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

[peterneoh]

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

 

[gooseberry]

Get rid of your UV filter.

 

[peterneoh]

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]

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

 

[Rashkae]

That looks like chromatic aberration, which can be caused by a cheap UV filter. Try taking the filter off and shoot again.

 

[digitalpimp]

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]

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.

 

[Galdor]

That is the reason why most photographers, including myself shoot w/o filters.

 

[nixontkl]

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]

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.

 

[digitalpimp]

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.

 

[Ouverture]

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]

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.

 

[Snowcrash]

So to summarise:-

1) try without uv filter
2) stop at least 1 stop from yr widest aperture

Happy shooting!

 

[digitalpimp]

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.

 

[Galdor]

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]

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]

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)