Category Archives: Review

Review: CamRanger

Posted on by
1

I am always looking for the best solutions for automating my night photography. In fact, I recently reviewed a litany of products. At the time I didn’t know about the CamRanger product – my friend Rob C. told me about it.

one hour payday loans

I am now the owner of a CamRanger. Here are my first impressions:

IMG_1552

iPhone Application

  1. I ordered from the CamRanger website, selected two day delivery. The box came all the way across the US. From Virginia to California and it arrived in two days. Woohoo! Great store and interaction.  It’s also available through Amazon, but doesn’t qualify for Prime. I figure if I’m going to pay for shipping I’ll order it directly from the company and hope they keep a bit more of the cash.  By the way I paid with PayPal. Sweet. 
  2. The packaging is reminiscent of the iPhone. Everything is nicely tucked into a little box. I was worried briefly because I also ordered two extra batteries. Thankfully they were tucked into the same box.
  3. Included were: Quick start instructions, a charger (wall wart), charger cable, USB to mini USB to connect to the camera, Ethernet cable (for upgrading the firmware), the batteries, a cigarette sized-packet with the CamRanger unit, and a carry pouch with a velcro closure and a carbiner clip.

The CamRanger is an incarnation of the TP-Link portable wireless router. It even says so on the batteries and under the case. Really clever approach! Kudos to them. Of course the firmware has been customized, and they are using the USB connector to drive the camera.  With that arrangement they can do a WHOLE lot more than you can do with a lowly intervalometer.

Essential is the CamRanger application for iPad and iPhone. They are planning to roll out other applications, including one for the PC. Since the device is a portable router, theoretically they could even provide some simple browser driven connectivity.  I loaded the app long before I received the box. You can’t get to square one without the device, however – it won’t show you any of its glorious features until it can talk to a camera. Makes some sense since what you can do depends on the camera it connects to.  I found some blemishes with the application which I’ll enumerate in just a moment.

What Can the CamRanger Do?

Before I criticize, let me first explain what you CAN do with this clever device. And this is just scratching the surface.

  • Focus stacking – let CamRanger control incremental focus for maximum depth of field with your macro (or other) shots.
  • Remotely adjust focus (camera auto-focus must be turned on for this).
  • True HDR using exposure time, ISO or f/stop increments. Up to 7 exposures are allowed.  Intervalometers with this feature can only work in low light since they can only crudely control the camera shutter.
  • Monitor “live view” and captured images. Even delete them when they suck. I am slathering at how this will improve my Astrophotography. Have you ever tried to adjust focus of a telescope pointed nearly straight up – it’s a neck breaker.

    IMG_1556

    Delete Images from Camera

  • Intervalometer functions: timelapse, and bulb exposures.
  • Complete control of settings (how complete depends on your camera). Nearly all of the settings can be changed remotely including ISO, f/stop, exposure time, metering mode, image size and type… and more.  I even moved the connection from my Canon 5D Mark II to my cohort’s Nikon D800 and had immediate control of his camera and its unique settings.
  • Some features do require manually changing the camera mode knob. For example to get bulb exposures you must be in Manual mode on a Canon 50D or in Bulb Mode on the 5D Mark II.  These peculiarities vary by camera.
  • CamRanger can do everything the EyeFi can do for sending images. EyeFi isn’t supported on CompactFlash media cameras so CamRanger is a great replacement!
  • IMG_0137Focus by touching the iPad screen.
  • Provides a Live View Histogram.
Touch the iPad to select focus point!
IMG_0128

Landscape Mode

 

 

 

 

IMG_0127

Portrait Mode

IMG_0136

View images from the camera memory card

What Could Use Some Improvement

I’ve ordered my complaints according to how much they affect the way I do most of my work which is night and astrophotography.  Some of these are nitpicking, I know.

  1. There is no sub-second interval for long exposures. I’d love for them to add a “star trail mode” and select the shortest possible interval between shots based on the camera type and behavior. The company says this is a limitation in what they are able to do through the USB connection to the camera.
  2. There appears to be no way to know if a timelapse is running nor can you stop a timelapse in progress.  The CamRanger can continue to run a timelapse sequence without an app driving it.  That’s a plus. But not being able to tell if it is running or to abort a sequence in progress is annoying. CamRanger tells me they are planning to address this in an upcoming release. Yeah!
  3. The pouch for the CamRanger could be improved to:
    • Hold all the items that come in the kit. The pouch can only hold the CamRanger device, USB cable and perhaps an extra battery – not the additional cables or plug-in charger.
    • Add velcro straps so I can wrap them around my tripod leg and secure the pouch to my tripod,
    • Provide a closeable window so I can see at a glance the unit status (i.e.those LEDs which are too bright, see below).
  4. The timelapse settings use spin dials to select the number of exposures and exposure times. The keypad would be more efficient.  It would also be great if the App automatically calculated your elapsed running time based on the number of exposures and a configurable frame rate (like TriggerTrap does). CamRanger is adding the calculation.
  5. The LEDs on the device are pretty doggone bright for night work. Would be great if they were dimmable. Of course that can be achieved by putting the device in the pouch or by putting some semi-opaque tape over the LEDs.
  6. IMG_1564To interact with the CamRanger, you have to switch your iDevice to the WiFi network generated by the CamRanger. Unfortunately that means you can not use your iDevice browser to surf the internet. If there were some fast-switch way to do it, I’d like that. Or better yet, I’d like to integrate the CamRanger into an existing network.
  7. The CamRanger itself comes with a serial number sticker. I’m SURE it will come off or get lost, but you need that serial number to connect to the device. The same serial number can be found on a sticker under the battery cover, though.
  8. The Access Key to join the CamRanger network is all in upper case.  All lower would be easier to type.
  9. My buddy Rob noted that he felt like he was going go have to break the battery cover off. Mine seems to come off quite easily if you hold it correctly.
  10. The CamRanger battery is a custom lithium-ion form factor. You can charge the battery in-device, but there is no additional charger provided.
  11. Sometimes when switching functions, for example when switching to Timer it told me “must turn off live view” which seems a bit strange since it knows how to do it!
  12. I ended up with both my iPad and my iPhone attempting to connect to CamRanger. It caused a problem that was not obviously solvable (Communication Error) until I realized both of my devices were trying to get CamRanger’s attention.

As I noted, some features depend on the way your camera interacts with the USB connection. I didn’t figure out, for example, how to cause my camera to meter the scene for me so that I could manually adjust my exposure – i.e. what I’d normally do with a half-press of my shutter button.

I haven’t tested the range or battery life as yet. Claimed battery life of the CamRanger is 6 hours. There is, however, no on screen indication of the CamRanger’s current battery condition.

Now That I’ve Used it More…

The problems with not being able to see if or stop a timelapse are more than irritating.  The only way to stop a timelapse in progress is to turn off the CamRanger device and turn it back on. It takes about a minute to come back up and meanwhile since the WiFi from CamRanger goes away, my iPad or iPhone will by default switch back to another known network (my home in this case).  That means I have to remember to also switch WiFi networks or I get “unable to communicate”.  I also noticed that for bizarre reasons which are not quite clear I could start a timelapse, but the camera did nothing.  However I *could* use the Capture button.

But that’s not the end of the pain, unfortunately.

  • The Bulb and timelapse settings are not saved. All settings reset to 0 when a timelapse completes.  If you want to re-run the same program – as I do when I take darkframes after my astrophotography sequences – you have to reprogram everything. That’s tedious.
  • Apparently the interface is not smart enough to know how to do HDRs that exceed the camera settings 30″ exposure time.  On my 50D, for example, an HDR sequence that should shoot at 15, 30 and 60 seconds will not be accepted. However that sequence can easily be achieved by using bulb mode for the last shot and that does not require changing the dial on the camera – so the app could figure it out.  I even tried doing this in “Bulb” mode, but it still didn’t seem to work.
  • The biggest pain in the butt is that the “Autofocus” behavior is not preserved.  What this means is I leave the AF button on on the lens, carefully fine tune the focus, turn it to MF (manual focus mode) on CamRanger and take my shots. If, however I am forced to cycle the CamRanger power it reverts to AF mode by default so the first shot will try to autofocus in the dark – which prevents the camera from shooting.  I’d like to set the default behavior to NOT AF even though I have set AF on the lens.
  • It also appears the timelapse is not aware of the drive mode for the camera.  I often set my camera to the 2-second (or 10 second) delay for two reasons: 1. it lights the self timer on the camera so I know when a frame is about to fire, and 2. In delay mode, an Autoexposure bracket (AEB) will automatically complete from a single press of the shutter. The timelapse settings could know that the minimum delay will be the length of the camera self timer delay (plus perhaps a second).  But it doesn’t use that information.

The good news is that the biggest pain points can be fixed in the app. I suspect some of the more advanced things would require the app to know more about the camera – and are thus less likely to be supported.

The other good news is, it really does save me from breaking my neck trying to get my eye down to the view finder or to view the LCD – when objects are high overhead I’ve had to lay down on the ground to see the LCD – blecch. And it’s great fun to watch the images roll in as the timelapse runs – even from indoors while my poor equipment is out shivering in the cold.

What Photoshop?

Posted on by
4

Not long ago I took Adobe to task for a poorly executed upgrade path from their expensive Photoshop CS5 to Photoshop CS6. Today, I am calling them on the carpet for their most egregious mistake:

Confusing the H*LL out of their potential clients with an armada of similarly named, poorly differentiated, expensive products. To the casual observer the cost of that fleet of products ranges from expensive to “I have to forego buying a camera so I can edit my photos” expensive.  Nearly daily my students ask me whether they should buy Photoshop and WHICH ONE!

Isn’t Photoshop Too Expensive?

Let me weigh in on the expensive part first.  Photoshop CS6 Standard Edition (I’ll try to disentangle what that means in a moment) ranges from about $600 at Amazon to $700 directly from Adobe it sure sounds expensive.  But if you think of it as you would  say a sweet new lens for your camera it suddenly sounds less outrageously expensive. If you are willing to invest in Adobe’s future by taking a chance on their wobbly Cloud offering you can “rent” Photoshop for as low as $50 per month (or $20 per month depending on the plan).

So yes, it’s expensive. The question is: will it make your photos more impressive like a $600 lens might? My answer is yes, if you’re willing to do the time learning Photoshop’s incredible awesome power and escape Photoshop’s maddening quirks.

And for the kind of photography that I do: night photography with layers and complex operations there really is no equal that I am aware of.  GIMP is a free independently written Photoshop alternative. At the moment it is limited to 8 bit operations – though a 16 bit version is in beta. For many years I couldn’t bear the outrageous price of Photoshop so I used PaintShopPro with great success. Eventually I realized that the power I wanted required a payment so I stuck my toe into Photoshop CS3. Later it was CS5 and most recently CS6.  Of course since it is my business to produce prints and teach students about night photography, I get to deduct Photoshop as a cost of doing business. That doesn’t make it cheaper, though, does it.

What Version of Photoshop?

As I noted in the opening paragraph, Adobe has really made a mess of their products.  Here is a PARTIAL list of Photoshop choices for the LATEST version and the cost of each as reported on Adobe’s website. Costs are rounded to the nearest tens.

  • Photoshop CS6 $600
  • Photoshop CS6 Upgrade $200
  • Photoshop CS6 Extended $1000
  • Photoshop CS6 Extended Upgrade $400
  • Photoshop Elements 11 $100
  • Photoshop Elements 11 Editor ?
  • Photoshop Elements 11 with Adobe Premiere Elements $150
  • Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 $150
  • Design Standard CS6  $1300
  • Design and Web Premium CS6 $1900
  • Production Premium CS6 $1900
  • Master Collection CS6 $2600
  • Creative Cloud $240/year OR $350/year OR $600/year

The underlined items are bundles that contain Photoshop in them, that’s why they are more expensive.  The items in italics are in fact not really Photoshop except in name.  Think of them as Photoshop Light with simpler interfaces and fewer features. And the above does not show the Student/Teacher pricing which is yet another kettle of smelly fish.

In a nutshell for the kind of photo processing I do, Photoshop CS6 (not Extended, and definitely not Elements) is the tool of choice.

If you’re wondering whether you need the latest version: probably not. CS3, CS4 or CS5 will do just fine if you find them discounted somewhere and are careful to buy the FULL package, not an upgrade. Beware as there are many counterfeiters and scams – only buy from a reputable company.

What Adobe Tool Do you Need?

One more frustration for me is that Adobe does a very poor job differentiating its products.  You have to be a student of Adobe to understand how Illustrator differs from Photoshop from In Design, from Lightroom, etc. Or worse if I want to make a timelapse video which tool is the best one: Premiere Pro, Premiere Elements, After Effects, Photoshop, Photoshop Extended, Encore?  It’s hard to say unless you have an PhD in the Adobe marketspace – I don’t.

