So I read a little about filters and have some basic questions.

Do you use them all the time?
Would I be looking at a HOYA filter?
Do you advise you always keep them on the lens?
Do they work better with some lenses than others?

Cheers

I don't have any filters myself (yet), but as I understand it, UV filters are sensible to get on all lenses, and keep on. They might have marginal image benefits, but they stop the lens getting scratched, knocked (on the end) or getting dust on it. Easier and cheaper to replace a £15-20 filter than having a scratched lens.

Indeed, you should slap a UV lens filter on every lens you buy (unless you want another filter on their instead) and keep it there, purely to protect the lens and keep dust out. I use Hoya UV filters myself.

Filters are fine for protection and all, but don't cheap out on them as they can have an affect on IQ. (specifically flare)

make sure you get a UV filter that is very good quality. Hoya Pro 1 is very good. No point of putting inferior glass in front of your lovely lens.

While UV filters are great for protecting your lens, they don't do so much in terms of image quality, as UV doesn't really affect digital cameras that much, at least D-SLRs. There have been disccussions and reviews about this on the net, so you can search for it.

Hoya is good, B+W is even better. The only filters I use are multi-coated uv filters and circular polarizers, and then occasionally i use a cokin P series holder with a graduated neutral density filter for landscape shots, or a regular ND filter for when i want to shoot in bright conditions.


good filters, like everything photography related, are expensive, go for the multi coated ones.

Hm, do you have any examples of good filters to buy? I mean links and stuff. Or names. . .
I will probably get one with my camera.

You don't really just get "one" with your camera. You get a minimum of ONE per lens, and that one is always the UV filter for reasons stated above. I guess you don't HAVE to get an UV filter, but it's highly recommended. So you're already at one filter, but it doesn't do anything for you, photographically. So you'll be looking at Circular Polarizers, Gradual Neutral Density Filters (GND), or (regular) Neutral Density Filters (ND). Those are the big three, as far as I know. And the GND and ND filters come in different stops (typically 1,2,3, and 4 stops) to block more and more light. They get expensive quick. Decent ones, depending on how big your lens thread is (for example, 77mm or 52mm, etc) can easily be $100USD+.

That's my take on filters. I'm just learning about them; I really want to get some GND filters but I don't have it in my budget for right now. Maybe birthday? We'll see

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=368177

I don't use filters on my telephoto lenses (70-200) as I always leave the hood on it. A good 77mm filter is around $60-70 and I don't see the point

I have a filter for mine just in case. Not all conditions will require the hood and sometimes I don't need to have it attached. It's just habit and you never know what might randomly happen once you remove the hood. Murphy's Law tends to happen at the most random moments.

Agreed... I've seen people take photos at night with the Hood on... To this day I've no clue why
Also... For filters... Since I would rather save up for a lenses, I prefer photoshop

Every condition requires a hood--as you said, Murphy's Law. A hood is bar the largest factor when considering protection of your lens. The front element is quite a bit stronger than many people realize to be.

Then please, for learning purposes... show me a use for a hood at night, because i'm otherwise ignorant hood-wise that is

Protection--it does more than just help flare. Greatly reduces the impact on falls and helps of course if you run into things when you lose your spatial sense with your eye to the viewfinder.

ay... been down that road several times... I've tripped because of trying to shoot continuously and not watching where I walk because of keeping my eye in the viewfinder...

But from a Light point of view... In night shots that is. wouldn't it limit the amount of light coming in? ergo making darker pictures or having to step up the ISO?

Not at all. Hoods aren't designed to block the angle of view for your particular lens.





http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

Hmmm interesting! many thanks giga.
Although Call me crazy, I would prefer that stray light, to at least light up someway or the other my night shot, not in all cases though.

So you're saying you actually want flare? The stray light won't won't affect your exposure but it will reflect off the insides of the lens diaphragm and make nasties like this:

aye... don't know what i'm saying ...
Wonder what flare looks like at night

Are the filters just caps, they cap over the lens or are they like stickers that stick onto the lens?
How stable are they when attached? Can they easily slip off?

