Gray haze on pictures...

THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
edited June 16, 2006 in Technique
I've been struggling for so long with the same problem - a gray haze over all the pictures. I'm using a 20D and I've tried adjusting contrast, saturation, etc. with not much luck. It seems that I'm having to edit every single picture for the same thing and I would love to eliminate this step!

I found that the easiest way to eliminate the haze is to increase the contrast +10 to +20 in Photoshop and I have the camera set at +2 all the time. This of coarse tends to blow out the image.

Any ideas!? I've had the same problem on two bodies and all my lenses.

Thanks!!!
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

- Kevin

Comments

  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Touch, do you have any "before" examples you can post? Include the EXIF, or basic exposure info, if you have it. I'm sure someone here will be able to help.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Thanks for the tip - I've included a before and after from a shoot today. Not the best example but you should be able to see the "haze". Only difference from before to after is +20 on the contrast.

    Before:
    69650831-L-1.jpg

    After:
    http://the-touch.smugmug.com/photos/69650836-L-1.jpg


    Any info would be great! Thanks!
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • JeffroJeffro Registered Users Posts: 1,941 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    I don't see the "haze". The pic looks a bit underexposed to me. The bright sun probably caused that. Maybe a meter off the water, or off the sky with the sun out of view, would have made the pic more like what your eyes saw?
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • DeeDee Registered Users Posts: 2,981 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    I think I know what you're talking about
    I get it all the time except in very bright light. Some people use an unsharp mask in an unusual way to correct it.

    See if this is what you are looking for: http://www.lonestardigital.com/photoshop_quicktips.htm
    http://www.deegolden.smugmug.com
    http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    I've been struggling for so long with the same problem - a gray haze over all the pictures. I'm using a 20D and I've tried adjusting contrast, saturation, etc. with not much luck. It seems that I'm having to edit every single picture for the same thing and I would love to eliminate this step!

    I found that the easiest way to eliminate the haze is to increase the contrast +10 to +20 in Photoshop and I have the camera set at +2 all the time. This of coarse tends to blow out the image.

    Any ideas!? I've had the same problem on two bodies and all my lenses.

    Thanks!!!
    Time for a 'silly question' section. Are you sure it isnt your monitor ? You have looked at your shots on other monitors ?
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Touch, do you have the exposure info for that shot? Exposure time, f stop, ISO?
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited May 15, 2006
    gus wrote:
    Time for a 'silly question' section. Are you sure it isnt your monitor ? You have looked at your shots on other monitors ?
    or when's the last time you calibrated the monitor? If this is happening on 2 bodies, I suspect Gus may be on to something.
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Jeffro - I continue to get the haze even when I bracket. It just aways seems to be there! This picture was not a very good example but I just happened to have the original since I just shot it.

    Dee - that's it. Any ideas on eliminating it before it gets to Photoshop?

    gus & DoctorIt - The silly questions are usually meant for me!!! No. I have not calibrated my monitor. In fact, I've never calibrated it! 11doh.gif I guess I alway hoped I could get away with it but it sounds like a logical solution to my problem.

    wxwax - exposure: 1/200, f-stop: 10.0, ISO: 100.


    Thank you all - I'll start working on the monitor calibration. Could the quality of the lense cause something like this as well? I'm usually using the Canon 17-85 and the 10-22.
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • DeeDee Registered Users Posts: 2,981 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Not really
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    Dee - that's it. Any ideas on eliminating it before it gets to Photoshop?

    I live on the coast, so there's always some degree of salt haze in the air except on some rare winter days when it's super clear after a heavy rain.

    I took some photos inland a bit yesterday, and almost no haze at all. I think a lot depends on the quality of the air, and the quality of the light.

    To me it looks like there's a slightly yellow gray film over all my photos when it happens.

    Monitor calibration doesn't clear it up at all at my end. But, it's a good idea to at least try to calibrate your monitor. I know mine is heavy in the dark end, no matter what I try to do, but I've balanced the colors as best I can.

    But as you can see from the link I had in the previous post, even in good light the guy got some haze.

    I just live with it, as I want to take pictures when I see something interesting, and not wait for the 2 or 3 days a year when the weather is perfect on the coast and I know I won't get hazing.

    It would be interesting to have a high end Canon, a high end Nikon and my Sony side by side on tripods taking the same photo -- to compare hazing!
    http://www.deegolden.smugmug.com
    http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    I know just what you mean! I live in Bakersfield, CA and it's a daily fight against the dirty air.

    I'll have to do some test to see when it happens such as time of day, angle to the sun, etc. It just seems like I'm always correcting for it and it's getting old! I must say though, I'm addicted to adding the contrast - it really makes them pop!
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Touch, no-one's going to accuse me of having the best eye around, but... your original looks fine to me. A little underexposed, but that's about it. ne_nau.gif

    It's normal for folks to make small adjustments with Levels and Curves to delicately add 'pop' to their shots. 25% Contrast is pretty heavy.

