Strange problem with 3 pics

[John]

OK folks, I need some help here.

During our recent R&R, we rented a small boat and we spend a day at sea. I had with me my Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm Nikkor lens. I must have shot about 200 pictures during our vacations week, but there are three of them that puzzle me. They were shot by Lena, with the above camera.

Have a look at them:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_3177.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_3178.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_3179.jpg

See anything strange? Like that weird over-exposed area on my face?? Here are some crops for you:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_3177_c.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_3178_c.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_3179_c.jpg

I can't for the name of God explain why my face is over-exposed. Disregarding any meta-physical explanations (which however are enhanced by the fact that the only pictures lost from our vacations were two more pictures of me, that Lena shot also) can you think of any logical reason for the strange light effect?

[Spyros]

Aside from a drop of water on the lens, I can't think of anything else!

[Hawkmoon]

Your face isn't overexposed. The upper portion seems fine. It looks almost like some sort of exposure artifact where the light grey tone of the beard is somehow "bleeding" over into adjoining portions of the image.

That's what I think is happening. As to why or how that can happen ... I don't have a clue.

How many light meter zones does the Nikon have, and how many was it set to be using when Lena shot those pics? On the Nikon, does it average out the readings from multiple zones and set the camera to one exposure, or is there some electronic black magic by which it makes some pixels on the CCD screen more sensitive than others?

[Spyros]

There are lighter tones in the image than John's beard - and such a function, if possible, should have underexposed the image, right?

In any case - Hawk, please don't be rude! The holidays are a tough time for our waistlines, but there's no call for calling John a bear! I mean, have you seen me??

Sorry, he ----------> :eb:
made me do it! :D

[Hawkmoon]

There are lighter tones in the image than John's beard - and such a function, if possible, should have underexposed the image, right?

If the camera took a single, spot reading off the beard, yes the result would have been underexposed overall. I was asking if the Nikon was set to be reading from several discrete metering zones scattered around the image area, and if there's some way that a "bright" reading from one zone on the beard could have resulted in bleed to the surrounding area.

I suppose, though, that even that might cause localized underexposure rather than overexposure, or fogging. I'm back to thinking it must be some sort of electronic artifact -- that the CCD screen somehow "saw" the light tones of the beard and carried them beyond the portion of the image actually occupied by the beard.

[Spyros]

I copied the three uncropped pics, opened them in ACDSee and flipped through them back and forth really fast.

My money says it's just a drop of water. John's face moves about between pics, but the fuzzy spot's position is consistent in all three.

[John]

There was absolutely no water on the lens, I can assure you of that.

I do not remember what's the exposure meter setting on the D80 right now (and I do not want to go upstairs to check it, too lazy), but it's either the typical Nikon center-weight or the latest Nikon multi-sensor one.

But this is not an exposure problem. The rest of the picture is exposed correctly. If you look carefully, the "over-exposed" area is not only on my beard, but it continues over to the wrapped-up tent, to the left of my face, on the first two pictures. In these pictures, the "over-exposed" area is on the left side of my face (as you look at the picture), the right side looks more or less OK. In the third one, the "over-exposed" area has moved towards the right side of my face.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that it is either a meta-physical thing, or.....

Or that the shinny stainless bar above the boat's steering pod is throwing a strange, strong light reflection on my face. These pictures were taken at about 4 pm, so the sun was towards the rear of the boat, but still high up on the horizon. Could it be reflected so strongly on that bar to cast a strong light on me, which caused the over-exposure in that area?

[sourdough1938]

It could be a fingerprint on the lens. By the way you should let your beard grow out a little. I keep telling people my beard is not white, it is mature.
Jim

[Frank]

I think it's a meta-physical thing.

I have the same problem. Whenever someone takes my picture now, my beard comes out white. But I'm sure it's really as black as it was 30 years ago. :D

Seriously, I'd vote for a reflection as you suggest.

DVC

[John]

It could be a fingerprint on the lens.

The lens was wiped clean the evening before the boat trip. It was also wiped clean after we returned to our residence, since the camera was near salt water all day long, even though protected in a plastic bag, I wanted cleaned as soon as possible. No fingerprints on the lens.