Save for GNDs and such, most are threaded so you just screw them on the front of the lens.

Just a little offtopic but many artistic photographers did flares on porpuse. Flares (or glares) along with leaked light to the photopapers and a little film roughing can create interesting results.

That diagram proves that a hood will result in less light. If the lens only picked up light in its angle of view then why do you need a hood?

At night (or any other time for that matter) unless you need a hood to stop flare don't use it.

Here is a way to think about it. When the sun is not in your direct line of sight it can still dazzle you a bit. So you hold your hand up so it doesn't shine on your face. Do you walk around like this all the time? Even at night?

Yes, less light..eg. unnecessary light which will cause flare. The lens does only pick up light in its angle of view, its the stray light from the wider angles that cause the flare.



I'm not sure why you're saying not to use a hood? It won't negatively affect your image or exposure but will help for both protection and stray lights that can enter the lens. There is always a chance of flare indoors, depending on the situation--especially bright light sources and ones reflecting around the room. (Christmas time for example)

I use my hood all the time if I can. Never been a fan of filters, it seems like even the best ones will add flare to your images once in a while. Not sure why people are saying hoods are useless at night, they still block some stray light and still offer protection (even more important if you're fumbling around in the dark!) -- although they can be bad for flash photography if the hood casts shadows.

If a lens only picks up light in its angle of view then that picture is wrong and flare is impossible. The sun and the light coming from it are well outside the angle of view.

It will affect an image and should only be used when you have to. Photography is the capture of light. If there is no source for flare why limit the light you're capturing? A picture is not just composed of the things you see directly through the viewfinder. The surrounding conditions make a difference to the picture. What you're doing is throwing those out every time in case occasionally there is a flare source.

Not all light outside the angle of view = Bad light or flare.

The sun and light are outside of the angle of view, but are still hitting the front element.

Lens flare is caused by non-image light which does not pass (refract) directly along its intended path, but instead reflects internally on lens elements any number of times (back and forth) before finally reaching the film or digital sensor.

Ordinarily light which is outside the angle of view does not contribute to the final image, but if this light reflects it may travel an unintended path and reach the film/sensor. In the visual example with flowers, the sun was not actually in the frame itself, but yet it still caused significant lens flare.

I've been using hoods at night for a while now and it has had no negative affect on the image. Again, it's outside of the angle of view and does not block image light which is what your camera meters and captures. The surrounding conditions of light will light the object you're capturing just fine, you just don't want that surrounding light to hit your front element at the extreme angles which might cause flare.

*Face palm*

Look guys, lens hoods have been around forever. If they altered the quality of the images what so ever people wouldn't use them. But that's not the case. EVERYBODY ALWAYS says to keep the hood on for safety and to prevent any extra flares.

Really if hoods make no difference and only improve the image then why aren't primes manufactured with precision matched non-removable hoods?

Why do you see pros taking photos without hoods? Maybe one of you should tell them.

What a hood is made from is important, as is mentioned in one of your links, if a hood has no effect on the picture then why is this important? (unless you have a hood made out of those new carbon nano tubes that are the blackest black)




Yes but all this light is not necessarily flare and not necessarily unwanted. Also if it's reaching the film/sensor it's part of the image.

@crazzy88ss If EVERYBODY ALWAYS says this how come NOBODY in the articles giga links to says this?

Sorry Mr Spoon I've just realised I haven't posted anything relevant on the filters thing.

That Hoya is fine. I've got the same one. It will make no noticeable difference to any of your pictures but it will protect your lens. Scratch that and you just buy another one. Costs a bit more if you scratch the lens.

The one you've linked to there is 52mm. The lens has a threaded end and it just screws in. Easy to put in and to remove if you want to use another filter.

What would be the point of non-removable hoods? That would be horrible for storage.

I can imagine a pro wouldn't use a hood in a controlled environment like a studio, but if they choose to use one out in the wild: more power to them. Canon includes a hood in all their L lens and Sigma in their EX line--they do it for a reason. It's silly not to use it--they make them for a reason.

