I have tried all I can think of, tripod, high ISO/low ISO, fast shutter/slow shutter, f1.8 to f8 and I cannot seem to get a pic without the unwanted light specks floating around....What am I doing wrong?
what is causing them? do you think it's a reflection of the bulbs on your lens? did you try shooting from a different perspective to see if they're still in the same place?
@guaranteed Thanks for responding...I did move around a bit to see if it was the lights or something on my lens ( I cleaned it) or inside my camera but they arent the same flecks when I move, but there are still some
@superbeyotch Have you got a UV filter or other filter on the front of your lens?
Based on the photo and your description of them moving around, the spots are almost certainly internal reflections from the bright point light sources within the lens, which are most commonly caused by using a UV filter with insufficient anti-reflective coatings (although in these kind of conditions, it's hard to find a filter that is sufficiently anti-reflective).
@abirkill Thank you so much! That was it! I took the filter off and flecks were gone. Thank you again, it would have taken me forever to think of that!!
@superbeyotch No problem, it's only easy when you know what's wrong!
The reflections were characteristic of that problem -- in your first photo you can almost see that if you rotate the 'ghost' flecks around 180 degrees, they line up with the real bulbs.
A lot of photographers, myself included, dislike using UV filters for this reason, using lens hoods instead. UV filters don't improve photos (digital cameras already have UV filtration built in) and occasionally can degrade photos, as in cases like this. In this situation it was easy for you to retake the shot, but it's a whole lot more annoying when you've missed an opportunity that you can't get back!
Hoods never degrade the image, and provide similar levels of protection to accidental damage (although not identical -- some types of damage would be survived with a filter and not with a hood, and vice versa). They're also a heck of a lot cheaper than a decent filter!
Glad I could help out, and thanks to @grizzlysghost for highlighting the post for me :)
Yes, Thank you @grizzlysghost for helping out! @abirkill Alex, I see your point and I guess I just automatically listened to the camera guy when I first bought my dslr tell me I needed a uv filter to protect the lens. Now that I now this, I dont like how it can affect a photo. I use a lens hood the majority of the time and maybe I will just stick with that.
I really appreciate the help though, That was not anywhere near on my mind of what could have been wrong...I immediately though inside, big money problems! ha ha
@superbeyotch this is really sweet :). I wld have loved to take a photo like this w my kids when they were younger... Doubt they wld stand for that now st their age
@northy UV filters were intended for film, which could be sensitive to UV and would show up as haze on the developed image. Therefore it was common, especially when doing landscape photography on sunny days, to fit a UV filter to the lens to cut down on the haze.
As film improved, the benefits of a UV filter became less pronounced, and yet neither dealers nor filter manufacturers wanted to kill the goose the laid the golden egg! Thus, UV filters started to be recommended to protect your lens from incidental damage, the idea being that a UV filter was cheaper to replace if it was scratched or smashed than the front element of the lens would be.
This is a perfectly valid argument -- a UV filter will do a good job of protecting the lens from some sorts of damage (although the filter will typically need to be replaced, of course). However, this meant that UV filters went from being something that a photographer would fit only when the scene required it, to something that was on the lens permanently.
This results in the UV filter causing image degradation in certain circumstances, such as the one posted in this thread, and as it is such a part of the lens to most people who own them, they will rarely realise that it has caused a problem even when they have one, let alone remembering to take it off before it might cause a problem.
The issues with internal reflections can be reduced by buying an expensive multi-coated filter -- but at that point you're spending almost as much as the lens in some cases, for something that only serves to protect it! Of course, the manufacturers and dealers (who apply a far greater markup to filters than they'd ever dare apply to cameras or lenses) are very happy with the situation!
Digital sensors are sensitive to a wide range of frequencies, including UV and IR. Accordingly, modern digital cameras have all the required filtration already part of the sensor, so that only light that your eye is sensitive to will reach the sensor. A UV filter only serves to add another piece of glass between you and your subject.
Circular polarising filters are a different beast entirely, and do serve a valuable purpose. When light is reflected, it becomes polarised in a certain direction, and a polarising filter will filter out these reflections. This is most noticeable on a fine day, when a polarising filter will filter out reflections and scattered light in the sky, turning the sky a much deeper blue. It will also increase colour saturation in some circumstances, such as foliage in direct sunlight, and allow you to cut down reflections in glass or water, allowing you to more easily photograph through windows, and see the bottom of shallow water. A circular polariser is designed to be rotated, allowing you to choose the amount of filtration applied.