    Do you have another shot thats shows the haze better?
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    wxwax - I think I'm just too picky!

    I'm also starting to think that it's the area I live in. I hope you don't mind me using your work as an example but I found similar problems in your desert shots (Western Trip & Indian Wells). There's just a slight haze to them. Bakersfield and the surrounding area looks just about the same.

    Great work by the way. I loved your shots in Yosemite - I lived ~45min away from Yosemite for 2 years and I only went there once for about 2 hours. I kick myself all the time!

    Unfortunatly, I don't have any unedited work available. If I get a really bad example soon I'll send it to you. As for exposure, I get the haze when I bracket as well.
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • JeffroJeffro Registered Users Posts: 1,941 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    wxwax - I think I'm just too picky!

    I get the haze when I bracket as well.

    Maybe it's smog? lol3.gif
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • JeffroJeffro Registered Users Posts: 1,941 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    wxwax - I think I'm just too picky!
    I'm also starting to think that it's the area I live in. I hope you don't mind me using your work as an example but I found similar problems in your desert shots (Western Trip & Indian Wells). There's just a slight haze to them. Bakersfield and the surrounding area looks just about the same.

    I checked out the western trip and indian wells shot, they looked normal to me. I think the haze in the Grand Canyon pic's is normal, not a camera problem.

    Maybe a UV-Haze filter?
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Jeffro wrote:
    I checked out the western trip and indian wells shot, they looked normal to me. I think the haze in the Grand Canyon pic's is normal, not a camera problem.

    Maybe a UV-Haze filter?

    Sounds good - I'll have to try that. I think I just got used to eliminating something that's supposed to be there!

    I saw that you have a 70-200L F2.8 IS - how do you like it? I'm stuck between the 70-200L, the 100-400L, or the 28-300L. I just can't stand the thought of a push-pull lense, especially that size! So I was thinking about gettign the 70-200L with the extender.
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • JeffroJeffro Registered Users Posts: 1,941 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Simply the best....
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    I saw that you have a 70-200L F2.8 IS - how do you like it? I'm stuck between the 70-200L, the 100-400L, or the 28-300L. I just can't stand the thought of a push-pull lense, especially that size! So I was thinking about gettign the 70-200L with the extender.

    Best darn lens I've ever used. Love it. The IS comes in handy in low light situations, but isn't needed for sports. I do use mode 2, when doing slow shutter pans with sports though....so maybe it is neededmwink.gif . (Mode 2 corrects only the up and down movements) I have shot with both the 1.4x and 2x (which I have) converters. The 2x gets a little soft at full zoom, but most non-shooters would ever notice. The 1.4x didn't really show a difference to me. The F2.8 makes low light easier as well. Out of the three you mentioned, get the 70-200L...you decide which..F4, F2.8, IS? All good.

    The 70-200L F2.8 IS, does get a bit heavy after an 8-hour motocross shoot, but that's why I have a hip bag, throw it in there between motos.

    I shoot just about every kind of picture you can think of with it, scenics, people, animals....you name it.
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    Thanks for the info - The bag I'm using fits my gear well but once I get the 70-200 I'll need an upgrade. Could you recommend one for me? I prefer to have everything fit in the bag, no matter what lens is on the camera. You seem to have roughly the same amount/size of gear, besides the 300mm.

    Also - great job on the motocross! How do you pass your info on to the riders to let them know about your galleries?

    Thanks!
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • JeffroJeffro Registered Users Posts: 1,941 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    Thanks for the info - The bag I'm using fits my gear well but once I get the 70-200 I'll need an upgrade. Could you recommend one for me? I prefer to have everything fit in the bag, no matter what lens is on the camera. You seem to have roughly the same amount/size of gear, besides the 300mm.

    Also - great job on the motocross! How do you pass your info on to the riders to let them know about your galleries?

    Thanks!

    I carry all my equipment in a Tamrac Expedition 5 backpack, with side bags to hold the 300mm and 70-200mm lenses. I have the Rebel in the bag without a lens attached, and usually have the 17-40 on the 20D when inside. I can fit the 20D in there with either long lens, with some moving of other things. A long with the equipement listed in my signature the bags holds, all my batteries, several filters, AV cord, bubble level, Visibledust cleaning kit, regular cleaning kit, and all the manuals to my equipment. But I don't think it will hold much more. The good news is if I up grade to a bigger Tamrac bag, the side bags transfer.

    While at the track I carry a Tamrac bag designed to hold a D-SLR with 70-200, or 300mm lens attached. It also holds several CF cards, batteries, pen and paper. It can be worn on a belt, or with shoulder strap.

    I get my name out with business cards, flyers, and getting in good with the track owner(s). If you can get them to see that your site can benefit their site they may work with you. If you go to my site, you will see a link to www.motobyron.com which is the track I go to the most. The owner lets me in for free, and announces my site name and encourages people to go to my site to check out the pic's. He also features some of my shots on various pages on his site, and links them back to my site.