Here's some Art Wolfe if you want: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...&fromTips=1

Every single website have recommended to use a hood--hell I even took out my Canon and Sigma manuals and they said to use it as well to block unwanted light and for protection.

What it's made of is important so that the light doesn't reflect inside the hood itself onto the front element. Matte surfaces on the inside of the hood is best.



If you're in sanctified's position and want it for the artistic quality, then sure. Otherwise, it is unwanted non-image forming light which will either cause flare, lower the contrast, etc.

Every single website apart from one of the ones you linked.

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/lenshood.html


Guess what the inside of your hood is not a perfect non-reflective surface. So it is having and effect on the picture. If you don't need it to stop flare why put it there?

"non-image forming light " What? If it's non-image forming (whatever that is) then it's having no effect on my picture.

You're confusing unwanted light, flare, with light from outside the angle of view. They are not the same thing and not both always bad (you may want a flare photo). Then you're advising people that the hood will make no difference to the picture. Of course it does. It's whether you're bothered enough about this to remove the hood. Personally I only put mine on when there is flare I don't want.

Yes, a hood won't suddenly make your image better. It will though help from reducing the image quality that you can get from unwanted light.

Why are we onto talking about my lens hood now? I'm sure it's not a perfectly non-reflective surface, but its not reflective by any means and not degrading my IQ. Again, if I don't use it to stop flare, I use it anyway for the added protection.

I've already explained non image forming light above and its effects on your picture:

Lens flare is caused by non-image light which does not pass (refract) directly along its intended path, but instead reflects internally on lens elements any number of times (back and forth) before finally reaching the film or digital sensor.

Ordinarily light which is outside the angle of view does not contribute to the final image, but if this light reflects it may travel an unintended path and reach the film/sensor. In the visual example with flowers, the sun was not actually in the frame itself, but yet it still caused significant lens flare.



Flare is not a type of light, it's the effect of the light hitting from outside the angle of view onto the lens. Sure, it's not bad if you actually want that effect, but otherwise it is. (and as far as I know, most people don't want flare/glare/etc)

What negative ways is the hood affecting picture?

By the way, you took that sentence from the linked website out of context:

Here we go.



ARGGHHH. This seems to be a concept you can't grasp. Not all light from outside the angle of view is unwanted light but you're throwing it away every time. Also not all light from outside the angle of view is flare.



You are. If you don't care about this that's ok I'm just saying don't go round telling people it has no effect.



This whole bit you keep posting is wrong. I was hoping you'd picked up on that. How can it be non-image light and yet still reach to film or digital sensor (the image)? This is a direct contradiction. I'll assume you mean unwanted light.

Light outside the angle of view does contribute to the image. I thought we had already established that. If it didn't flare would be impossible and once again not all light from outside the angle of view is unwanted light.



Did I say flare was a type of light? That definition is incorrect. It's light above a certain intensity hitting the lens at a certain angle and refracting/reflecting within the lens into the image.



You are stopping light coming into the camera. A picture is more than just what you frame in the viewfinder.




An article about lens hoods that you posted. That says that a lens hood is not needed for every photo. Sounds very in context to me.

Guess what even with a hood on every time you are still getting light from outside your angle of view. The only good thing hood does (image wise) is stop light coming in at the critical angles that cause flare. If there is no light source to flare then the hood is only having a decremental effect.

What light are you talking about then? Other than flare, what other light is it that you're missing when you put the hood on?



For the most part, it doesn't have an effect. If you'd like to show me some tests yourself, feel free.



Non-image light is the light that is not metered/exposed for when you capture the image. This is the whole concept of a lens angle of view. Light outside of its angle of view won't contribute to the image in the sense of the light needed for the exposure to the sensor. It will negatively add to the image in the fact that it usually adds lens flares, blobs, or decreased contrast.

You seem to think that light from outside the angle of view of the lens matters for the exposure of the object you're capturing. It strictly does not since that light won't be coming directly in contact within the focal place depending on your lens. This is why long telephoto lens have larger and longer hoods while wide angles lens or fisheyes have very small ones. (angle of view is wider for UWA, smaller for telephoto)



Yes, unwanted light. The light from outside of the angle of view does not matter for the exposure and metering of the image. Viewfinders are increasingly accurate--a 100% frame viewfinder will show you what you will get in your image. (save for dynamic range which is dependent on your sensor)

Seriously now. Take your lens right now and put the hood on and off in several different lighting situations. It does not affecting the exposure at all.



Are you joking with me? I honestly don't know. The article can't recommend hoods more than enough. Of course there are situations where flare won't be a problem--I've stated that already. The reason I suggested a hood though is for the added protection.



Really? I'd like to see that. You're confusing yourself with angle of views and the exposure of an image.

Of course if you decided to use the Canon 1200mm lens hood with an 8mm fisheye, you'd be losing wanted light. Hoods are specifically designed for the manufactured lens according to their angle of view, and will not affect your light needed for the image exposure.

Hey monkey. Why don't you SHOW us some examples of when a lens hood would REDUCE image quality. Or how not having a hood HELPED the image quality.

And to cover all of the times you say "what if you WANT a lens flare", all I have to say is TAKE OFF THE HOOD! That's why they're removable...

You're a brave soul, giga.

i use hood all the time, my shots don't suffer from any iq lost. hood protects the front element from getting banged on the side during direct impact. for filters, i go with b+w or heliopan.

First did I ever say having a hood on all the time "reduces image quality" (whatever that means)? No what I said is that having a hood on all the time effects the pictures you're taking.

A lens hood may have no effect on exposure values, and I'm willing to bet you mean f-stops and shutter speeds when you say exposure. So following on from my first piece of camera wisdom (A photo is more than just what you see in the viewfinder). I'll impart as second. The exposure of a picture is more than just f-stops and shutter speeds. Do you think maybe the colour of the light might have an effect on the picture?

Have a look at these two pictures taken quickly in my study just now with a bulb just out of shot (ignore the hideous artex ceiling it was like that when we moved in). You can try this yourself.

1. No lens hood iso800 31mm f4.0 1/30s





2. Lens hood on iso800 31mm f4.0 1/30s





See any difference? Maybe in the colour and the histograms? This was just a quick and dirty example as well.


If you want to continue with the ridiculous belief that a piece of kit designed to stop light entering the lens, has no effect on the light entering the lens. You can, just don't try to convince other people of this.

Hmn. Sounds familiar are you guys religious or Scientologists?

The second picture with the hood on has a higher contrast compared to the one without one. Your histogram is also showing a wider dynamic range (shadows/midtones) that is captured with the hood. Looks like the hood did help you out.

Again, we're trying to say that having a proper hood on does not negatively effect your image. The hood is not going to block light from hitting your subject that you're capturing, just the stray lights that will hit and reflect off your lens internals which causes things such as flare and contrast problems like you just demonstrated above.

Light particles do not bend--if you photograph a subject--let's say an apple located right in front of you. The apple is lighted from a lamp that's out of the frame of view. The hood isn't going to stop from lighting that apple, the wall behind it, or anything around it. It's only going to stop the light coming in to the lens from the extreme angles that cause the problems already stated.



What? We've been saying all along that hoods block the light entering outside of the angle of view of the lens. Several diagrams have been posted as well.

And no, I'm not a Scientologist? Are you? Does it matter?

I've just proved it does have and effect and you are loosing light at least admit that.

The hood did improve contrast but is that the best photo? What if I don't want to improve contrast but want a picture that gives more of a general idea of lighting? These pictures do not display a contrast problem but how a hood effects a picture.

Also you've changed your argument now from " a hood has no effect" to " a hood has no negative effect", following me proving you were wrong first time. This is still an incorrect argument.

If I want improved contrast or to avoid flare then I'd use a hood, but what if it's a lovely sunny day and rather than have better contrast I want to capture the colour of the sun and it's effect on lighting my picture and the surroundings (without the sun in shot)? Why would I use a hood? It would be having a negative effect on the kind of picture I want to take.



Actually light can bend but that's a discussion for another time. We'll assume we're both not taking photos in extreme gravitational circumstances.