I would consider a flare from some stray ray coming in from the side of the lens, I didn't had a lens shade on that day, but it doesn't look like a flare.

I have the same problem. Whenever someone takes my picture now, my beard comes out white. But I'm sure it's really as black as it was 30 years ago.

Frank, I know very well that my beard is white. I am not complaining about that, got used to it.

[Joni Lynn]

I think your beard is haunted. :)

[A.B.]

I vote for haunted, too. Second choice: Hawk's digital artifact, "burned" in that location. Doesn't look like a flare or a water spot, to me.

Digital is weird, so that puts me back to haunted beard.

[Joni Lynn]

Well maybe his beard is only possessed. ;)

[A.B.]

Well maybe his beard is only possessed. ;)Yep, they're known for that. ;)

[patriotic]

John, Barring a drop of water on the lens catching the sun, I would say it most likely is a reflection from the shiny aluminum. Another possibility that I heard of but never seen was internal reflection within the lens. Usually occurs at very small apertures.

[Frank]

The more I think about it the more I like the reflection theory. I've seen that sort of thing on mine from time to time. If is was an artifact wouldn't it be on everything?

[Grainfed]

John.....Look at the right lens of your sunglasses. I see a very bright small spot in the photos and it looks like it comes off of the bar in front of you. This seems to make sense as you mentioned the sun was behind you. I would venture to guess it is a reflection off of that bar as it moves about somewhat from pic to pic. Not enough to underexpose the shot overall but bright enough to be picked up, as the luminance value of that reflection might be in the zillions of foot-candles, similar to the sun's rays shooting out from behind a cloud late in the afternoon. All of your other shots in your series are fine once you got off that boat with that shiny bar thingee! My 3 cents worth...and that may be all they are worth.........................TW :confused:

[A.B.]

Yep, guess he isn't haunted, nor is it swamp gas. That shiny aluminum does look like the culprit.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t316/gordonsorensen/DSC_31781.jpg

I've never seen that internal reflection problem (at small apertures) either, but that's certainly possible, too.

[Grainfed]

A.B............Maybe it's a different type of gas! You know that Greek food ain't that mild..........
:lh:


On second thought, probably an internal refraction, not reflection......TW

[A.B.]

A.B............Maybe it's a different type of gas! :p Nor does it prove his beard isn't haunted!

[Grainfed]

I would have to agree. If it was Greek gas, wanna bet he didn't fess up? Scratched his haunted beard and uttered, "What was THAT?".............

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Lighting/reflection artifact. IMHO. This happens a lot to me out here in the desert. :(

[Spyros]

I think it is too diffuse to be a reflection. That bar (chromed aluminium, I believe) is too close to John's face, and the fuzzy area seems to extend to that shade/awning thing behind John, on BOTH sides of his face. If it was a reflection, we should have been able to see a shading effect on one of the two sides, i.e. John's head partially blocking the reflection from the chrome.

I still think it is something on the lens - the affected area doesn't change position on the picture canvas.

I have an annoying tendency to have my cameras' straps touch the lens when the camera changes hands, especially in windy places... maybe there was some moisture on the strap and transfered on the lens - who knows?

Or maybe Lena's fingers had some sun-tan lotion on them..? :D

[John]

So two theories.

Either I am slowly transforming to a ghost (that's why my other pictures got lost) or that stupid bar created a very strong and focused reflection.

Yes, all other pictures were fine. Some were shot minutes before those shown, a few were shots right after those. None of them has any problems. If it was the lens (water droplet on the filter or fingerprint or dirt) it should show in the next pictures, I didn't clean the lens on the boat.

The aperture for all these pics was f/13 (I'll never get used to those aperture numbers, if it is not in the 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32 range, I have to look at it twice before it registers. Darn those digitals!!

[Spyros]

If it was the lens (water droplet on the filter or fingerprint or dirt) it should show in the next pictures, I didn't clean the lens on the boat.
It could have simply been a bit of lint from the bag or the strap, or a small hair, that was blown clear off the lens thanks to the wind, as soon as the camera was pointed towards the boat's bow!

[John]

Possible. I can't exclude that theory.

