Evil flare demons

[Graham Line]

The worst thing anyone can say about lens here seems to be that it "flares like crazy and makes me want to puke."
But -- what if flare is part of the story? Here in the northern latitudes this time of year, low sun angles are the norm. Walking or driving south the glare can be blinding. To me it adds a sense of time and place.
What do you think?

(The lens is a VC 28/3.5 on a Minolta CLE. Yes, I could have stepped to the right and blocked the sun with a tree)

 

[Keith]

Definitely ... I like flare and make a point of inducing it when I get the opportunity and I think it wll add to the pic.

These modern lenses though! 😱 I can aim my Hexanons straight into the sun and the amount of flare I actually don't get amazes me!

 

[visiondr]

Downtown Park Blocks... cool shot, Joe.
In a situation like that, flare is OK. Mostly, though, I really don't want it.

 

[back alley]

i would have done both, stepped to the right and taken this pic as well and then determined, after the fact, which i preferred.
it's your photo and if you like the flare then so be it.
it's the beauty of 'art' in that it's up to the artist to say what belongs or not.

 

[Bryce]

There is more than one type of flare and there are times when it might be appropriate or not.
I'm with Keith, I go out of my way to cause it sometimes.
I have one lens that flares in a way I never seem to want and does it way too easily. That lens is seldom used anymore...

 

[Graham Line]

Downtown Park Blocks... cool shot, Joe.
In a situation like that, flare is OK. Mostly, though, I really don't want it.

Actually, that's Lonsdale Square just east of the Multnomah County Courthouse, and just north of Chapman Square.

 

[kbg32]

I love flare......It can be a useful compositional emotive element.

 

[Kaerf]

kbg32, those are both great examples, especially the second. They both easily prove that flare can and does fit for certain photos. It all depends on what you're looking for and whether it fits the mood you're going for.

 

[projectbluebird]

One of my photography books from the mid 50's (I can't remember which at the moment) has a picture it describes as "gratuitous use of flare."

It goes on to grudgingly admit that flare can be useful, sometimes, maybe.

I agree with Joe and Kaerf, sometimes flare can be a good thing, even desireable. If you want some wild flare, try out some uncoated lenses.

 

[dll927]

Then there's the famous case of flare causing images of the aperture blades to show up in the picture.

Let's face it - flare is the result of light hitting the front of the lens. If you are going to take pictures facing the sun (or source of light), the first line of resistance is an effective lens shade. And sometimes I wonder a bit about these newer "tulip-shape" shades.

So there are three choices: 1) change direction 2) lens shade 3) live with the results and make the best of them.

 

[dmr]

Flare (and related stuff, I'm not really sure what's truly flare and what's other things) can be cool, or it can ruin a photo!

This first one (let's see if I can get these images to post) is what I consider to be a cool UFO, and I intentionally aimed the Mamiya with the sun just off center to see what it would do. I found out! 🙂

As cool as I think that one is, this one is just as abysmal! 🙁 This one has some UFOs, but it has that annoying "swoosh" that the GIII sometimes does when you have a bright light just outside the field of view.

Like a rainbow in the dark ... NOT!

 

[thetooth]

taken with a leica summar

 

[Sonnar2]

With an SLR you can keep control of (most of) the flare. At RF I don't like it because it cannot be predicted.

I have sold one modern RF lens for it's bad, and unpredictable, annoying ghost pictures in whatever backlite (CV 35/1.7 Ultron)

There is mild flare which results in mushiness of the central picture areas when sky is bright, which I also don't like but can be overseen. Obviously this is a common problem with any Gaussian wideangle lenses.

It's a matter of atmosphere, expression if to allow some flare in pictures.

Real great designed lenses don't show much flare, if any. The CV 15/4.5 is nearly free of flare. With a 102° of view the sun is quite often in the picture, so this is of great help using the lens. On the other hand, almost every highspeed lens shows some flare, or ghost pictures when used on a bright day with 1/4000s, or ND filter and wide open. This wasn't the use the lens was designed for....

Some flare with the Rollei RF 40/2.8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/14734139@N00/287493913/

have fun, Frank

 

[Roberto]

Flare with Industar 26.. I stopped using this lens because of this.
In fact I hate flare... 🙂

 

[dmr]

Flare with Industar 26.. I stopped using this lens because of this.

OOOOooooohhhh! I like that one! 🙂

I wish I had a lens which would do that in a predictable manner!

I thought I posted one here, I searched but I couldn't find it, where I was shooting this huge abandoned grain structure thing using the SLR and the zoom which has many elements. I had the sun off center, and a whole cascade of aperture images! I could see that one in the viewfinder and snapped it. 🙂

I admit that sometimes I like what it looks like.

 

[Rob-F]

I find that veiling flare can add atmosphere to a picture. Reflections--ghost images of strong lights, like the sun--can be a distraction. Yet, I have used them creatively, to symbolize the radiant energy of direct sunlight in the frame.

I think the important thing about flare is that it should be used with intention, and, like horseradish or Tabasco, should be used sparingly.

 

[ibcrewin]

speaking of flare... Small thread hijack.. Where can I find a hood for my J3? Flare mostly stinks, the occasional flare is okay if it's in the right place.

 

[xayraa33]

speaking of flare... Small thread hijack.. Where can I find a hood for my J3? Flare mostly stinks, the occasional flare is okay if it's in the right place.

try the 'bay seller Heavystar for a 40.5mm dia. lens hood for the J-3.

 

[ibcrewin]

Cool thanks, I'll have to look into that!