I've already proven that this is not the case and given you an example of how hoods can effect an image. Notice that neither of the two pictures I posted had flare. Yet they were different. Therefore the hood is stopping more that just the light that causes flare.



Not all light in a picture is from the angle of view. It is impossible to take a picture with light only entering from the angle of view. You've proven this yourself have a look back at your earlier diagrams.

Best photo? I can't judge that--it was your own testing conditions and I have no idea what post processing you might or could apply. How does it not display a contrast problem though? Problems with light entering at extreme angles include decreased contrast and your tests just proved that.


From the very first page, my response:

I'm not sure why you're saying not to use a hood? It won't negatively affect your image or exposure but will help for both protection and stray lights that can enter the lens. There is always a chance of flare indoors, depending on the situation--especially bright light sources and ones reflecting around the room. (Christmas time for example)



What? If you want to risk flare or reduced contrast, then sure go for it. A hood won't prevent you from taking natural looking shots though and it seems a bit silly that you put forth your argument for this which I already accepted from sanctified on the very first page.



You won't get flare on every image, of course not. That's dependent on many factors--lighting, lens, etc. You did, though, risk and get the reduced contrast which is an effect of light hitting the lens at the extreme angle.



Thoroughly confused. We've been over this--hoods only block the light outside the angle of view in order to avoid harsh effects that most people don't want. That's it.

I didn't ask you to judge the best photo. The point I was making was that depending on what you wanted from a photo either can be the best one.

No this does not display a contrast problem. Also there is not just a contrast difference but also a colour difference. It displays how in a very simple test, that you can reproduce yourself, that a lens hood affects a photo. This differing contrast and also differing colour might be what you want in a picture. There was no post-processing. Just shot and hosted. You're quite happy to use them to try and support your argument.



You can't say that. I just gave you a specific example (sunny day one) of a kind of picture you might want to take where a hood will have a negative effect.

Also maudit asked if a hood would affect the light in his shots and you replied " Not at all" (top of page 2 of this thread).



No it isn't, the change in contrast is nothing to do with the angle of the light, just the fact that there was more light. If there had been flare, that would have been because of the light hitting at an "extreme angle" as you put it. Also I didn't risk anything I knew exactly what would happen. I did take the risk that you might be able to understand that the colour and contrast properties of the two pictures would be different and that this difference isn't a negative.



Ok here is the diagram you posted earlier.



See the light from the sun, which is outside the angle of view, that is still part of the picture. I'll say it again. Perhaps with the diagram you'll get it this time.
It is impossible to take a picture with light only entering from the angle of view.

Hoods are not special flare filters. They also block other things, things you might want. I consider something that will block something I want in a picture a negative effect. Therefore hoods can have a negative effect.

Just because you don't understand what these things are or why you would want them, even though I've tried to explain them and given examples, doesn't mean you can make the statement that hoods have no negative effect.

Just as I'm not making the statement that hoods only have a negative effect.

I'll try another example. There is a lovely orange sunset. I want to take a picture that captures as much of this wonderful burnt orange colour as possible. I position myself and frame my shot in such a way that there will be no flare. I don't care about having a higher contrast range. I just want to capture as much of this colour as possible. A hood is only going to have a negative effect in this case.

hehe so much discussion regarding just a hood. just go take pics and use ur gears.

Now it's color problem? First you say "The hood did improve contrast" and now it's a color problem and not a contrast problem? As far as I can tell, both of the colors are in the same range and tonality. On your sample pic, yes, the difference is very negligible. But time and time again I have experienced flare and unwanted lack of contrast due to strays of light hitting my front element.


For specific situations where you "want" flare, I'll give that to you. If that's your intention--go right ahead. I was just stating the fact that a hood does not bring in adverse flaws in your photos in the context that you don't want them.

I replied to maudit in the context of "wanted" light. (again, in the sense that you specifically don't want flare) If I read him right, I assumed he was asking if it affected his exposure, which it does not.



That argument would make sense if your exposure settings were different, but they weren't and the camera metered exactly the same for both pictures. Extraneous light from extreme angles can have more affects than just flare, mind you.

