Less streetlight / Lamppost Flare ?? How ??

chevron

Hi all,

Got this picture last night during the walk. I would be quite happy with it expect for one thing.
THe flare from the street light,

How, for future reference would one eliminate or reduce the flare on it, If the flare was shorter and not as bright i would like this image.

Any advice on how i can accomplish this in the future??

kelly1

Hello Danny,

I've done very little night photography but from what I've read, the lens needs to be spotlessly clean and removing the UV (if you have one) can help too.

I'm open to correction on this, but afaik, smaller apertures produce larger star bursts from lights so try opening the aperture more.

I see you used f/22 for that shot so see what happens if you switch to f/8-11. Also I'd drop the ISO to 100 to reduce noise.

Hope that's of some use to you!

Thecageyone

I got similar flare in the same spot, I used the adjustment brush in LR3, set to exposure [-1.0 or so] and went across the sky with it, should kill some flare.

chevron

thanks Kelly1,
Iv done very little night photography myself, So little in fact, that was my first real attempt.

Will keep all that in mind for next time.
Had no filters on lens at all.

Borderfox

Better glass helps reduce it but it can be still there in most cases

Its still there in this shot but the L glass keeps it under control

.Longshanks.

Embrace the flare! I love it!

Thecageyone

Here's my shot from the same area



I didn't get as much flare, And probably wouldn't have need the burning only it was taken @ f/22 for 13 seconds. Maybe f/16 and 8 seconds would have worked better?

Effects

Higher iso meaning faster shutter speed would help I think. But then you trade off with quality/noise.

chevron

So the consensus is that kit lens glass sucks lol.
Possible its also the actual light ?
As i took this pic of f20 for 5 secs with the Newer white street lights last night with little flare.

kelly1

Effects wrote: »

Higher iso meaning faster shutter speed would help I think. But then you trade off with quality/noise.

Shutter speed shouldn't be a problem when a tripod is used.

chevron wrote: »

So the consensus is that kit lens glass sucks lol.
Possible its also the actual light ?
As i took this pic of f20 for 5 secs with the Newer white street lights last night with little flare.

Why did you go for such a small aperture? I know it gives greater depth of field in theory but you should see no issues at say f/16 especially since you're not going for ultra wide to include near foreground subjects. Going for such a small aperture will cause diffraction by the aperture which will soften the image. So I'd suggest f/11 - f/16. Give it a try and see what difference it makes. Will keep the exposure shorter too.

EDIT: BTW have you read up on hyper-focal distance to get the most from the depth of field? The rule of thumb is to focus about 1/3 of the distance into the scene.

Effects

kelly1 wrote: »

Shutter speed shouldn't be a problem when a tripod is used.

The tripod has nothing to do with it. I've noticed in the past that I've gotten more flare from street lights with a slower shutter speed and low iso compared to a higher iso and faster shutter speed.

chevron wrote: »

So the consensus is that kit lens glass sucks lol.
Possible its also the actual light ?
As i took this pic of f20 for 5 secs with the Newer white street lights last night with little flare.

That street light works by projecting all the light up and reflecting it off a surface so the bare bulb isn't projecting the light directly at your lens so that could be making the difference.

Heebie

Is this something like a neutral density filter would help?

chevron

Thanks for all the comments and advice guys.
I will read up on hyper-focal distance today.

Cheers
Danny

sensibleken

kelly1 wrote: »

.

EDIT: BTW have you read up on hyper-focal distance to get the most from the depth of field? The rule of thumb is to focus about 1/3 of the distance into the scene.

I havent heard of this before and focal length is something i need to improve on. can you recomend somewhere to read about it?

PopeBuckfastXVI

sensibleken wrote: »

I havent heard of this before and focal length is something i need to improve on. can you recomend somewhere to read about it?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

If you are using android download 'Depth of Field Calculator' from the market, it gives your near and far limits, and hyperfocal distance for any aperture/focal length combination you enter.

You really need a distance scale on your lens to make best use of it though.

(a quick tip is to set the the infinity marker to the back limit marker for your set aperture)

FWIW I took this using Hyperfocal distance technique.

1. Work out the hyperfocal distance using droid app
2. Manually set focus on lens to this distance
3. Ensure the frame doesn't include anything closer than the near limit.

kelly1

sensibleken wrote: »

I havent heard of this before and focal length is something i need to improve on. can you recomend somewhere to read about it?

When you want to get near foreground subjects and distant objects e.g the moon or the horizon in focus, the best way to do this is to focus at the hyperfocal distance. I shouldn't really have brought this up in this thread because it really only applies to landscape shots. So forget I ever mentioned it!

"The hyperfocal distance is the point of focus where everything from half that distance to infinity falls within the depth of field."

From http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html

As a rule of thumb, for a scene which doesn't extend to the horizon, set the focal distance to about 1/3 of the way into the scene to maximize the depth of field.