But You Haven’t Mentioned Lightroom!

You noticed that, eh? I own it, but I don’t like Lightroom. The photo editing interface for Lightroom is much more intuitive than the one in Photoshop, and Lightroom lets you sort, tag, organize and catalog photos with some really great features. My pet peeve is that Lightroom is slower than a frozen slug in a snowstorm and it forces me to “Import” everything I want to work on. Lightroom doesn’t do layering which is the key thing I need for optimum photo results.  The free Picasa tool (from Google) does the cataloging, sorting and keywording I want along with less impressive, but passable photo editing.  The Picasa method for straightening photos is awesome, quick and dead simple. Besides, most everything Lightroom can do Photoshop or Photoshop plus Bridge (or Adobe Camera Raw) can do more powerfully – if you can figure it out, that is.

Still, Lightroom does provide some pretty powerful features and allows non-destructive editing. But at a cost both in $ and time.

Bottom Line?

Photoshop is powerful. You can go farther with it than without it, and best of all there are a LOT of resources around to help you learn Photoshop – like StarCircleAcademy.com and books by Harold Davis (and many others).  Unfortunately lots of resources are needed because while Photoshop is a powerful weapon it is also a many-headed monster that requires developing some good wrestling skills.

 

Solar Filter: Why You Want to get one SOON

Posted on by
16

NOTE: This article was originally published on April 9, 2012. As it is now May 18, 2012 it is almost It is now just hours before the Transit of Venus beginning at 3:02 PM PDT, June 5, 2012. If you’re just now trying to get a solar filter chances are extremely thin of doing so. Try a telescope store if there is one near you.  Trust me, most of them are sold out. PLEASE DO NOT attempt to photograph or observe the sun if you are not properly prepared. PERMANENT BLINDNESS or DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT may result.

I  have been asked a lot about solar filters and why I was strongly encouraging people to get them. First let me explain how you might use them, then I’ll talk about the different kinds of solar filters and their costs.

Here are several shots of the sun rising behind Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton, San Jose, CA. All shots are without any filter.

It Happened One Morning

The upper exposures are pretty conventional.  The exposures at the bottom, however, are clearly MUCH shorter and exhibit excessive flaring mostly due to IR light.  Indeed, here are the settings from upper left to lower right:

  • ISO 200, f/11, 1/80
  • ISO 200, f/11, 1/640
  • ISO 200, f/11, 1/8000
  • ISO 100, f/36, 1/2000

What is probably immediately obvious is the glare / flare and color fringing.  Compare the above shots to this one:

Rise and Shine [C_037951+77]

This is NOT a single shot, it’s a blend of two shots.  The thing to notice is how much better tamed the violently bright sun is. Another important consideration is that a solar filter provides a boatload of protection to both the eyes and the camera equipment more on that in a moment.  The bottom line is that the flare is well controlled and the sun exposure is sufficient that if there were a large sunspot on it, you’d be able to see it.

What Can I Do With A Solar Filter?

So glad you asked.  Consider these:

  1. Safely capture the Annular Solar Eclipse coming on May 20, 2012.
    Why: Because it’s cool and solar eclipses visible from any given area are relatively rare.
    NOTE: Don’t be fooled when you see a date of May 21 – that’s Universal Time (London Time).  1:30 May 21 in London is 6:30 PDT, May 20.
  2. Safely capture the Transit of Venus on Tuesday, June 5, 2012.
    Why: Because this event won’t repeat for another 105 years! It’s rarer than Halley’s comet and it’s visible from everywhere in the continental United States.
  3. Capture sunspot activity.
    Why: We are approaching the solar maximum where sunspots and coronal mass ejections are at their most active.
  4. Composite a nicely formed sun into your shots.  You can use my “Easy HDR” method described in a prior column.
  5. Seek solar alignments where the sun forms the back light to silhouette a foreground object.
  6. Catch the International Space Station (or other spacecraft) as it hurtles across the face of the sun.
  7. Use the solar filter as an “ultra stopper” to make extremely long daytime exposures.

For some good background on how to observe an eclipse, see here.

Do I Need Protection?