First paragraph from the Cambridge in Color link:

Lens flare is created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera's film or digital sensor. This often appears as a characteristic polygonal shape, with sides which depend on the shape of the lens diaphragm. It can lower the overall contrast of a photograph significantly and is often an undesired artifact, however some types of flare may actually enhance the artistic meaning of a photo. Understanding lens flare can help you use it--or avoid it--in a way which best suits how you wish to portray the final image.


You're misinterpreting the diagram.

The light that is arriving to the lens from outside the angle of view is strictly NOT part of the picture--the lens can't capture light from the part of the image it has no access to. It's a simple matter of focal length and field of view--you're only going to see that light hit the object you're photographing. The picture is the object or scene your camera and lens is pointed at. Whatever that is, that light will get absorbed by your sensor just fine.

The light that is blocked in the diagram is stray light that is hitting directly at your front lens element which causes the problems. The source of the stray light, whether it be the sun or an artificial one, will light the object you're capturing perfectly fine. But the stray light itself has no bearing on the lighting of your object--it hits your lens, not the object which you're capturing.



And yet again you bring up the point that sometimes you might want flare. And again, I've already stated that I understand that and have no problem with it. I have no idea why you're bringing this up again.



Thanks for the good laugh. You don't care about a higher dynamic range--that's silly. A hood isn't going to block any color from you either. Seriously now, you can ask anyone this and they'll say the same. I can bet you that 95% or more of landscape photographers (ultra-wide angle) use a hood that was supplied with their lens.

I've done countless landscape shots all with a hood which had no effect whatsoever with "reducing colors". That's a first for me.

Dude, I meant go OUTSIDE and take pictures. Don't aim your camera at your ceiling that's 3 feet away... lol

Did I say it was a colour problem? NO. Did I say it was a contrast problem? NO. The pictures colour and contrast are not the same and the histograms are not the same. Difference != problem. Yes it's negligible but this was a quick and dirty test with a bulb in my study (not a big light source like say the sun). In response to.






Way to miss quote. Again did my picture without a hood have any kind of lens flare on it? NO. Was it different from the hooded picture? YES.



If the light is coming into the lens and arriving at the sensor then it is part of the picture regardless of what it's doing to the object. End of story.



No I did not a say sometimes you might want flare in the bit you're quoting. The concept you can't seem to grasp is that: Not all light from outside the angle of view is flare and that not all light from outside the angle of view is unwanted.



No you're making me laugh. We've established that a hood stops light coming into a lens and being part of a picture. Yet you still think that a hood doesn't stop light coming into your lens. I've even given you two example photos of this and still you can't wrap your brain around this concept.

I'll say it one last time in the hope that it sinks in.

Not all light from outside the angle of view is unwanted, not all light from outside the angle of view is flare. If you put a lens hood on you are effecting the lighting of your picture (that's what it's designed to do). Whether this is a positive or negative effect depends on the picture you are taking. But you CAN NOT make the statement that hoods don't have a negative effect.

Just for ****s and giggles. Aperture priority at 2.8--just to show it meters it exactly the same. Straight conversion from cr2 to jpg.

No hood.





Hood.





And the quick test bed:

Yeah I know and of the manky celling in here. However it's chucking it down outside with 60mph winds. Not great photography weather. However I did do something that proves there is a difference.

giga Better setup than I did but I was supposed to be working so I couldn't spend too long on it.

However I'm afraid you just shot yourself in the foot. Yes it meters the same but look at the two histograms for the pictures. Big differences.

Look I don't want to keep going on about this but there are differences. Please listen to this bit of advice. There is more to the exposure of pictures than iso f-stops and shutter speeds. You have just proved that. If there wasn't the two pictures would be exactly the same, but they're not.

Yes in that situation the hood is good because it gives you a better contrast. Do you have a red bulb? If you do repeat and you will find that the non-hooded image not only has less contrast but also more red. Which is what I was trying to explain with the sunset example. You might want to catch this light so the photo more representative of its surroundings (does that make sense?)

Try thinking about the light generally rather than just the light that's hitting the object you're photographing.