Let's talk Filters!

[giga Veteran]

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.

And I wonder why they aren't the same--possibly because the stray light hit it and reduced the contrast? :| It didn't have the polygonal shaped flare but it did have the lower contrast which is another flaw of flare.

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.

Really? What light is it that you want? You do understand how the camera captures light right?

It goes from the light source, to an object, then from the object to the eye (or sensor for a camera). If you remove the ability for the light source to shine upon the sensor by placing a hood between it and the lens, it doesn't stop the light from the object to the sensor because it's reflected off the object. This is a simple concept of field of view from the lens. It seems like you're assuming we're working with 180 degrees of working space here, but we're not and that extra light is not meant for capturing your image.

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.

I've said it over and over again that a hood does stop light from coming into your lens--the light thats outside of the fov which is not necessary in the context that you specifically DONT want flare or reduced contrast.

Any extra ambient light that's not in the angle of view is just going to add extra light to the sensor which is irrelevant and useless light. This in turn will reduce the contrast and dynamic range. (see above shot)

In my own plain eyes, the cup was not resembled accurately at all by the first.

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.

That's exactly what i'm trying to say. The two images are wildly different. The first image was not an accurate representation of the scene at all, the second one was.

What the first image accurately represents was the stray light hitting the inside of the diaphragm of the lens. It reflected upon it and caused it blow out and reduce the black overall.

[monkey13]

And I wonder why they aren't the same--possibly because the stray light hit it and reduced the contrast? :| It didn't have the polygonal shaped flare but it did have the lower contrast which is another flaw of flare.

In my own plain eyes, the cup was not resembled accurately at all by the first.

The reason the contrast is reduced is that the light source is white. So the image is getting more saturated. If this light was one colour it would change the picture.

Yes in this situation the hood probably is the best option but there are may situations where this extra light will not have a negative effect on the picture but will improve and give you more control over the picture you want to take.

This might sound a bit daft but I think of taking pictures as trying to capture as much of the right light as possible. Therefore I have a view of people who have their hood on as being blinkered and missing out. If you understand what you're loosing and make the choice to do that, for protection or artistic purposes, that's OK. What I think is wrong is this current myth that the hood has no, or no negative effect on a picture.

[giga Veteran]

The reason the contrast is reduced is that the light source is white. So the image is getting more saturated. If this light was one colour it would change the picture.

Yes in this situation the hood probably is the best option but there are may situations where this extra light will not have a negative effect on the picture but will improve and give you more control over the picture you want to take.

This might sound a bit daft but I think of taking pictures as trying to capture as much of the right light as possible. Therefore I have a view of people who have their hood on as being blinkered and missing out. If you understand what you're loosing and make the choice to do that, for protection or artistic purposes, that's OK. What I think is wrong is this current myth that the hood has no, or no negative effect on a picture.

We agree to disagree. :ninja:

I've yet to encounter a problem with any of my hoods and so I'm fine with it. I don't believe what what I'm "losing" has any good qualities save for a few artistic shots I would want. But if that's your style of shooting, then cool.

[crazzy88ss]

So today I went out shooting. And I forgot my lens hood! This is what happened :(

[monkey13]

Wow giga. Probably is best to agree to disagree with some one who has made these statements.

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.

Even when you yourself have proven, with the experiment, these statements to be incorrect you still don't admit you were wrong. That takes a special kind of person to do that. I don't think I could.

You then go on to argue about the nature of this light. Showing even more of your amazing abilities.

Really? What light is it that you want? You do understand how the camera captures light right?

It goes from the light source, to an object, then from the object to the eye (or sensor for a camera). If you remove the ability for the light source to shine upon the sensor by placing a hood between it and the lens, it doesn't stop the light from the object to the sensor because it's reflected off the object. This is a simple concept of field of view from the lens. It seems like you're assuming we're working with 180 degrees of working space here, but we're not and that extra light is not meant for capturing your image.

I've said it over and over again that a hood does stop light from coming into your lens--the light thats outside of the fov which is not necessary in the context that you specifically DONT want flare or reduced contrast.

