Clean off those dusty lenses!

[Joshua Szulecki]

I was just getting my gear ready for my Showy Ladyslipper trip tomorrow, and I had a revelation...

You probably know about dust and dSLRs if you've owned one for more than a week. You probably also know that the dust removal systems that many late-model dSLRs now have are basically tiny, tiny, little bandages for a massive gushing wound. I've had my 40D for a few weeks now, and while the dust removal system means that I don't have to blow out the dust nearly as often as on my 350D, I still have collected some dust. After a long search to locate my blower, I cleaned out the 40D, and then did something I almost never do... I cleaned out the backs of my lenses. I did it because it occurred to me that my 400/5.6L seem to always leave dust in my darned cameras. After months of griping to myself about how it seemed like everytime I tried to take a picture of a bird there was dust in my picture, it dawned on me that it was the lens. The lens was used, and is about 5 years old (based on the Canon build code), and so it has had ample time to collect dust in the voluminous cavity at the back. If you own any long lenses, they probably have a similar cavity of surprising depth, based on the nature of how they work. Anyway, when I applied my blower to the back of my 400/5.6L, it looked like I had shot dust into it, rather than air, based on how much came back out. I pumped until the air came out clean, and now I'm satisfied that the lens is clean.

The moral of the story: Clean out the back of those dusty lenses!

If you don't already, all dSLR owners should own some sort of air bulb device. On the cheap, you can get one for about $3 at your local drug store, because all you need is a baby snot-sucker bulb. I also highly recommend the Giottos Rocket Bulb, which is a baby snot sucker on steroids. These hand propelled air blowers are used to clean both large and small loose particles off of your lenses, camera sensors, and other gear. For stuck on cleaning, I use the Copperhill method, although it isn't for wussies.

Stay dustless out there!

[Rob]

Great tip Josh. I often wait till I attach the lens of my choosing to the camera body before cleaning it. Completely forgetting about the back. 

[cwhiker]

yep, I was guilty of forgetting to check for dust before leaving out over the weekend and I paid the price in the extra time I spent in photoshop removing the same dust spot from every photo. and as my luck would have it. the darn spot was never placed in a shadow or a spot that was easy to clone.

[Uncle Wayne]

Clean off those dusty lenses!

After a recent visit to a cave with a waterfall, I found a third of my photos had these spots on them.  I've been told they were "digital noise" and happen with digital photos.  Most of the photos with these spots were taken around the waterfall / stream area.  How do I prevent this?

I'm using an Olympus 800 digital point and shoot camera on the auto default settings most of the time.  Almost all of the photos with spots were taken while holding the camera.  I tried a few different manual settings but all had the same results as the default ones. And the spots are not the same in different photos so i don't think it is solely "dust or water" on the lense.

Any help would be appreciated.

[Joshua Szulecki]

That's not noise. Looks like you got the lens wet.

[auwesman]

I thought that looked like water also.  May only show up when your using flash against a dark background like in your attached photo.

[cwhiker]

I agree with Josh, it looks like water

[McDowra]

What happens when you have a picture turn out like this?

[Joshua Szulecki]

McDowra,

That does look like noise.

Is that film or digital, and on what camera/film? It looks like you either chose too high of an ISO setting, or the camera chose too high of an ISO setting, and you got a ton of noise.

Most dSLR's are fairly noise-free up to ISO 800. P&S digitals often get really noisy at 400, sometimes sooner. I try to use ISO-100 for all my digital photography. Long exposures and high temperatures also contribute to higher noise.

[McDowra]

kodak m1063 digital on landscape setting. I thought it was kinda neat  looking,we usually take 2 in a row  to cut down on missing stuff and this time it payed off.

[montysano]

I own a digital camera, but for backpacking I still prefer film and film cameras.

[auwesman]

really?  Why is that?  Just out of curiosity

[Joshua Szulecki]

really?  Why is that?  Just out of curiosity

What is this in response to?

[auwesman]

What is this in response to?

I'm sorry.  It was for the post above for using film instead of digital for backpacking.  Just curious the reasons.

[Joshua Szulecki]

I've been known to carry film for trips like that, too.

Digital cameras are more expensive, and are much more sensitive to water and vibration damage. An "ancient" film SLR, like a Pentax K-1000, is about as durable of a camera you can get under a few thousand dollars. Plus, film cameras often require substantially less juice to operate, with power wind cameras often lasting for dozens of rolls on one battery, and manual winders often require no power other than to operate their light meters, which often run for years on a watch battery. In dSLR circles, rechargable batteries are mostly proprietary designs that are very expensive, so carrying extra batteries was for a long time less desirable than just carrying film, and for some people, it is still preferable to carry film.

I use film for really wet places, for instance I carried my film camera with me to do the Eagle Creek bushwhack last year, since I knew I was going to get soaked.

[montysano]

really?  Why is that?  Just out of curiosity

Pretty much what Joshua said above.  My medium format and 35mm cameras will shoot with no batteries at all (I use a separate meter).  They're tough as nails, and the glass is pin sharp.  And let's remember: at a high scan rate, a 35mm frame is 30Mb or more.  A 120 film frame is  over 100Mb.  That's a lot of information, much more than digital.  I still have a darkroom, and a 35mm neg will go to 8x10 or even 11x14 with no problem.  A 120 neg much bigger.

As I said above, I'm not anti-digital.  The instant feedback is great.  But it's just fun to shoot a bunch of film, come home, process it, and take that first look to see what you've got.

You can easily buy, for example, a killer 35mm like a Canon AE-1P, plus a couple of high quality prime lenses, for less than $300.00.

I actually went shopping for a DSLR, told the guy at the shop how I planned to use it, and he said "I wouldn't advise changing lenses out in the woods".  Screw that.

[montysano]

A couple of other thoughts:

- most places that process color film can also scan it.  They can also scan already-processed B&W film.  Now you have the best of both worlds;

- negatives, if cared for, have a very long life.  A hard drive crash can wipe out a photo collection if it's not backed up.  I've seen it happen.

- optical color prints have a life of 20 years or so, less if abused.  B&W prints, esp. on fiber paper, seem to last forever with little degradation.  Inkjet prints?  They claim a long life but some folks are skeptical.

/soapbox