Sensor cleaning

petoz

Active member
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?
This is the type of question that interests me as well. Given that the blemish that I see in your image is more or less one pixel large, have you considered the possibility that this may be a lazy pixel? Does it disappear under wider aperture? Could it have been just a small ICBM in the sky?

I was much frustrated by the obstinate nature of dirt on my sensor. Sent it off to Canon to clean professionally and am yet to receive it back. Many wise people on this forum attempted to talk me into taking it easier. I guess I would be pretty happy if the worst spot on my sensor looked the way yours does.

--
canonballs
 
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?
What spot of dust? ;)

The next time u change lenses u will have dust again anyway, so no need for a perfectly clean sensor.

U only need that if u shoot uniformely white or light colored images - or if the dust is in a real bad position (eg upper half if u do landcape a lot).

If u have mixed colors on ur pics u wont notice it anyway unless its really really bad.

So to answer ur q's: Yes and no;)
 
This is the type of question that interests me as well. Given that
the blemish that I see in your image is more or less one pixel
large, have you considered the possibility that this may be a lazy
pixel? Does it disappear under wider aperture? Could it have been
just a small ICBM in the sky?
I think you're seeing something else. The spot circled has a diameter of about 40 pixels. Try adjusting the contrast in Photoshop to 100% and then adjust the brightness until you can see it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/



Calendar: http://the-light.com/cal/ve28293.htm
 
This is the type of question that interests me as well. Given that
the blemish that I see in your image is more or less one pixel
large, have you considered the possibility that this may be a lazy
pixel? Does it disappear under wider aperture? Could it have been
just a small ICBM in the sky?
I think you're seeing something else. The spot circled has a
diameter of about 40 pixels. Try adjusting the contrast in
Photoshop to 100% and then adjust the brightness until you can see
it.
OK, I do see it. It is only barely visible under normal contrast.

The popular wisdom on this forum calls it dust. I have a nagging suspicion that this type of spot would more adequtely be referred to as stain. (In fact, I am yet to come across a serious discussion of different types of sensor contamination.) So I would guess it would be difficult to remove by mechanical means alone.

--
canonballs
 
The popular wisdom on this forum calls it dust. I have a nagging
suspicion that this type of spot would more adequtely be referred
to as stain. (In fact, I am yet to come across a serious
discussion of different types of sensor contamination.) So I would
guess it would be difficult to remove by mechanical means alone.
It could be dust or it could be a stain. If normal sensor cleaning methods don't remove it, that doesn't mean it's not dust, by the way. At the size particle we're looking at, and with the smoothness of the glass, the van der Waals forces can become very significant. Think of a gecko climbing a sheet of glass. The same forces are involved. Of course it could also be a chemical adhesion or something else. The point is, I don't think you can rule out dust based upon this picture.

--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/



Calendar: http://the-light.com/cal/ve28293.htm
 
If I get down to one or two pixels, I'm happy. I simply clone those pixels away in Photoshop.

Question: Which camera was being cleaned? I'm curious if the 20D, because of the smaller mirror chamber, is any harder to clean than the other DSLRs. Thanks.
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 
The popular wisdom on this forum calls it dust. I have a nagging
suspicion that this type of spot would more adequtely be referred
to as stain. (In fact, I am yet to come across a serious
discussion of different types of sensor contamination.) So I would
guess it would be difficult to remove by mechanical means alone.
It could be dust or it could be a stain. If normal sensor cleaning
methods don't remove it, that doesn't mean it's not dust, by the
way. At the size particle we're looking at, and with the smoothness
of the glass, the van der Waals forces can become very significant.
Think of a gecko climbing a sheet of glass. The same forces are
involved. Of course it could also be a chemical adhesion or
something else. The point is, I don't think you can rule out dust
based upon this picture.
"Ruling out" is too strong a modality for what I am saying - of course I don't really know.

Let's weigh the evidence. It would seem from the picture that we are dealing with something circular and flat, or at least reasonably uniform in thickness. We see this pattern on a lot of sensors. It is pretty consistent with a stain. Is this what Van der Waals, chemical or electrostatical adhesion typically does to a typical dust particle? (As for gecko's paw, I think it takes its form thanks to forces of evolution/divine design rather than under the influence of Van der Waals. Given its form, it is of course finely suited to exploit VdW) I don't have sufficient everyday experience of small dust particles to offer more than a guess, but it just seems slightly far-fetched to expect these forces to be strong enough to effect one and the same shape transformation on as large a proportion of dust particles as we see in this forum. Even if they are pretty strong, I would still guess that if what we see are squashed dust particles, we'd see a far greater variation in their shape.

Do you have empirical data or calculations to confirm that a sufficiently smooth surface will squash much dust into flat circular blobs?

--
canonballs
 
I saw these spots on mine and was sure they were stuck...