Any extra ambient light that's not in the angle of view is just going to add extra light to the sensor which is irrelevant and useless light. This in turn will reduce the contrast and dynamic range. (see above shot)

That's exactly what i'm trying to say. The two images are wildly different. The first image was not an accurate representation of the scene at all, the second one was.

What the first image accurately represents was the stray light hitting the inside of the diaphragm of the lens. It reflected upon it and caused it blow out and reduce the black overall.

Hell here you even directly contradict yourself in the same post. Apparently the hood doesn't stop any light but then when the hood is not there there is extra light. Is this magic?

Finally you even admit I'm right that there is a difference and that you might want it.

I don't believe what what I'm "losing" has any good qualities save for a few artistic shots I would want.

So in the end you agree with me but we're agreeing to disagree. You're even more amazing. Slipping in a sentence that agrees with me then still agreeing to disagree. You're going to have to tell me how you do this.

You have made statements that have been proven to be wrong (Still not had the decency to admit this) and then failed to understand why, artistically, you might want to do something. However I'm not the kind of person to hold a grudge. So I'll give you one last piece of photography wisdom (possibly the most important).

In photography there are always new things to learn and try.

@ crazzy88ss Sorry can't see anything there.

[giga Veteran]

:|

You missed my quotes entirely.

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?

I've said it over and over again that a hood does stop light from coming into your lens--the light thats outside of the fov which is not necessary in the context that you specifically DONT want flare or reduced contrast

As for your closing--thanks for the insult, but I won't bite. I have already acknowledged over and over that one may want flare/bad contrast in very few circumstances, if any at all--so don't tell me I have no decency.

As for my photography advice: Enjoy your flare and don't drop your lens.

:laugh:

Look man, you've already proved that you want that flare. You're one in a million and I accept that you want it and I'm not going to hold you back on it.

[crazzy88ss]

@ crazzy88ss Sorry can't see anything there.

I went out shooting this weekend and forgot my lens hood. Here's what happened:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenkirsh/2307271813/

Not only is the top left corner blown out, the bottom right corner has a major flare in it, and there's an ugly flare in the middle of the frame at the top of the middle branch. Please tell me how that makes my picture better...

[monkey13]

crazzy88ss Ah ok if you don't want flare that's bad and you needed your lens hood there.

If you are genuinely interested in learning how to manage the light outside the angle of view. Start with the experiment giga and I performed. He provided good pictures on how he set it up. Repeat this experiment a few times changing things like. The way the lamp points e.g across the path of the shot (example shown), pointed at object being shot or pointed at the camera. Then try the same thing again with a coloured bulb or with a piece of plastic (if you can position is without setting fire to the plastic) across the bulb. Then look at the different pictures and see how the hood has affected each one. This is one of the things I love about digital, I can muck around with stuff to increase my understanding without it costing a penny.

Learning to manage this will give you more artistic control over the pictures you take. Hopefully if you vary the colour you will be able to understand the effects this has on the feel of your picture. In the example provided there is a loss of contrast because the light is white (or what the camera has assessed white to be). So everything gets washed out. It the light had had more of a red tint then it would have changed the colour balance of the picture as well. Giving a different picture. Whether this picture is more representative of what you want is up to you.

The more you experiment the more you will understand the effect a hood has on your pictures. It's always better to try something yourself understand the consequences then make a decision, rather than just going along with the current fad of having a hood an all the time. It may be you decide you want it on all the time anyway but at least you will know what happens if you take it off and how/when you might want to use this.

Also next time I'm out and about shooting I'll try and get some real world examples. Unfortunately the weather was a bit s**tty all weekend here.

@ giga I'm genuinely sad you still don't grasp that the reduced contrast isn't what always happens in a non-hood situation. Since you did the first experiment would you be willing to try the above additions and report back? Maybe in a separate hood specific thread?

[crazzy88ss]

crazzy88ss Ah ok if you don't want flare that's bad and you needed your lens hood there.

But that's the whole point. 99.99999999% of the time people don't want lens flare. If you WANT it, you'll set up your shot on purpose to include it.

You keep talking about how you've proven that a lens hood reduces quality, yet when asked for examples you've twice said "oh bad weather." It gives me the feeling that you don't even have a library of pictures to back up your words. If you want me to do an experiment with lights, what's stopping you from doing it yourself and showing us the results?

[monkey13]

1. Where have I ever said I want flare or I use flare in my photography? I made the point that you can change a picture with the correct use of a lens hood. NOT TO ADD FLARE but to change the colour/lighting properties of a photo. When asked to provide examples I have and I have provided experiments that anyone can do to prove this.

2. When have I ever said that a lens hood reduces quality? (what ever that means) What I said was you can't make the statement that a lens hood has no negative effect when shooting. As it removes lighting features you may want to keep (NOT FLARE) A more correct statement would be. "I never take my lens hood off because I don't understand and can't manage the lighting effects (NOT FLARE) if I do" but that's not as catchy to post in a forum.

So to recap. Hoods don't just remove flare. As I've proven with the experiment. My point all along. I don't shoot photos with flare at all (for artistic purposes or otherwise).

Again because you seemed to have missed the point. Hoods are not just special "flare filters" they stop other light as well. Removing your hood does not mean you just add flare.

Actually I was asked for examples and provided the experiment and results. As for my library of pictures. If you want to see stuff that was shot with out a hood but without any with hood shots to compare to. Well what would be the point in that? I don't take every shot twice with and without hoods in case I have to prove something to someone who can't understand it themselves. Also I've done all these experiments years ago I don't need to repeat them. I did a quick and dirty version again to demonstrate, giga did the experiment but you have both failed to understand the results. Perhaps if you did them yourself we might have a breakthrough.

Once again because no mater how often I say it it doesn't seem to sink in. Not all light from outside the angle of view is flare. this light can be used to change a picture. Also I never ever shoot pictures with lens flare.

[crazzy88ss]

Also I've done all these experiments years ago I don't need to repeat them. I did a quick and dirty version again to demonstrate, giga did the experiment but you have both failed to understand the results. Perhaps if you did them yourself we might have a breakthrough.

Ironically you're the only person on earth that seems to think this way. I'm not some professional photographer with a massive network, but I've never heard anybody argue that lens hoods are bad. I have read lots of "learning photo" types of books and tutorials as well as taken several classes. I think if lens hoods were bad, it would have been mentioned at least ONCE somewhere within one of my books, classes, or tutorials over the last ~6 years I've been active in film and digital photography. It's something that's really basic, and if it were true, I see no reason why anybody would omit that information.

Also, I don't see anybody else on this forum agreeing with you. We have a lot of people who are quite active amateur photographers, as well as several photography students. Where are they? Why aren't they taking your side?

Also I've done all these experiments years ago I don't need to repeat them.

The whole who point of an experiment is to share your data. But you don't have any data to share, just words. I'm not going to waste my own time doing experiments if I can't first see your results. With out results, all you have are words; we all know words only get you so far.

[giga Veteran]

1. Where have I ever said I want flare or I use flare in my photography? I made the point that you can change a picture with the correct use of a lens hood. NOT TO ADD FLARE but to change the colour/lighting properties of a photo. When asked to provide examples I have and I have provided experiments that anyone can do to prove this.

2. When have I ever said that a lens hood reduces quality? (what ever that means) What I said was you can't make the statement that a lens hood has no negative effect when shooting. As it removes lighting features you may want to keep (NOT FLARE) A more correct statement would be. "I never take my lens hood off because I don't understand and can't manage the lighting effects (NOT FLARE) if I do" but that's not as catchy to post in a forum.

So to recap. Hoods don't just remove flare. As I've proven with the experiment. My point all along. I don't shoot photos with flare at all (for artistic purposes or otherwise).

Again because you seemed to have missed the point. Hoods are not just special "flare filters" they stop other light as well. Removing your hood does not mean you just add flare.

