Help with Strange Color Square on Photo

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by LuvLatins, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    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, Nov 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. LuvLatins

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "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.
    Rudy Benner, Nov 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. LuvLatins

    frederick Guest

    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.
    frederick, Nov 30, 2006
    #3
  4. 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
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 30, 2006
    #4
  5. 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_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Nov 30, 2006
    #5
  6. LuvLatins

    acl Guest

    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.
    acl, Nov 30, 2006
    #6
  7. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    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.
    LuvLatins, Nov 30, 2006
    #7
  8. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    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.
    LuvLatins, Nov 30, 2006
    #8
  9. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    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, Nov 30, 2006
    #9
  10. LuvLatins

    Guest

    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.
    , Nov 30, 2006
    #10
  11. LuvLatins wrote:
    > 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. :)


    Well, I will give him the benefit of doubt, and say he may have been
    giving you advice based on what he believed. However, when I was in photo
    retailing (60's &70's) It was possible to make more money from selling a
    gadget bag and a couple of UV filters than on the camera and a couple of
    lenses. People shop price for the camera and lens but not things like
    filters sold when they are buying the camera.

    I was lucky as the owner of the major department store I worked at
    (Lazarus - Federated and later Toys-R-Us) did not believe in that kind of
    sales. I was not on commission and I was never encouraged to sell something
    the customer did not need.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 30, 2006
    #11
  12. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    Thanks so much Murray. I do have photoshop and did not realize until
    I joined this ng that it supported RAW images so I took my filers off
    all of my lenses today and will use Photoshop as you describe.

    I have the SB800 unit but was trying to get a feel for the camera in
    manual mode and low light for the first time. I recently come to
    digital. Was using an old Konica 35mm film camera. I find it hard to
    get used to the ISO settings in digital. For example never used film
    at 1600 and the noise produced at this level on the D200 is pretty
    bad, not that its the cameras fualt just really pushing it. I need to
    read about the histogram I did not realize that that is what it is
    for. The blue spot was only on this one shot. With all the hyterea
    about banding I was worried thinking my unit was one that was bad. So
    dumb but remember I am new to this digital gig.

    Can you breifly describe how the Histogram works ?

    Many thanks

    On 30 Nov 2006 03:03:29 -0800, wrote:

    >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.
    LuvLatins, Nov 30, 2006
    #12
  13. LuvLatins

    tomm42 Guest

    I know it is hard when someone says this $50 item will save your $500
    investment, but it is all a scare tactic. It almost takes a sandstorm
    to damage a lens if you use your lens cap and or lens shade. Of course,
    there is always the stupid factor that none of us are immune from. But
    in 40 years of photography, 30 of which I haven't used a protective
    filter, or a UV filter. With film I used to use an 81A a lot to warm
    the image, but I shoot RAW in digital so I don't need the filter.
    Now for high ISO with a D200. Don't underexpose! Get the exposure right
    or a little overexposed to keep the noise down. 3200 is a stretch for
    any camera, try to keep it to a max of 1600, did I mention don't
    underexpose. If you are shooting alot in poor light situations, get
    some fast lenses. The Nikon 50 f1.4, 35mm f2 or if you can find it the
    28 f2 are excellent lenses. If you do don't mind manual focus then
    there are the 24 f2, 28 f1.4 or the 35 f1.4 (last two are rare and
    pricey). Sigma has fast 24mm, 28mm and 30mm lenses. Unfortunately zooms
    only go to f2.8, the Nikons are expensive. The nice thing about single
    focal length lenses is that they are small and easy to hand hold.
    Shoot RAW and noise reduce in the RAW converter. If you still have more
    noise than you like there is noise reduction software, Noise Ninja or
    Noiseware are good packages. Did I mention don't underexpose!
    Good luck

    Tom
    tomm42, Nov 30, 2006
    #13
  14. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    Thanks so so much. So great to get advise from a pro like yourself. I
    try not to even go above ISO 800. I do have Noise Ninja and Photoshop
    and started shooting in RAW today. On a 1 GIG Lexar 113x I dont get
    much perhaps I need to get a 2 Gig. I guess to mean to turn the ISO
    noise filter on. Do you worry about the ISO or let the camera use its
    auto ISO feature and focus on the Apeture and Shutter. Advise
    welcome. And the filters went back in the bag, for when I shoot in
    the desert some day in a sand storm :)

