lens. MAYBE 2 elements of a group came apart ever so slightly, but just enough to let diffraction happen? In that case try shooting with the same camera orientation

3) If I were a betting man, I'd say it's on the sensor. you have a 3-4 mm drop of something organic there

[KennyG]

Doc, your number 3 suggestion would not show up like that if it were on the sensor. Not only that, but it did not appear in later shots. I wish you were a betting man as I have a few hundred bucks I wager with you on that.

It is has the look of classic lens flare, but whether that is the lens or filter is hard to tell. A lens hood would have prevented it, assuming the right depth of hood of course.

[Jon]

1) it can't be reflection of her watch. The reflection would've been symmetrical to the center of the frame. (unless the image is cropped, and it doesn't look like it is)

Look again. The light's coming from high and right, there's a hot spot on the watch, and the shape of the flare corresponds to what you'd get coming off the edge of the watch case, tapering off top and bottom. And it's not necessarily going to be symmetrical, depending on precisely where the sunlight was coming from.

[Chazs]

Haven't read every reply here, so this might have been mentioned...., but just a thought.... in this same series of photos, where does the difraction appear when the camera is held horizontally? Did it move to the side, or is it still at the bottom of the photo?

[DocFrankenstein]

Look again. The light's coming from high and right, there's a hot spot on the watch, and the shape of the flare corresponds to what you'd get coming off the edge of the watch case, tapering off top and bottom. And it's not necessarily going to be symmetrical, depending on precisely where the sunlight was coming from.
Sunlight? It looks overcast :confused: