«

OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
getting used to it.

My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.

http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG

I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
need to be concerned ?

"LuvLatins" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
> Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
> the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
> to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
> heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
> it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
> ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
> getting used to it.
>
> My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
> and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
> under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
> made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
> filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
> 67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.
>
> http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG
>
> I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
> the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
> enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
> need to be concerned ?

Remove the filter.

LuvLatins wrote:
> OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
> Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
> the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
> to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
> heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
> it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
> ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
> getting used to it.
>
> My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
> and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
> under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
> made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
> filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
> 67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.
>
> http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG
>
> I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
> the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
> enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
> need to be concerned ?

That image was slow loading...
Anyway, I'd agree with the advice you've had that it's a reflection -
probably from the rectangular bright sign just to the right of the
subject? No filter might mean it wouldn't have been there, a
multicoated filter might mean it was less evident than it would be with
an uncoated filter, but it's too late to guarantee that it wasn't an
internal reflection from elements within the lens, so even with no
filter it might still have been there. The available lighting / bright
back lights in that shot almost guarantees some problem.

LuvLatins wrote:
> OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
> Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
> the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
> to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
> heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
> it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
> ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
> getting used to it.
>
> My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
> and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
> under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
> made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
> filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
> 67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.
>
> http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG
>
> I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
> the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
> enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
> need to be concerned ?

Yea, that is a reflection. It is most likely the UV filter.

Lenses are far more durable than most people think and s a small scratch
or chip seldom is noticeable in the images the lens makes. I would use some
protection in an area where I expected a lot of blowing sand or some other
unusual risk factors, but I don't even have any kind of "protective" filter
for most of my lenses.

Unless you know something I don't know a UV filter will NOT enhance the
image from a digital camera. They are not sensitive to UV light and even if
they were, you would not have had any meaningful levels of UV light in that
image.

If you want to continue to use a UV filter and have less of a problem
with reflections, I suggest buying a really good clear or UV filter.

A better idea may be a good lens shade. That will reduce reflections
even more and will offer some level of protection for your lens.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:25:28 -0500, in rec.photo.digital LuvLatins
<> wrote:

>I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
>the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
>enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
>need to be concerned ?

You've been told the answer. If you refuse to believe it or accept it
that's your call.
--
Ed Ruf ()
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

LuvLatins wrote:
> OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
> Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
> the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
> to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
> heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
> it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
> ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
> getting used to it.
>
> My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
> and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
> under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
> made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
> filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
> 67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.
>
> http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG
>
> I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
> the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
> enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
> need to be concerned ?

It's a reflection on something, probably the filter. Get rid of it if
your photos include light sources, or if a light source directly
illuminates the front of the lens.

Regarding whether or not your pictures are underexposed: You cannot
really tell much from the preview; use the histograms/blinking
highlights instead, they're more useful.

Also, in this case, why did you use f/5.6 and not f/4? f/4 would have
allowed you to use ISO 1600 instead of 3200, minimising noise.

Thanks Joe, I think I will just take them off. The sales guy actually
suggested the need and being that I bought the camera and an SB800 and
three lenses he was probably just adding things to my laundry list.
Only things left now are a tripod and the extra battery pack thing.
Has anyone tried the Wireless transfer on the D200 that sounds kewl.
God this hobby is expensive.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:45:09 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<> wrote:

>LuvLatins wrote:
>> OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
>> Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
>> the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
>> to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
>> heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
>> it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
>> ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
>> getting used to it.
>>
>> My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
>> and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
>> under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
>> made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
>> filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
>> 67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.
>>
>> http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG
>>
>> I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
>> the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
>> enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
>> need to be concerned ?
>
> Yea, that is a reflection. It is most likely the UV filter.
>
> Lenses are far more durable than most people think and s a small scratch
>or chip seldom is noticeable in the images the lens makes. I would use some
>protection in an area where I expected a lot of blowing sand or some other
>unusual risk factors, but I don't even have any kind of "protective" filter
>for most of my lenses.
>
> Unless you know something I don't know a UV filter will NOT enhance the
>image from a digital camera. They are not sensitive to UV light and even if
>they were, you would not have had any meaningful levels of UV light in that
>image.
>
> If you want to continue to use a UV filter and have less of a problem
>with reflections, I suggest buying a really good clear or UV filter.
>
> A better idea may be a good lens shade. That will reduce reflections
>even more and will offer some level of protection for your lens.

