The Online Photographer

It's been an issue

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37465338&changemode=1

I think Mike is incorrect on this, not simple lens flare but the "red dot" issue that some have reported with one or more of the Pens. Google Olympus red dot or red spot and you will find a bunch of discussions. I have never seen it myself ( E-PL2, E-M5), but I've never shot directly into the sun.....

That's not lens flare. It's a known problem with the E-PL2 that shows up under rare circumstances.
Google "e-pl2 red spots" for some discussion.

This issue was complained about with the usual fervour the internet crowds are capable of. This thread here has more: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f2/fyi-e-pl2-red-dot-problem-1218/

Like Mike, I'm also kind of disappointed that modern-day coatings are super competent against flare; back then we had to guard against it even in the studio, using hoods and flags and whatnot. We learnt to use it creatively.

Of course, these days, people use Photoshop to add in "creative flare". Which is nothing like the real thing and overhashed....crap.

There's been some discussion of red spots with the E-PL2 in other forums, for example: http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusesystem/discuss/72157627929644003/

I don't think anyone has provided a satisfactory explanation, although I lean toward Mike's lens flare version. Flare can result from reflections from any surface so red reflections from the sensor could be the cause.

Sorry to Spam you with another comment, but here's a better discussion: http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/01/can-we-talk-very-frankly-about-serious.html. Or just for fun, search Google for "e-pl2 red spots."

The sensor flair as you call it is a pretty well known phenomenon. I believe it was discussed in a post on TOP some time back.

I have a few examples of this taken with various 12mp Olympus m4/3 cameras. You have to have the light source at just the right angle to produce it. It is not generally a problem for me.

You're not supposed to take pictures of the sun. You could go blind. I just read that in my 7D manual. Now stop it.

Interesting article, thanks. I have a very nice, very flare-prone Olympus 7-14 zoom (14-28 full-frame equivalent). It flares dramatically anywhere near the sun, and of course anywhere pointed away from the sun you can see your shadow, so that leaves a little sliver of shot possibility with neither. Or cloudy days. But it sure is sharp.

Funny, but back when I got into photography, it used to be assumed that pictures with the sun in them would show flare; now, coatings are so good that people can have the opposite assumption.

Right!

I am just asking here without commentary: Mike, would that veiled flare in your indoor shot be reduced if you had a polarizer over the lens? So would a polarizer on the first photo remove the red dots from the images?

I am reading the 1938 Kodak book on Polarizers to refresh my approach on some upcoming product photography. Kind of a fun read with it mentioning the recent first practical film polarizer developed by a "Mr. Edwin H. Land". Given his number of patents, how many of his photographic developments, beyond the cheaply manufactured polarizer, are still in use?

CHEERS...Mathew

Flare would be circular in pattern when the sun is centered in the frame, right? A LPF coating anomaly would occur in a grid pattern, like what you see in example 1, imho.

Not sayin I am right. But that was what I could see from the examples and the fact that other PEN models with the exact same lenses don't exhibit the same issue.

Flare, on its own, is wonderful, and I have nothing against it, love it actually. But gridded flare, thats where I draw the line.

I took another look at the original photo and have a thought - inspired by optics classes many year ago. The regularity of the ghosts look suspiciously like diffraction. Note how the ghosts are all on a grid? That's indicative of diffraction. Shooting into the sun means you will have minimal exposure with the smallest aperture which is what causes diffraction. The shorter lens focal lengths of some of these digital cameras means that apertures are smaller. Does Peter C. know what the camera settings were?
Want to see what diffraction can look like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/close2far/3276646969/

With all due respect for some people, but a reality check is needed here. The lens costs what, $200 extra as part of a kit, it's pointed straight at the sun (in a place where the sun is bright, I might add as a true northerner), a flare phenomenon happens and people are all over it on the net. Seriously, focus on photos themselves or start a long cycle of purchasing lenses that cost four figure sums; no lens and camera system is perfect. I was trying out a $5000 kit yesterday and yes, it had technical faults, but I would still classify it as a superb kit; there are always compromises.

The second thing is that if people start saying that it's not flare then please explain concisely but accurately what you think it is then. I do have a science degree, I'm seeing a purely optical phenomenon and would genuinely like to hear if there is compelling evidence that it is something else.

One image with many flares:

http://www.photokinesis.info/Other/Share/i-GR7G8n5/0/L/IMG0208-L.jpg

Here is a vivid example of an intense red-dot pattern that showed up on an early-morning shot I took with the Canon s90. That's not all, in addition to the symmetric pattern of red dots you can see veiling flare, ghosting flare, and 6-point diffraction star from the aperture.

Permission to use.

Thanks everyone. Sorry, it IS the 14-150mm ED kit lens, slip of my fingers.

My field is/was electronics. I don't know enough to be sure or give an explanation, but I still think it's a sensor artifact rather than just lens flare. It's my gut feeling here, and I've got plenty of gut!

