Mysterious stuff NOT part of scene

[ajax]

This novice photographer is in need of help from somebody with more expertise. Here is a link to a photograph that contains some mysterious undesired addition to the scene being photographed. I'm thinking it should be pretty obvious what I'm referring to even though my lexicon is having a hard time coming up with words to describe what it is.

I'm guessing this might be easy for those with more subject matter knowledge than I have but I could really use some advice for how to avoid this.

[pnodrog]

It's called lens flare and is caused by taking photographs towards bright light. Better lenses are designed and have coatings to reduce the effect. A lens hood or keeping the lens in shade will help as will taking the photo from a different angle.

[Manfred M]

I've added the image to your posting so it's easier for everyone to see without going to your link.

This is lens flare, with the sunlight hitting the internal elements of you lens and bouncing around there. The hexagonal shapes are reflections of the iris in your lens.

If you point your camera in a direction where the sunlight does not hit the front of your lens, this problem will go away. If you are not using a lens hood, this could be a contributing factor. Flare also lowers contrast and washes out the image.

I've cleaned up a couple of the issues, but not the hexagonal shapes to show you the other impact of lens flare.

[Donald]

And as we can see from the shadows being cast by the bird nearest us, you were shooting almost directly into the sun.

[William W]

Additionally -

The EXIF indicates the shot was pulled 1/30th @ F/29 @ ISO400 using an EOS T6 and a lens @ FL = 55mm.

I didn't interrogate the data further, but, my guess is that you were using the EF 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 "Kit Lens".

If this is the case, then note that even if you have it, the Lens Hood for that particular Lens is quite inefficient to address Lens Flare: this is because the Lens Hood's protection has to be shallow enough (the Petals are not very long) to protect the lens when it is used at FL = 18mm, hence offering little protection at the longer Focal Lengths.

The effects of Lens Flare may be made worse by using Filters on the Lens - though I doubt in this case, because, as noted, you were shooting almost directly into the Sun, a Filter could have made 'very bad' much worse.

Note that Lens Flare can be intentionally used as an artistic component.

***

In addition to you question about the Lens Flare: EXIF indicates that the Camera was in Aperture Priority Mode (Av Mode) with "0" Exposure Bias.

In Av Mode, the Camera's TTL Meter (Through The Lens Light Meter) controls the SHUTTER SPEED. You, having set an exceptionally small aperture (F/29) the Camera selected a very slow Shutter Speed (1/30th). At this Shutter Speed you will have difficulty addressing Subject Motion Blur. i.e. any Moving Elements in your image may exhibit blur due to their motion, for example the animals or the trees' leaves in the wind.

If you choose to use Av Mode, you must monitor and be aware of the Shutter Speed the Camera will select, it is up to you to determine if that automatic selection is appropriate for the shot.

WW

[MrB]

David, when you next have those sunlight conditions you might try experimenting with this:
While using live view or the viewfinder to frame a scene in a similar direction, if you are able to hold the camera with just your right hand, you can use your left hand close to and just above the end of the lens to cast a shadow on the lens, and you will see that the flare effects will disappear from the view. If you are careful to avoid your left hand appearing in the frame, you can then take the shot without the flare.

Philip

[ajax]

Very nice. It's great to have all this helpful feedback.

Lens flare is certainly a term previously missing from my vocabulary. Insofar as the information in these posts is so thorough, I'm not sure how useful my elaboration might be but thought it could be helpful to some readers.

First, as a beginner my equipment is definitely favoring inexpensive purchase price. As it turns out I acquired a bundle which has both the lens mentioned by William as well as the 75-300mm zoom lens and I took some shots of the same scene using it. An example can be found here which I am attempting to include in the post but not completely confident that it will follow:



If there is any lens flare in this one I certainly don't notice the same kind of artifacts. I do have a lens hood for both lens but have wondered how much affect the one on the wide angle lens could be having given the shallowness of the petal/s. I also have UV filters on both lens. My primary motive for that is lens protection (i.e., easier to replace scratched filters than scratched lens). Is that something real photographers might do?

With respect to the light these shots were taken fairly early in the morning when the light is not as bright as it could be. However the sun is lower on the horizon. My thinking is that these shots were NOT taken while directly facing the sun but rather at an angle that is closer to perpendicular to the direction of the light. I'm now also thinking that lens flare could be a problem that might be more profound when the sun is lower on the horizon as it was in this case. Any thoughts about that? Does it make any sense to have multiple lens hoods for a given zoom lens where you can only use one with more protection when zoomed out to a narrower field of vision? It looks to me like the one I'm using on the long lens works fine (i.e., cannot be seen in a composition) until the lens is zoomed out to very near the widest point.

