Do you shoot with a hood?
- Thread starter scubawun
- Start date
- Status
Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
Amfibius said:
i use the flare for my personal works, its my style to use them, thks to ppl like you, not many ppl do this, i have hoods for all my lenses, expect the fisheye, which has a build in hood.
Its not the money, its just how you use and see things and create your certain style. When i'm done with my project, you can still call me an idiot, i'll think you are just a commoner without 'flare'.
also its also some ppl's style not to use the hoodduring street shooting, not to create more unwanted attention to their shooting, they are not fools, they have their own style.
You need not need to advocate this type optional stuff to everyone, because not everyone shoots like you.
A professional fashion photographer uses his assistant to cover him with a black cloth instead of using a hood for his canon 28-70 2.8L as the hood hinder his other eye for communcating to his models. I have notice some pros do not use them as well, like Yian, never hinders his works, never hinders my. they do not seem to be idiots.
You also say that John Clang is an idiot, also overexpose his shots, but that's his style.
you are in the school system for too long, following rules is ok, but i'll never have high regard to your works.
Belle&Sebastian, if you LIKE the look of flare, and if that's the effect that you are going for, then go for it. I know there are situations when the hood is useless (e.g. shooting into the sun) but there isn't much you can do about that so you live with it. I have no problem with people who make deliberate choices if they think it will enhance their photography.
I don't have a problem with overexposed shots either as long as it goes with the vision the photographer is trying to produce. I have done a few deliberately overexposed or underexposed shots if I am trying to set a certain mood.
As for Clang, I did not really contribute to that long thread. He knows much more about photography than I do. After all he makes a living out of it (I don't). But his photographs don't inspire me. I wouldn't be rushing to go out there to take Clang-style photos.
I am not backtracking. Despite roygoh's warning, I STILL think that if you don't put the lens hood on your lens, you are not maximizing the potential of your investment.
And yes, you know what I think of you.
I don't have a problem with overexposed shots either as long as it goes with the vision the photographer is trying to produce. I have done a few deliberately overexposed or underexposed shots if I am trying to set a certain mood.
As for Clang, I did not really contribute to that long thread. He knows much more about photography than I do. After all he makes a living out of it (I don't). But his photographs don't inspire me. I wouldn't be rushing to go out there to take Clang-style photos.
I am not backtracking. Despite roygoh's warning, I STILL think that if you don't put the lens hood on your lens, you are not maximizing the potential of your investment.
And yes, you know what I think of you.
Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
Amfibius said:
an idoit, fine....... :dunno:
for your info, i have not come across any lens hood that cost less than $10, maybe the el cheapo types rubber hood.
laughingstation
New Member
erm, after reading i still cant understand the use of hood, can anyone post sample pix taken wif and wifout hood pls? thx 
laughingstation, article on lens flare.
Those are pretty extreme examples. Most of the time you will see decrease in contrast and flat colour. You can sometimes minimise it by cupping your hand over the lens or shooting from the shade but you are still better off using a hood.
Those are pretty extreme examples. Most of the time you will see decrease in contrast and flat colour. You can sometimes minimise it by cupping your hand over the lens or shooting from the shade but you are still better off using a hood.
"...maximizing the potential of your investment..."
How to guage this? It's an endless discussion and argument here. I guess all almost all or many of the pros and cons of using a hood have been listed in this thread. And thus, I would like to request that perhaps this thread can be locked.
How to guage this? It's an endless discussion and argument here. I guess all almost all or many of the pros and cons of using a hood have been listed in this thread. And thus, I would like to request that perhaps this thread can be locked.
Amfibius said:
Amfibius said:
My warning was about your referring to people who don't shoot with a lens hood as "idiots".
I did not warn you against your belief in the benefits and necessity of using a lens hood.
I agree that one should seriously consider the use of a lens hood as much as possible to improve the picture quality, but I don't agree that if one doesn't use a lens hood then you have the right to call him an idiot.
Your statement here is more civil and brings across your idea better than your earlier remarks.
Thanks.
Roy
Belle&Sebastain
Senior Member
roygoh said:
despite it, i doubt Amfibius will retact his earlier statement by calling anyone without using a lens hood an "idiot". I just find it downright rude and classless. Anyway this will be my last post for this thread, enjoy lampooning everyelse...
one more person on the ignore list.
There are many "rules" in photography. Many of these rules were formulated from accumulated years of experience and wisdom, and they set the foundation for what is generally "good" photography. Amongst these "rules" is "using a lens hood". There is no question about it that image quality is generally improved with the use of a lens hood. For the novice, and for the experienced who needed the absolute clarity that his equipment can give, a lens hood is, with exceptions, almost necessary.
