I like to shoot into the sun

[fike]

Photos taken looking directly into the sun are generally considered a bad idea.  That is enough reason for me to want to do it.  I like some of the effects I can get from strongly backlit subjects, and I like to shoot HDR to get a good dynamic range and foreground detail. but....

I do not like lens flare.  

I almost always shoot some sort of panoramic, so I get lens flare in multiple frames.

What do I do to try to minimize the occurrence of lens flare?
* I don't add extra filters or glass between lens and subject.
* I use a lens hood
* In addition to the hood, I shade the lens with my hand
* I overlap the panoramic image so that I can blend the pano layers to hide the lens flare (only works on rare occasions)
* I shoot with high-quality lenses
* I put the sun directly behind a tree trunk or branches to break up its rays

Are there any other strategies I've missed?  What works for you?

[Sheldon N]

If you don't mind some manual layer blending and a little bit more time in post production, one thing you can do is shoot another exposure or two where you actually block the sun out of the frame using your hand. Then you have a flare free foreground image from which to manually blend out the flare spots.

[fike]

If you don't mind some manual layer blending and a little bit more time in post production, one thing you can do is shoot another exposure or two where you actually block the sun out of the frame using your hand. Then you have a flare free foreground image from which to manually blend out the flare spots.

yep, I've done that.  Time consuming, but it can work.  Unfortunately when you are shooting as many panoramics as I do, you can multiply that work by 5 or 10 or however many shots have the flare.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have not really seen that much of a problem. Could you post some samples? I seldom have that problem but I try to avoid to much sky in my panos.

Best regards
Erik

yep, I've done that.  Time consuming, but it can work.  Unfortunately when you are shooting as many panoramics as I do, you can multiply that work by 5 or 10 or however many shots have the flare.

[fike]

Hi,

I have not really seen that much of a problem. Could you post some samples? I seldom have that problem but I try to avoid to much sky in my panos.

Best regards
Erik

I was standing perched on steep slickrock near Vultees Arch in Sedona.  I knew the lens flare was going to be bad, so I overlapped the images about 50% hoping that I would be able to blend them out with overlapped areas that became clear after the camera was rotated.  No luck.  I was shading the camera with my hand.  I was able to get rid of hand overlap, but when I got to this point, it became clear that the image was a lost cause.

[Sheldon N]

Wow, that is bad! What lens was that shot with?

[fike]

Wow, that is bad! What lens was that shot with?

Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L @F/11, 1/40th and 34mm on 50D with hood affixed.

[fike]

Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L @F/11, 1/40th and 34mm on 50D with hood affixed.

Does anyone have the sense that perhaps my sample of the 24-70 could be adjusted at the factory to reduce the incidence of flare?  It is considered a good lens for resisting flare, so I am surprised that I have such issues.

[francois]

Does anyone have the sense that perhaps my sample of the 24-70 could be adjusted at the factory to reduce the incidence of flare?  It is considered a good lens for resisting flare, so I am surprised that I have such issues.

I can't say for sure but I never saw anything like that with my 24-70, even when I shot directly into the sun. I might do some tests to see if I can get similar results but these days, with the clouds/rain/snow, I won't have the opportunity to do anyting useful.

[Peter McLennan]

All the above strategies are good.  

The one that's missing from the list is a mat box.  A lens shade, your hand or your hat will block out some of the non-imaging light, but a mat box will do a much better job.  

Cumbersome, expensive, slow, effective.

[fike]

All the above strategies are good.  

The one that's missing from the list is a mat box.  A lens shade, your hand or your hat will block out some of the non-imaging light, but a mat box will do a much better job.  

Cumbersome, expensive, slow, effective.

That's interesting. I have never seen anything like that. they are surprisingly expensive (isn't anything used for photography that way?).  I am curious about whether they will really make a difference when the sun is in the frame.  Also, why doesn't the lens shade work to do the same thing.  

On another note, I wonder if I could get a larger lens shade to fit?  I am using an APS-C camera, so I should be able to extend the lens shade further out without causing any vignetting.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I see your point, a lot of ghosting, but flare is not bad. I have no suggestions, unfortunately.