When it comes to camera settings I've now added a second body to my bundle which is partly just to avoid needing to change lens when out in the field but it also has the affect of keeping the camera set according to the lens. I've been using shutter priority on the longer lens which I typically use for bird scenes where there is apt to be some movement of the subject and less need for depth of field. On the other hand, the wider lens is mostly used for landscape/seascapes where I am wanting good depth of field with the idea that longer exposures are acceptable. Does this make sense?

The subject photo, with the lens flare, is a case of wanting to catch the whole flock of Ibis, using the camera with the wider lens, and it now looks like I'm guilty of hastily taking the shot without making appropriate changes to the camera settings.

Finally, are you supposed to see lens flare when composing the picture? I almost always look through the lens. If it was there, in this case, it certainly was not as evident as when I started culling my shots.

[davidedric]

Very nice. It's great to have all this helpful feedback.

Lens flare is certainly a term previously missing from my vocabulary. Insofar as the information in these posts is so thorough, I'm not sure how useful my elaboration might be but thought it could be helpful to some readers.

First, as a beginner my equipment is definitely favoring inexpensive purchase price. As it turns out I acquired a bundle which has both the lens mentioned by William as well as the 75-300mm zoom lens and I took some shots of the same scene using it. An example can be found here which I am attempting to include in the post but not completely confident that it will follow:



If there is any lens flare in this one I certainly don't notice the same kind of artifacts. I do have a lens hood for both lens but have wondered how much affect the one on the wide angle lens could be having given the shallowness of the petal/s. I also have UV filters on both lens. My primary motive for that is lens protection (i.e., easier to replace scratched filters than scratched lens). Is that something real photographers might do?

Whether or not to use filters generally starts a debate. However, there is no doubt that poor quality filters will degrade your image. Personally, I don't. The lens hood provides good protection, the front element of your lens is very tough, and minor scratches on the front element have very little impact on image quality.

With respect to the light these shots were taken fairly early in the morning when the light is not as bright as it could be. However the sun is lower on the horizon. My thinking is that these shots were NOT taken while directly facing the sun but rather at an angle that is closer to perpendicular to the direction of the light. I'm now also thinking that lens flare could be a problem that might be more profound when the sun is lower on the horizon as it was in this case. Any thoughts about that? Does it make any sense to have multiple lens hoods for a given zoom lens where you can only use one with more protection when zoomed out to a narrower field of vision? It looks to me like the one I'm using on the long lens works fine (i.e., cannot be seen in a composition) until the lens is zoomed out to very near the widest point.

Yes, you are more likely to get the sun shining directly on there lenses with a low sun, but that's often the best light! Just being aware, and shading with your hand if needs be is the way to go. I've never heard of having multiple hoods. Possible I suppose, but that really would be a pain in the field.

When it comes to camera settings I've now added a second body to my bundle which is partly just to avoid needing to change lens when out in the field but it also has the affect of keeping the camera set according to the lens. I've been using shutter priority on the longer lens which I typically use for bird scenes where there is apt to be some movement of the subject and less need for depth of field. On the other hand, the wider lens is mostly used for landscape/seascapes where I am wanting good depth of field with the idea that longer exposures are acceptable. Does this make sense?

The subject photo, with the lens flare, is a case of wanting to catch the whole flock of Ibis, using the camera with the wider lens, and it now looks like I'm guilty of hastily taking the shot without making appropriate changes to the camera settings.

Finally, are you supposed to see lens flare when composing the picture? I almost always look through the lens. If it was there, in this case, it certainly was not as evident as when I started culling my shots.

[William W]

. . . Insofar as the information in these posts is so thorough, I'm not sure how useful my elaboration might be but thought it could be helpful to some readers. . .

Very helpful to me, so many people ask for assistance and never reply. Replying in detail can have two useful results: firstly the reply might contain confirmation that the advice has been understood (as your does) and secondly it may forward the conversation into new areas (which yours does).

***

A few other comments:

You cited a second image and mentioned that there are not the same artefacts as in the first sample image: I assume that you are referring to the hexagonal shaped light bursts. These light bursts are typical of a ‘severe’ Lens Flare. “severe” does not mean “bad”, just means that the light source is close to hitting the lens ‘front on’ (as you mentioned, for example, when the sun is closer to the horizon).

The second image that you provided does have some Lens Flare present. Usually this type of Lens Flare can be remedied in Post Production. If you want to be technically correct, the second Image presents with a type of Lens Flare referred to as “Veiling Flare”. As with all Lens Flare, this is caused by light bouncing around inside the Lens and the main presentation is a lack of mid tone contrast. The large area of bright light causing the majority of Veiling Flare in your image is the large area of bright reflection from the Sun, off the Water.

