Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Diffraction??

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Diffraction??

    While washing the dishes this evening I noticed the sky to the west catching a bit of colour so much to the dismay of SWMBO I downed tools/cloth and rushed out the door with the camera!
    This little lochan is about 10 minutes from home and is now my 'go to' local position for sunsets.
    Unfortunately the heather has gone over and there is some flare in the shot, but apart from that I am pretty pleased with the result:



    I noticed when looking closely at the shot that apart from the flare there is a bit of a feint duplication of the skyline below the brightest part of the sky; it is very apparent in this shot where I have lifted the shadows:



    Any ideas what is causing this? I am guessing filters, but I am not sure why it is just that part of the image?
    Iain
    OM-1, E-M1 II, 7.5FE, 8-25, 9, 12, 12-32, 12-40, 25, 40-150, 45, 60, 300
    MC-14, MC-20

    Website
    Flickr
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Diffraction??

    Sorry, this might be better off in looking for improvement - didn't engage brain!
    Iain
    OM-1, E-M1 II, 7.5FE, 8-25, 9, 12, 12-32, 12-40, 25, 40-150, 45, 60, 300
    MC-14, MC-20

    Website
    Flickr

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Diffraction??

      Hi there Iain!

      I would guess filters as well, I think the reason it shows up just on the skyline is that that is the area of highest contrast and also just below the skyline is where the deepest shadows are, so by lifting the shadows the effect is magnified. It would be interesting to know what angle the camera was shooting at - was it pointing slightly above or below the sunset?

      Cheers,

      Ralph.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Diffraction??

        I do not have any experience with the lens or camera so I am unsure what happened.
        It could be a fault with the lens.

        It would be a great shot with the issue pointed out and the scenario sounds like my trips to Parton beach.
        OMD E-M1ii MMF3 8-25 f4 Pro 40-150 f2.8 pro MC-14 12-40 pro 14-42 EZ 9-18 f4.0 -5.6 40 -150f4-f5.6 R Laowa 50mm f2.8 macro Sigma 105 f2.8 macro Holga 60mm plastic Holga pinhole lens lens and an OM2sp

        I nice view does not mean a good photograph. My FLickr

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Diffraction??

          I've moved this to "Looking For Improvement."

          The artifact on the skyline is hardly noticable in the first shot, at web resolution anyway. It is far more apparent in the shot where the shadows have been lifted, but this type of processing will introduce halos in high contrast boundaries anyway. The original problem is probably caused by a combination of the inherent high contrast, the filter and the f11 aperture. Did you really need such a small aperture at 9mm? Also, the problem may have been avoided by waiting a few more minutes for the sun to sink a little lower behind the skyline, reducing the intensity of the highlights. However, the stunning colours may also have started to fade by then, of course

          Regarding the two versions posted, I much prefer the first, with its more natural areas of shadow. It was certainly worth interrupting the washing up for; that sort of thing can be done anytime but a sunset will never be exactly repeated!
          John

          "A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there � even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Diffraction??

            Originally posted by Ralph Harwood View Post
            Hi there Iain!

            It would be interesting to know what angle the camera was shooting at - was it pointing slightly above or below the sunset?

            Cheers,

            Ralph.
            Hi Ralph
            The camera was pointing slightly upwards
            Iain
            OM-1, E-M1 II, 7.5FE, 8-25, 9, 12, 12-32, 12-40, 25, 40-150, 45, 60, 300
            MC-14, MC-20

            Website
            Flickr

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Diffraction??

              At this resolution I'm struggling to find fault. Two beautiful shots.
              Stephen

              A camera takes a picture. A photographer makes a picture

              Fuji X system, + Leica and Bronica film

              My Flickr site

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Diffraction??

                Originally posted by Zuiko View Post
                I've moved this to "Looking For Improvement."

