TommiRulz wrote:
...I tried moving to the back of the arena, but it was spooking the horses, so I had to come back to the front...
Yes, that can be a problem. Some of the arenas I work only allow shooting from one side. Most pro riders and advanced horses are not a problem. But less experienced horses and riders can be.
Something that usually works for me is to position myself where the horse can get a good look at me, can identify me as a person rather than a predator lurking next to the fence!
Still, as I demonstrated in my previous response, even a slight movement can sometimes make a big difference in that flare problem. Otherwise, keep looking for locations that won't be a problem for the horses AND will solve the problem with the strong lighting.
TommiRulz wrote:
...I do use a huge lens hood...
Is it the
matched hood made specifically for your lens? What lens is it and why is the hood so big?
There are "generic" hoods that may or may not shade a lens well. Most lens manufacturers either supply or make and sell separately a hood that's optimal for each particular lens. You can look up the lens on various websites... or even search for it at most stores... and the specs will tell you exactly what hood to use.
I have lens hoods that are the "big" too... the size of coffee cans. They fit lenses like 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4. They are very deep hoods that are very effective shading the large front elements of those lenses.
But I also have hoods that are "big" with a large diameter and not very deep. Those are primarily for wide angle lenses. Some zooms that cover wide to normal to telephoto focal lengths (which I generally avoid) use hoods that are effective for the short focal lengths, but not for the longer telephoto end where we are usually shooting at equestrian events.
TommiRulz wrote:
...I can usually fix in post but sometimes it looks weird. I hate to admit this, but I do know how to open RAW files on my computer. So far the jpegs have been good enough.
Sounds like you need to learn post-processing techniques.
#1... shoot RAW and learn to work with them. Obviously JPEGs have not really been "good enough", or you wouldn't be having this problem. RAW files add a step in post-processing, but give you a lot more latitude for adjustments.
Let me give you one reason RAW files are better... Color depth.
A JPEG is an 8 bit file. This means it has 256 tonal values in each of its color channels: red, green and blue. This adds up to about 16.7 million total colors in the 8 bit file. That sounds like a lot, until you consider that a the 16 bit file from a RAW conversion has 65,536 tonal values in each of those same color channels, for a total of [/i]281 trillion[/i] colors! The much, much larger color palette available when working from RAW files allows for much more precise adjustments and tweaks to images. In the end, after all the adjustments, for efficient use for most purposes an image should be reduced to 8 bit JPEG, GIF or PNG... but only after all the work has been done on the image.
You may not know, your camera actually only takes RAW files. When you set it to save JPEGs, it is taking the RAW and rapidly processing it in the camera, according to all the settings you've made, then "throwing away" a lot of the original data. If you set your camera to shoot JPEG + RAW, then compare the files sizes of the two versions of any image, you'll see how much was thrown away making the JPEG. When you do post-processing to images, it's best to have all that original data at hand, rather than just what's left after the camera does the conversion to JPEG (possibly with incorrect settings, such as over sharpening artifacts I noted above).
TommiRulz wrote:
...I will buy a haze filter today and give that a try....
I hope you didn't. It will be a waste of time and money!
How many people have responded here that you should NOT put ANY filter on your lens?
One more time... ANY filter you install on your lens will cause MORE of that "veiling flare", NOT less!