Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
Thread started 14 Jun 2016 (Tuesday) 10:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

What's going on in the background

 
vasher
Senior Member
Avatar
325 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1626
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Seattle
     
Jun 14, 2016 10:15 |  #1

I've noticed that, at the far end of telephotos, sometimes the OOF sections are rendered as diagonal lines or crosshatches. I believe they are (possibly) different than harshly blurred vegetation. Example above the pika's head:

IMAGE: https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7427/27530302182_05110d7958_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HWKZ​Gs  (external link) Denali trip-408 (external link) by vashnic (external link), on Flickr

Just wondering what causes this. :-)

Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Jun 14, 2016 11:02 |  #2

Looks like some manner of signal artifact. It can be difficult to sort out where it is coming from, but it is frequently amplified by accident during post processing. Things like sharpening algorithms can latch onto some fairly subtle patterned noise and run off with it if you're not careful with where it is being applied to.

Where do you find you first notice the patterns being visible? What is your work flow?


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,407 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3429
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 14, 2016 11:07 |  #3

do you have a filter on the lens?


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vasher
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
325 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1626
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Seattle
     
Jun 14, 2016 11:29 |  #4

I had a Tiffen UV filter on for some but not all of the photos I noticed the diagonals on. Everything is processed in LR then exported for viewing. I don't add much global sharpening, usually a local brush over the subject. I did use heavier noise reduction for higher ISO stuff, maybe that is the problem? This was a rented lens for the trip so I didn't have much time to play with it/notice issues.

Another example (the bushes behind the legs):

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7797/27048646264_383ae5bf82_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Hdco​b5  (external link) untitled-923 (external link) by vashnic (external link), on Flickr

Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,407 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3429
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jun 14, 2016 11:31 |  #5

i'm not sure about the MKII 100-400L, but the original didn't play well with filters, and could cause issues like that


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Jun 14, 2016 11:32 |  #6

Try going back to Lightroom and reset all your adjustments? Are you still seeing a clear patter in those locations? Better, worse?

Also were these images done from .cr2 files, or in camera produced jpgs?


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jun 14, 2016 12:37 |  #7

One thought that crosses my mind is that if you are significantly enlarging a shot some portions of the image may show pixel "patterns". This can happen, for instance, if you blow up a head shop and zoom in on strands of hair -- the way that portion is "composed" can tend to show diagonal "jaggies". The same thing could happen with in this example background detail that reflects the pixel "jaggies"...?

That being said, I'm not a graphical/image "scientist" and so this could just be babble!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stregone
Member
233 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 269
Joined Apr 2008
Location: VA, USA
Post edited over 7 years ago by Stregone.
     
Jun 14, 2016 17:39 |  #8

It looks like the effect you get when shooting through chainlink fence. Even though the fence is completely OOF and invisible the pattern still shows up in the bokeh. http://jrlsphotos.smug​mug.com …iranda-postings/i-MzGR4Jn (external link) Found this example on google image search. Double check you have no scratches or marks on your lens or filter.


flickr (external link)
500px (external link)
[Youpic] (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jun 14, 2016 19:00 |  #9

I'd say it's the filter. I've read about a similar problem where the photographer tested with additional filters from different manufacturers. Some exhibited the problem, but to a much lesser extent. Perhaps the combination of the filter and long focal length are the cause?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vasher
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
325 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1626
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Seattle
     
Jun 14, 2016 19:38 |  #10

Filter was definitely on for the pika and then removed before the sheep shots. It only shows up in some of the photos. Here is legs closeup (SOOC except to crop and convert to JPEG,). The lens is on its way back to Borrowlenses or I'd do some more testing. :cry: As it is, I don't mind the lines but was curious about what they were.

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2016/06/2/LQ_798664.jpg
Image hosted by forum (798664) © vasher [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jun 14, 2016 19:44 |  #11

Then it must be a lens aberration. Or maybe a defect with the lens. In any case, I love the goat photo!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1136
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jun 14, 2016 22:48 |  #12

Yea, this is weird, never seen anything like it before. You do see something like that sometimes with vegetation, especially with lenses that are not 'super-bokeh-machines', but as you say, this does not look like that.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,668 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 761
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
Jun 15, 2016 18:52 |  #13

Are you seeing the same patterns when viewing your RAW files?


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,118 posts
Gallery: 556 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1681
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Jun 17, 2016 10:31 |  #14

I would go with either a fence or some sort of vegitation that is very close to you. Although you won't see it, stuff like that can really screw you up. If it were vegitation you probably didn't even notice you were shooting through it.

There was a similar post that turned out to be a chain link fence in a recent thread on POTN, they were Badeball shots. Another member posted some example shots, and in some there were some water droplets in the image which actually managed to form a sharp image of the fence within the droplet. So this sort of stuff can really have some odd effects. Long telephoto lenses, with the amount of bluring possible for items near MFD/Infinity when the lens is focused near the other extream are very susecptable to these wierd effects.

Alan


alanevans.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"That's what I do."
Avatar
17,611 posts
Gallery: 213 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8358
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, USA, now in Washington state, USA, road trip back and forth a lot
     
Jun 17, 2016 18:42 |  #15

Can you see this problem when viewing the images on the camera's LED display? Looking for it there would at least eliminate (or confirm) the possibility that it is something that is caused during the downloading/processing stage.

By the way, there are no places that Pika live in close proximity to chain link fences, at least nowhere that I have ever heard of. So any suggestions that it is actually caused by a fence are really not plausible.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

6,948 views & 0 likes for this thread, 11 members have posted to it and it is followed by 7 members.
What's going on in the background
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is zachary24
718 guests, 131 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.