What has caused this undesired light effect?

Astraeus

Astraeus

Messages
1,063
Name
Ciaran
Edit My Images
Yes
I am currently sorting through my many photos from the USA trip and I've noticed a worrying trend emerging across several of the photos taken at night in well-lit environments (cityscapes, the baseball).

What's caused this unwanted effect and how can I combat it? :shrug:

DSC_8802.jpg
 
It's flare. Reflections from light bouncing around in your lens.

Unfortunately it's always going to happen with bright lights in your shot, and will be particularly noticeable at night when the rest of the shot is dark.

To combat it, don't use a filter, and possibly buy a better lens (if the one you're using isn't 'good' already).. the coatings, etc on the glass will help slightly.
 
Dave Stone said:
Looks like lens flare to me.
Click to expand...

Jayst84 said:
It's flare. Reflections from light bouncing around in your lens.

Unfortunately it's always going to happen with bright lights in your shot, and will be particularly noticeable at night when the rest of the shot is dark.

To combat it, don't use a filter, and possibly buy a better lens (if the one you're using isn't 'good' already).. the coatings, etc on the glass will help slightly.
Click to expand...

Thank you both. It's a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 so it's definitely regarded as a "good" lens. No filter on it, clean lens and it's happened to hundreds of my photos, going so far as to spoil lots of the NYC cityscapes I've taken.

Thanks for the info! :bang:
 
Its hard to deal with lens flare when there is just one strong light source in the frame so dealign with it on them powerful lights coming from all directions is tough. A hood would have helped with the lights out side the frame causing any flare but unfortunately some UWA lenes cope with flare very badly.
 
I think it looks pretty good TBH, considering how extremely bright those lights are against the dark sky. Not sure I'd be complaining too much about that.

That particular lens has a good rep, but it is also f/2.8 and it's a fact that low f/numbers and the bigger glass surfaces invloved make flare control harder. I wonder how a good Nikon/Canon f/4-ish lens would compare? Better I think.

Take the two Canon L super-wide zooms, the 17-40L 4 and the much more expensive 16-35L 2.8. In IQ terms the biggest difference is that the 2.8 lens is much worse at flare control. Some comparison from Our Ken here http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm-performance.htm#flare
 
That photo looks absolutly perfect to me (untrained eye) if I can start to get them half that good Ill be pleased, nice one bud, we went to our first baseball game 2 years ago at the AT&T stadium in San Francisco, was told to go to the bleachers, I was like a kid, big foam finger hot dogs, nuts the lot LOL
 
Cheers for the input guys!

I'm yet to even begin "cleaning up" the photos from my trip (over 2000 of them) but I'm sure removing lens flare is as easy as cloning over the affected parts, right? Shall endeavour to do that on all the affected photos over the weekend all being well.

Lesco, I love the baseball! Saw the Red Sox at the Yankees (the new Yankee Stadium is a beaut!) and then the Yankees at Fenway Park on the Friday (but it was rained off after a 3 1/2 hour rain delay!) and the Saturday night in Boston. Red Sox won both times which is a major plus for me!

Like you, I loved the candy floss, nuts going round, hot dogs, fries and BIG Cokes. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top