"Glow" in low-light black and white photography

[Jebedeo]

Dear Everyone,

Today I scanned some Kodak TMax 400 that I shot in December 2016 and developed last week, in February 2017. Most of the shots present some sort of glow around bright spots, as best exemplified by the following picture


This picture was taken in an airport with a Leica Tele-Elmarit 90mm, at f2.8, with Kodak TMax 400 developed in Diafine 3+3, fixed in Ilford rapid fixer for 4 minutes. Everything was processed at the temperature of 75F.
The roll went through security Xrays 3 times, as I traveled around before developing it last week.
I bought that particular roll of film in early December 2016 from B&H.
I don't remember the shutter speed, but I was shooting without a tripod so probably around 1/60.

My theory is that the culprit is the lens (or rather, the photographer!), because the effect seems to be symmetrical.
The screen of the IPad in the middle has this glow on both sides, the IPad on the left has the glow only on the left side, while the IPad on the right has the glow only on the right side. The same is true for the two lamps in the background of the picture, as well as for the lights coming from the airstrip outside the window.
My rationalization is that this glow is the effect of the very shallow depth-of-field (I was focusing on the gentlemen's figure when I took the shot), and since the light source is in the foreground, and it is bright, it produces this unpleasant glow effect. I think that the effect is especially irritating, or at least it is for me, because my eye is used to see the bokeh in the background, not right in front of the subject.

Do you guys agree, or might this have to do with something else?
Thank you in advance for your help.

 

[anikin]

It was probably a cold day outside. You just came indoors and started shooting. The lens fogged up slightly which would create such an effect.

 

[AgX]

The photo seems to have been made outside (of something) through a glass pane. See the oval structures at the center and right chair. Look like signs to me.

And could haze be an explanation for that described asymmetry?

 

[John Bragg]

It was probably a cold day outside. You just came indoors and started shooting. The lens fogged up slightly which would create such an effect.

+1

 

[Hatchetman]

Was that at f2.8? I saw the photo and immediately thought 90mm elmarit. I have one.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It was probably a cold day outside. You just came indoors and started shooting. The lens fogged up slightly which would create such an effect.

+2

 

[mike c]

It is a cool looking photo and I like it. Was the lens wide open, the cold camera in a warm room sounds good and also shooting through a window.

 

[markbarendt]

I think that the glow is 'flare'.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Stray light artifact. In lens design jargon, there's a double bounce path (reflection off two surfaces) with focus close to the image plane. You could call it flare, although at work we use the description I wrote above since lens flare is more often associated with imaging the stop onto the film plane...the steps to correct flare vs this artifact are different.

There wasn't a good way to check for this artifact before lens design software evolved to support the necessary evaluation procedure (late 90s or so).

 

[macfred]

The legendary 'Leica Glow' ...

 

[Jebedeo]

Thank you everyone for your answers.

Just to clarify, I was inside the airport terminal and there was no window between me and the subjects.
The fogged up lens is a good idea, I didn't think about that.
However, I was inside that airport terminal for three hours, and all the pictures over two different rolls of film have this flare or halo effect.
I am mostly afraid that there might be something wrong with my chemistry, but everyone seems to agree that it is an optical effect, wether it is the lens or condensation on it.

Here is another shot taken with the same setup. I took this picture in my yard, on a sunny but cold day in late December 2016.

Now in this case I was outside so I wasn't using the Tele-elmarit wide open, although I don't exactly remember which aperture I used. The leaves on the left, right next to my dog's face, catch a little sun and show that flare, although way less than the indoor pictures do.

I forgot to mention that I had a UV filter on the lens, and that perhaps contributed to the flare, although it is a multicoated one.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thank you everyone for your answers.

Just to clarify, I was inside the airport terminal and there was no window between me and the subjects.
The fogged up lens is a good idea, I didn't think about that.
However, I was inside that airport terminal for three hours, and all the pictures over two different rolls of film have this flare or halo effect.
I am mostly afraid that there might be something wrong with my chemistry, but everyone seems to agree that it is an optical effect, wether it is the lens or condensation on it.

Here is another shot taken with the same setup. I took this picture in my yard, on a sunny but cold day in late December 2016.
View attachment 173072
Now in this case I was outside so I wasn't using the Tele-elmarit wide open, although I don't exactly remember which aperture I used. The leaves on the left, right next to my dog's face, catch a little sun and show that flare, although way less than the indoor pictures do.

I forgot to mention that I had a UV filter on the lens, and that perhaps contributed to the flare, although it is a multicoated one.

Did you have the UV filter on in the airport shot? If you ever do find the problem I think you had better patent it since I know folks who would die for that "special" look.

 

[Jebedeo]

Yes, I had the UV filter on for all of those shots.
I like the look of the background, but I really don't like those washed out screens in the foreground...

 

[jeffreyg]

I don't have an answer but could it be from the type of illumination used for those monitors and the outside lights? If you name the airport maybe someone reading these posts will be there one evening and take a similar photograph to see if the same results come up.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[ckuwajima]

Check if your lens is clean inside. It may be fogged or dirty. It is easy to check using a flashlight.
My Tele Elmarit had this problem. Had to have it cleaned and bought a hood to lessen chance of flare.
This is what I got before cleaning:

 

[AgX]

Just to clarify, I was inside the airport terminal and there was no window between me and the subjects.

What are those oval structures then I hinted at above?

 

[flavio81]

The legendary 'Leica Glow' ...

LOL!!

 

[Jebedeo]

What are those oval structures then I hinted at above?

AgX, I think those are drying marks on the film.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Looks like halation to me. But most films have an anti-halation dyes.

 

[pentaxuser]

I haven't an answer to this but can say from his expression that clearly the dog( an excellent shot) is also studiously looking at these pics, trying to work out what is causing the effect

pentaxuser

 

[BMbikerider]

I am assuming that you were using a fairly long shutter speed to cope with the shadows. It may be that the exposures were long enough for some light to pass through the anti halation layer and cause the glow around the lights (in other words 'halos'). It all depends on what film and how long the exposure was.

I am not so sure that it was misting up of a lens because the effect would be visible everywhere else and not just surrounding the highlights.

The effect is very similar to that which used to be obtained when using Kodak HS Infra Red. That as far as I know didn't have an anti halation layer and was the main reason for loading/unloading the camera in the dark and transfering the film it directly to the developing tank.

 

[Jebedeo]

I haven't an answer to this but can say from his expression that clearly the dog( an excellent shot) is also studiously looking at these pics, trying to work out what is causing the effect

pentaxuser

Ahaha, he surely is a smart dog

 

[Nodda Duma]

Your dog pic has the same faintly discernible effect evidenced by the brightly lit leaves.

 

[Neal]

Dear Jebedeo,

I think BMbikerider is correct. The exposure seems to be fine for the lower light areas. The bright screens sort of bleed into the surrounding area.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[markbarendt]

Dear Jebedeo,

I think BMbikerider is correct. The exposure seems to be fine for the lower light areas. The bright screens sort of bleed into the surrounding area.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

That's called flare.