    On 30 Nov 2006 06:45:38 -0800, "tomm42" <> wrote:

    >I know it is hard when someone says this $50 item will save your $500
    >investment, but it is all a scare tactic. It almost takes a sandstorm
    >to damage a lens if you use your lens cap and or lens shade. Of course,
    >there is always the stupid factor that none of us are immune from. But
    >in 40 years of photography, 30 of which I haven't used a protective
    >filter, or a UV filter. With film I used to use an 81A a lot to warm
    >the image, but I shoot RAW in digital so I don't need the filter.
    >Now for high ISO with a D200. Don't underexpose! Get the exposure right
    >or a little overexposed to keep the noise down. 3200 is a stretch for
    >any camera, try to keep it to a max of 1600, did I mention don't
    >underexpose. If you are shooting alot in poor light situations, get
    >some fast lenses. The Nikon 50 f1.4, 35mm f2 or if you can find it the
    >28 f2 are excellent lenses. If you do don't mind manual focus then
    >there are the 24 f2, 28 f1.4 or the 35 f1.4 (last two are rare and
    >pricey). Sigma has fast 24mm, 28mm and 30mm lenses. Unfortunately zooms
    >only go to f2.8, the Nikons are expensive. The nice thing about single
    >focal length lenses is that they are small and easy to hand hold.
    >Shoot RAW and noise reduce in the RAW converter. If you still have more
    >noise than you like there is noise reduction software, Noise Ninja or
    >Noiseware are good packages. Did I mention don't underexpose!
    >Good luck
    >
    >Tom
    LuvLatins, Nov 30, 2006
    #14
  15. LuvLatins

    Guest

    > >I know it is hard when someone says this $50 item will save your $500
    > >investment, but it is all a scare tactic.

    Like Tomm, I've never used UV/skylight filters to protect a lens in
    over 40 years of photography (outback Australia, hiking, etc), and I've
    never regretted it. And very early in my night photography I realised
    that any filter will add reflections. I even did some tests using a
    Pentax 50mm prime lens and Kodachrome 25 to see just what effects my
    filters (uv, polariser and skylight) would have on image sharpness -
    while the effects were minimal and only really visible when 'pushing
    the envelope', there *was* a loss. So for me, they only ever go on
    when necessary - in fact nowadays with digital, the only filters I
    carry are a polariser and occasionally an ND (for those cliched soft
    waterfall shots.. (O;)

    > >Now for high ISO with a D200. Don't underexpose! Get the exposure right
    > >or a little overexposed to keep the noise down.


    While this is good advice, remember that digital has zero overexposure
    latitude - once you hit the end of the histogram, your whites are
    toast... So use the histogram to expose as far to the right as you
    can, being careful to blow only those areas that you don't mind
    'losing'..

    There's some essential reading here:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
    http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/exposure/exposure.htm
    , Nov 30, 2006
    #15
  16. LuvLatins

    LuvLatins Guest

    On 30 Nov 2006 13:09:39 -0800, wrote:

    >While this is good advice, remember that digital has zero overexposure
    >latitude - once you hit the end of the histogram, your whites are
    >toast... So use the histogram to expose as far to the right as you
    >can, being careful to blow only those areas that you don't mind
    >'losing'..


    Thanks I booked marked those links and cant wait to learn more. Thanks
    so much for your assistance.
    LuvLatins, Nov 30, 2006
    #16
  17. LuvLatins

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Rudy Benner <> wrote:

    >"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.


    I agree that it is a reflection. But it might just be that
    you had a bright light at just the right place to cause it.
    Has it happened on any other shot?

    I've been taking shots with a UV filter on my lenses for
    about 40 years and have never had any problem at all.

    ---- Paul J. Gans

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Dec 1, 2006
    #17
  18. LuvLatins

    Arnor Guest

    Hi,

    LuvLatins wrote:
    > Can you breifly describe how the Histogram works ?