However, photography is not necessarily about "rules'. It is about an expression of one's vision, and in this, "rules" may be, and often should be, broken. This is completely valid.
But the advice to use a hood is a very good advice, nonetheless, and should be a "rule of thumb" for general photography.
What is sad in this thread is the use of unnecessary provocative words and angry reactions. Debate is necessary and clarifies issues. But with angry words, much of what can be learnt is often lost!
I hope people can write with care, and others read with care. The forum can then be more civil and pleasant.
However, photography is not necessarily about "rules'. It is about an expression of one's vision, and in this, "rules" may be, and often should be, broken. This is completely valid.
But the advice to use a hood is a very good advice, nonetheless, and should be a "rule of thumb" for general photography.
What is sad in this thread is the use of unnecessary provocative words and angry reactions. Debate is necessary and clarifies issues. But with angry words, much of what can be learnt is often lost!
I hope people can write with care, and others read with care. The forum can then be more civil and pleasant.
umm.. i feel that sometimes one shouldnt be too full of himself/herself.. afterall, photography is a learning journey.. there is no exactly right or wrong answers. be it lens flare, under or overexposure. there's always a reason for it to happen.. we shouldnt jz stick to the fact that everytime the photo muz swee swee be exposed correctly. well, lens hood or not, its individual preference..
on a last note, it says alot about those people who makes sweeping statements.. it depicts bad EQ and "i-know-alot-dun-mess-with-me" attitude..
they are clever, but will nv go far in life..
chill guys!
on a last note, it says alot about those people who makes sweeping statements.. it depicts bad EQ and "i-know-alot-dun-mess-with-me" attitude..
they are clever, but will nv go far in life..
chill guys!
I shoot with a hood sometimes and other times I don't. It really depends on what you wanna achieve. Its a tool and so use it. Its not a rule.
Btw, I am quite tired of hearing stuff like "rules" in photography... "rules of third" does not mean its a rule as in law, its a compositional concept. It probably refers to rule lines dividing an image into 3 parts. There are no rules in photography... use the hood as you see fit.
In fact, if you can use a so called limitation such as lens flare to enhance an image effectiveness, I would gladly call you master as you would have mastered control over light and composition. Lens flare is not easy to play with or get right. Definitely not an idiot. A hood simple help removes lens flare... how creative is that?
Btw, I am quite tired of hearing stuff like "rules" in photography... "rules of third" does not mean its a rule as in law, its a compositional concept. It probably refers to rule lines dividing an image into 3 parts. There are no rules in photography... use the hood as you see fit.
In fact, if you can use a so called limitation such as lens flare to enhance an image effectiveness, I would gladly call you master as you would have mastered control over light and composition. Lens flare is not easy to play with or get right. Definitely not an idiot. A hood simple help removes lens flare... how creative is that?
XXX Boy said:
I apologise for being off topic.
But I would suggest that we do not resort to challenges such as posted here.
We should discuss on the merits of the issues at hand. Throwing challenges do not clarify the issue, but create more animosity. Whether a person has any world-class photos to show is really besides the point. A hood allows one to photograph with lesser risks of flare. I have looked at Amfibius' photos, and they are clear indeed. Whether these photos are award-winning is another issue. But clear they are!
Let us face this. How many of us here are "renown" photographers? We are after all mostly photography amateurs (amateur=amore=love) trying to improve our photography skills by learning and sharing in this forum. Some of us know something the others don't. So we learnt from each other - all learning! Even for the "professionals" here (I mean those who make a living from photography) - how many actually have created world class, award-winning works?
But the lack of award-winning works does not mean one do not have meaningful information to share.
Not an award winning picture, but a good example of what can happen if you don't use a hood. This was a drive-by shooting. Was in my car when I drove past the cow. Asked my girlfriend to give me my camera and I quickly shot the picture before driving off. No hood attached.
Picture is ruined. Contrast is down, detail is lost. Yes yes I know there are a lot of problems with the picture as well - bad composition, distracting barb wire and tree branch ... but I wanted a picture to demonstrate flare and I got it.
I have very few pictures like this in my collection. It's not as if I don't make mistakes - I usually just delete them straight away. This one somehow managed to survive (forgot to delete it).
Having a hood will not solve all your flare problems. It gives you more latitude to compose. Compose badly, and you will still get flare.
- Status
Similar threads