For your eyes, absolutely. For your camera, HIGHLY recommended.  People often go “over the top” in their worry that a big lens will burn an instant hole in the sensor or camera body should they aim it at the sun. The image projected is onto a broad area at least as big as your sensor.  In a short period of time i.e. a 1/4,000 of a second exposure nothing horrible is likely to happen to the sensor at least. The combination of a mirror and shutter in a DSLR provides SOME protection to your camera and sensor from “certain doom” however if you were to ask my advice, I’d say DON’T use your camera to photograph the sun unless you have a SOLAR FILTER.  Most especially do not use live view (or a point and shoot camera) pointed at the sun. That tactic is very likely to damage your camera.

When I zoom in on the sun, isn’t that concentrating the light even more?

Well actually, just the opposite.  Instead of focusing all the energy on one spot, you’re spreading it over the sensor surface. So in fact, the sunlight is more concentrated when you don’t use a telephoto lens.

DO NOT look through the viewfinder to compose your shot unless you have a proper solar filter!  Permanent eye damage may result. Even then be careful.  And we just figured out that it’s not a good idea to use Live View to compose a shot.

What Kinds of Filters Are There? What Do They Cost?

Protection For Your Eyes

There are filters that you can wear or hold over your eyes. I highly recommend you get a pair. These are rated “ND 5″** and allow only 1/100,000 of the energy to pass through. Alternatively you can use a welders mask (though I bet not many of you have one!) #13 or greater.  Cost of wearable / simple filters ranges from $1 or so to $20 and more depending on the type.  Wearable filters are usually made of black polymer which blocks all wavelengths of light (important to prevent eye damage from non-visible light) and renders the sun a yellow-orange color.  Most locations only sell the personal filters in bulk (10 or 25 are the usual minimums).  I purchased a stock of 60, for example and have sold them all.

**IMPORTANT NOTE: There are at least FIVE different standards for measuring the transmissiveness of filters: “Neutral Density: ND, Optical Density – also often called ND, Shade Number – for welders glass, transmissiveness, and stops).  For a photographer who is familiar with the ND scale used to rate Neutral Density filters this is NOT the same scale as the “Optical Density” scale used to rate solar filters!  An ND3.8 (photo solar filter) in the optical density scale is equivalent to the ND8192 neutral density filter!  An ND8 filter for your camera is 3-stops of light. For safe visual viewing you need about 14 stops! So an ND8 is  woefully short of light snuffing capabilities. Moreover neutral density filters used with cameras may or may not extinguish harmful Infra-red and Ultraviolet radiation.  

  • What about using an 8-stop Vari-ND (ND2-400 Filter)?

At the maximum 8-stop setting (ND400) the filter is passing 0.4% of the sun’s energy.  That’s more than 40 times the recommended energy for PHOTOGRAPHIC use. A photo filter should transmit less than 0.01% (1/10,000). Even a 12-stop reduction in light (ND4096, Optical Density 3.6) passes too much energy for safe and effective photographic use. 13-stops which is the same as Density 3.8 or ND8192 is preferable.

  • What about the “Big Stopper” by Lee or Hitech?

10-stops sounds like an impressive reduction in light but the resin filter (Hitech) passes quite a lot of IR and UV light. And 10-stops still really isn’t enough.  I haven’t see the response curve for the Big Stopper. It would be UNWISE to assume the Big Stopper or any filter is safe if it isn’t solar specific – especially if you plan to try to take more than a few shots. These filters certainly aren’t visually safe.

In addition to not reducing the light to safe levels, having an insufficient energy reduction means that you’ll have problems with flare / glare.

Photographic and Visual Filters

There are several varieties of solar filters that can be used for photography.

  • Black polymer screw-in solar filters – pre-made you order them to screw in on the end of your lens(es). There would be little point in getting such a filter for any lens that is less than about 200 mm effective focal length.  It might be worth making your own from an existing UV filter.
  • Black polymer “covers” or black polymer solar sheets from which you can make filters.
  • Silver solar mylar sheets (make your own) which render the sun a more natural white to a blueish cast. Mylar is less durable than polymer.
  • Glass solar Filters in a housing to fit over a lens hood or dew shield (ND 5.0)
  • ND 3.8 (Photographic) solar filters which are NOT suitable for visual observing.  This type generally only comes in sheet form and you must make your own filter. Not suitable for visual use because it allows too much of the suns energy to pass through to your eyes.
  • Tuned solar filters (also called Hydrogen Alpha) – like those found in the Coronado solar telescope. I don’t have a background in these, but normally you will need a set of filters and they are primarily designed for use with telescopes. The cost is upward of $600.