Best regards

Erik

I was standing perched on steep slickrock near Vultees Arch in Sedona.  I knew the lens flare was going to be bad, so I overlapped the images about 50% hoping that I would be able to blend them out with overlapped areas that became clear after the camera was rotated.  No luck.  I was shading the camera with my hand.  I was able to get rid of hand overlap, but when I got to this point, it became clear that the image was a lost cause.

[telyt]

Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L @F/11, 1/40th and 34mm on 50D with hood affixed.

Try a good fixed focal length lens instead of a zoom.

[fennario]

Agree with Telyt... try using primes instead of a zoom.  They are usually much less prone to flare due to their simpler designs/fewer optical elements for light to bounce around within.  Some Canon primes such as the 24/1.4 II also have a nano-coating on the front element to help reduce both types of flare.

[Frodo]

Is your problem caused by stitching the photos?  You seem to have flare rays with about five ghosts in a regular pattern.  It looks like you have one flare/ghost pattern that shifts when you rotate the lens slightly for the next picture.  When stitching the flare/ghosts will be repeated but the subject won't be.  The result is four or five times the flare from an individual image.

Can you post the individual (pre-stitching) images?  I bet that the flare/ghosting is not nearly as bad on individual images.

One way around it might be to use the lens at a wider setting and stitch fewer images together.  Is there a particular reason why you have stitched so many images for this shot?  Can you live with less resolution?

Cheers

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have had quite a few zoom lenses and not really seen similar problems. But something looks fishy to me, it almost seems to me that you may have some dirt or so in the lens. Try too look trough the lens using a flashlight in a dark room and see if you can see something, or hold in in front of a projector.

There are some recommendations on using "prime" lenses and that may be a good solution, but primes can also have ghosting.

Best regards
Erik

I was standing perched on steep slickrock near Vultees Arch in Sedona.  I knew the lens flare was going to be bad, so I overlapped the images about 50% hoping that I would be able to blend them out with overlapped areas that became clear after the camera was rotated.  No luck.  I was shading the camera with my hand.  I was able to get rid of hand overlap, but when I got to this point, it became clear that the image was a lost cause.

[fike]

I have a 50mm f/1.4 that may be a good start for using primes in these situations.  It is a bit long for panos, but I can just take more shots.  I don't think it came with a lens hood, though.  

good suggestion, thanks.

[fike]

Is your problem caused by stitching the photos?  You seem to have flare rays with about five ghosts in a regular pattern.  It looks like you have one flare/ghost pattern that shifts when you rotate the lens slightly for the next picture.  When stitching the flare/ghosts will be repeated but the subject won't be.  The result is four or five times the flare from an individual image.

Can you post the individual (pre-stitching) images?  I bet that the flare/ghosting is not nearly as bad on individual images.

One way around it might be to use the lens at a wider setting and stitch fewer images together.  Is there a particular reason why you have stitched so many images for this shot?  Can you live with less resolution?

Cheers

Absolutely!  The multiple instances of identical lens flare are a direct result of the panoramic stitching.  I am not concerned that it occurs four or five times. I need to have less flare so that I can make a better stitch, or more effectively blend it away.  

I have had similar problems regardless of the focal length.  I make panos with so many frames so that I can print them very large while retaining excellent detail.

[Mike Boden]

As has been said before, a fixed focal length lens should produce less flare than a zoom lens.

Additionally, if the sun is out of the frame, you may want to try a compendium lens hood such as one of the following:
Lee Lens Hoods

Or, you could try one of these accessories:
Flare Buster
Delta Flash Shoe Dual Arm

Also, you may want to retouch the images with flare before stitching together.

[elf]

You could modify your hoods by adding the following material to the insides: http://www.fpi-protostar.com/flock.htm.  It also makes a very effective background for macros and closeups.

You could also make your own hoods that match the focal length you're shooting at.  The manufacturer's hood for a 24-70 is going to be less effective at 70mm than it is at 24mm.

p.s. I think 70mm is closer to the minimum focal length for shooting panos with the desired goal of getting more detail.