The regular pattern to the dots is not like any lens flare I've ever seen. I'm now going to my files to dig out all the examples of flare I can find. I have one absolute beauty in mind right now. It's flare I liked enough to deliberately aim for it. Coming up asap.

Jeremy Fagan, desirable red dots :-) Like it, like it. Trouble is, they need to be visible to everyone else. I know, I may make my own logo out of this pattern.

More on the diffraction pattern theory:
I couldn't stop thinking about this so I did an experiment. I set the aperture of a Oly 14-42 lens to f/22 at the shortest focal length and shot a picture of it. (http://www.jimhayes.com/photo/Oly-Lens.jpg)
The aperture is about 1mm and looks hexagonal. That's very small.
Note in the photo above the sun is right in the middle of the photo and the red dots are surrounding the central image of the sun symmetrically. The red dots also appear to be about the same size as the sun. When the sun is so low on the horizon, the image of the sun is quite red due to the high attenuation of the bluer light in the 6-7 air masses (6-7 times the path length of air one would see looking straight up). Diffraction images are generally bright in the center and get fuzzier to the edges. I'm betting this is a diffraction pattern.
I'll bet you will see this pattern anytime you shoot directly into the sun, but unless the sun is peeking though dark clouds you may not see it.
In normal shooting, the same phenomena occurs but it only causes a slight blurring of the image because it's integrated across the entire image.
Finally, I searched for some references but most require some knowledge of physical optics. However this animation may be interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txgo5Nsv4Lg

I've seen this type of flare before (red dots, repeating pattern, when bright sun is in frame.) It occurred from time to time with a friend's cameras, a Canon 550D and later a 50D. They both flare the same way with the sun in the frame.

I haven't played with her cameras often enough to find out whether the flare is due to the lens or the sensor, though.

First a brief note on this statement: "...forums aren't the right place to "decide" technical issues, because all they do is create group consensus."
It's absolutely true, as is the conclusion that sometimes consensus is often erroneously obtained. One example is the conclusion that there is an "equivalente aperture", analogous to what happens with crop factor, so that an f2.8 aperture with translate to f5.6 when the lens would be mounted on a micro 4/3 camera. It's rubbish, of course - but a wide spread one.
More to the point: if my readings are anything to go by, the red dot issue is a kind of flare unrelated to the heavily blown light shown in the last photograph, as they might have different causes. The latter could be a result of digital dynamic range, in that the sensor has a linear response, as opposite to film's smoother and more extended DR curve. Hence the tendency shown by digital cameras to clip highlights easily. (Cf. Michael Freeman, 'Mastering Digital Photography', Ilex, p. 627.) However, this theory must be taken 'cum grano salis': as in all areas of human knowledge, nothing's written in stone.

Cheers to Ctein. Not only did he write what I was thinking, he did it better as well.

I'm curious as to whether the OP is "pretty disappointed" in Olympus or himself for not choosing equipment better suited to his preferred subject matter. My guess is the former. Since "red dot hysteria" has been forum fodder for months, perhaps it should be the latter? I bet his local camera store would have gladly let him shoot into some strong lights (and what better place to find them!) to simulate this type of backlit shot.

Sometimes, a poor outcome is someone else's fault. Not always.

Lens flare is a common artificial artifact of video games and CG movies

I've been using an E-PL2 as my primary camera for about 18 months and I've had the "Red Dots" show up a few times and I've even tried to cause it a few times. My experience breaks down this way:

1. The problem seems to be the worst with small apertures. I never notice it a f4 or larger. I do see some red flare occasionally but no distinct pattern.

2. The problem seems to be worse at longer focal lengths. It is much more likely to appear and be noticeable with a 45mm lens than a 17mm lens.

3. The problem also seems to be worse with a very strong light source with a lot of red in the light surrounded by a darker area. Sun through the clouds, a single bright light in a dark room, the sun between two trees all see to show the pattern more than a low sun on a clear day. It may be there other times but not enough to be noticeable but it does require a strong light source. I have never had the problem with mercury vapor or fluorescent lights.

I had an E-PL1 and I have an E-PM1 and don't get the red dots under the same general conditions. Since I rarely shoot at high apertures or directly at the sun, it hasn't been a big issue for me. I just consider it to be like lens flare and shoot to avoid it.

I may the only person seeing 'UFOs in the Sunset' and hearing 'Tubas in the Moonlight.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm0a7btAtsI

The mind is a wonderful thing!

Well, from what I've seen (30 yrs with film, 12 with digital) you can only get radial flare patterns from a cylindrically symmetrical lens.

A rectangular array of light spots requires a rectangular array of diffracting elements to cause it.

Regular lens flare is reflection, not diffraction, and is a quite different thing (except the diffraction from the edge of the diaphragm blades, which creates the 'star'.

I was not sure what it was when I first saw it, but this is the strangest flare that I have seen, and the light source, the sun, was not even in the frame. It was almost directly overhead though, and I did not have a hood.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tanguerochino/7247091512/in/photostream