Help: Foggy/ Whitish veiled photos

[480sparky41 40]

Which does.... what, exactly?

 

[sleist]

These are not over exposed. - well, at least the portion of the jpeg I see is not. Of the 3 shots, #2 is the only one with blown highlights, but poor exposure compensation in post could cause the blown highlights as well as loss of contrast. All we have are crops and histograms based off those crops.

I suspect these are actually under exposed and noisy as a result. If we saw the entire, non processed image and the resulting histogram of the entire image, I bet it would be under exposed according to the resulting histogram.

 

[amolitor]

Which does.... what, exactly?

It shows that there is no data at all on the left, and some data all the way up to the right. That is, that the photograph is over exposed. Or at any rate lacks blacks completely, but does not lack for whites, if you prefer.

Which you can also see by looking at the photos instead of the EXIF and the histograms and the everything-except-the-photo.

EDIT: anyways, it doesn't matter. You successfully determined that your lens was broken when you determined that you get bad photos with it on, and good photos with it off. Whether it has incredible amounts of veiling glare, or whether it's overexposing, or if the lens CPU is somehow turning on "make my photos look awful" mode in the camera, who cares?

The lens is toast. Sorry.

 

[480sparky41 40]

Which does.... what, exactly?

It shows that there is no data at all on the left, and some data all the way up to the right. That is, that the photograph is over exposed. Or at any rate lacks blacks completely, but does not lack for whites, if you prefer.
...............

Wow. You need special software in order to see what's plainly visible in a 'normal' histogram?

So, if I take a photo of a sheet of white paper, in broad daylight, ISO 100, f/16, 1/100sec, your fancy-smanchy logarithmic histogram system is gonna tell me it's 'violently overexposed' when all the data is between 220 and 250?

Is a 'high-key' photo also 'violently overexposed' as well?

 

[amolitor]

I'm done here, sparky. You're not reading what I'm writing, you're responding to what you think I'm saying. That's ok, but I'm not gonna play any more.

OP: Your lens is busted.

 

[480sparky41 40]

I'm done here, sparky. You're not reading what I'm writing, you're responding to what you think I'm saying. That's ok, but I'm not gonna play any more.

OP: Your lens is busted.

I'm reading every word you're writing. 'Cept what you're writing doesn't make sense. And you don't seem to WANT it to, nor even answer a simple question.

Just because there's nothing in the histo below, say, 70, does not automatically mean the image is 'violently overexposed'.

If you don't want to engage in a meaningful dialogue, hey, that's up to you.

 

[enzodm]

And by the way, there is also the ETTR method.

 

[480sparky41 40]

And by the way, there is also the ETTR method.

When you're shooting in Auto, with no exposure bias, I doubt that's a technique the OP has picked up on yet.

 

[enzodm]

And by the way, there is also the ETTR method.

When you're shooting in Auto, with no exposure bias, I doubt that's a technique the OP has picked up on yet.

I agree. It was a comment for amolitor, that does not like histograms aligned to the right.
My guess for #2 is that it was actually underexposed, with post brightness increase.

 

[owura]

Thanks guys for your suggestions. I must reiterate that I am a beginner, hence, I do not know most of the technicalities involved in photography. I am going to try your suggestions and let you know if they make any difference. Thanks much.