Strange splotches in photograph?

[Gary A.]

Or simply clean the filter. There are two schools of thought on protective filters, both swear by their opinion. If the filter cleans up properly, shoot the same subject with and without the filter and look for IQ degradation between the two. Then form your opinion. I find it easier to replace a filter than a front element.

Protective filters do increase the propensity for flare and ghosting. Typically, the more expensive the filter the greater the coatings. More coatings lessen the occurrence of flaring and minimize said flare. Generally you will be able to see the flare/ghosting in the viewfinder and then you can remove the filter or change your camera position.

If I shot in a controlled environment, ala studio, I probably wouldn't use protective filters. But I don't and I find protective filters cheap insurance.

 

[Gary A.]

In manual, meter off her face (fill the viewfinder frame with face), then underexposed about a half-stop and review. Shooting white people you gotta overexposed.

The meter is a guide, not something written in stone.

 

[480sparky]

I'm still waiting for empirical proof that a filter 'saved' a lens.

Yeah, there's a million anecdotal stories from those who make that claim, but so far none of them have proven it. And by proof, I mean more than just "Yeah, but the filter broke, didn't it?"

 

[john.margetts]

I'm still waiting for empirical proof that a filter 'saved' a lens.

Yeah, there's a million anecdotal stories from those who make that claim, but so far none of them have proven it. And by proof, I mean more than just "Yeah, but the filter broke, didn't it?"

I don't think the filter is intended to protect the lens from blunt impact trauma but rather to keep dirt off the lens glass and thus obviate the need to clean the lens surface and so preventing scratches.

www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk

 

[astroNikon]

Most salespeople sell $4.95 filters at the store. Touting them as needed.
They tried to do that to me several years ago.
There a lot of difference between a $4.95 plastic so-called "clear" filter and a $90 quality clear filter.

And of course the "UV filter" not really needed as you aren't shooting film.

 

[480sparky]

I'm still waiting for empirical proof that a filter 'saved' a lens.

Yeah, there's a million anecdotal stories from those who make that claim, but so far none of them have proven it. And by proof, I mean more than just "Yeah, but the filter broke, didn't it?"

I don't think the filter is intended to protect the lens from blunt impact trauma but rather to keep dirt off the lens glass and thus obviate the need to clean the lens surface and so preventing scratches.

www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk

Proper cleaning methods will not scratch a lens.

 

[Gary A.]

I'm still waiting for empirical proof that a filter 'saved' a lens.

Yeah, there's a million anecdotal stories from those who make that claim, but so far none of them have proven it. And by proof, I mean more than just "Yeah, but the filter broke, didn't it?"

I personally have loss a few UV filters. The UV filters may or may not have save the front element ... I'll never know. But what I do know it that I was able to pick out the remaining shards of filter glass and continue shooting. One occurance and was in Africa, another was in South-East Asia and another was in Central America. In all these cases a camera repair shop was days away and frontal element replacement would still have been iffy. The most timely response would have had been to get an entirely new replacement lens.

Many argue that they don't like the idea of putting a inexpensive filter in front of an expensive lens. I shot images with and without protective filters with the end results being absolutely no significant differences in IQ between with and without. But I don't shoot much architectural, landscape or other genre where image quality is equally as important as subject impact.

Additionally, protective filters also protect against unwanted chemical stuff, finger grease, paint, corrosives, abrasives ... All the nasty stuff that is airborne, or can splash, or rub up against the front element. Yes, a hood helps, but a protective filter is of greater value against these unwanted elements.

 

[calamityjane]

A little fill flash wouldn't go amiss. Expose for the background light (as she's backlit), then add in an appropriate amount of flash to light up her beautiful face, preferably off camera).

 

[GHK]

Are you by any chance using film. If so, the problem should disappear with your next film +6- unless you bought a pack and the whole lot are faulty.
GHK

 

[Dave442]

If the filter is a Circular Polarizing filter then you also need to turn the outer ring to achieve the strongest affect, and it is better to look a the change to the ground color and not the sky color. But in general I would not use the CPL filter when photographing people.

I do use a filter when out where the lens is getting wet and I have to frequently wipe it off (and the water usually very dirty) and some of my lenses have the matt black edges around the front element that are hard to clean so a filter resolves that issue.

 

[tiaphoto]

I'm going to agree with some others and say its a lens flare. I would recommend doing some cloning in Photoshop to remove it. It should not be a too difficult fix.