Steel Wool Light Painting Can Be Bad For Your Lens
One of the best ways to make interesting light painting is to get a piece of steel wool on a string and spin it around on a long exposure (see tutorial here).
While we always warn folks to be cautious and wear goggles and long sleeves while spinning a piece of burning metal we never actually talked about camera safety.
Photographer Jon Beard learned that the lens needs to be protected as well the hard way. One of the sparks from the spinning wool hit his $2,000 Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G glass and stuck on the front element. Hit the jump for more details and a lens close up.
"As I was spinning, I saw a nice bright flash from my camera. Even though I couldn't be sure where it hit exactly, I was pretty sure it hit the lens. When I took a look, sure enough, there was a chip in it (well, what I thought was a chip at the time anyway.) When I was able to pull this shot up on a large screen it was pretty obvious where it was hit (check out the faint blurry, angled streak near the top right.)
I cleaned the lens and could feel texture from the spot so I was pretty sure it had gotten pockmarked, but when I took a macro shot I could see the texture was outward instead of inward. It wasn't a chip. It was molten steel that hardened and stuck when it hit the glass. So now I'm working on finding out how to best remove it with minimal damage to the glass... Suggestions? #
This is just another point in the everlasting debate of weather using filters on quality glass is actually giving any protection.
Thanks for the tip, Leonard.
Get the DIYP greatness via RSS, newsletter and Twitter
Connect with the community: Facebook Page, Discussions
Share Ideas, Setups, Images and Projects on DIYP's Flickr, visit Readers Photos
Comments
"This is just another point
"This is just another point in the everlasting debate of weather using filters on quality glass is actually giving any protection."
What point? This lens can't take filter whatsoever.
HA!
HA!
No. . . .
You CAN get filters for the 14-24
Another reason to always keep
Another reason to always keep a UV filter on the front of your expensive glass. Sucks that this happened, but if he had a UV filter, he'd be spending $15 on a new filter instead of $2000 on a new lens.
The curved front element of
The curved front element of the 14–24 makes putting filters on it difficult.
The curved front element
Difficult to put a filter on? There are no threads to mount a filter on the 14-24. That said, if you're using a filter mountable lens, use a clear UV filter IF you're shooting burning, spinning steel wool that is spitting out molten metal. Otherwise, don't use one; it degrades the optics and reduces sharpness.
Spacer
Use an old and dirt cheap filter ring as a spacer. Break out filter glass and put it on the lens. Put a quality filter on the spacer ring. That may give you the clearance you need. You may get some vignetting in a normal lighting situation, but that doesn't seem relevant for most light painting shots. It comes down to how much money do you have and how much of a purist are you? Some vignetting or $2,000? Only you can decide!
Suggestion
To Jon's question about how to remove this, I'd question if that's a good idea since it could cause more harm than good. He might try a very fine needle nose plires and see if you can grab the metal and pull it off, but becareful not to enlarge the damage. I bet on a wide angle lens like that that spot won't be too noticable at larger fstops and could be photoshopped out. Now if you add a bunch of scratches around that spot then the quality will be hurt more.
I've had similiar issues to this and I think it would be around a $400 repair at Canon. For something a clear cut as replacing the front element you might even be able to get an intial estimate over the phone. The only way to make it as good as a new lens will be to send it to Nikon.
I'm usually in the "use a
I'm usually in the "use a lens hood, but not a filter" camp, but I make a few exceptions, like shooting at the beach, or when I'm throwing molten metal at my camera!
I suppose you could cut the
I suppose you could cut the center out of the lense cap, and glue a filter ring to it. Then just use an appropriately sized lense cap on the filter ring.
I found these DIY solutions:
https://reedingramweir.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/diy-filter-holder-for-ni...
http://viewology.net/diy-uv-protectorfilter-for-nikon-14-24mmf2-8-lens-4...
Or you could take the expensive way out:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/693472-REG/LEE_Filters_KIT_SW150_S...
Anything would be better
If I were going to photographing molten metal or other small flying hot objects on a regular basis, I might consider some sort of large lexan or glass shield to cover myself and all of my equipment, not just the front element of the lens. Yes, working behind that is tricky, but for $2000 worth of protection I'd at least try to find a way.
Ha!
I was not expecting to wake up to people telling me I was on DIY. It's an honor. :)
To answer questions about to use a filter or not. Yes, you should use a filter if your main concern is protecting your lens from harm and if your lens can't accept filters (like the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8) then you should probably use a riot shield or any number of DIY solutions as mentioned above. If your main concern is image quality, a peice of glass in front of your camera is going to ruin shots like this. The ghosting/refraction/reflection/flare/etc. is going to be overwhelming. (I learned that while shooting macros of jumping jacks.)
A large part of my shooting philosophy is that if you want to take photos that other people don't take, you go where and when other people won't (which includes standing knee deep in freezing water so you can shower your camera with sparks and reflections.) Risk to life and equipment is inherent to that kind of shooting, but to me, it's a much more satisfying photography experience than being the person who worries about getting cold or getting some water on their lens - or in this case molten steel. Besides, with the kind of shooting I usually do, it's only a matter of time before that lens is submerged or falls off a cliff, so what's a chip here and a scratch there? That's why we carry insurance. (You do have insurance, right?)
re: line of work
Hi Jon,
thanks for dropping by and saying hi. nothing bu admiration to your dedication and ability to choose the right boots to withstand cold water :) thanks for taking such awesome shots.
feel free to ping once you have that whole front element thing sorted out, I would love to know the end of the story
Thanks and will do! So far
Thanks and will do! So far the consensus seems to be to leave it alone if there's no noticeable image degredation. Taking it off could expose some real damage to the glass or coating that is currently being negated by not letting the light into that part of the lens.
