Some white color 'glow' on picutre taken under cloudy condition...


peterneoh

New Member
Jul 12, 2010
12
0
0
#1
Dear all,

Another question regarding the picture i taken recently... I see a obsvious "white" glow around my arm area... Again, the camera ws mounted with 50mm f1.8 lense (with UV filter).

Is this a normal thing to observe?

Thank you...



Camera: NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D90
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture: f/1.8
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed: 320
Exposure Bias: +1 EV
Flash: No Flash
 

peterneoh

New Member
Jul 12, 2010
12
0
0
#3
Get rid of your UV filter.
Hi. gooseberry,

A bit confused here.. i tot UV filter is no harm to attached to lense, and can also act as protector..

in your opinion, UV lense is applicable under what circumstance?

or, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 not recommended to have UV filter?
 

photoart

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2009
2,601
1
38
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#4
Maybe what he means is to get rid of the current uv filter and get a better one.... Some inferior filter can cause undesirable results
 

Last edited:

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#5
That looks like chromatic aberration, which can be caused by a cheap UV filter. Try taking the filter off and shoot again.
 

digitalpimp

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2008
2,744
1
0
39
Shèng Gǎng
www.wix.com
#6
Hmmm... I get the same effect too. It happens when light colors meet dark. Glad to have stumbled upon this thread. Let's see what the others will say.
 

gooseberry

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2004
1,952
0
0
Central West
#7
Hi. gooseberry,

A bit confused here.. i tot UV filter is no harm to attached to lense, and can also act as protector..

in your opinion, UV lense is applicable under what circumstance?

or, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 not recommended to have UV filter?
Hi. You're getting the white glow from the bright areas because of the UV filter. Even expensive UV filters can cause some sort of image degradation like ghosting, flare etc. The cheap ones are worse.

I'd recommend not using any filters for "protection" on lenses unless you are shooting in locations like getting sea spray onto the lens front element or something like that. Better to use a hood for protection.

Besides, your 50/1.8, the front element is so far recessed inside the lens, I wouldn't bother.
 

nixontkl

New Member
Nov 12, 2007
585
0
0
Punggol
nixontang.multiply.com
#9
That looks like CA, 50mm F1.8 is prone to CA when wide open. CA happen alot along the edge of your subject when the edge is very brightly lit. in your case u can see that the edge of your arm is very bright.

nikon 50mm F1.8m if u stop it down enough the CA effect would go away.

If u dont know what CA is pls go google it. Chroma Abbrevation or AKA purple fringing
 

nixontkl

New Member
Nov 12, 2007
585
0
0
Punggol
nixontang.multiply.com
#10
forgot to add, nikon lens there are those that have ED glass element in them.

ED glass are the element in your lens that prevent effect of CA. and for your info your 50mm F1.8 doesnt have have a single ED glass. ED glass element will make your lens price go UP.

higher end lens have ED glass that help them cope with bright edges in your photo even when wide open.
 

Ouverture

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2009
2,195
0
0
#12
For prime lenses with big aperture, I wouldn't recommend to shoot at widest aperture, especially at good lit condition.

From that picture, the EV is +1 and ISO320 with 1/320s which is bright enough to use F2 or even F2.8 to capture the scene with sufficient shutter speed.

At widest aperture, for eg like F1.4 or F1.8, CA is normally unavoidable, especially so for "value for money" lenses like 50/1.8 or 50/1.4. Even expensive lenses like CZ85 will have CA at F1.4, so it's not uncommon.

A stop down will normally resolves the CA problem, with or without the UV filter.
 

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#13
If it's because of the UV then how come out of my six lenses only one is affected? It's a 28-105mm f2.8.
Besides the quality of the filter, the quality of the lens plays a part too. No matter how good the filter is, there will still be a certain degree of degrading in the picture quality.
 

digitalpimp

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2008
2,744
1
0
39
Shèng Gǎng
www.wix.com
#15
Besides the quality of the filter, the quality of the lens plays a part too. No matter how good the filter is, there will still be a certain degree of degrading in the picture quality.
I have come to conclude that as well, but I just remembered having a differently branded UV on that lens so that could be the culprit (82mm is super ex so I opted for a cheap one:)).

Anyways, I'll do a couple of runs without it and see how it goes, and hopefully, the UV's at fault. I'd rather buy an expensive UV than dispose the lens because 'glowing' aside, it's just perfect. Thanks mate.
 

Last edited:

Galdor

Senior Member
Jul 5, 2006
9,544
0
0
Planet Gaia
s105.photobucket.com
#16
I have come to conclude that as well, but I just remembered having a differently branded UV on that lens so that could be the culprit (82mm is super ex so I opted for a cheap one:)).

Anyways, I'll do a couple of runs without it and see how it goes, and hopefully, the UV's at fault. I'd rather buy an expensive UV than dispose the lens because 'glowing' aside, it's just perfect. Thanks mate.
No problem bro. :)
 

peterneoh

New Member
Jul 12, 2010
12
0
0
#17
halo. everyone,

thanks for all the comments. now i learn more about shooting regarding the CA problem... will try out the suggestion and see if i got any new finding...

:)
 

Limsgp

New Member
Dec 16, 2005
1,128
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#18
in your opinion, UV lense is applicable under what circumstance?
when shooting at the sky? (landscape)

Frankly, how much UV can you get at sea level.. especially those reflected off the subject (excluding the sky or snowy mountains)
 

Top Bottom