Normally when you buy a solar filter, you select a size that will cover your lens hood (or for a telescope the “dew shield”).  Fit on filters should be snug so that they cannot come off if bumped or buffeted by wind. You really do NOT want your eyesight destroyed by a gust of wind!  The filter should also seal out light leaks since most solar filters are reflective.

Filter Costs

Since the upcoming events all require solar filters, they are in short supply. It may take literally MONTHS to get a filter from some suppliers.

Costs depend on the size and quality of the filter. For the average telephoto lens expect to pay from $60 to $100 for the glass type filters.  For very large lenses or for telescopes that cost could reach up to $200 and more.

Black polymer or silver mylar sheets will run you about $35 not including shipping.  The ND 3.8 Baader photo filter is about $90 for a 19 x 39″ sheet.  I also ordered a “natural color” Mylar polymer sheet (12″ x 12″) for about $30 from RainbowSymphony. RainbowSymphony also has the solar glasses at minimums of 25 pieces. Finding things on the RainbowSymphony site is a bit tedious.

There are many references on the web for building your own solar filter if you choose not to buy a glass filter.

As with all things, quality varies quite a bit. I do not have the resources to exhaustively test all filters, but so far my best photographic results have come using the Baader Astrosolar Film (PHOTO) and hand made filters.  This filter passes enough light to keep the exposures fast at low ISOs and is optically superior to any other mylar or polymer material I’ve tried.  The glass (visually safe) filter I have darkens the image to make it visually safe and renders the sun an orange color (which it isn’t by the way).  Somewhat longer exposures are needed for this.

 

Resources

I’ve placed these in order according to my experience surfing and buying from the company.

Recommendations

If your goal is photos, get a Baader Astrosolar filter. It is not eye safe, but it does allow higher shutter speeds and versatility. Practically this means you’ll have to make your own filter from sheets as there are few resources with pre-made photo transmissiveness filters. Making your own filter is not that hard.

Second choice based on quality is a glass filter that seals well over your lens hood (you do have one, right?). The “outside diameter” of your lens hood must be about the same as or slightly smaller than the inside diameter of the glass filter you’ll put over it.  Since most glass filters are designed for visual use, you’re shutter speeds will be a bit slower but good quality glass will keep your photo sharp.

Get a pair of solar glasses for your eyes regardless of what else you do.

Which Camera is Better for Night Photography?

Posted on by
15

I am asked pretty often which camera is better, or which camera is best for night photography. Like all things camera there is no “one size fits all” answer. But I can give you the biggest hint about what to look for and it comes down to a single number. Pixel density. The less dense the better – or conversely, the larger the pixel pitch the better.  Here are old and new cameras sorted by pixel pitch.  Data collected from various sources. Note that different methods are used to calculate pixel pitch, so approach the issue with cynicism.

Why is a bigger pixel better? Imagine a rainstorm. Which will catch more rain in 5 minutes: a thimble or a bathtub? Yeah, the bathtub. So it is with the large sensor sites of those cameras listed in the top of this list.

NOTE: To make a complete comparison, I should point out that sensor technologies have changed over time and new models generally outperform older models where the pixel pitch is similar or equal. Indeed, the Canon Rebel (aka the 300D) the Canon Rebel XT (350D), and the Canon 10D are in fact poor performers in comparison to recent generation cameras.

 

