Would a lenshood have prevented this lens flare?

[Kris V]

This looked pretty OK in the camera preview, but when I opened it in LR, I saw this ugly green lens flare.
Lens hood? Or is there a way to prevent this without one?
I used a tripod. Exposure time was 10 seconds, ISO 400 f5/6, 18 mm Nikkor.
I'm planning to retry this - any suggestions for settings?

[Donald]

Kris

I don't think a lens hood is the answer, because the light source causing the flare is right in your line of sight. A hood is fine for blocking stray light coming in from the side, but it's not going to help in this situation.

I don't know the physics involved that explains why you're getting that effect, but I see that the light source is at an angle to you. Do you have any control over it? Could you turn it round so that it is facing you, teh same as that one on the left as we look at it?

The alternative is that, hopefully, someone on here will have experienced something similar and be able to suggest what settings you might go with. I wondered (and it only speculation on my part) what the effect of stopping things down and going for a much longer exposure would be. I see you were at ISO400 and f5.6. What if you were to slow that down - even just on the aperture. Take it down to f11 or f16 and compensate with a correspondingly longer (40 second or 80 second) shutter (do you have a cable release?).

[Kris V]

Kris

I don't think a lens hood is the answer, because the light source causing the flare is right in your line of sight. A hood is fine for blocking stray light coming in from the side, but it's not going to help in this situation.

I don't know the physics involved that explains why you're getting that effect, but I see that the light source is at an angle to you. Do you have any control over it? Could you turn it round so that it is facing you, teh same as that one on the left as we look at it?

The alternative is that, hopefully, someone on here will have experienced something similar and be able to suggest what settings you might go with. I wondered (and it only speculation on my part) what the effect of stopping things down and going for a much longer exposure would be. I see you were at ISO400 and f5.6. What if you were to slow that down - even just on the aperture. Take it down to f11 or f16 and compensate with a correspondingly longer (40 second or 80 second) shutter (do you have a cable release?).

Thanks Donald.
Yes, I do have a cable release, and the bright light on the left can be moved to face upward or sideways.
Hm. smaller aperture - longer exposure time: I'll give that a shot. Maybe increasing the exposure compensation? I believe it was left on 0.
A few weeks ago I took a few shots from a different location with a 30 second exposure time, and they were way too bright - the almost looked like they were taken in daylight.
I'm after a little spooky effect - I need a picture to announce the upcoming Halloween party for posting on our website.
Well, there's always PhotoShop of course

[Donald]

A few weeks ago I took a few shots from a different location with a 30 second exposure time, and they were way too bright - the almost looked like they were taken in daylight.

Kris

What you've got to remember is that if you move one one way and one the other, you end up in the same place.

You shot at 10 seconds, f5/6

So - if you double the shutter speed (20seconds) and half the aperture (f8) you get the same exposure as you have in this image.

Double and half again and you get 40 seconds @ f11.

And again - 80 seconds @ f16.

Each of these should give you just what you've got above. But I'm thinking (hoping) that this will have a different effect on that light giving off the flare. You shouldn't need to dial in any EC.

[FrankMi]

Hi Kris, sometimes lens flair can be accentuated by filters in front of the lens. If you are using a filter, compare the results with the filter removed to see if it makes any difference.

[Kris V]

Kris

What you've got to remember is that if you move one one way and one the other, you end up in the same place.

You shot at 10 seconds, f5/6

So - if you double the shutter speed (20seconds) and half the aperture (f8) you get the same exposure as you have in this image.

Double and half again and you get 40 seconds @ f11.

And again - 80 seconds @ f16.

Each of these should give you just what you've got above. But I'm thinking (hoping) that this will have a different effect on that light giving off the flare. You shouldn't need to dial in any EC.

Gonna try this again over the weekend. If I can get something decent, I will post a follow-up.

[Kris V]

Hi Kris, sometimes lens flair can be accentuated by filters in front of the lens. If you are using a filter, compare the results with the filter removed to see if it makes any difference.

Frank, I don't use filters on the Nikon. (Don't have any that are the right size)
That's what made me wonder. Anyway, I'm gonna try again this weekend.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Kristianna-Marie,

Short answer is "no".

What you have there is ghosting - it happens in high-contrast scenes like this, and it's caused by light reflecting off the sensor surface - travelling back up through the lens - hitting one of the elements - and being reflected back onto the sensor again. It's easy to identify this phenominan (sp?) as it's always equal but opposite in it's placement from the centre of the lens.

We also talked about it here if this is of any interest to you.

[Kris V]

Hi Kristianna-Marie,

Short answer is "no".

What you have there is ghosting - it happens in high-contrast scenes like this, and it's caused by light reflecting off the sensor surface - travelling back up through the lens - hitting one of the elements - and being reflected back onto the sensor again. It's easy to identify this phenominan (sp?) as it's always equal but opposite in it's placement from the centre of the lens.

We also talked about it here if this is of any interest to you.

Thanks, Colin.
I read through the link you posted, and I think I understand what happened.
The bright light on the left can be moved up, down, and sideways. If I move it up so it won't hit the sensor directly, will this eliminate the 'ghost'?
Anyway, I'll give it another shot this weekend. (With all these recommendations printed out and in my back pocket!)

[krispix]

Hi Kristianna-Marie,

Short answer is "no".

What you have there is ghosting - it happens in high-contrast scenes like this, and it's caused by light reflecting off the sensor surface - travelling back up through the lens - hitting one of the elements - and being reflected back onto the sensor again. It's easy to identify this phenominan (sp?) as it's always equal but opposite in it's placement from the centre of the lens.

We also talked about it here if this is of any interest to you.

Not sure I 100% agree with Colin on this. Light reflecting off the surface of the sensor (if it happened) would not create this effect. It's purely internal reflections off the faces of the lens elements. Playing with the aperture will only have the effect of changing the size (and perhaps the shape) of the flare. In extreme cases it can cause a double reflection, giving you two flares instead of one. Lens elements are coated to reduce this effect but they can only go so far.

You could bang the direct light source straight down the centre which would solve this problem, but that could create an even worse one. The only real answer answer is to get rid of the point light source.

[Colin Southern]

Further reading on the subject ...

http://ishootshows.com/2011/07/13/un...lare-ghosting/

[Kris V]

Not sure I 100% agree with Colin on this. Light reflecting off the surface of the sensor (if it happened) would not create this effect. It's purely internal reflections off the faces of the lens elements. Playing with the aperture will only have the effect of changing the size (and perhaps the shape) of the flare. In extreme cases it can cause a double reflection, giving you two flares instead of one. Lens elements are coated to reduce this effect but they can only go so far.

You could bang the direct light source straight down the centre which would solve this problem, but that could create an even worse one. The only real answer answer is to get rid of the point light source.

Thanks! This particular light can be moved any which way (or turned off), so I will definitely try again this evening.

[Kris V]

Further reading on the subject ...

http://ishootshows.com/2011/07/13/un...lare-ghosting/

Thanks Colin - very interesting reading.

[Steaphany]

I like the effect that the light brings to back lighting the scene.

One option you may consider is simply cloning out the flare since you lucked out and it is in a fairly dark and featureless part of the scene.

[Kris V]

I like the effect that the light brings to back lighting the scene.

One option you may consider is simply cloning out the flare since you lucked out and it is in a fairly dark and featureless part of the scene.

Cloning didn't work as well as I hoped. I'll try retaking the picture tonite. This photo will probably end up in my "to be discarded" folder.
Strangely enough - I can't bring myself to actually delete them. I just don't back them up.

[Colin Southern]

I can't bring myself to actually delete them. I just don't back them up.

Same thing isn't it?