Taken today RAW with d7000 35 mm f1.8G
ISO:1200 1/90th sec f2.8

had circular polarizer on lens
focus point was in front of cart(actually underneath a bit)

I converted to jpeg with no correction.
The colors look washed out/hazy to me. Am I seeing this correctly?
This was shot in a building where trains are displayed (Gold Coast Railroad Museum in Miami). It was fairly dark,- that is why I shot with ISO 1200. I realize that I should have shot faster and could have focussed better but I don't think that is causing what I think is a problem. Is what I'm seeing noise?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

No, that is not noise.

It looks like lens flair created by a direct light source just off of the upper left of the frame.

I would guess that the angle of the light was such that the polarizer was unable to compensate.

Dave
Quad Cities, USA
A Nikonians Team Member
My Gallery
SummersPhotoGraphic.com

Nikonians membership -
"My most important photographic investment, after the camera"

Share, Learn and Inspire

Thank you. Since I was indoors I didn't need the polarizer. I should have taken it off. I didn't realize it might cause a problem.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The polarizer cost you a stop or more of light, and it may have had an issue with the back light, too, causing the flare. Be sure to take filters off when they're not needed.

Alan

I'm not so sure it was the polarizer - it looks washed out to me, due to the backlight. If you had stepped three steps to your left and thus had the (baggage?) car behind the wagon, I am pretty sure that all of the colors would have been pretty intense.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

In any case, I didn't need the polarizer. I do see what your saying about the backlight. What I did learn is that, apparently, lens flare may manifest itself as a 'haze'. Thanks for your input.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Looking at the scene and the haze gradient across the scene, I would guess there was a window just out of the frame to the left that was illuminating the front of the filter. Increasing contrast can help reduce the apparent flare but won't full correct it.
The filter did you no favors, it meant a higher ISO was needed for proper exposure by a full 1-2 stops.
Do you keep the lens hood on? I see a lot of tourists here not using them outdoors and I can imagine they are blaming the camera when their images are thin and washed out.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I believe light was coming from the open end of the building (from the left). I learned my lesson about keeping the CP filter on when it is not neeeded. At least I did have the lens hood on.

One thing I have noticed is that, in general, it is difficult to easily rotate the CP filter when the lens hood is on. How do people deal with that?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> lens flare may manifest itself as a 'haze'.

Flare is, well, flare. What you're seeing here is probably "ghosting" or a lack of contrast, although I'm not familiar with the performance of the 35/f1.8 in such conditions. Certainly if this had been my 35-70/f2.8 AFD, it would be ghosting.

Flare looks quite different. This is flare:



Re: polarizers. Kind of a problem. Tamron has some of their hoods built with a handy slot in the side of the hood, but some folks have complained that this makes the hood too flimsy. I don't use a CP that often, and when I do I just take off the hood, set the CP and then replace the hood. But then again I probably am shooting on a tripod where that isn't as big a deal.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>Flare looks quite different. This is flare:
>
>

Actually I believe there are two types of lens flare

Some time ago in one of the other forums during a discussion on overall low contrast in an image I learned from a comment made by another Nikonian about veiling flare which would produce the results shown in the OP's example.

Your example shows, I believe, both veiling flare as well as the second type, ghosting flare.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I Googled 'lens flare' and Wikipedia had this to say:\

Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens. These mechanisms differ from the intended image formation mechanism that depends on refraction of the image rays. Flare manifests itself in two ways: as visible artifacts, and as a haze across the image. The haze makes the image look "washed out" by reducing contrast and color saturation (adding light to dark image regions, and adding white to saturated regions, reducing their saturation).

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I was curious what type of metering was used. Spot metering often gives very different results. Dont know wheter in this instance it would make a difference but is worth a try.

Also I have found less expensive filters can soften an image due to reflections. What brand of polarizer did you use.

Bob

Spot metering and tiffen filter

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

This is also my interpretation of “flare.”

Ghosting is just a particular manifestation of lens flare.

Dave
Quad Cities, USA
A Nikonians Team Member
My Gallery
SummersPhotoGraphic.com

Nikonians membership -
"My most important photographic investment, after the camera"

Share, Learn and Inspire