    The histogram shows you how the brightness of the pixels in your image
    is distributed. On the left is black and the right is white. If your
    curve is concentrated on the left, the image may be underexposed, but
    if they are concentrated on the right, it may be overexposed. If the
    curve is clipped at the top it's called a clipped highlight, meaning
    that at that brightness level there is an area in the photo that did
    not register any detail. If you take a photo of the sun it is almost
    certain to have clipped highlights and the circle of the sun will show
    up as a featureless area when you look at it closely. Sometimes
    clipped hightlights are ok (like when taking pictures of the sun<g>)
    but they should be avoided. When the curve hits the floor, so to
    speak, it results in clipped shadows, where the dark area in the photo
    is black and generally produces a lot of noise if you try to make it
    lighter.

    Here are a couple of links that I found after searching google for
    "understanding histograms in photography" (without the quotes)

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
    http://www.paintedstork.com/digiblog/2006/07/everything-about-histograms-histograms.html

    Best regards,

    Arnor Baldvinsson
    San Antonio, Texas
    Arnor, Dec 1, 2006
    #18
  19. LuvLatins

    Arnor Guest

    Hi,

    > Here are a couple of links that I found after searching google for
    > "understanding histograms in photography" (without the quotes)


    One additional link that has a lot of good information:

    http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/histograms/histograms.htm

    Best regards,

    Arnor Baldvinsson
    San Antonio, Texas
    Arnor, Dec 1, 2006
    #19
  20. LuvLatins

    Colin_D Guest

    Arnor wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > LuvLatins wrote:
    >> Can you breifly describe how the Histogram works ?

    >
    > The histogram shows you how the brightness of the pixels in your image
    > is distributed. On the left is black and the right is white. If your
    > curve is concentrated on the left, the image may be underexposed, but
    > if they are concentrated on the right, it may be overexposed. If the
    > curve is clipped at the top it's called a clipped highlight, meaning
    > that at that brightness level there is an area in the photo that did
    > not register any detail.


    That is not my understanding of a histogram. A camera histogram is a
    two-dimensional graph with brightness on the x-axis and quantity on the
    y-axis. At any given point on the x-axis, the height of the graph is
    proportional to the number of pixels exhibiting that level of
    brightness. If the graph appears clipped at the top, it merely
    indicates that there are many pixels of that brightness, and the scaling
    of the y-axis is such that the graph clips. It most certainly does not
    indicate that the image is clipped.

    On the other hand, if the graph ends abruptly on the left while still
    having y-amplitude, the implication is that the shadows or dark parts of
    the image are clipped; if the right-hand end ends abruptly while still
    showing y-amplitude, then the implication is that highlights are clipped.

    I say 'implication' because the graph cannot show the clipped areas, as
    they were either not recorded by the sensor, or the imaging algorithms
    in the camera could not handle the range of brightnesses in the image
    (mainly due to exposure errors). A properly exposed image that is
    within the brightness range of the camera should show zero amplitude at
    both ends of the histogram. Whether or not the graph is clipped
    somewhere along its length is irrelevant.

    Colin D.



    If you take a photo of the sun it is almost
    > certain to have clipped highlights and the circle of the sun will show
    > up as a featureless area when you look at it closely. Sometimes
    > clipped hightlights are ok (like when taking pictures of the sun<g>)
    > but they should be avoided. When the curve hits the floor, so to
    > speak, it results in clipped shadows, where the dark area in the photo
    > is black and generally produces a lot of noise if you try to make it
    > lighter.
    >
    > Here are a couple of links that I found after searching google for
    > "understanding histograms in photography" (without the quotes)
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
    > http://www.paintedstork.com/digiblog/2006/07/everything-about-histograms-histograms.html
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Arnor Baldvinsson
    > San Antonio, Texas
    >


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Colin_D, Dec 1, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lindyhop
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    12,522
    Ray Paseur
    Jul 3, 2004
  2. Replies:
    16
    Views:
    503
    Paul H.
    Sep 24, 2005
  3. Ignoramus19259
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    781
    measekite
    Aug 28, 2007
  4. mmyvusenet

    Flag Square Photo

    mmyvusenet, Mar 15, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    290
    mmyvusenet
    Mar 15, 2010
  5. mmyvusenet

    Photo about Main Square

    mmyvusenet, Jun 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    511
    Peter
    Jun 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page