Model Pixel Pitch (µm) Px Width Px Height Megapixels Price (USD)
Nikon D3s 8.45 4256 2832 12.1 5100
Nikon D700 FX 8.45 4256 2832 12.1 3000
Nikon D3 FX 8.45 4256 2832 12.1 5900
Canon 5D 8.20 4368 2912 12.8
Canon 1D MkII N 8.20 3520 2336 8.2 1100
Canon 1D MkII 8.20 3520 2336 8.2 6000
Canon 300D Rebel 7.40 3088 2056 6.3 (na)
Canon 10D 7.40 3088 2056 6.3 (na)
Canon 1DS MkII 7.20 4992 3328 16.6 1350
Canon 1D MkIII 7.20 3888 2592 10.1 7000
Canon 5D MkII 6.40 5616 3744 21.1 2800
Canon 1DS MkIII 6.40 5632 3750 21.1 7000
Canon 30D 6.40 3504 2336 8.2 (na)
Canon 20D 6.40 3504 2336 8.2 (na)
Canon Rebel XT / 350D 6.4 3456 2304 8 (na)
Sony A900 5.9 6048 4032 24.4 3500
Nikon D3X 5.9 6048 4032 24.5 9100
Canon 1D MkIV 5.7 4896 3264 16.1 7000
Canon Rebel XS / 1000D 5.7 3888 2592 10.1 (d) 450
Canon XTi / 400D 5.7 3888 2592 10.1 (d) 530
Canon 40D 5.7 3888 2592 10.1 (d) 600
Nikon D90 5.5 4288 2848 12.3 750
Nikon D300 5.5 4288 2848 12.3 700
Nikon D300s 5.5 4288 2848 12.3 1620
Sony A700 5.5 4288 2856 12.2 600
Canon XSi / 450D 5.2 4272 2848 12.2 500
Canon T3 / 1100D 5.2 4272 2848 12 400
Canon T1i / 500D 4.7 4752 3168 15.1 570
Canon 50D 4.7 4752 3168 15.1 1800
Canon T3i / 600D 4.3 5184 3456 18 800
Canon T2i / 550D 4.3 5184 3456 18 650
Canon 60D 4.3 5184 3456 18 900
Canon 7D 4.3 5184 3456 18 1600
Canon PowerShot G9 1.9 4000 3000 12.1 1100

Tip: Avoiding Lens Flare

Posted on by
3

Photo 1: Flare shows as discolored areas below and to the right of the sun in this image. This image was taken during the same time as my Photon Worshippers image which won Astronomy Photographer of the Year, 2010. The unnatural appearance is a result of processing several images using high-dynamic-range (HDR) software. HDR processing did not eliminate the flare which detracts from the beam of light shining through the portal.

A common problem facing photographers – night or otherwise – is the lens flare that may occur when a bright light source is in the frame or just off axis.  Flare is evident in several locations in Photo 1 – notably at the saddle of the rock and in the water at the bottom center of the image.  Photo 1 was processed using high dynamic range techniques but those techniques did not eliminate the flare. Sometimes flare provides an enhancing effect, and sometimes not.  Below are two tips you can use to remove unwanted flare from your image. These tips work best when using a tripod to capture your images. And tips that work in the daytime also work at night.

Masking and Combining

Not many people realize that when flare is present, there is also often a reduction in contrast. This effect is sometimes more pronounced when using a filter. Our first recommendation is to always use a properly sized hood to block as much out-of-frame light as possible. When the bright light is in the frame, or is not fixable using a hood or manual shielding a powerful technique is to combine two shots as illustrated below.  The large upper shot is the result of combing the two lower shots.

Removing Flare by Masking off the Sun

Illustration 1: Removing flare and increasing contrast by masking off bright light sources

Obviously this technique works best when using a sturdy tripod – something we always recommend.

The method for combining two shots depends, of course, on which tool you use.  Books I recommend that describes how to do this sort of manipulation are these by my friend and fellow instructor Harold Davis:
The Photoshop Darkroom 2: Creative Digital Transformations
The Photoshop Darkroom: Creative Digital Post-Processing

My final, awarding winning “Photon Worshippers” image was processed using the “Hand HDR” technique described in “The Photoshop Darkroom“.  It took quite a bit of effort to remove the flare from the image – because I had not yet discovered the technique described here!

Blocking Errant Light

A similar strategy works especially well when taking long exposures at night – and it requires only one exposure. The bright rotating beacon from the lighthouse in Illustration 2 created problems for a 20 second exposure.  The flare from this intermittent bright light was managed by using a hat as a shield just before the bright beam swept across the camera.

Illustration 2: Using a shield to block intermittent bright light

This blocking strategy can also work when a car, hiker, bicyclist or other light bearing object sweeps light in the direction of your lens.  Unless the palm of your hand is coated in matte black soot, you won’t want to use your hand for this purpose. Be careful not to bump your lens or tripod when blocking the light and be sure to use a dark, non-reflective object to block the light because even if you have coated your hand in soot you probably won’t want to get that dirty stuff anywhere near your camera.

Learn more tips like this one at a Star Circle Academy Workshop where you’ll not only learn how to create compelling star trail images in fabulous places, but we’ll even provide you with a wet-nap to get that soot off your hands ;-)