Backlit OM lenses : coating problem ?

[Yaeli]

Hi all,

So, I had noticed it in the past, but I thought it was due to underexposure because I was using aperture priority on my OM2n at the time. So I tried it again with a handheld lightmeter, metering for the shadows, but the problem is still there. In strong backlit situations, my subject appears muddy, super grainy, and I don't know why exactly. The lens performs perfectly well in other situations. I don't know if it is because of :
1) a focusing error : because the sun coming directly in makes it harder to see if I'm really in focus (although I try my best to get it right)
2) a lens coating problem : the 2 examples below were taken with the OM Zuiko 50mm F/1.4, but I've had the same problem with my 135mm. I'm sure the lens coatings back then were not as efficient as the ones we have now, but still...
3) a lack of lens hood : I don't use one, but as I said, I had the same problem with the 135mm that has a built-in hood, so...

Anyway. If you have an advice, I'm all ears
Thanks beforehand

Mister Ash has shared 2 photos with you!

www.flickr.com

 

[MattKing]

You aren't giving the film enough exposure. As a result, those shadowed areas in the subject that are of the most interest to you are under-exposed.
In addition, I'm guessing that you scanned these negatives. Scanning software tends to over-compensate for under-exposure.
In a situation like this I find incident metering to be the most effective, with the meter at the subject's location and pointed back toward the camera.
Even then, backlit subjects tend to be lit with very low contrast light, so it is to be expected that they look to be somewhat low in contrast.
Don't hesitate to display the subjects darker - they are in the shadow after all - and add contrast.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I'm in agreement with Matt, you probably have very thin negatives.

The white part of the windsock in the sky, is almost at the same density as the sky, which is the biggest giveaway to me of a thin, (underexposed) negative.

 

[Yaeli]

Well, thank you both for your answers

I thought the exposure would be correct, since I used incident metering for the shadows on both (I pointed back towards the camera).
I digitized the negative, I did not scan them. I used the histogram to get a "proper" exposure (but it was my 1st time using this technique ; I used to use a V600 before). Here's the negative :

Mister Ash has shared 1 photo with you!

www.flickr.com

 

[MattKing]

That negative looks quite under-exposed.
Some direct lighting might have snuck in the sides and distorted your metering results.

 

[Yaeli]

That negative looks quite under-exposed.
Some direct lighting might have snuck in the sides and distorted your metering results.

Thank you very much for the feedback and advice ! Well, I'll pay more attention next time
I have to say though, I'm a bit reluctant now to shoot in those conditions (but I don't always have the choice)...

 

[MattKing]

Thank you very much for the feedback and advice ! Well, I'll pay more attention next time
I have to say though, I'm a bit reluctant now to shoot in those conditions (but I don't always have the choice)...

When you take your incident reading, make sure that the meter is shaded just as much as the front of your subject. And keep in the back of your mind that there should be at least one stop, and more frequently two stops more exposure than for a subject front lit.

 

[Yaeli]

When you take your incident reading, make sure that the meter is shaded just as much as the front of your subject. And keep in the back of your mind that there should be at least one stop, and more frequently two stops more exposure than for a subject front lit.

Duly noted, thanks !

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Simple and easy fix for back-lit subjects: use some fill flash. You cannot go around physics: the front of a back-lit subject will be dark because there is no, or very little, light falling on it, directly or, safe exception, indirectly. Here, you seem to be wanting light to do something it just can't do.

"Expose (or meter) for the shadows" is not an absolute. It is relative to the complete luminance range of the scene. If you constantly put your shadows on zone V, or 18% grey, which is what your meter is telling you to do, you're throwing the whole luminance range of the scene out of wack: what should be in the dark (zone II or III) is pumped up to zone V, and the rest follows.

I'm tempted to think that that's what accounts for the muddiness and the grain, but not sure—[edit: looks like a film that was pushed but underdeveloped]. I'm pretty sure it doesn't come from a focusing error or bad lens coating. None of these affect grain.

Again, simple solution in case of back-lit subject: fill flash.

 

[MattKing]

Again, simple solution in case of back-lit subject: fill flash.

Or a strategically placed reflector.

 

[MattKing]

Here is a backlit example - albeit one with much more even lighting. Note that the face is rendered slightly darker than a typical subject lit from the front.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Here is a backlit example - albeit one with much more even lighting. Note that the face is rendered slightly darker than a typical subject lit from the front.
View attachment 338814

Very nice! From the fact that there is no shadow coming off her or the fence, as well as the soft, diffuse lighting, I'd say cloudy day, right? The light is perfect.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You aren't giving the film enough exposure. As a result, those shadowed areas in the subject that are of the most interest to you are under-exposed.
In addition, I'm guessing that you scanned these negatives. Scanning software tends to over-compensate for under-exposure.
In a situation like this I find incident metering to be the most effective, with the meter at the subject's location and pointed back toward the camera.
Even then, backlit subjects tend to be lit with very low contrast light, so it is to be expected that they look to be somewhat low in contrast.
Don't hesitate to display the subjects darker - they are in the shadow after all - and add contrast.

1+

 

[MattKing]

Very nice! From the fact that there is no shadow coming off her or the fence, as well as the soft, diffuse lighting, I'd say cloudy day, right? The light is perfect.

Very cloudy day - in fact on the verge of fog!
This is an example with lighting that is closer to front lighting.
Same day, same roll of Ektachrome, same general location:

 

[koraks]

2) a lens coating problem : the 2 examples below were taken with the OM Zuiko 50mm F/1.4, but I've had the same problem with my 135mm. I'm sure the lens coatings back then were not as efficient as the ones we have now, but still...

This is a large part of the problem. You're simply expecting something from these optics that they'll never be able to produce. The kind of lighting you're shooting in (low sun, almost shining straight into the lens) is an absolute torture test for any optical system. Modern lenses do indeed have surprisingly effective coatings that limit this kind of problem. Don't expect miracles from these 1980s optics.

The example @MattKing posted (woman leaning against fence) is absolutely nice, but also not representative for this situation. It's shot in very flat light and no super-strong point source (like the sun) shining straight onto the front element of the lens.

Adjusting exposure won't help all that much. Due to the massive flare, even a properly exposed negative will come out flat. Fill-flash will achieve the same; there's no amount of on-camera fill flash that will effectively blow out direct sunlight - it takes far bigger strobes.

Also note that a lens hood only helps if it effectively blocks out the sun from direct view of the entire front element of the lens. Shooting into a low sun can still produce massive flare problems even if a hood is used.

There's no real solution, only a workaround: reposition so the flare disappears. Fortunately, on an SLR system it's easy to see when this happens.

 

[snusmumriken]

This is a large part of the problem. You're simply expecting something from these optics that they'll never be able to produce. The kind of lighting you're shooting in (low sun, almost shining straight into the lens) is an absolute torture test for any optical system. Modern lenses do indeed have surprisingly effective coatings that limit this kind of problem. Don't expect miracles from these 1980s optics.

The example @MattKing posted (woman leaning against fence) is absolutely nice, but also not representative for this situation. It's shot in very flat light and no super-strong point source (like the sun) shining straight onto the front element of the lens.

Adjusting exposure won't help all that much. Due to the massive flare, even a properly exposed negative will come out flat. Fill-flash will achieve the same; there's no amount of on-camera fill flash that will effectively blow out direct sunlight - it takes far bigger strobes.

Also note that a lens hood only helps if it effectively blocks out the sun from direct view of the entire front element of the lens. Shooting into a low sun can still produce massive flare problems even if a hood is used.

There's no real solution, only a workaround: reposition so the flare disappears. Fortunately, on an SLR system it's easy to see when this happens.

I too was going to post that this is veiling flare. It looks like the sun was within the picture frame, albeit behind thin cloud. My non-APO Leica Summicron 50 from the late 1990s flares in the same situation. (I don't quite understand how those ghosted edge perforations would be formed in the image area, perhaps reflection off the pressure plate?)

However, your negative shows too little density on the shade side of the figure, whereas overall flare would have added density. So the figure is under-exposed for sure. Flare will also have eroded definition around the edges of the figure.

I suggest there's nothing wrong with that lens, which has an excellent reputation. I think the solution is: use a hood, meter thoughtfully, and keep doing contre-jour shots - but accept that sometimes you will be pushing your luck!

 

[koraks]

(I don't quite understand how those ghosted edge perforations would be formed in the image area, perhaps reflection off the pressure plate?)

That looks like an additional fogging problem where parts of the film overlapped as it fogged, possibly as the film was handled during spooling prior to development.

However, your negative shows too little density on the shade side of the figure, whereas overall flare would have added density.

There is also an underexposure problem, but additional exposure won't really solve this as the massive flare will still result in very low contrast.

I suggest there's nothing wrong with that lens, which has an excellent reputation.

Nope, but it's still bound to the laws of optics and manufacturing realities of the 1980s It's a great lens, but it's a real object, not a magic implement from a fairytale

Proper film handling and metering will help some, but won't work miracles.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Fill-flash will achieve the same; there's no amount of on-camera fill flash that will effectively blow out direct sunlight - it takes far bigger strobes.

Looking at your photos again and seeing how low and direct the sun is, koraks is absolutely right. In these conditions, my suggestion of using fill would not help at all.

 

[snusmumriken]

Nope, but it's still bound to the laws of optics and manufacturing realities of the 1980s It's a great lens, but it's a real object, not a magic implement from a fairytale

Proper film handling and metering will help some, but won't work miracles.

Seems like you are disagreeing, but that is what I said too!