Some people will also use a circular polariser as a ad-hoc ND filter, as it will reduce the light reaching the camera by a couple of stops. This can be useful if you want to use a longer shutter speed. Note that you must be careful with this -- because, as mentioned above, a polariser effects water, using a polarising filter to get a long exposure of water will generally alter the effect that you want.
A circular polariser is a filter that every serious photographer should have. You cannot replicate the effects of a polariser in post-processing. However, a circular polariser is not intended to be on the camera all the time -- just like the original purpose of a UV filter, you should only fit it when necessary.
There are some good examples of what a polarising filter can do on Wikipedia:
As such it's not really fair to compare a UV and a polarising filter. A UV filter acts as protection for your camera, in the same way as a lens hood does. A polarising filter will improve the quality of your photographs when used correctly, but will not offer protection except in the unlikely case that you damage the camera when it's fitted.
@abirkill tx Alexis! tremendously helpful as always... i do have a polarizing filter - altho' sadly i am never quite sure i am using it correctly... but it does seem to give me some awesome blue skies :)
@superbeyotch thank you do much for posting - I have had similar problems (also using a uv filter btw) but never thought it could be the cause ... @abirkill THANK YOU ! For all the info more than really helpful
@abirkill Alexis thank you so much for going into detail with your explanations and making them so easy to understand. You are definitely an asset to this site and one of the many reasons that I love it here!
@alisonp Thanks Alison. I really think if I am going through this, someone else out there has to be/or gone through it too. :)
Great thread! Question: why doesn't someone invent a clear glass "filter" with no UV covering (or have they?)...therefore, removing the internal light reflections caused by UV filter but still provide that extra protection against physical damage to the lens? I'm just saying....
@jrphotoartkc Clear glass filters are available from some manufacturers, and are usually called (imaginatively) 'clear glass filters' (!) or optical flat filters.
The problem is that it's not the UV part of the filter that causes the image problems as seen above, it happens with any filter. The light from the object being photographed passes through the filter, and most of it continues through the lens. However, the lens reflects a little bit back, which hits the back of the filter. That reflects a little bit of that light back, which goes through the lens and causes the double image. This is the same effect that causes a double image to be seen in these conditions (dark with bright light sources) when looking out of a double-glazed window.
The important aspect when reducing this therefore is the quality of the anti-reflective coatings on the filter. An uncoated filter (which I don't think anyone actually makes these days) would be horrific for reflections. Cheap filters are single-coated and expensive filters are multi-coated -- the more expensive, the better the coatings. However, even the very best multicoated filters will reflect some light and cause this effect.
If you do wish to use a filter to protect the lens, UV and clear glass filters are interchangeable -- most people use UV filters as there is a much wider range of manufacturers and price points, they're more commonly stocked by photo stores, and they cost about the same for the equivalent quality. Always try and get a multi-coated filter, and ideally make sure it's from a reputable manufacturer like B+W -- generally the quality of their coatings will be higher and reflect less. Even then, remember to consider the possible effects when photographing high contrast scenes, and remove the filter if you think it might cause an issue with a shot.
Thanks to everyone for their kind words, glad I can help out :)
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
@abirkill
Based on the photo and your description of them moving around, the spots are almost certainly internal reflections from the bright point light sources within the lens, which are most commonly caused by using a UV filter with insufficient anti-reflective coatings (although in these kind of conditions, it's hard to find a filter that is sufficiently anti-reflective).
However, I love your picture!
The reflections were characteristic of that problem -- in your first photo you can almost see that if you rotate the 'ghost' flecks around 180 degrees, they line up with the real bulbs.
A lot of photographers, myself included, dislike using UV filters for this reason, using lens hoods instead. UV filters don't improve photos (digital cameras already have UV filtration built in) and occasionally can degrade photos, as in cases like this. In this situation it was easy for you to retake the shot, but it's a whole lot more annoying when you've missed an opportunity that you can't get back!
Hoods never degrade the image, and provide similar levels of protection to accidental damage (although not identical -- some types of damage would be survived with a filter and not with a hood, and vice versa). They're also a heck of a lot cheaper than a decent filter!
