Lens flare, pointers to make it better?

[jruberto]

Hi,

I shot this over the weekend, fly fishing on the McCloud river in northern California. The flare in the lens is distracting.

I shot with the lens hood in place, thinking that would shield the glass from the sun, but realized afterwards that at 24mm, the lens moves forward and the shielding provided by the hood is much less. So, the glass was exposed directly to the sun. Next time, I'll use my hat to supplement the hood when shooting wide angles.

I was also using a CPL, the Hoya G series. This was listed as multi-coated in the Amazon description, but it was so much less expensive than the B+W MRC filter. Could the filter have played a role?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2563/3695211604_acb78687cd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10048431@N02/3695211604/)


Thanks in advance for your comments & suggestions.

John

[number six]

As you've already determined, more shading of the lens is the way to avoid flare.

But notice you have two circles here - that means you have flare from two surfaces. I'll bet if you remove the filter you'll get just one flare image under those circumstances.

-js

[number six]

You can edit the flare out of the picture, though. Here's a 5-minute effort - with a bit more time you could blend it in more thoroughly. The top flare image is more difficult because of the color cast, but it's definitely fixable.

377911

[number six]

BTW, nice country up there. I love to ride my motorcycle in those mountains...

[glongstaff]

Depending upon the lens, sometimes you can get the effect of these 'rings' from the light being bounced back of the internal lenses and is unavoidable.

Also depends upon the filters being utilised as this can also create the light to be bounced back

[rdenney]

This is not lens flare. It is ghosting. Lens flare reduces the overall contrast, such as the overall blue smoky look in the upper left corner, which undermines the richness of the shadows under the trees.

You could include the sun in the image and make the ghosting part of the composition. You might also be able to see the fisherman's line, which would be a good thing, in my view.

Or, you could cross the stream and shoot him from the sunny side. If the sun or main light source is behind you, you'll never see ghosting. Even moving a few feet to your left would have probably solved the problem and you probably would still have those nice specular highlights on the water.

Remember that filters create a separate shading problem. The shade that comes with the lens isn't always designed to effectively shade a filter in addition to the lens. You never want the sun to shine on the glass unless it's part of the picture. Also, you don't way what camera you were using, but remember that Canon's lens shades are designed for full-frame applications (except for EF-S lenses). They are not tight enough for use with a small sensor, in situations like this one.

Rick "was the polarizer needed to eliminate reflections on the water?" Denney

[number six]

This is not lens flare. It is ghosting. Lens flare reduces the overall contrast, such as the overall blue smoky look in the upper left corner, which undermines the richness of the shadows under the trees.

Is this a new definition you're promulgating? It's been "flare" to me for 40+ years, and I'm certainly not the only one who uses the term that way.

-js

[rdenney]

Is this a new definition you're promulgating? It's been "flare" to me for 40+ years, and I'm certainly not the only one who uses the term that way.

-js

If you use "lens flare" to describe ghosting, then what term do you use to describe lens flare?

I was just reviewing (again) The Camera, by Ansel Adams. This is the "new" version, published in 1980. He shows an example of lens flare from an uncoated lens as an overall reduction in contrast in the image, not as ghost images.

The problem is that lenses can exhibit excellent lens flare performance and still have ghosting, and vice versa.

Rick "who has maintained this distinction for a large percentage of those 40 years" Denney

[JeffreyG]

There are two kinds of flare, which seems to be driving this semantic detour.

Ghosting Flare is what we see in the image from the OP. This is caused by light reflections inside the lens assembly which make ghosts of the bright sources of light. Ghosting flare comes from bright areas actually in the image itself so hoods are useless against it.

Veiling Flare is when bright light from the side lights up the front element destroying contrast in the image. Veiling flare is caused by light striking the front element that is not included in the lens angle of view, and thus veiling flare can be reduced often by use of a lens hood. Hoods can be defeated though on most zoom lenses as the hood design is a compromise.

[number six]

There are two kinds of flare, which seems to be driving this semantic detour.

Ghosting Flare is what we see in the image from the OP. This is caused by light reflections inside the lens assembly which make ghosts of the bright sources of light. Ghosting flare comes from bright areas actually in the image itself so hoods are useless against it.

Veiling Flare is when bright light from the side lights up the front element destroying contrast in the image. Veiling flare is caused by light striking the front element that is not included in the lens angle of view, and thus veiling flare can be reduced often by use of a lens hood. Hoods can be defeated though on most zoom lenses as the hood design is a compromise.

Exactly. Veiling flare is indeed flare. My point is that "ghosting flare" is also flare. My objection was to the flat statement that it isn't.

Both are commonly called flare, but don't take my word for it: a quick google of "lens flare" brings up many articles. I didn't look at all of them, but the first three identify the above phenomenon as flare.

My point: this is common usage. That's all. If you don't agree with common usage, use words your own way - but you'd better expect to be misunderstood.

-js

[jruberto]

Thanks everyone for the info. I did take this with a "full frame lens" the 24-70, on a crop body 50D.

Here is another that I took from a different angle.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2627/3692137577_4157413daf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10048431@N02/3692137577/)

[JeffreyG]

Thanks everyone for the info. I did take this with a "full frame lens" the 24-70, on a crop body 50D.


Incidentally, this is why you see a ghost in the image even though you do not see the light source. The shot you took has the sun just out of the image on the 50D, but it would be in the frame on a 5D. So the 50D records the same ghost that the 5D would have taking this shot from this position at this focal length, though the 5D would also have the sun in the image.

1.6X cameras coupled with EF mount lenses should really be using a set of longer hoods, but there is no swap hood available for the 24-70 so far as I know.