[Grainfed]

Can't leave this one alone.....something on the lens would cause loss of light transmission and would therefore underexpose that area of the shot. This is the opposite effect allowing more lumens in that area to be brighter in the exposure. On film, that area would be very dark but not black. With digital, who knows what the pixels are feeling. On film, that bright spot in the sunglasses would be a black spot on the negative and would print as a white dot (if using B/W film). The light area seems to almost be rectangular in shape, and if so, then this is a close encounters thingee.
John, I think that to solve the problem, get the wife and kids, go get the boat, and duplicate the conditions as many times as you can. If it takes years, so much the better. But don't shoot film, it might cost you a fortune..........................TW

[Grainfed]

Since it's raining here, I'm stuck inside so I'll keep going. Look at the blue area behind John in photo #2. It's lighter and looks faded. Look at the same area in photo #3. It's darker as he probably turned the boat ever so slightly and the reflection went to the right (his left) and the blue area went back to an ambient light exposure with a normal shadow density. I'm sticking with the bar reflection theory. Theory #2 is.............NEVER USE F13..........................TW

[John]

Theory #2 is.............NEVER USE F13..........................TW

:lm:

[A.B.]

Theory #2 is.............NEVER USE F13..........................TW

:lh: I missed the last line in your post! That is a classic!! (TM it!)

That would be a great title for a digital photography forum. (Lesse, 13 is half of twice 8, plus a quarter more???? Or something like that, my head hurts!)

[garrettwc]

John, were you using any type of filter on the lens?

[Hunter]

Were you using a lens hood?
Trash on the sensor?
Extractor out of tension?

[John]

John, were you using any type of filter on the lens?

All my lenses have an UV filter on them, that particular one has one of the Hoya multi-coated ones.

Were you using a lens hood?
Trash on the sensor?

No Hunter, there was no lens hood on the lens.

If it was dirt on the sensor, it should show in pictures taken right after those ones.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_31821.jpg

As you see, there is no problem on this one or the one before the pictures in question.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/DSC_3176.jpg

The extractor tension issue is probably a good guess, only this one has an.... external extractor. :p

[Spyros]

The extractor tension issue is probably a good guess, only this one has an.... external extractor. :p
Darn those new-fangled contraptions, you never know what trouble they'll bring... next thing you'll tell us, it has a buffer somewhere too! :D

[Hunter]

I wonder of that could been lens flare. I have gotten similar anomalies when shooting in the sun without a lens hood, especially with an ultra wide lens.

[Spyros]

By the way John, if I was the owner of that boat, and saw you supporting yourself on the folded awning as the boat rides the waves, I might have been a little upset... :D

[John]

Darn those new-fangled contraptions, you never know what trouble they'll bring... next thing you'll tell us, it has a buffer somewhere too!

You mean a shock buff? Neah, I ain't using those things, but I had a full-length guide rod in the camera. You think this may caused the problem?


I wonder of that could been lens flare. I have gotten similar anomalies when shooting in the sun without a lens hood, especially with an ultra wide lens.

Who knows Hunter, if it was flare, it sure is strange that it follows my face around.

By the way John, if I was the owner of that boat, and saw you supporting yourself on the folded awning as the boat rides the waves, I might have been a little upset...

LoRL, I love the way you stay focused on the subject!!! :D :) :p

[Spyros]

OK so lets recap on the theories, so far:

1. It's an artifact caused by the sensor, which over-exposed a particular area.
2. It's a drop of water or other debris on the len's filter, which was blown clear soon after the pictures were taken.
3. It's a reflection from one of many aluminium/chrome railings onboard.
4. It's a lens flare, as there was plenty of sunlight and no hood on the lens.
5. It's a mataphysical manifestaton, intended either to draw our attention to John's white beard, or to indicate that he is turning into a ghost.

You know, I see the makings of a M1911.ORG poll there, and I have a hunch about which of these options will get the votes!:D

[John]

5. It's a mataphysical manifestaton, intended either to draw our attention to John's white beard, or to indicate that he is turning into a ghost.