And about the boots... That shot was done barefoot with the pants legs rolled up. I'll have to look around on here to see if there are any good DIY wader projects. ;)
Understood
I completely respect this. If one is expecting enough sales or professional satisfaction from the shot that the risk is justified, then by all means have at it!
Why use the 14-24 then?
Now, everyone touts the superior quality of the 14-24, and I can understand wanting to use it for as much as possible to really make use of it. But if conditions are truly terrible and or potentially very hazardous, why not use something cheaper, maybe even third party for things like this? I don't think the difference in optical quality can be that much, and it would give you the ability to do things like mount a filter.
For the price that it will probably cost to replace that front element, you probably could have bought a third party lens that was still decent and a filter to go along with it, and probably never seen the difference in the image.
You wouldn't drive an Audi in a demolition derby, would you?
Why use a 14-24?
I would absolutely use an Audi in a demolition derby if I wanted to win! First, this guy is standing in the middle of a river in February. It's well into the evening when most people are snug and warm in their homes. And he's slinging fire at his camera. This is a winner! And just look at that image! It's awesome! You don't get that kind of clarity and resolution from a cheap disposable lens. If you want to take disposeable images, then use disposeable gear, nothing wrong with that. People that say it's not about the gear, are usualy people without the gear, sorry, but it's true. These things are made to be USED, not babied. Kudos to the photographer willing to put his gear at risk to get the shot.
Fire magnet
By your logic of commending him for slinging fire at his camera and subsequently damaging it with little regard for his gear, I should start parking my car downrange when I go to the shooting range. I'm a pretty good shot, so nothing should happen to it, right?
And I wasn't implying a kit lens either. Certainly there are alternatives to the 14-24 (particularly ones with filter threads) that could have made this shot. What about the 14-24 is so unique that it is the only lens that could have made this image?
Lastly, good sir, it is very apparent you have never witnessed a demolition derby before. I bid you good day.
Hate to break it to you, but
Hate to break it to you, but you're not going to be able to tell the difference between expensive glass and cheap glass looking at the pics at web resolution.
My suggestion would be to use a nice cheap manual focus Nikkor prime from the 60's. They're not very convenient but they're still sharp as ever. Prefocus before you wade into the river.
Look at the rest of his pictures
Just take a look at the rest of his pictures. I submit that the image quality is obvious even at web resolution. Please tell me where I am wrong. My point is simply this: a skilled photographer with the most basic gear can produce compelling images. A skilled photographer with top shelf equipment and is willing to put it at risk makes for incredible images.
try to rust it
it can take some (a lot?) time but try to soak the lens in water (only the front) until it rust.
Send it to the manufacturer
One of the worst days ever was when i dropped my 70-200 f2.8L. I was sick. One of the best days ever was when Canon fixed it, cleaned it and warrantied the repairs for under $150! Send that lens to the manufacturer. If anything they can replace that front glass. (AND i can guarantee that every lens i own has a UV filter on it).
On another note, I insure all of my equipment & laptop toward any theft or damage (like this) for under $100 a year. Worth every penny for a traveling & working professional.
CHEERS!
I second (third, forth?) the insurance tip
Photography isn't my main source of income but it is a portion of it, because of this I'm able to get lower insurance rates by adding them as "scheduled items" on my regular home insurance. There are some stipulations though, if your side business is making more than $5000 a year then they'll want you to shell out for normal commercial insurance.
Its hard to put a price tag on peace of mind but I pay around $160/yr to insure a little better than $10000 worth of equipment, well worth it in my opinion.
Never
I never had a problem without filters... Good luck maybe!
Cheers!
Ouch..
Oooh, bummer! But if the defect is small enough it will probably never show up on your images, i would just try to gently pick it of with a thin metal implement, be very carefull though. The metal should not scratch the glass to much since it is softer, in theory.. Or try with a toothpick, there is no way that could scratch the glass. Best of luck anyways, hope you can fix it.
Get it to service. Maybe not
Get it to service. Maybe not the most cheapest way, but they can change front element.
I used to subscribe to the
I used to subscribe to the "put a filter on it to protect it from the World" theory, until I took my 75-200 f2.8 on a trip to Mt. Whitney (I live near sea level). When I got to the trail head at the Whitney Portal (8,360 feet (2,550 m)) I took the lens out of my bag and noticed cracked glass... Yikes! Did I bump the lens against something without noticing? No. The filter blew out from the pressure change due to the altitude and was trapped under the lens cap, rattling around... causing slight damage to the outer element of the lens. Lesson learned the hard way!
May I suggest that you try a
May I suggest that you try a little WD 40 (or other microoil) on that spot, leave it for a while and check if it moves with a gentle touch of a toothpick. (unnecessary to say, but dont spray the oil on the lens).
To restrain the oil from messing around, make a small hole in a piece of painters tape (that kind that is easy to remove after the work is done and doesnt leave glue behind) and stick it around the damage site before pouring the drop of oil..
It may be the case, however, that the burning steel wool has melted the surface of the glass, too, grounding the wool permanently.
And, well, if you are going to change the front element anyway, any try may be worthy...
All the luck for you!
Post new comment