Old 05-11-2007, 06:38 PM   #1
Dave Brook
Member
 
Dave Brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 69
Default Lens Flare...Any solutions?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=371394&key=0
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=842191460

This is a new rejection for me. Any solutions to fix?

Cheers,

Dave
Dave Brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 07:00 PM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Wow, I've never seen anything quite that bad! It's not really flare, I don't see any artifacts elsewhere in the images. Rather, it is a bleeding-over of the overexposed headlight areas into adjacent areas. Did you shoot RAW? Can you reduce the exposure in the shot, is there detail retained?

PS in the 9006 shot, it looks like you have some dust on your sensor; I see two specks in the sky above the bell on the lead unit (a Draper Taper?).
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 07:19 PM   #3
jfusaro
Senior Member
 
jfusaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boone County, Kentucky
Posts: 109
Default

this is a s.w.a.g. so i may be way out in left field, but....

when you made the original expose, were the train headlamps near the center of the image/viewfinder?

my (possibly flawed) thinking is that the head lamps tricked your exposure meter into seeing a much brighter scene than was actually visible. in doing so, the camera compensated for the bright scene and reduced exposure.

when you viewed your 'too dark' image on screen, you then adjusted lighting to bring the overall brightness back up to an acceptable level. this, unfortunatley blew out the head lamps.

i am basing this s.w.a.g. on the fact that, other than the head lamps, the rest of the images has an underexposed feel to it.

or, i could be totally wet...

just a thought for this friday afternoon.
__________________
best regards,

jeffrey fusaro

Last edited by jfusaro; 05-11-2007 at 07:24 PM.
jfusaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 09:58 PM   #4
Dave Brook
Member
 
Dave Brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 69
Default

This is among the first tries using a 500mm zoom lens. The bright light son a hazy day may have had some impact, but the exposure was set before the train arrived. Driving the raw exposure down doesn't seem to change much. I'm wondering if it's more of an effect of shooting at 500mm zoom and being so close to head on, this may be the result. Now I just need to find some trains to test the theory in different light.

Details will follow.
Dave Brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 10:57 PM   #5
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Do you have some sort of filter on that lens? Would a filter cause this effect?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 11:33 PM   #6
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brook
This is among the first tries using a 500mm zoom lens. The bright light son a hazy day may have had some impact, but the exposure was set before the train arrived. Driving the raw exposure down doesn't seem to change much. I'm wondering if it's more of an effect of shooting at 500mm zoom and being so close to head on, this may be the result. Now I just need to find some trains to test the theory in different light.

Details will follow.
You shouldn't be worried about this effect at only 500mm. I don't think your problem is focal length.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 11:41 PM   #7
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,898
Default

This isn't the first time you've had this problem from the shots in your RP portfolio --

Image © David L. Brook
PhotoID: 181623
Photograph © David L. Brook


Image © David L. Brook
PhotoID: 182448
Photograph © David L. Brook


Image © David L. Brook
PhotoID: 180426
Photograph © David L. Brook


I'm surprised those got accepted because the light problem is really noticeable. I'm not familiar with the camera listed in your EXIF for those shots. Is it a DSLR? Or a point and shoot? Also, why do you need 500 mm to shoot wedgies?

It's an odd thing that is happening. The pictures appear sharp and dead on in every other way, just those headlights.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2007, 11:50 PM   #8
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
I'm not familiar with the camera listed in your EXIF for those shots. Is it a DSLR? Or a point and shoot?
Looks like it's the Japanese version of the K-M Maxxum 5D. I guess K-M is like Canon in that overseas names are different than stateside names (Overseas 350D = Stateside Digital Rebel XT).
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2007, 03:30 PM   #9
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

I don't think this is lens flare and it's probably not filter related. Flare is the result of internal reflections in the lens and appears as different colored spots or streaks in other parts of the image. Filters usually cause a "ghost" image, where the light bounces off the front element, then off the filter and back into the camera in a different location.

Three guesses: 1.) Your sensor just can't handle the wide contrast range between the bright headlights and the rest of the image and the overloaded pixels bleed over into the rest of the image. 2.) If your 500 mm is a mirror lens, there is probably no way to stop it down and the full force of the headlights is overloading the sensor. 3.) It is a filter problem, causing an effect somewhat like a star filter.

The fact that you shoot pretty much nose on is contributing to getting the most intense portion of the headlight in your shot. A more 3/4 approach to shooting might help.

I'd also suggest shooting a series with no filter, shooting a series with an underexposure compensation set in the camera and finally , borrowing a friend's camera and trying a series with it to see if there are any differeneces.

Good luck, because that's really a major problem you have going there.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2007, 04:48 PM   #10
Mark Rosnick
Senior Member
 
Mark Rosnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shiremanstown, PA
Posts: 200
Default Lens flare

I agree with Michael. It reminds me of the effect you get with mirror lenses...that donut effect. If your lens is one of the 200-500mm mirror lenses that I've seen advertised in "Pop Photo", that could easily be the problem.
Mark Rosnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2007, 01:11 AM   #11
ddavies
Senior Member
 
ddavies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 381
Default

In general, try to avoid a head-on shots when the lighting lets low. I try to shoot on a curve to let the engine turn 20-30 degrees off my lens axis, to greatly reduce the light burn-out.
ddavies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.