    I write a story for every race I go to as well, and submit them to Cycle USA, and Cycle News magazines. This is one of the reason's I am able to get track promoters/owners to wave the gate fee, and give me some advertising at the track.

    Just about everytime I get a story in Cycle USA an opposite page will have a full page add to the Byron Motosports Park...works great.

    Then, last but not least, once riders see your pic's they will tell everyone, IF they like them. I find people talking about my pic's on various forums, my space sites and even (before smugmug) high jacked to other MX related sites.

    TMI?ne_nau.gif Hope not...hope it helps.
    Always lurking, sometimes participating. :D
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 15, 2006
    That's GREAT! Thank you for ALL the info!

    My normal routine is shooting sports as requested but I'm starting to think I could have more feedback by shooting all the players on my own will and then post them on SmugMug. The only thing that's stopped me is having to hand out cards and flyers. I think my wife needs to tag along with me!! The big sports here are soccer, wrestling, and paintball. For the paintball - I could try and hook up with the owner of the fields!
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • wolfieswolfies Registered Users Posts: 152 Major grins
    edited May 17, 2006
    I had a 20d doing the same type of thing but with the photos you supplied its hard to see it. My problem showed up real bad on landscape photos, ones like the drag car would show up close to fine. It turned out that the sensor was not aligned properly and the haze I was seeing was actually ghost images. Can you take a couple of shots wide angle with a large depth of field? I have included one that I kept with the old camera is this similar to your problem?
    70003527-M.jpg
    thanks,
    WWW.wolfies.smugmug.com
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 17, 2006
    wolfies wrote:
    I had a 20d doing the same type of thing but with the photos you supplied its hard to see it. My problem showed up real bad on landscape photos, ones like the drag car would show up close to fine. It turned out that the sensor was not aligned properly and the haze I was seeing was actually ghost images. Can you take a couple of shots wide angle with a large depth of field? I have included one that I kept with the old camera is this similar to your problem?
    70003527-M.jpg

    hmmm...thank you for the example but I don't think that's it...from what I can tell. As you said, it's hard to see. One thing I notice is that your green trees and red car are strong in color - when I have a problem the colors will be faded and the gray tint will be across the entire print. Is this what yours did? Did you send it to Canon?
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 17, 2006
    wolfies -

    I was browsing your gallery and noticed the shot of the moon. How did you get such a large shot of the moon with such detail?

    - Kevin
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • wolfieswolfies Registered Users Posts: 152 Major grins
    edited May 18, 2006
    THE TOUCH wrote:
    wolfies -

    I was browsing your gallery and noticed the shot of the moon. How did you get such a large shot of the moon with such detail?

    - Kevin


    I shot that with my 20d and the 80-300mm EF lens. I cropped about 50% of the photo.
    F 6.3
    1/100 sec
    iso 100
    metering pattern
    set on manual

    higher elevations help also get past the light pollution and other pollutions
    thanks,
    WWW.wolfies.smugmug.com
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 18, 2006
    Pretty cool!

    What do you mean by metering pattern?

    Elevation - where do you live? If you don't mind me asking! Sure makes a difference - I'll never get a moon like that in Bakersfield!!! :D
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • wolfieswolfies Registered Users Posts: 152 Major grins
    edited May 18, 2006
    To be honest the metering isn’t all that important with the moon shots. I shoot them on manual mode set it to f6 or so and 1/60 shutter speed and then adjust until you get a shot something like this I try to do it when its first coming up at night. Also if you have more than 1/60th shutter speed the moon movement will show and mess up the shot.
    70253633-M.jpg


    Then adjust the exposure from the RAW and the details will come out.
    The main thing is to get as far away from other light sources as you can I shot this at MT. Rainer about 6,000 ft elevation.
    thanks,
    WWW.wolfies.smugmug.com
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 18, 2006
    wolfies wrote:
    The main thing is to get as far away from other light sources as you can I shot this at MT. Rainer about 6,000 ft elevation.

    COOL! My wife and I LOVED Washington! In four days I think we drove up to Mt. Rainer three times. I think I'll retire there! :D
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • wolfieswolfies Registered Users Posts: 152 Major grins
    edited May 18, 2006
    Yeah I like it here don’t think I would live anywhere else but the pacific North West
    thanks,
    WWW.wolfies.smugmug.com
  • THE TOUCHTHE TOUCH Registered Users Posts: 535 Major grins
    edited May 18, 2006
    wolfies wrote:
    Yeah I like it here don’t think I would live anywhere else but the pacific North West

    I almost took a job in Auburn last year but it just didn't work out. My wife and I loved it though - we liked the slower pace that Washington seems to have.
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :bash

    - Kevin
  • ProAutoShotsProAutoShots Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited June 16, 2006
    A quick fix attempt
    Here is a quick try to fix the photo. Its about 30 seconds in photoshop consisting of a bit of unsharp mask (as discussed on the lonestardigital link), a tiny amound of levels and curves adjustments, some shadow & highlight adjustment and a slight boost of saturation.
Sign In or Register to comment.