I BELEIVE, geeez so serious Ed. And the doctor said, geez, dont worry
about using that condom for protection you dont really need it (Huge
Grin)

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:50:37 -0500, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN
SIG!)" <> wrote:

>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:25:28 -0500, in rec.photo.digital LuvLatins
><> wrote:
>
>>I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
>>the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
>>enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
>>need to be concerned ?
>
>You've been told the answer. If you refuse to believe it or accept it
>that's your call.

See your expereinced, I am still leanring. I was just proud that I
was in full automatic mode I hate P mode but sometimes you miss
great shots fussing with the damn controls. The video by Blue Crane
was great it said, memorize the controls on the camera like a piano
and then you dont need to look at them, you can just flick them on
demand. Great help that video, helped a great deal to understand the
AE and AF modes.

Thanks Guys looks like those filters are going back in the bag !


On 29 Nov 2006 16:56:52 -0800, "acl" <>
wrote:

>
>LuvLatins wrote:
>> OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
>> Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
>> the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
>> to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
>> heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
>> it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
>> ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
>> getting used to it.
>>
>> My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
>> and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
>> under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
>> made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
>> filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
>> 67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.
>>
>> http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG
>>
>> I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
>> the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
>> enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
>> need to be concerned ?
>
>It's a reflection on something, probably the filter. Get rid of it if
>your photos include light sources, or if a light source directly
>illuminates the front of the lens.
>
>Regarding whether or not your pictures are underexposed: You cannot
>really tell much from the preview; use the histograms/blinking
>highlights instead, they're more useful.
>
>Also, in this case, why did you use f/5.6 and not f/4? f/4 would have
>allowed you to use ISO 1600 instead of 3200, minimising noise.

LuvLatins wrote:
> See your expereinced, I am still leanring. I was just proud that I
> was in full automatic mode I hate P mode but sometimes you miss
> great shots fussing with the damn controls. The video by Blue Crane
> was great it said, memorize the controls on the camera like a piano
> and then you dont need to look at them, you can just flick them on
> demand. Great help that video, helped a great deal to understand the
> AE and AF modes.
>
> Thanks Guys looks like those filters are going back in the bag !
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2006 16:56:52 -0800, "acl" <>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >LuvLatins wrote:
> >> OK I am sending this to the experts. I am new to digital Photography.
> >> Just moved over from a Konica film SLR. Love my new D200 but I find
> >> the electronic ISO hard to get used to. I keep wanting to compare it
> >> to Film. I constantly feel my pictures are under exposed. I have
> >> heard that this D200 is excellent in low light conditions, so I took
> >> it to times square in Manhattan. Was having so much fun. Turned my
> >> ISO way up and no flash. The pictures some good some bad but I am
> >> getting used to it.
> >>
> >> My question is this, I took this photo in the center of times square
> >> and saw it on the LCD its so obvious. Notice the huge blue square
> >> under the subjects eye ? I thought was this banding ? Dumb but it
> >> made me uncomfortable. I now just think its a reflection off the UV
> >> filter I have on the front of all my lenses. This one was a TIFFEN
> >> 67mm UV Protector on an 18-70mm DX lens.
> >>
> >> http://www.jbandes.com/public/DSC_0126.JPG
> >>
> >> I sent it to Nikon and they said its a reflection and I should remove
> >> the filter. I think that is dumb, the filter protects the lens and
> >> enhances the photos I would think. Advise on what caused this any
> >> need to be concerned ?
> >
> >It's a reflection on something, probably the filter. Get rid of it if
> >your photos include light sources, or if a light source directly
> >illuminates the front of the lens.
> >
> >Regarding whether or not your pictures are underexposed: You cannot
> >really tell much from the preview; use the histograms/blinking
> >highlights instead, they're more useful.
> >
> >Also, in this case, why did you use f/5.6 and not f/4? f/4 would have
> >allowed you to use ISO 1600 instead of 3200, minimising noise.

Hi, regarding to you using filters in low light conditions in my
experience, are really not required, unless you are in a harsh area.
ie. wet, sandy, hot etc. But normally I don't use them, if I wish to
get a effect I use Adobe Photoshop CS2, which you can remove the blue
square from your image. The other thing I don't understand is why are
you not using a fill in flash or is it my understanding that you are
trying out the low light levels in your camera. If you are doing the
latter did you take more images of the subject in the same location and
did the blue square appear in the other shots or was the blue square in
the one image, you did not say. As was mentioned you have to use the
histogram for each exposure to guage the EV of the image. I have the
Histogram set to on so that I can see the exposure level.