If it isn't Flare, what is it?

[xpatUSA]

An odd question, one might think!

I usually pack Sigma cameras and lenses but, on a whim, this week I took a Panasonic Lumix GH1 with a 14-45mm Vario kit lens.

Imagine my disappointment with this and similar shots:



Could it be flare?, I thought. After reading this I decided, perhaps naively, that it was veiling flare and asked elsewhere if the 14-45mm is considered bad in that respect. Most responders there saw no flare, mostly blaming over-exposure and one gentlemen suggesting grease on the back lens element and telling me to "Clean it"! (his bold).

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59441201

Another shot showed similar effects, here's a crop with problem areas arrowed:



Does this forum also see no flare and, if so, what happened to my shots?

Any help greatly appreciated.

P.S. The skies were indeed over-exposed in each shot, according to RawDigger's raw histograms.

[Shadowman]

Ted,

Looks like CA with a blast of overexposure.

[dem]

Not sure about the flare. I cannot see any shadows, so even if you were shooting into the sun, it was probably behind the clouds and should not have caused much flare. It looks like exposure problem - the sky was too bright, the photosites got overfilled and "spilled" some of the signal around them. I don't know if it is the sensor technology, pixel density or signal processing but older cameras with high pixel density don't seem to handle overexposure well.

[xpatUSA]

Based on replies so far, went out and shot some less exposed with mostly trees against the sky and did indeed get better rendering of branches and twigs. However, the never-ending compromise showed it's ugly head in that, of course, the rest of the scenes were pretty dark - but that's just "Exposure 101"; plus the camera's DR is not great, unfortunately.

Thanks for responses so far.

[Bear123]

Looks like overexposure to me. In the first shot I would have set exposure for the sky and in post processing could bring out the the rest.

[xpatUSA]

Looks like overexposure to me. In the first shot I would have set exposure for the sky and in post processing could bring out the the rest.

After yesterday's shots I must agree.

I'm not used to that camera for outside work and didn't have the Sekonic to help either. Ho hum, excuses, excuses . . .

[Ken MT]

Just had a quick play on my tablet with a photo viewer. Reduced the brightness, highlights, and contrast, and increased shadows. Looks like that it was an over exposure problem.

[William W]

An odd question, one might think! I usually pack Sigma cameras and lenses but, on a whim, this week I took a Panasonic Lumix GH1 with a 14-45mm Vario kit lens. Imagine my disappointment with this and similar shots:



Could it be flare?, I thought.

Does this forum also see no flare and, if so, what happened to my shots?

Any help greatly appreciated.

P.S. The skies were indeed over-exposed in each shot, according to RawDigger's raw histograms.

Irrespective of other attributes, yes the image does suffer from FLARE.

Specifically, the image presents with VEILING FLARE.

Veiling Flare typically will render the image with a low(er) contrast especially the MID TONE CONTRAST.

In a more sever presentation the image will appear to have a translucent milky coating.

Veiling Flare is typically more likely to present:
> with Zoom lenses rather than Prime lenses
> at Large Aperture rather than small Apertures
> with Wide lenses rather than Telephoto lenses
> with Filters on rather than Filters off
> with lens Hoods off rather than lens Hoods on

For the technically minded – Veiling Flare is caused by a strong light source (not necessarily a point source and usually more typically a broad source) getting into the lens and bouncing around between the elements and generally stuffing up the image with indiscriminate areas of lighter areas and thus generally stuffing up the “pop” and “contrast” and “acutance” one normally would expect.

Multicoated Lenses really assist to minimize Veiling Flare. Maybe that’s why Veiling Flare doesn’t seem to get much mention and even less discussion these days – but it can be a picture killer: your first image is a textbook example - shooting a wide scene of a shadowed area, into diffused lighted cloud cover, with a zoom lens.

Veiling Flare gets a small mention here, but perhaps not a detailed mention:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...lens-flare.htm

(Which is where I think you first looked for assistance)

WW

. . . There are other considerations when thinking about Veiling Flare – for example all Extension Tubes and Bellows are not created equal -as we must consider the quality of the light baffles contained within them.

[William W]

Hi again, Ted,

Had some time after dinner to have a read through the other thread (and reply to it).

Another comment, the LENS HOOD would NOT have provided much of any solution / prevention especially in the image sample you provided here (shot at FL = 45mm), but maybe a bit of assistance for the other image sample on the other thread (shot at FL = 23mm).

The two salient points being that:

> Veiling Flare is most usually / often caused by a Light Source contained within the Image Platter (i.e the Lens's FoV);

> Lens Hoods for Zoom Lenses used to address most Flare Situations, are basically worth five eighths of four fifths of bugger all, for any Focal Length that is much longer than the Wide End of the lens, (except the most unusual and possibly unique Canon EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM).

WW

[xpatUSA]

Hi again, Ted,

Had some time after dinner to have a read through the other thread (and reply to it).

Another comment, the LENS HOOD would NOT have provided much of any solution / prevention especially in the image sample you provided here (shot at FL = 45mm), but maybe a bit of assistance for the other image sample on the other thread (shot at FL = 23mm).

The two salient points being that:

> Veiling Flare is most usually / often caused by a Light Source contained within the Image Platter (i.e the Lens's FoV);

> Lens Hoods for Zoom Lenses used to address most Flare Situations, are basically worth five eighths of four fifths of bugger all, for any Focal Length that is much longer than the Wide End of the lens, (except the most unusual and possibly unique Canon EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM).

WW

Thanks Bill for this and the previous. I had suspected Veiling Flare but was not sure enough and got overwhelmed by the "it's not flare" folks. Also, I should been more specific because I can understand that some people think of flare as just being horrible streaks, aperture artifacts or suchlike and hence "did not see flare", especially over on DPR. In that thread, I awarded the coveted "the answer" flag to the gentleman whose 14-45mm "never does that" and who suggested that I had "grease" on the back element.

So it may yet be that the lens is indeed worse than others in respect of veiling flare; in that regard, I remember a Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens that made me wonder long ago why there was fog at noon in a Texas summer.

I'm still waiting for the right weather to compare the Panasonic with my Sigma lenses/cameras.

Thanks again.

[William W]

. . . So it may yet be that the lens is indeed worse than others in respect of veiling flare; in that regard, I remember a Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens that made me wonder long ago why there was fog at noon in a Texas summer..

Yes. That's it. Can be caused by light reflected from large light-coloured rock masses; or a sand mass etc .

It doesn't necessarily need to be an overcast light-coloured cloud mass. It is just that a light-coloured cloud mass that is Back-Lit (i.e. the clouds act as a "shoot-through" lighting diffuser, into the lens) or a light-coloured cloud mass that is front lit (i.e. Clouds acting as a big Reflector/Diffuser into the lens) are typical scenarios.

***

I'm still waiting for the right weather to compare the Panasonic with my Sigma lenses/cameras. . .

Please let me know.

WW