What's caused this odd "reflection"?

[EWek11]

I know this isn't a great shot by any stretch, but I was wondering what would cause the reflection of the sign in the black sky? Is this a reflection on the glass of the lens itself? How would one avoid this?
http://lh4.google.com/eastonking/RzYkDvdP9uI/AAAAAAAABFU/eNynkm7-c3w/s800/IMG_4709.JPG

[Wilt]

Reflection off the surface of a filter would be my first answer.

[EWek11]

Reflection off the surface of a filter would be my first answer.

I did/do have a UV filter on the front, so I guess that would make sense. I've never noticed any ill effects from having it on there, although I know there's a school of thought that it can be detrimental. I guess I am now being swayed that way as well. It's just so scary leaving that glass out to the open after spending mucho dinero on the lens...

[PhotosByEric]

Was it cloudy/foggy? It may have just been that the light was so bright that it was sending alot of light into the sky and reflecting off the clouds/fog.

Eric

[EWek11]

Was it cloudy/foggy? It may have just been that the light was so bright that it was sending alot of light into the sky and reflecting off the clouds/fog.

Eric


Negative. Crystal clear that night. It's a pretty clean reflection, so the filter is most likely the culprit, I guess.

[Pugwash]

It's not a true reflection though. If it was a reflection in the sky then the B end of BOARDWALK would be above the B of the actual sign and the K above the other end but in this case the word has been flipped horizontally. True the "reflected" letters are upside down which is correct but the word is the wrong way round.

There also appear to be some "searchlight" trails in the sky in the same area. Are they using some form of Laser projection to advertise the Boardwalk which is visible, and legible, from the other direction? Having said that I can see that the sign would be upside down so perhaps it is something to do with the lens (for the sign to have been flipped horizontally) but I have no idea what.

[rammy]

It looks like ghosting to me which would be caused by non MRC coated filter on the lens. What type of UV filter do you have (full spec)?

[Adam Trevillian]

yeah, I think it's the UV filter.

[Tom W]

Pretty sure it's the filter. I've had this happen with film as well.

[Curtis N]

Easy enough to prove or disprove.
Test it like I did. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86910)

My guess is with Wilt.

[Doug Pardee]

It's the result of bright light reflecting off of the front of the sensor, back out through the lens, then hitting a flat reflective surface and being re-reflected straight back into the lens. The #1 culprit for being a "flat reflective surface" is a filter.

Multicoated filters are much less reflective. That's what the coatings are for: to reduce reflections.

The back side of the front element of most lenses is flat, too. But it's usually multicoated. Still, I've seen the occasional photo where no filter was used but these characteristic ghosts (located at 180 degree rotation from the original light) appeared. This is usually with inexpensive lenses such as the 50mm f/1.8.

Again, though, the #1 cause of this is a cheap UV filter.

By the way, since the initial "bounce" is off of the sensor, you won't see the reflection in the viewfinder.

[thebrewer]

It's just the Disney magic! I made the beer at Big river for 5 years.

[20droger]

It could also be sensor flare. With sensor flare, light is reflected from the sensor back to the rear element of the lens, then back to the sensor again. This can sometimes happen with bright, high-contrast images.

[Curtis N]

since the initial "bounce" is off of the sensor, you won't see the reflection in the viewfinder.When I ran into this problem (see link in my previous post) I could definitely see it in the viewfinder.

Perhaps it could reflect off the focusing screen the same way? I dunno. I just know I could see it.

[20droger]

If you could see it in the viewfinder, it's almost guaranteed to be filter flare.

[EWek11]

Easy enough to prove or disprove.
Test it like I did. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86910)

My guess is with Wilt.

Well that thread is certainly convincing...Add to that that it's just a Tiffen filter, so the quality is obviously not the best. I really had almost forgotten it was on there, as I never pay it any attention. I just put it on to protect the glass. I'm still not sure if I'm leaving it on or taking it off yet on a permanent basis, but now I know it must come off for these type nighttime shots.

Thanks for all the input!

[Curtis N]

I don't want to start another UV filter war (people are somewhat religious in their decision to use one or not), but I will submit that a lens hood will provide more real-world protection for your lens than a UV filter.

Either way, it doesn't need to be permanent. Think of a UV filter as a pair of safety glasses. You just wear them when conditions warrant.

[EWek11]

I don't want to start another UV filter war (people are somewhat religious in their decision to use one or not), but I will submit that a lens hood will provide more real-world protection for your lens than a UV filter.

Either way, it doesn't need to be permanent. Think of a UV filter as a pair of safety glasses. You just wear them when conditions warrant.

Yes, I too know that this is an oft debated topic and that it is usually heated discussions. Good advice on not making it a "permanent" addition to my lens, which I had basically done. While it does offer good protection, the giant size of the hood for the 70-200f/4 does sometimes make it unwieldy.