Judging by the various pains I have, the sure damage cigarettes have done to me all these years, the fact that the only two pictures that vanished from this trip were showing me, and the fact that schools started again (which means I have to wake up at 7 am every day, which means I am sleepy for the rest of the day), I think me turning into a ghost is the most probable cause.

[KimberCowboy1911]

I can't for the life of me see what is wrong, but my best guess is the railing over the helm is catching light and throwing it toward the lens. You can see a very specific bright spot on the railing in the reflection of the right lens on your aviators. It corresponds well with the "area in question" on the picture. Beats me. My other best guess is your feedramp isn't polished enough, so I'd send it in.

But if you are turning into a ghost....you're kinda creeping me out man.

[John]

:lm:

[Grainfed]

KimberCowboy..........Did you come up with this yourself or read any of the previous posts? :butthead:

[KimberCowboy1911]

In all honesty, I didn't read much of the posts, just looked at the pictures and offered my opinion. But I did notice that really bright spot reflection in his sunglasses first. I've taken pictures in the past where the sunglasses were the culprit having highly reflective lenses. I noticed the physical reflection off the rail second to that, like others mentioned before. After I posted I read through more of the posts to see I wasn't alone in thinking that. Just throwing my hat in the ring for the reflection theory, any harm in that? However, the ghost theory is a close second...

[John]

Well, here is another interesting thing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/JDC_0235.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/JDC_0236.jpg

See the flare on the black pants the lady is wearing??? How on earth did it get there, when there was no sun?!?!??!?!?

As far as I know, such artifacts can be produced if there is a light source in or near the area of the picture. If there is no light source, how can they be there??!?!?!?

Clarification: These are taken with a D2X and a 10-20mm Sigma lens, not the same setup as the other pictures.

[Spyros]

Interesting, the two artifacts have different sizes. The second one seems to be bigger - almost corresponding to the higher zoom. Assuming you were standing at the same spot, and no cropping, is there a chance this could be the result of something IN the lens?

Of course, if that's the case, the artifact should appear in ALL pictures taken with this lens... at least all the ones where the artifact happens to superimpose itself on a dark-enough surface to show up...

Alternatively, maybe this lady is turning into a ghost too..?! :D

Where is this place John? It rings a bell, but I can't remember it...

[John]

No, no cropping, no modification was done to the picture, it comes directly from the .NEF file, converted to .jpg and resized. The only thing I can think off, is a stray sun ray passing through the clouds the exact moment I was taking those two pictures. Usually such artifacts are caused by the aperture of the lens, but what bothers me was that when we went there, it was raining, there was no sun out.

And the place is (of course) Lycabetus.

[Spyros]

(D'oh, of course - that's where I took Evi once, when we made up after an argument!)

I suppose you would have noticed a drop of water on the lens, from the rain, so I can't think of what to suggest...

[John]

If there was something on the lens it would show on the next picture, maybe 30 secs later. Nothing there.

[Joni Lynn]

Where are the Ghostbusters when you need them? ;)

[John]

Good question girl! Now, where are the pictures you have snapped during your last excursion? We haven't seen any.

[Joni Lynn]

You mean the snapshots I got on my short vacation?
I'll see what I can do. The new camera takes a fairly good pic for a 'lil camera.

[Grainfed]

John.....When are you going to learn to quit using F13?... :nono: ......TW

[John]

I did learn, I really did. These were shot at f/9 and 1/320". Really, promise!!

[Grainfed]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Parthenon is made out of stucco and was built by a Navajo tribe! We need a photo of the display on that Nikon showing the f-stop just to make sure it didn't show the spooky F13 again. You need to get some rest... :bed: ...and read the instruction book one more time. There has to be a chapter on reflections and spots................TW

[John]

You asked and you shall receive:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/Screenshot2009-09-23at171640.jpg

Check the metadata.

:lm:

[Spyros]

Dunno John, some of those metadata are editable, you know... :D

[Grainfed]

Your pixel size is so big that one of those pixey thingees went from square to round. That's all I can figure :confused: ................TW

It may be time to get one of those Fuji throw aways you get at the local 7-11...................?

[Juicespeare1]

Sorry to get into this thread so late.

That is clearly lens flare. I didn't read all the posts in this thread so someone else might have mentioned it, I don't know.

