(My bold). Thanks, that's pretty much why I wrote it. I'm thinking that I need to write one about lens hoods, possibly the most useful but least valued accessoryNicely done Garry, as is usual with your articles - a very good and easy to understand explanation.
Now we'll be able to refer newer photographers to this article instead of repeatedly having to explain why they don't (or do) need to use filters.
Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Only to agree, and to add that I am amazed at the number of times I've seen supposedly pro photographers shooting with the hood still mounted reversed on the various 'Masters of Photography' type shows.(My bold). Thanks, that's pretty much why I wrote it. I'm thinking that I need to write one about lens hoods, possibly the most useful but least valued accessory
Does anyone have any views about this?
This annoys me way more than it should!
It's more that a reversed hood will make using zoom / focus rings harder, and often makes holding the lens more awkward as well.I do it often. Then I am not a pro.
If the sun is behind me, and nothing bright on either side, why must I take it off and turn it round, just to avoid annoying people ?
If it is needed, it is at least on the camera ready to use and not at home.
Yes, I agree, there are some lenses that are more difficult to use with it reversed, but if that became a nuisance, I would just turn it round, or "drop it in the bag", but I don't see the point in doing either just for the sake of it, it may as well be on the lens the wrong way round
So far I have over come the urge to lecture strangers using lenses with reversed lens hoods but only just.
I do it often. Then I am not a pro.
If the sun is behind me, and nothing bright on either side, why must I take it off and turn it round, just to avoid annoying people ?
If it is needed, it is at least on the camera ready to use and not at home.
Being a clumsy chap, I use a hood in all circonstances. It's my insurance against bumps.I do it often. Then I am not a pro.
If the sun is behind me, and nothing bright on either side, why must I take it off and turn it round, just to avoid annoying people ?
If it is needed, it is at least on the camera ready to use and not at home.
I think that falls in the same category as mud / dust / salt spray - the 'muck' is not going to damage the front element directly, but repeatedly wiping it clean to get a clear shot adds a risk of scratching the lens coatings (if there's a small bit of grit in the stuff you're wiping off).
That is easy, if I don't look, I don't get annoyed.
Hi Gary.
It would be useful, but I doubt it would need to be very long. Something along the line of "You should use a lens hood wherever possible as not only does it reduce glare it's one of the better ways to physically protect the front element"(My bold). Thanks, that's pretty much why I wrote it. I'm thinking that I need to write one about lens hoods, possibly the most useful but least valued accessory
Does anyone have any views about this?
I find it astonishing too. That being said I had my lens hood on reversed last week at Silverstone as it was very windy and the hood was acting like a kite making if very difficult to shoot.
Yes, basically it's a protective cover for the camera lens, and possibly one of the better ones
P1160569 by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
Mike, you're right of course. Specialist filters are essential for specialist types of photography such as yours, and which I know nothing about.There are a number of technical applications where other sorts of filters can make a considerable difference.
I often shoot with infra red converted cameras (mine are full spectrum converted, seeing UV, Visible & near infrared) so for me many filters take on a new role.
I also have a few that are specific to shooting with converted cameras (such as one that reverse the conversion blocking UV & IR but passing visible, and another that blocks visual but passes UV)
In the realm of astrophotography .there are also specialist filters including light pollution, and narrowband filters (for enhancing nebulae).
Your list of four types are not the only ones useful, but could be described as the only ones for normal photography.
When it comes to close up supplementaries there is a wide variation in quality. The cheap ones (with single element) are as you say quite poor. Achromatic supplementaries are much better, but can be rather expensive. Raynox make a couple that are 3 element models that clip on to the lenses filter threads. I tend to use mine on my macro lenses when I want more magnification than the lens alone achieves. Results are often better than I get with extension tubes, as the Raynox lenses do not reduce light...
The split diopter is actually designed to focus one side close while allowing the other side to focus on the background. The example that is often shown involves a close up of a hedge, with the rest of the view near infinity. Getting the background OOF is actually the normal state of affairs in macro.
I don't normally bother with UV filters, even with my converted cameras they make limited difference when using modern lenses. I will generally fit one if there is spray/dust/grit flying around where I'm shooting.
Here's a typical SOOC shot using a red filter on one of my converted cameras
Very different than what a normal camera would see!
Both the cases I was referring to are these days normally done with digital, and the filters achieve things that can't be done by processing.
