Lens flare as it is described in its generic form is what the Ilford Manual (arguably the bible on photographic matters) qualify as "non-image-forming" light which is spread uniformly over the the surface of the film. When the re-reflected light forms a more or less out of focus image of bright objects in the subjects, they call it ghost image.
You tell me that flare is a type of ghost. I would say that ghost is a type of flare...
Now we need a semantician to close the matter!
Regards,
Andre
These reflections are what I was talking about. The reflections are actually unlikely to cover the entire film, but they can. What you're talking about, what the manual is talking about is a ghost. A ghost larger than the frame, but a ghost none the less.
Regards, Bob.... -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion." -- Jed Babbit (Former US Under-secretary of Defense)
From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>*IF* you have some authority which asserts this to be true and describestheghosts.>mechanism by which this raised "level of light scatter" is reduced by >coatings, well then, I and others would like to see it.
The Hasselblad Manual is one of the best book on photography I have found (with the Ilford Manual of Photography. It says (third ed. p 177):
"When light hits a non-coated glass surface, about 5% is reflected..." etc. We already know the rest of this paragraph as Pentax in their multi-coating publicity repeated it many times. More interesting is what follows.
"Of even more concern than the loss of light is what happens to the reflected light. After being reflected, it probably reaches another lens surface and is reflected back to another lens or part of the lens mount. The reflected light causes flare -- a haze over the image which reduces its contrast. A thin coating over the lens surface reduces light reflection..." and it goes on to multi-coating with which "light transmission is increased and the reduction in flare can be significant."
>In my photos, the primary source of "flair" is reflections producing>Even the best multi-coated lenses have some flair of this type in night >shots with bright street lights.
The K 35/3.5 (and the Takumar version) is said to be totally ghost-free. A test (Mod or Pop Ph) revealed that shooting directly at the sun with it, it's not possible to see any ghost wherever you put the sun in the frame. I tried it and it's true. I have not tried it with multiple night spots but it should respond the same way. This could be the only lens to performs like that though.
>The second largest source of "flair" I >experience is in the emulsion itself. > >For an example of both, see: http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzyHLn-p12195512
--