Lens flare is caused by the light source bouncing off and causing internal reflections in the lens and cause loose of contrast and dots like that.

You can also see lens flare bouncing off the aperture in the pics directly above this post on the woman's black dress.

[John]

Your pixel size is so big that one of those pixey thingees went from square to round. That's all I can figure ................TW

Something tells me I need to go back to 1 MPixels camera!! :D :) :p

That is clearly lens flare. I didn't read all the posts in this thread so someone else might have mentioned it, I don't know.

Lens flare is caused by the light source bouncing off and causing internal reflections in the lens and cause loose of contrast and dots like that.


That's lens flare all right, on the black dress of the lady, I agree with you. But what's the ghost white areas on my face in the first post?

[Juicespeare1]

Also lens flare.

See the bright highlights on the metal bar between you and the camera, that shows the position of the sun.

What you see is classic lens flare. You are slightly backlit by the sun and the sun is high in the sky and that is causing flare.

[dogdollar]

Clearly this is caused by Ouzo fumes.
DD

[John]

I am with you DD, I did have some ouzos that day. The strange thing is that I had them after we took the boat back to the beach. :p

[patriotic]

You asked and you shall receive:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/sv1cec/posts_pictures/Screenshot2009-09-23at171640.jpg

Check the metadata.

:lm:

I don’t know what to say about that picture John. The sky is pretty overcast and relatively flat lighting. You are using a wide-angle lens which would mean sun flare would be fairly small but this picture shows a pretty good sized splotch. Cannot see the right side of the picture to see if the sun is peaking through the overcast. Dust on the sensor would give you a dark spot.

Have you been to any nuclear test sites lately, maybe you have one of those radioactive particles on the sensor. Just kidding, I hope.

Anything like that happen when the sun is behind the camera or with flash pictures?

[John]

Well, from all the pictures I took that day (with the boat ride), only those ones shown had that problem. As for the recent ones, I haven't used that lens much, to be sure.

[patriotic]

Have the answer John. Here at the Air Force Research Laboratory the egg-heads theorized that a cosmic ray or micro particle penetrated your camera’s case and hit the sensor causing it to temporarily desensitize.

What can I say? Rub the camera down with fish oil.

[A.B.]

Have the answer John. Here at the Air Force Research Laboratory the egg-heads theorized that a cosmic ray or micro particle penetrated your camera’s case and hit the sensor causing it to temporarily desensitize.

What can I say? Rub the camera down with fish oil. :D Right, fish oil, and I guess Nikon needs to look into Cosmic Ray Error Correcting Memory on their chips. The old "fish and chips" routine...

[Spyros]

:D Right, fish oil, and I guess Nikon needs to look into Cosmic Ray Error Correcting Memory on their chips. The old "fish and chips" routine...
:lm:
Hopefully, Nikon's next firmware update will have a "fish and chips" entry!

[John]

Rub the camera down with fish oil.

Any fish oil will do, or do I need a specific one?? :p

Right, fish oil, and I guess Nikon needs to look into Cosmic Ray Error Correcting Memory on their chips. The old "fish and chips" routine...

Hopefully, Nikon's next firmware update will have a "fish and chips" entry!

Pleas, no, please!!! No more entries in those Nikon menus, I have a hard time figuring out the existing ones, please do not give them ideas for adding more!!!! :D

[Joni Lynn]

.............did you want chips with that? ;)

[Spyros]

.............did you want chips with that? ;)
(with a Mancunian accent)
Only if you have salt and vinegar love... :D

[patriotic]

Now everyone is making fun of fish oil but let me say, you use a real stinky fish oil and the camera will smell so bad no one would want to touch it. If no one touches the camera, no pictures can be taken and if no pictures are taken you no longer have the problem.

On a serious note, there are these things called nano-rods which have very specific electrical properties depending on their length. They are microscopic in size and the problem they were having is being able to sort out the various sizes for use, they seem to stick together when created. They found that by using Salmon DNA in the process these nano-rods could be easily separated into size groups. The only Salmon DNA that works is from the male Salmon.

Would you believe I was photographing this stuff.