Actually I was asked for examples and provided the experiment and results. As for my library of pictures. If you want to see stuff that was shot with out a hood but without any with hood shots to compare to. Well what would be the point in that? I don't take every shot twice with and without hoods in case I have to prove something to someone who can't understand it themselves. Also I've done all these experiments years ago I don't need to repeat them. I did a quick and dirty version again to demonstrate, giga did the experiment but you have both failed to understand the results. Perhaps if you did them yourself we might have a breakthrough.

Once again because no mater how often I say it it doesn't seem to sink in. Not all light from outside the angle of view is flare. this light can be used to change a picture. Also I never ever shoot pictures with lens flare.

Yes, I agree--light outside the angle of view can change a picture. 99% of the time, most people don't like the changes it does to the picture though.

Another link, stating the same thing my past two links have said: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-L...Lens-Hoods.aspx

The primary use for a lens hood is to prevent light from hitting the front lens element from the sides - reducing contrast and creating flare. Pictures taken with a lens hood installed will generally have richer colors, deeper saturation.

A secondary use for a lens hood is to protect the lens. The damage prevented can range from a finger-printed front element (a minor inconvenience) to a broken lens (possibly a major expense - and lost pictures). Lens hoods are generally strong and stick out from the lens some distance. Accidental touches and scratches to the front element are reduced simply because the glass is difficult to reach. Some impact protection is gained from having a sacrificial part taking the blow. Of course, ultra wide angle lenses have very short hoods that offer very little protection.

Lens hoods on longer focal length lenses offer some front lens element protection from rain and dust. The hood helps to keep the front element clean and dry. Of course, if your lens is not weather sealed, you should not let it get wet in the first place.

And another link discussing hoods: http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html / http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Lenshood

[monkey13]

Yes, I agree--light outside the angle of view can change a picture. 99% of the time, most people don't like the changes it does to the picture though.

Thanks I'm glad to hear you admit that (genuinely) . I don't and never will have a problem with someone making an educated choice. The only problem I ever had was with the statement that a lens hood will have no negative effect on a picture.

The links you provided. Not sure I would quote those as a solid source. I have never heard of Bryan Carnathan, writer of The-Digital-Picture.com. He makes some good points but also falls foul of this standard belief that no lens hood only equals reduced contrast and flare. As for Photonotes.org. Any article that starts with

What does a lens hood do?

Aside from making the lens look longer and bigger and thus more impressive to non-photographer ...

I think can easily be ignored.

Ironically you're the only person on earth that seems to think this way. I'm not some professional photographer with a massive network, but I've never heard anybody argue that lens hoods are bad. I have read lots of "learning photo" types of books and tutorials as well as taken several classes. I think if lens hoods were bad, it would have been mentioned at least ONCE somewhere within one of my books, classes, or tutorials over the last ~6 years I've been active in film and digital photography. It's something that's really basic, and if it were true, I see no reason why anybody would omit that information.

First off just to clarify again I am not saying lens hoods are bad. Lens hoods are very good, if used correctly. My argument was that you can not make the statement that a lens hood has no negative effects.

Maybe you're right I only got my first SLR for my thirteenth birthday. Perhaps with all your years of experience and training and your army of supporters you can provide a reputable source, no blogs, forums or personal sites (ie one man), or maybe in one of your books that specifically states. "A lens hood should always be worn as it has no negative effects".

[crazzy88ss]

I've never seen anything say a lens hood has any negative effects, though.

[monkey13]

I've never seen anything say a lens hood has any negative effects, though.

Well then a source that states specifically that a lens hood has no negative effects should be easy for you to find then. It's time for you to back your argument.

[crazzy88ss]

Dude, I'm done with this crap. Have fun living in your own little hood-hating world.

[monkey13]

Dude, I'm done with this crap. Have fun living in your own little hood-hating world.

Funny, I've never said I "hate hoods" as you put it.

You were quite happy to take part in this thread when you were trying to slag off my argument. Yet when you are asked to back yours, you're "done with this crap"

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I'll probably stop laughing some time next week.