Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

GlenMH

Original Poster:

4,126 posts

126 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
Hi all

SWMBO bought me the very nice Nikkor 70-300mm VR II zoom lens for my D90. I have been using it for night photography on a tripod to capture the highlights of the local cityscape.

Recently I took this as a test shot:



Please forget the issues that:
1. I have cut the top of the tower off
2. The horizon is not straight
3. The image is a bit fuzzy: don't put your tripod on wood decking as it moves. Also don't try and take pictures from a 33rd floor balcony when the whole building is swaying in the strong wind yikes

My question is: why have I got an inverted ghost image of the blue lights on the tower? I haven't seen this on any of the other pictures I have taken.

Here is the EXIF data for info:

File Info 1
File: Tokyo Tower 0813.JPG
Date Created: 13/08/2010 13:15:06
Date Modified: 13/08/2010 13:15:06
File Size: 4.38 MB
Image Size: L (4288 x 2848)
File Info 2
Date Shot: 13/08/2010 13:15:06.00
World Time: UTC+9, DST:OFF
Image Quality: Jpeg Fine (8-bit)
Artist:
Copyright:
Image Comment:
Camera Info
Device: Nikon D90
Lens: VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G
Focal Length: 180mm
Focus Mode: AF-A
AF-Area Mode: Wide Area
VR: ON
AF Fine Tune:
Exposure
Aperture: F/8
Shutter Speed: 2s
Exposure Mode: Manual
Exposure Comp.: +0.7EV
Exposure Tuning:
Metering: Center-Weighted
ISO Sensitivity: ISO 200
Image Settings
White Balance: Auto, 0, 0
Color Space: sRGB
High ISO NR: OFF
Long Exposure NR: OFF
Active D-Lighting: Auto
Sharpening: 3

Thanks for any help with this!

Fordo

1,285 posts

107 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
i've had this before in a similar situation with similar lens- was at the top of the Hilton in Park Lane doing timelapse of the skyline using a nikkor 55-200 mm lens.

On closer inspection the BT tower had exactly the same type of flare you've got i your photo. I put it down to internal lens reflections like you mentioned in the title. weird, isnt it? I've never noticed it in any other situation other than point light sources at night



crmcatee

4,439 posts

110 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
do you have a filter on the front ?

dilbert

7,738 posts

114 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
I think that in industrial/scientific applications they fill their optics with oil to prevent this sort of thing.

GlenMH

Original Poster:

4,126 posts

126 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
crmcatee said:
do you have a filter on the front ?
Yes - I have got a screw on UV filter on the front. Will this make a difference (apart from costing me .5 to 1 stop of light)?
Advertisement

Nick M

3,401 posts

106 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
GlenMH said:
crmcatee said:
do you have a filter on the front ?
Yes - I have got a screw on UV filter on the front. Will this make a difference (apart from costing me .5 to 1 stop of light)?
It may actually be what is causing the reflection, especially if it's a cheaper one.

And a UV fiter won't lose you anything like that much light - I doubt it would even make .1 of a stop difference, let alone 1/2 to a whole stop.

GlenMH

Original Poster:

4,126 posts

126 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
It's a Hoya one so not the cheapest out there...

I will have another go when the tower is lit up like that again without the filter.

pernod

419 posts

71 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
A couple of my lenses (notably the nifty 50 was one) did the same until someone suggest I remove the UV filter from the front for night shots. Fixed it straight up. Was surprised at that being the cause as they are top of the line filters, but apparently it's a common issue.

JJM

453 posts

72 months

[news] 
Sunday 15th August 2010 quote quote all
I had a similar issue with my 450d earlier this year, was down to the uv filter...

http://mobile.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=...

GlenMH

Original Poster:

4,126 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 16th August 2010 quote quote all
thumbup Thanks all - I will have a go without the filter when it has next got its fancy lights on again.

Lucas CAV

1,256 posts

102 months

[news] 
Monday 16th August 2010 quote quote all
Lose the filter permanently!

Just be more careful with your lens.....


(assuming that's why you have the filter on it? not sure why people do this..)

Simpo Two

59,282 posts

148 months

[news] 
Monday 16th August 2010 quote quote all
Lucas CAV said:
Lose the filter permanently!

Just be more careful with your lens.....


(assuming that's why you have the filter on it? not sure why people do this..)
Actually that's one thing missing from the 'Stages of a Photographer' graph!

crmcatee

4,439 posts

110 months

[news] 
Monday 16th August 2010 quote quote all
Some lenses don't become fully sealed until a filter is put on the front. I know the 16-35 I'm looking at the moment is one that needs a filter on the front to become fully sealed.


Admittingly, you need to be shooting in dusty / wet conditions to want to keep the filter on - otherwise its off.
Reply to Topic