Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: "Andrew Nemeth" <azn@nemeng.com> > Ah... Group Think Orthodoxy in action. Express any opinion > which goes even slightly against the flow and you can expect > the following: "Prove it! << <<<SNIP>>> Andrew, You must admit that in your first photo the "flare" pattern looks not as traditional or usual flair. However, in light of Erwin's post on the subject I will concede that UFO's do exist (who would dare contradict Erwin?). In any case, I meant not to make light of the problem you may have. I would try Erwin's suggestion in testing the lens in several flare-prone situations in order to ascertain if indeed there is an inherent problem in the lens. This reminds me of an other of Erwin's post, the T-Max dilemma and how quickly we may condemn an item if it does not please us at first try. My experience with flare has been that it is most prevalent and destructive when the sun (or strong light) is at an angle to the lens axis. When the sun is visible in the photo, flair seems to be less obvious, in fact I dare say that the more the sun is in line with the lens axis, the lesser the flair phenomenon (see the snow photo of Rob Studdert compared to the preceding ones). Flare, type and degree there of, may have more to do with the angle of refraction than anything else. Finally, I would like to compliment Rob Studdert on his photos. Flare or no flare, flair is what he shows in his approach to picture taking, with composition, subject matter, and chutzpa. Cheers, Joe Codispoti Rob Studdert's photos http://www.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/35ASPHlux-m_veilingglare.jpg http://www.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/35ASPHlux-m_flare.jpg http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/snow1.jpg