[Wilt]

I did/do have a UV filter on the front, so I guess that would make sense. I've never noticed any ill effects from having it on there, although I know there's a school of thought that it can be detrimental. I guess I am now being swayed that way as well. It's just so scary leaving that glass out to the open after spending mucho dinero on the lens...

Use in in 'ordinary' circumstances, and remove it in high flare situations and when the flare is likely to be seen against dark backgrounds.

[JWright]

I did/do have a UV filter on the front, so I guess that would make sense. I've never noticed any ill effects from having it on there, although I know there's a school of thought that it can be detrimental. I guess I am now being swayed that way as well. It's just so scary leaving that glass out to the open after spending mucho dinero on the lens...

Use a good quality rigid hood and you should be OK.

[rammy]

I've never had problems with ghosting or flare when taking night shots like this and I always have the UV filter on my lenses. I've had very small flaring when I am taking close up pictures of street lamps at night but that would happen anyway.

[Wilt]

I've never had problems with ghosting or flare when taking night shots like this and I always have the UV filter on my lenses. I've had very small flaring when I am taking close up pictures of street lamps at night but that would happen anyway.

And what brand and quality of filter do you use? The OP admitted that it was a Tiffen filter in the shot, and that would transmit only 93% (and reflect up to 7%) whereas high quality super multicoated filters transmitt >99.7% (and reflect back only up to 0.3%)

[rammy]

And what brand and quality of filter do you use? The OP admitted that it was a Tiffen filter in the shot, and that would transmit only 93% (and reflect up to 7%) whereas high quality super multicoated filters transmitt >99.7% (and reflect back only up to 0.3%)

I have B+W MRC UV filters on my L lenses. I also have the Hoya Super HMC Pro-1 UV filters on my non-L lenses.

[EWek11]

And what brand and quality of filter do you use? The OP admitted that it was a Tiffen filter in the shot, and that would transmit only 93% (and reflect up to 7%) whereas high quality super multicoated filters transmitt >99.7% (and reflect back only up to 0.3%)

Hey, I only "admitted" that under duress! ;) I knew that high quality filters were important, but I didn't realize how much difference there would be. :o I mean, these #'s are drastically different. I'm thinking of going no filter as opposed to a high-quality one for the time being. I'll have to keep the hood on there for protection.

[Wilt]

Hey, I only "admitted" that under duress! ;) I knew that high quality filters were important, but I didn't realize how much difference there would be. :o I mean, these #'s are drastically different. I'm thinking of going no filter as opposed to a high-quality one for the time being. I'll have to keep the hood on there for protection.

You performed a public service, in showing the use of a cheap filter, while the other person performed the service of saying they he never had encountered the same problem using a quality (B+W MRC) filter!

[rammy]

the other person

"The other person"? I've been here longer than you Wilt :) Just because I don't have as many posts as you, you could at least use my sign on name, Mr Wilt :D

Anyway, yep, decent filters make a difference.

[Wilt]

"The other person"? I've been here longer than you Wilt :) Just because I don't have as many posts as you, you could at least use my sign on name, Mr Wilt :D

Anyway, yep, decent filters make a difference.

Sorry, Rammy! I was in a rush to reply, and couldn't afford the additional time to look up who made what comments in the thread...notice the generic 'OP' reference, too!

[rammy]

Sorry, Rammy! I was in a rush to reply, and couldn't afford the additional time to look up who made what comments in the thread...notice the generic 'OP' reference, too!

That's cool, really, Wilt. I was feeling a little like a stranger back then ;-) :D

EWek11, I use the hood on my lenses all the time, on all of them. Having understood the different qualities of filters and also what the lack of a filter can do (first hand, but not on my lenses!) if you are going to continue to use them then invest a little on the best.

I get all mine from here:

http://hvstar.net/

[EWek11]

You performed a public service, in showing the use of a cheap filter, while the other person performed the service of saying they he never had encountered the same problem using a quality (B+W MRC) filter!

Glad I could be of service! ;)

EWek11, I use the hood on my lenses all the time, on all of them. Having understood the different qualities of filters and also what the lack of a filter can do (first hand, but not on my lenses!) if you are going to continue to use them then invest a little on the best.

This apparently rings true in all aspects of photography (and in life)! You get what you pay for! Better filters, or just the hood is the consensus.:p

As always, POTN gets to the bottom of it and throws in great responses and examples to prove the point. You guys are the best. I've learned tons from this site! Thank you all!:D

[Bamamike]

Curtis N is so right, before spending money on degrading filters, get a hood and you are good.
But, for those filter-lens protetor hardliners, you are also right but you have to admit that saving a $1000 lens with a $50 filter vs. a $100 filter is not a good rationale to save money. And a hood is in the same class of money (unfortunately).