                The artifact on the skyline is hardly noticable in the first shot, at web resolution anyway. It is far more apparent in the shot where the shadows have been lifted, but this type of processing will introduce halos in high contrast boundaries anyway. The original problem is probably caused by a combination of the inherent high contrast, the filter and the f11 aperture. Did you really need such a small aperture at 9mm? Also, the problem may have been avoided by waiting a few more minutes for the sun to sink a little lower behind the skyline, reducing the intensity of the highlights. However, the stunning colours may also have started to fade by then, of course
                Thanks John, if I get a similar opportunity I will try some test shots at larger apertures; I seem to remember Ian, on more than one occasion, stating 4/3 lenses suffered diffraction for apertures smaller than f7.1-f8 - I should have listened!
                Iain
                OM-1, E-M1 II, 7.5FE, 8-25, 9, 12, 12-32, 12-40, 25, 40-150, 45, 60, 300
                MC-14, MC-20

                Website
                Flickr

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Diffraction??

                  Great image Ian and well worth the effort.

                  Looking at it closely it would seem the two trees duplicated in the sky are a result of lens flare in that part of the image that is just below the skyline, as it does not show up in the reflection part of the image where there is no flare,if it were natural light on that part of the hillside I would have thought it would show up in the reflection, that is my guess.
                  Regards Paul.
                  One day I hope to be the person my dogs think I am.

                  https://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_silk/

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Diffraction??

                    I don't think this is diffraction - as far as I am aware that just caused overall softness at the detail level, and is probably consistent. Did you have a filter fitted? It looks to me like a classic example of a ghost image formed by reflection from the front of the lens onto the filter and back into the lens. As John Zuiko says, using f/11 on a wide lens like that will render things like that very sharp.

                    Whatever it is, it's still a lovely shot and well worth skipping the washing-up for.

                    John

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Diffraction??

                      The second probably has the better colour (apart from the flare) but there is a curvature to the scene that puts me off. Overall I prefer the first.
                      Most used: EM5i + 12-200mm, In briefcase: E-PM2 + 12-42mmEZ
                      Film Kit OM4Ti + Vivitar Series 1 (OM fit ) 28-105mm F/2.8-3.8, Sigma III (OM fit) 75-200mm F/2.8-3.5, Vivitar Series 1 (OM fit) 100-500mm, Zuiko 50mm F/1.2
                      ​Learn something new every day

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Diffraction??

                        I am also in the camp of a reflection off the front element onto a filter, but the first version is stunning the double image is not noticeable.
                        Ian from the Cotswolds
                        http://571photography.blogspot.co.uk/

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Diffraction??

                          Lovely images both.

                          But, sorry, I immediately saw the doubling in the first.

                          My guess is reflections - maybe try to duplicate the conditions and try with / without the filter.

                          Are there also some blobs near and to the left of the sunniest part ? Is your filter a bit dusty / or even smeary ? On the underside ? Or even the lens front element ?

                          Could it be an errant thumbprint ?

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Diffraction??

                            Iain simply stunning I want to put a print on my wall !
                            .
                            .
                            [I].
                            .
                            I Lurve Walking in our Glorious Countryside; Photography;
                            Riding Ducati Motorbikes; Reading & Cooking ! ...


                            http://www.flickr.com/photos/photomagicf1_chevvy/sets/

                            the ONE photo album

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Diffraction??

                              Iain
                              9mm at f5.6 focused 1m away will give a Dof from 0.49m to infinity.

                              Online Depth of Field Calculator
                              http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
                              Depth of field and hyperfocal distance calculator


                              Originally posted by Kami View Post
                              Lovely images both.

                              But, sorry, I immediately saw the doubling in the first.

                              My guess is reflections - maybe try to duplicate the conditions and try with / without the filter.

                              Are there also some blobs near and to the left of the sunniest part ? Is your filter a bit dusty / or even smeary ? On the underside ? Or even the lens front element ?

                              Could it be an errant thumbprint ?
                              I would agree with this about clean filters
                              OMD E-M1ii MMF3 8-25 f4 Pro 40-150 f2.8 pro MC-14 12-40 pro 14-42 EZ 9-18 f4.0 -5.6 40 -150f4-f5.6 R Laowa 50mm f2.8 macro Sigma 105 f2.8 macro Holga 60mm plastic Holga pinhole lens lens and an OM2sp

                              I nice view does not mean a good photograph. My FLickr

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X

                              We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of web browser cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, and to analyse site activity. No banner advertising is shown to members logged in to the site. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.

                              By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.

                              I Agree