Glad I could help out, and thanks to @grizzlysghost for highlighting the post for me :)
I really appreciate the help though, That was not anywhere near on my mind of what could have been wrong...I immediately though inside, big money problems! ha ha
As film improved, the benefits of a UV filter became less pronounced, and yet neither dealers nor filter manufacturers wanted to kill the goose the laid the golden egg! Thus, UV filters started to be recommended to protect your lens from incidental damage, the idea being that a UV filter was cheaper to replace if it was scratched or smashed than the front element of the lens would be.
This is a perfectly valid argument -- a UV filter will do a good job of protecting the lens from some sorts of damage (although the filter will typically need to be replaced, of course). However, this meant that UV filters went from being something that a photographer would fit only when the scene required it, to something that was on the lens permanently.
This results in the UV filter causing image degradation in certain circumstances, such as the one posted in this thread, and as it is such a part of the lens to most people who own them, they will rarely realise that it has caused a problem even when they have one, let alone remembering to take it off before it might cause a problem.
The issues with internal reflections can be reduced by buying an expensive multi-coated filter -- but at that point you're spending almost as much as the lens in some cases, for something that only serves to protect it! Of course, the manufacturers and dealers (who apply a far greater markup to filters than they'd ever dare apply to cameras or lenses) are very happy with the situation!
Digital sensors are sensitive to a wide range of frequencies, including UV and IR. Accordingly, modern digital cameras have all the required filtration already part of the sensor, so that only light that your eye is sensitive to will reach the sensor. A UV filter only serves to add another piece of glass between you and your subject.
Circular polarising filters are a different beast entirely, and do serve a valuable purpose. When light is reflected, it becomes polarised in a certain direction, and a polarising filter will filter out these reflections. This is most noticeable on a fine day, when a polarising filter will filter out reflections and scattered light in the sky, turning the sky a much deeper blue. It will also increase colour saturation in some circumstances, such as foliage in direct sunlight, and allow you to cut down reflections in glass or water, allowing you to more easily photograph through windows, and see the bottom of shallow water. A circular polariser is designed to be rotated, allowing you to choose the amount of filtration applied.
Some people will also use a circular polariser as a ad-hoc ND filter, as it will reduce the light reaching the camera by a couple of stops. This can be useful if you want to use a longer shutter speed. Note that you must be careful with this -- because, as mentioned above, a polariser effects water, using a polarising filter to get a long exposure of water will generally alter the effect that you want.
A circular polariser is a filter that every serious photographer should have. You cannot replicate the effects of a polariser in post-processing. However, a circular polariser is not intended to be on the camera all the time -- just like the original purpose of a UV filter, you should only fit it when necessary.
There are some good examples of what a polarising filter can do on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography)
As such it's not really fair to compare a UV and a polarising filter. A UV filter acts as protection for your camera, in the same way as a lens hood does. A polarising filter will improve the quality of your photographs when used correctly, but will not offer protection except in the unlikely case that you damage the camera when it's fitted.
Hope that helps, questions welcome as always :)
@alisonp Thanks Alison. I really think if I am going through this, someone else out there has to be/or gone through it too. :)
The problem is that it's not the UV part of the filter that causes the image problems as seen above, it happens with any filter. The light from the object being photographed passes through the filter, and most of it continues through the lens. However, the lens reflects a little bit back, which hits the back of the filter. That reflects a little bit of that light back, which goes through the lens and causes the double image. This is the same effect that causes a double image to be seen in these conditions (dark with bright light sources) when looking out of a double-glazed window.
The important aspect when reducing this therefore is the quality of the anti-reflective coatings on the filter. An uncoated filter (which I don't think anyone actually makes these days) would be horrific for reflections. Cheap filters are single-coated and expensive filters are multi-coated -- the more expensive, the better the coatings. However, even the very best multicoated filters will reflect some light and cause this effect.
If you do wish to use a filter to protect the lens, UV and clear glass filters are interchangeable -- most people use UV filters as there is a much wider range of manufacturers and price points, they're more commonly stocked by photo stores, and they cost about the same for the equivalent quality. Always try and get a multi-coated filter, and ideally make sure it's from a reputable manufacturer like B+W -- generally the quality of their coatings will be higher and reflect less. Even then, remember to consider the possible effects when photographing high contrast scenes, and remove the filter if you think it might cause an issue with a shot.
Thanks to everyone for their kind words, glad I can help out :)