Color bleeding - a problem of lens or camera?

nyfz50 wrote:

alcelc wrote:

According to the EXIF, they were:

#1 from G9: f/22, 1/2000", ISO200, -3ev

#2 from D7100: f/10, 1/6400", ISO400, -1ev

I think generally f/22 is not advisable to use on M43 (negative effect of diffraction would start to kick in from f/8~9 onward...). If could be equivalent to f/44 of FF (if my calculation, that I am not good at all, is not far off) whereas f/10 of APSC is f/14 eq to FF only...

Might try to use a larger aperture, say f/8, 1/8000", ISO100 etc to see the result?

Good point. Never thought of aperture that could cause it. However the shutter was already 1/2000 and ISO was 200. Will try different aperture next time.

ND filter would be the answer. The scene is way on the bright side, given the exposure settings.

The two images are not really comparable, the first one is dramatically over-exposed. The light bleed into the shadows is exactly what I would expect though the amount demonstrated is a bit more than I usually see, and I shoot the sun a LOT.

Here's a bit of bleed (at 0:20):

As to comments about dynamic range - what are you guys smoking? No camera (not even the mighty m4/3s) can deal with the vast dynamic range of a sun in clear skies and the silhouette in the foreground.

Likewise for the aperture, which is fine for this kind of image with its more graphical approach. The only downside is that high apertures show dirt on the sensor more often.

The dynamic range in the second image is a little less - you can see the sun is slightly obscured. Drop the exposure in the first, you are not interested in any detail in the shadows, and you want them to be black, not grey.

Just get your exposure right, and the problem ceases to exist. Use an ND filter.

Aberaeron wrote:

nyfz50 wrote:

alcelc wrote:

According to the EXIF, they were:

#1 from G9: f/22, 1/2000", ISO200, -3ev

#2 from D7100: f/10, 1/6400", ISO400, -1ev

I think generally f/22 is not advisable to use on M43 (negative effect of diffraction would start to kick in from f/8~9 onward...). If could be equivalent to f/44 of FF (if my calculation, that I am not good at all, is not far off) whereas f/10 of APSC is f/14 eq to FF only...

Might try to use a larger aperture, say f/8, 1/8000", ISO100 etc to see the result?

Good point. Never thought of aperture that could cause it. However the shutter was already 1/2000 and ISO was 200. Will try different aperture next time.

ND filter would be the answer. The scene is way on the bright side, given the exposure settings.

You don't need an ND filter, just use electronic shutter for faster shutter speed

hindesite wrote:

Just get your exposure right, and the problem ceases to exist. Use an ND filter.

Again, no need to use an ND filter... why that complication? In this case switch to electronic shutter and access to higher shutter speeds

There are a few on this thread saying "use an ND filter".  Nope!!! Use an ND filter when you need to deliberately slow the shutter for blur. Not when you simply need a higher shutter speed for correct exposure! Switch to your electronic shutter instead, no messing with filters!

To illustrate, here is a shot in mid summer in bright sunshine at f1.2. Exposed correctly because  by using electronic shutter the camera selected 1/8000s, which would not have been available with mechanical shutter:

BurnImage wrote:

There are a few on this thread saying "use an ND filter". Nope!!! Use an ND filter when you need to deliberately slow the shutter for blur. Not when you simply need a higher shutter speed for correct exposure! Switch to your electronic shutter instead, no messing with filters!

To illustrate, here is a shot in mid summer in bright sunshine at f1.2. Exposed correctly because by using electronic shutter the camera selected 1/8000s, which would not have been available with mechanical shutter:

Well, I have to point out that the sun's disc does not appear in your shot.

I can affirm from hard experience, that once you include a bright sun disc in an image as the OP did (did you even see the post?) you may very well need an ND filter - I often use a ND1000 filter, or even a Baader solar filter if the sun is not very low in the sky.

There may be exceptions for those who live in areas that are heavily air polluted (or are about to be due to reversing existing rules) or with high cloud/overcast but for the rest of us who want to shoot and include the sun's disc in the image, NDs are pretty much mandatory.

BurnImage wrote:

hindesite wrote:

Just get your exposure right, and the problem ceases to exist. Use an ND filter.

Again, no need to use an ND filter... why that complication? In this case switch to electronic shutter and access to higher shutter speeds

Very appropriate username. Maybe you should try an ND perhaps?

When you include a bright sun's disc in the image - even at sunset  you may very well need to use an ND - most cameras don't have enough headroom for so much input.

Lens.

A hindesite wrote:

BurnImage wrote:

There are a few on this thread saying "use an ND filter". Nope!!! Use an ND filter when you need to deliberately slow the shutter for blur. Not when you simply need a higher shutter speed for correct exposure! Switch to your electronic shutter instead, no messing with filters!

To illustrate, here is a shot in mid summer in bright sunshine at f1.2. Exposed correctly because by using electronic shutter the camera selected 1/8000s, which would not have been available with mechanical shutter:

Well, I have to point out that the sun's disc does not appear in your shot.

I can affirm from hard experience, that once you include a bright sun disc in an image as the OP did (did you even see the post?) you may very well need an ND filter - I often use a ND1000 filter, or even a Baader solar filter if the sun is not very low in the sky.

There may be exceptions for those who live in areas that are heavily air polluted (or are about to be due to reversing existing rules) or with high cloud/overcast but for the rest of us who want to shoot and include the sun's disc in the image, NDs are pretty much mandatory.

The sun is just out of my shot, but that’s irrelevant. The OP shot at ISO200, f22 1/2000th. He could have opened his aperture, remained at ISO200 or ISO low and used electronic shutter to get this shot without an ND filter. It’s just a simple fact. Yes there are uses and needs for ND filters, but not so often for simply reducing light on the sensor as we have super fast electronic shutters these days.

BurnImage wrote:

A hindesite wrote:

BurnImage wrote:

There are a few on this thread saying "use an ND filter". Nope!!! Use an ND filter when you need to deliberately slow the shutter for blur. Not when you simply need a higher shutter speed for correct exposure! Switch to your electronic shutter instead, no messing with filters!

To illustrate, here is a shot in mid summer in bright sunshine at f1.2. Exposed correctly because by using electronic shutter the camera selected 1/8000s, which would not have been available with mechanical shutter:

Well, I have to point out that the sun's disc does not appear in your shot.

I can affirm from hard experience, that once you include a bright sun disc in an image as the OP did (did you even see the post?) you may very well need an ND filter - I often use a ND1000 filter, or even a Baader solar filter if the sun is not very low in the sky.

There may be exceptions for those who live in areas that are heavily air polluted (or are about to be due to reversing existing rules) or with high cloud/overcast but for the rest of us who want to shoot and include the sun's disc in the image, NDs are pretty much mandatory.

The sun is just out of my shot, but that’s irrelevant. The OP shot at ISO200, f22 1/2000th. He could have opened his aperture, remained at ISO200 or ISO low and used electronic shutter to get this shot without an ND filter. It’s just a simple fact. Yes there are uses and needs for ND filters, but not so often for simply reducing light on the sensor as we have super fast electronic shutters these days.

Right...

Here's a photo that IS relevant. I could have shown a photo of my greyhounds sitting in sunlight, but that isn't what is being discussed here.

f22, 1/16000, ISO200 - and still way overexposed...

Straight OOC, clearly over exposed, and with light bleeding all over the place.

And this was even with some atmospheric attenuation due to some light cloud.