 

[koraks]

Seems like you are disagreeing

I'm sorry for giving that impression! My response 'nope' was to your statement 'there's nothing wrong with the lens' - sounded like disagreement perhaps, but it was a short form for "no, indeed"

 

[MattKing]

When this thread came up, and I was considering my response, I wandered through some of my photography - that I have digitized - to see if I had any examples that might be helpful. I was reminded of the fact that I rarely take pictures in those sorts of lighting conditions .
I've a fair number of shots taken with the OM lenses - including the lens in question - and they perform reasonably well in high flare conditions. However, you need to adjust your expectations, because when you photograph, it is the light you are photographing, and that flaring sun is there!
Be prepared to give the film more exposure, and then present the results with a slightly low in contrast, slightly dark centre of interest, surrounded by a beautiful, halo-like glow - like a million versions of this sort of thing (from internet stock):

Note that this works way better in colour!

 

[Yaeli]

I thank you all very much for all your feedback and tips !

looks like a film that was pushed but underdeveloped

In theory it shouldn't be. I used it at box speed, and developped it in Rodinal 1+50 at the time recommended by the massive dev chart.

Or a strategically placed reflector.

All those pictures are taken on the fly, at the dropzone. I guess I could use a reflector, but it's not really super convenient for that kind of environment.

You're simply expecting something from these optics that they'll never be able to produce. The kind of lighting you're shooting in (low sun, almost shining straight into the lens) is an absolute torture test for any optical system. Modern lenses do indeed have surprisingly effective coatings that limit this kind of problem. Don't expect miracles from these 1980s optics.

The example @MattKing posted (woman leaning against fence) is absolutely nice, but also not representative for this situation. It's shot in very flat light and no super-strong point source (like the sun) shining straight onto the front element of the lens.

Adjusting exposure won't help all that much. Due to the massive flare, even a properly exposed negative will come out flat. Fill-flash will achieve the same; there's no amount of on-camera fill flash that will effectively blow out direct sunlight - it takes far bigger strobes.

Also note that a lens hood only helps if it effectively blocks out the sun from direct view of the entire front element of the lens. Shooting into a low sun can still produce massive flare problems even if a hood is used.

There's no real solution, only a workaround: reposition so the flare disappears. Fortunately, on an SLR system it's easy to see when this happens.

You're right. It happens when the sun directly hits the front element of the lens. I have other pictures from the same day, also backlit but taken earlier, with the sun a bit higher in the sky (and not in the frame), and the problem is much less visible. Like this one :

Mister Ash has shared 1 photo with you!

www.flickr.com

I had that unrealistic notion that I could simply overexpose (since film tolerates it pretty well) and get a properly lit subject, but I didn't take into consideration the "optical" factor...
I'll be more careful in the future with my positioning !

So the figure is under-exposed for sure.

There is also an underexposure problem, but additional exposure won't really solve this as the massive flare will still result in very low contrast.

I'll pay attention to that too I haven't used this lightmeter much yet (and it's a basic Sekonic L208), so I still have to figure out how to use properly in those situations, I guess. I metered from my position, looking away from the sun, but, as @MattKing said, I probably did not shade the lightmeter enough.

That looks like an additional fogging problem where parts of the film overlapped as it fogged, possibly as the film was handled during spooling prior to development.

I had a hard time spooling this roll of Kentmere (and I had the same issue with the Kentmere 100). I don't know why exactly. It went very well with the HP5 last time. This, it probably took me... about half an hour !

However, you need to adjust your expectations, because when you photograph, it is the light you are photographing, and that flaring sun is there!

I definitely had unrealistic expectations But hey, that's how you learn ^^. Now, I know !

Thank you all again !

 

[MattKing]

Or a strategically placed reflector.

ll those pictures are taken on the fly, at the dropzone. I guess I could use a reflector, but it's not really super convenient for that kind of environment.

Understood, but sometimes you do have the chance to deal with this sort of problem. For instance, if there are both light and dark surfaced areas on the ground in the drop zone, the light areas can serve as a partial reflector.
It is all a matter of observing and analyzing the light and your choice of shooting positions, and visualizing how the different choices might affect your results.

 

[Yaeli]

Understood, but sometimes you do have the chance to deal with this sort of problem. For instance, if there are both light and dark surfaced areas on the ground in the drop zone, the light areas can serve as a partial reflector.
It is all a matter of observing and analyzing the light and your choice of shooting positions, and visualizing how the different choices might affect your results.

You're right ! I know this in theory, but I never really think about it in the moment... I don't think it would work with the grass (where I took the pictures above), but with the (light) tarmac and concrete hangar floor, it probably would ! I'll try to think about it next time Thanks for the tip !

 

[koraks]

I had a hard time spooling this roll of Kentmere (and I had the same issue with the Kentmere 100). I don't know why exactly. It went very well with the HP5 last time. This, it probably took me... about half an hour !

That probably explains it - at least in part. At some point during the loading operation, there was a flash of light that exposed part of the film to itself. Maybe a little status LED blinking somewhere in the room or something. It must have been quite dim, otherwise you would have had more fog. These things happen!