Arguably this could have been corrected by using a Polarizing Filter, but using that filter could have other consequences to your final image and I am not suggesting that you run out and buy Polarizing Filter(s). As I mentioned, an image that presents with minor to moderate Veiling Flare can be corrected. I tend to use Photoshop, making several, individual and compounding SMALL adjustments under the “Shadow Highlights” menu.

Another special category of Lens Flare is a Lens Star Burst, usually created on a dark palette by bright object light(s) in the scene and this is easily done in a night time scene.

The number of Aperture Blades a Lens has is relevant to the number of bursts in the ‘star’ (there’s some more homework) and that’s why for some of my lenses I have considered this number as an important consideration when purchasing a new lens; this was especially so when “Star Bursts” were a fad for Wedding Portraits shot at night time: of course one could always have bought those silly “Star Burst Filters”, but that’s not 'proper photography'.

Nowadays (digital era) we have ‘Post Production’ and that can be a cure-all, or perhaps a crutch… that’s another conversation and I don’t want to appear on a soap box, because I am not, rather simply making a few observations and sharing a few experiences. Here’s an example of Star Burst Lens Flare made with an EOS 5D and EF 50 F/1.4:


“Laying Pipes”

Regarding the use of UV Filters. That can begin a debate. My view is that I generally keep a UV Filter on my lenses and I take them off when necessary. I concur that poor UV filters can interfere with Image Quality, but those are nearly always identified by (low) price. I use “Hoya Pro”. Additionally any Hoya Pro UV Filter can in some circumstances exacerbate Lens Flare.

The main reason why I have UV Filters on my lenses is because I used to shoot so often inside, in crowded areas and outside near sand (beaches etc). Inside in crowds can get food drink and little fingers onto the front element and I’d rather wipe a UV filter with my handkerchief or table napkin, than wipe the front element of my lens. I also concur that a small scratch (even a relatively large scratch) on the front of the lens does not necessarily affect IQ – but a scratch on the Front element of a Lens does look horrible.

Additionally, for Canon EF Series lenses (and I think some other lens manufacturers), the warranty concerning "Weather Sealing" (or similar wording) is conditional upon the front of the lens being sealed with an appropriate filter. And I do tend to dot and cross those legal items, especially for big ticket items.

Your idea about multiple lens hoods for a zoom lens is fantastic, and not just because I have thought of that too: but doing that is a real pain in the butt. Imagine having all the efficiencies of a Zoom Lens and then having to stop between shots to change the Lens Hood every time you change the Focal Length. Photography will eventually send me nuts anyway and I have no desire to take any short cuts.

The suggestion of using your left hand to shade the lens is valid – do that, or find a tree branch or natural shade to stand under, to protect the lens from direct rays if you can do that.

However, if you happen to be a collector of odd facts, I have in my travels found one (only one) Zoom Lens whereby the Main Barrel zooms OUTWARD through the Lens Hood to the Wide Angle Focal Length and zooms INWARD through the Lens Hood to the Telephoto Zoom Lengths. It is the Canon EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM (N.B not the MkII version).

The idea of setting Aperture Priority for the Wide Lens and Shutter Priority for the Telephoto Lens has merit. You don’t need to use F/29. In most cases F/8~F/11 will do fine. Tomorrow research “Diffraction at small apertures”. In any case, whatever Camera Mode you choose (Av Tv M P etc) the important message I send is that you (The Photographer) are responsible for the final choices of Aperture Shutter Speed and ISO.

Finally – when you were looking through the Viewfinder, the Lens Flare Hexagons of light would have been in there – it’s likely you never noticed them because you were busy concentrating on a thousand other elements.

It occurs to me that you are having great fun with your cameras: I hope that continues for all your life.

WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2018 WMW 1965~1996

[AlwaysOnAuto]

^^^^Great reply Bill.

[William W]

(Off Topic) ^^^^ Ta. It felt like I was on a roll. I am happy with it and it was good fun writing it. I appreciate your comment. I've edited it three/four times. Pity that I can neither spell nor construct proper sentences when I reply in the early hours due to insomnia, sans caffeine.

[pnodrog]

(Off Topic) ^^^^ Ta. It felt like I was on a roll. I am happy with it and it was good fun writing it. I appreciate your comment. I've edited it three/four times. Pity that I can neither spell nor construct proper sentences when I reply in the early hours due to insomnia, sans caffeine.

But you have sufficient knowledge, experience and obviously heaps of perseverance that enables you to be so helpful...

[William W]

Ta. Very kind, Paul.

[ajax]

But you have sufficient knowledge, experience and obviously heaps of perseverance that enables you to be so helpful...

I second the motion!!!