File: spots-1-2.jpg (1.8 MB, 2738x1825)

1.8 MB JPG

I feel dumb, but im editing some sports pics rn where the sun was behind the subjects a bit, and there's some weird marks that become very pronounced when I bump up clarity and dehaze. Is this just stuff on my lens or is it sensor related? none of the other images from that day have anything like this. 1/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3 Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	231 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:17 04:28:03
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

File: spots-1.jpg (3.63 MB, 2738x1825)

3.63 MB JPG

>>4338154
and with settings cranked to make them more apparent. right side of the image, in the flare

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3 Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	231 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:17 04:27:31
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4338154
>>4338156
its just poorly shot, you didn't use what you had correctly and these crazy dehaze edits look like shit anyways

I have been shooting with 40mm and I feel like anything between 24 to 50 is just useless garbage not fit for anything. Either go below 24 or above 50 (ideally 85mm) or both. The range in between is just a waste of time and money.
Is it a skill issue or am I objectively correct?

>>4338184
Right, but what kind of photography are you doing? I'd guess astro and long range street/urban?

>>4338154
Buddy they invented lens hoods for a reason holy shit.
Inb4 >no, that shit was intentional

>>4338186
I tried street photography, the results were disappointing, tried landscapes and it was even worse, tried portraits -- horrible. I got few nice close ups of objects within 2m distance (or less) and that's about it (probably could have used 85mm for those with better results)

>>4338195
You're supposed to keep trying the same style and improve, not give up and blame your gear immediately.

>>4338184
Every focal length is usable in some way. This is in fact 100% a skill issue, yes.

how good or bad are the AliExpress knockoff "Peak Design" camera straps?

>>4338188
had the lens hood on lad, and the flare wasn't as bad through the ovf.

>>4338166
Yeah they do, hence why i only used it to show the marks.

regardless, im more asking what the dots are not to judge my composition

File: 1717867870487857.jpg (190 KB, 1080x1218)

190 KB JPG

>>4338156
I'd guess it's dust/glass imperfections on the insides of the lens, getting lit from a weird angle, more or less reflected off of irregular glass surfaces, sort of how long shadows are formed at sunset