But several tries with the rocket gotto blaster got rid of them.
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 
Let's weigh the evidence. It would seem from the picture that we
are dealing with something circular and flat, or at least
reasonably uniform in thickness.
No, I don't think so. We're looking at an effect that is circular and relatively uniform in brightness, but that doesn't mean that what's on the sensor is round, flat, and uniform in thickness. It's more likely to be a shadow of a speck. What you're seeing is the penumbra of the dust particle. The penumbra is larger than the dust particle. This is why stopping down is recommended to reveal the dust -- it reduces the size of the penumbra, thus increasing the contrast.
Do you have empirical data or calculations to confirm that a
sufficiently smooth surface will squash much dust into flat
circular blobs?
You're the one who said they were squashed, not me.

--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/



Calendar: http://the-light.com/cal/ve28293.htm
 
Let's weigh the evidence. It would seem from the picture that we
are dealing with something circular and flat, or at least
reasonably uniform in thickness.
No, I don't think so. We're looking at an effect that is circular
and relatively uniform in brightness, but that doesn't mean that
what's on the sensor is round, flat, and uniform in thickness. It's
more likely to be a shadow of a speck. What you're seeing is the
penumbra of the dust particle. The penumbra is larger than the dust
particle. This is why stopping down is recommended to reveal the
dust -- it reduces the size of the penumbra, thus increasing the
contrast.
I had asked myself whether it could be something like that. I have some reservations with respect to the plausibility of this scenario.

On a given sensor, you will likely find the type of spot we are discussing alongside smaller, more opaque spots that in all likeklihood are dust particles. Since some of the latter type are removable, I conclude that they typically lie on top of the AA filtre. If the larger transparent type of spot are not squashed somethings then they, or at least their centres, lie a little way off the AA filtre. One can then indeed expect a shadow or penumbrum. I would think the visible effect should be similar to the bokeh of a small oof object. Compared to this, the edges of the transparent spots we see are, to my taste, not always sufficiently smooth and are perhaps too sharply delineated. Also, since the dust particles that give transparent spots are either larger or do not cling very close to the AA filtre, I suppose they should be more easily removable, which in my experience was not the case.

Any comments?

--
canonballs
 
Let's weigh the evidence. It would seem from the picture that we
are dealing with something circular and flat, or at least
reasonably uniform in thickness.
No, I don't think so. We're looking at an effect that is circular
and relatively uniform in brightness, but that doesn't mean that
what's on the sensor is round, flat, and uniform in thickness. It's
more likely to be a shadow of a speck. What you're seeing is the
penumbra of the dust particle. The penumbra is larger than the dust
particle. This is why stopping down is recommended to reveal the
dust -- it reduces the size of the penumbra, thus increasing the
contrast.
I had asked myself whether it could be something like that. I have
some reservations with respect to the plausibility of this scenario.
On the other hand, Glenn Barber's recent posting seems to support your theory.

Perhaps stains and dust penumbra do look pretty similar on photographs.

--
canonballs
 
what is a rocket gotto blaster?
But several tries with the rocket gotto blaster got rid of them.
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 
I am not really happy if I need to use photoshop to correct my images. That is a major flaw for me as it lengthens post processing substantially (not a major deal for 2 pictures but for a 100 it is).

It is a 10D.
Question: Which camera was being cleaned? I'm curious if the 20D,
because of the smaller mirror chamber, is any harder to clean than
the other DSLRs. Thanks.
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 
Perhaps the problem is with the device I am using to clean. I tried to clean it by pumping air into the area with an ear syrenge, a rubber ball of about 3 inches in diameter and a hole at the end which allows you to blow/suck air. Perhaps the pressure I am getting from this device is not enough?

Any other recommendations? What do you use and how frequently?
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 
Perhaps the problem is with the device I am using to clean.
Any other recommendations? What do you use and how frequently?
The real question is "does it show up in a print?" If not, forget it. Even if you spend the next several days fretting and cleaning and manage to get rid of it (assuming it is actually a single pixel dust spot), the next time you change lenses something else will be be back.

Life is too short to spend it staring at your images for imperfections no one else will ever see ....

---------------
Grant
 
Is that like the Minuteman missile or something like that?

Seriously though, what does it mean?

George
 
Excuse my play on words.

The Giotto (sp?) Rocket Air Blower is a hand powered air blower. It is designed specifically for blowing off camera equipment and works great.

http://www.2filter.com/prices/products/rocket.html
But several tries with the rocket gotto blaster got rid of them.
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 
Thats what I tried first - the Big Giotto Air Rocket worked better.
Any other recommendations? What do you use and how frequently?
I did my first sensor cleaning today and noticed that there is a
small spot I cannot get rid of. It is really small and barely
noticeable. I took a shot of the sky and here is a 100% crop. Am I
being unreasonable that I try to perform perfect cleaning? Is there
no such thing as a perfectly clean sensor?

 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top