How can I get rid of backlight haze

I just got my 24-105L back from Canon. Sent in for haze and flaring (it is from Dec. 2005, SN is after flaring problem fixed).

I got a chance for a few test shots. My main complaint was "dried milk" whenever the sun was anywheres near the front of the lens. They "tested and calibrated". No coating problem, however so far it seems much better and I don't think I can really complain.

Guess I better figure out how to clean this up PP.

Techniques?

Photo 1: Lower right. Hair is hazed out but otherwise tone seems OK.
Original here

EXIF

PP in PS, for starters some levels, curves, and shadow/highlight, sharpening adjustsments would probably give good results.

It is an additional handicap in critiquing or investigating such a problem to be missing the EXIF data. Allow me to suggest a procedure for posting images to guarantee the inclusion of EXIF data (details below).

Meanwhile, from the two shots that you posted above, it looks like the real curlprit here is that you are shooting into the sun. Generally speaking, that is asking for trouble. If, in addition, you are using ANY kind of filter in front of the lens, that will compound the problem greatly. Another factor would be the lack of a lens hood. Any time the sun ball is actually present in the image, even a lens hood provides almost no help and may even exacerbate the problem.

The best lighting for portraits is "open shade". Doing a search of my posts with the additional phrase "open shade" should garner some definitions and suggestions on that topic. However, the short version of it is that Open Shade is usually found on the north side of any building, and is the best way to get soft, diffuse portrait lighting.

The Microsoft Image Resizer
can be downloaded from here:
http://www.microsoft.c​om …owertoys/xppowe​rtoys.mspx

After downloading, install it. It will not show up in your Start->Programs list, but will become available when you right click on an image file.

After right clicking on the file, look for an item in the menu that pops up called "Resize Pictures".
Select "Resize Pictures" from the pop up menu and then select the "Medium" size, which will be limited to 800 x 600 pixels and will be of good quality.
The EXIF data that is embedded in your image file will be preserved (unless it has already been removed by some other processing).

Here are my suggestions for sizing images for posting in Critique Corner:
Size your image to not larger than 800 pixels in either direction (that's the guideline max.).
In Photoshop use Image->Image Size and enable Resampling (this will downsample your larger image to the new smaller size by throwing away some of the information, so save this smaller version under a different name from your original or you may lose your original).

Do not be confused by the dimensions in inches or the DPI value - those are irrelevant. The size of the image on a monitor depends only on the screen resolution of that monitor and the number of pixels in your image. For example, most monitors are set for screen resolution of 70 to 100 pixels per inch. That means that an 800 pixel image dimension will actually be from 8" to 11" on the monitor.

In order to stay under the 100kB limit on file size, use JPG compression quality low enough to get under 100kB by watching the file size change as you adjust the quality slider. It may be a little in error, so stay under 90 kB to be safe.

If the file size limit poses problems, you may want to host on another site and place a link to the image hosted elsewhere, but the 800 pixel maximum still applies.

A related issue is the EXIF data. In order to be sure that your EXIF data is available for the critique, do NOT use File->Save for Web. That process removes the EXIF data from the file. Following my suggestions above preserve the EXIF data in the file.

When you are in the Reply to Thread editor, press "Go Advanced" if necessary, so that you get the mode that includes an additional window below the text editing window called "Additional Options".
You should find on that window a button labeled "Manage Attachments". Press that button, and a "Manage Attachments" window opens that provides controls for browsing your hard drive to find the image file(s) to be uploaded and an "Upload" button. You will also see guidelines for file size limit guidelines for each image file format.
Once the file is uploaded successfully, you can close that window and press the "Submit Reply" button at the bottom of the Additional Options window.

Thank you Robert so much for your thoughtful response.

Appologies about EXIF. They were SmugMug links. The image still has the EXIF. I don't use attachments because 100K is too small, Smugmug automatically resizes to 800x600.

Anyway; I have added EXIF links to my original post.

Perhaps I should also say; the haze is Vastly improved since lens returned Friday. Here is a sample image from prior to repair:

NBEast wrote:
Thank you Robert so much for your thoughtful response.

Appologies about EXIF. They were SmugMug links. The image still has the EXIF. I don't use attachments because 100K is too small, Smugmug automatically resizes to 800x600.

Anyway; I have added EXIF links to my original post.

Perhaps I should also say; the haze is Vastly improved since lens returned Friday. Here is a sample image from prior to repair:

Original here EXIF here

So; I have several hundred images with haze this bad, or nearly this bad, that I would like to fix.

I got a chance to shoot about 200 images with the returned 24-105L in broad daylight yesterday and MAN, what a difference! No haze at all.

RE: my images in my first post above.
#1: The hazy sky was behind her, but the sun was occluded by 2 trees and a building. It was nowheres near. So I assume the sky was just too bright, anyway the haze is very very minor, and concentrated below her left ear where backlighting is brightest. The skin tone is actually pretty good.

It is certainly true that you do not need the sun ball inside the field of view in order to create forward scatter. All that is needed is a bright sky - that will do it too. Primarily, the mechanism is one of relative strengths. On a really clear day (deep blue heavens), the brightness level of the sky is so much greater than your scene detail that it dilutes the scene - just like the forward scatter on a dirty windshield.

Any filter that you use in front of your taking lens will contribute more haze (forward scatter) than will your taking lens by itself. The reason being that the anti-reflection coatings applied to quality lenses are far better than those applied to filters. In fact, most filters have no coatings at all - so they are great creators of forward scatter. A polarizer is no exception, and once the forward scatter occurs in front of a polarizer, the polarizer won't do any significant reduction of that haze either (forward scatter is not inherently polarized).

I am not sufficiently practiced in most of the PS tools to be able to do it - worst of all though is that the very nature of forward scatter probably makes it one of the most difficult artifacts to counteract.