Filters and Flare

richard_l

Well-known
Local time
6:19 AM
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,518
Location
NC
Every once in awhile someone claims that they have a UV filter whose coating is so good that they get less flare with the filter than without it. I never thought that was possible, since except for reducing UV, the filter should not significantly alter the light striking the front lens element. Am I missing something? Maybe if the lens has an inferior or damaged coating, the filter may help by blocking UV? 😕
 
Bertram2 said:
No, nothing !! It's plain nonsense. Curious what the reason could be for such an effect !! 😀
Bertram
Mybe the reason for the effect is an overactive imagination. 😀
 
Perhaps the reduced flare effect is when comparing coated/milticoated and uncoated filters, rather than between lenses and filters?
 
richard_l said:
Mybe the reason for the effect is an overactive imagination. 😀

Or the wish to do everything you can to be on the safe side. Among amateur photogs a widespread attitude, which sometimes leads to enormous invests in all kinda gear. 😉 😉

It is said that modern lens glass absorbes almost all UV light anyway, I don't know if this is sufficient for high altitude areas tho.

Regards,
Bertram
 
There's a very simple test that you can do at home. This one's even scientific.

Look at the UV filter. Can you see that there's glass in the filter mount or see something reflected on the filter? If the answer is no to both under every possible angle, then it's perfect; there's no reflection and transmittance is 100%. 🙂

In contrast, when the answer is yes to one or both, the filter is not perfect and will be a potential source of flare and ghosting. 🙁

Unfortunately, filters with 100% transmittance and 0% percent reflection are quite rare.. They're also very difficult to handle during production, because they keep getting lost.. 😀
 
Manolo Gozales said:
Hey🙂

Apparently, they're removing the word "gullible" from the English dictionary.

ManGo

Old story: The less you KNOW he more you must BELIEVE. Sokrates found that out already 😀 😀
Bertram
 
pvdhaar said:
Look at the UV filter. Can you see that there's glass in the filter mount or see something reflected on the filter? If the answer is no to both under every possible angle, then it's perfect; there's no reflection and transmittance is 100%. 🙂

It's a foreign language for me and so I am not sure how much is kidding and how much is meant serious but there is NO filter which is 100% transmittent under EVERY (!!) angle of light, no matter how may 100 layers of coating it wears.
So I understand your contribution as a humorous way to explain why ALL filters have a basic risk of reflection ?
Bertram
 
Bertram2 said:
It's a foreign language for me and so I am not sure how much is kidding and how much is meant serious but there is NO filter which is 100% transmittent under EVERY (!!) angle of light, no matter how may 100 layers of coating it wears.
So I understand your contribution as a humorous way to explain why ALL filters have a basic risk of reflection ?
Bertram
Yes, I'm trying to pull your leg to some extent.. now you just have figure out why stuff that has 100% transmission and 0% reflection always gets lost.. 😀

But what I wrote did have a serious undertone, NOTHING except perhaps emty space in absence of gravity lets light pass unaltered. Even air does something to it, and you can see this when you look over a car's roof which has been sitting in the sun. The turbulences of the rising hot air make the image you see through it warp and twist..

It's the difference in refractive indices between materials (or of regions of different temperatures within a medium) that causes reflection. The larger the difference, the more the reflection. You can get around this to some extent by adding layers that have refractive indices somewhere in between, which is what coating basically amounts to, but you can not get it down to nothing..
 
Last edited:
Might be true in case the filter has a large ring. When you mount it, the filter ring might act as a short lens hood and block some of the flare that was present without the filter. But this is the scenario I had to invent not to say directly what I think of this claim. [Bullshit.]

By the way, flare etc does not result only from UV, it results from all the light rays that reach the film plane but are not image forming rays. That is, if you have Milla Jovovich in your image frame, all the light that forms Milla on the image should originate directly from the one and only true Milla in front of your lens - NOT the light bulb above the jacuzzi or other light producing or reflecting objects.

Contrary to the common believe[?], tele lenses are more prone to flare than wides. This is due to the fact that in a small angle lens, from all the light reaching the front lens[without proper hood], only a very small fraction is the "good light", that is the image forming light. The rest are not supposed to reach the film/sensor; if they enter the lens and bounce around in the barrel and between the glass/air surfaces, they will certainly end up on the wrong place on the negative. This way dark areas can get light from neighbouring bright areas, or even from light sources that are out of the frame.

Ghosting is a specific form of flare; it needs a "good" DOUBLE reflection from 2 shiny surfaces such as uncoated or badly coated lens elements or filters. If e.g. the light from a candle hits a glass surface that is not or inadequately coated, it can be reflected backwards. Then it can meet a second glass surface and be reflected again backwards, parallel to the original rays from the candle. If the angle of incidence of the original rays on all the lens elements is not perfectly perpendicular (it never is in practice), the light after the second reflection will form an image on the film that is weaker in intensity but slightly shifted from the first-order image (the unreflected light), resulting in a "ghost" image. Depending on the coating on the lens elements, the ghost image can have various colours, or "natural" if there is no coating at all.

Sometimes an in-between situation arises, when the ghost image is a series of images of the diaphragma opening - but the effect is the same; the diaphragma blades are illuminated by a strong light source outside of the frame like the Sun, then the light that is reflected from the blades continues its way towards the film, gets double-reflected a few times on lens elements and this way it forms multiple images on the film. In this case the object is inside the lens so the multiple reflections forming its images pass through different lens elements, and the size of the ghost diaphragma images will vary (decrease or increase depending on the lens design).
 
Back
Top Bottom