X-posting a rant - sort'a

[Pacerr]

Tell ya what. Take the biggest clear filter you can find and for best effect put a finger print or two on it then dust lightly with talcum power so the effects are really obvious. Now carry it around with you for a while looking through it in all different sorts of lighting. Then attach a hood to the filter and do some direct comparisons. You'll be surprised how much side lighting affects the clarity of the view through the filter/lens.

As shown earlier in the matrix data, in many scenarios if you're using a lens with good coatings and keeping it clean there may only be a few percentage points difference such that without side-by-side comparison shots you might never notice the degradation. But the difference WILL be there if you look for it.

If you want consistent POP in your shots, eliminate as many variables as possible. The minor irritation of using a hood is one variable you do have absolute control over. Maybe you could consider the reduced number of times you have to "carry out the trash" to be compensation for carrying and using a hood.

Indoor lighting does have potential for causing problems. Bright table lamps and overhead auditorium and stage lighting bite me once in a while. Another subtle source is using window light for side fill in portraits and still life table shots. Comparison shots are very revealing.

Another trick when looking for or comparing flare and refraction is to shoot in, or convert to, B&W. That really makes the loss of contrast stand out better than using color. Come to think on it, learning with B&W film is where I became sensitive to the need for hoods -- I got bad habits only when I started using color film. Perhaps because processing  cost more to experiment with color film? Don't have that excuse with digital 'film' so I tend to explore and experiment more again.

[lensoreat]

what about the lens hood for the da 40mm lens,   have you seen it ?  i use that,    and i have a similar hood for the 01 lens on the Q;   those are pretty Qute hoods,   the lens caps aren't too much fun though,   unless you have tiny fingers-  i don't think any of you posting here have tiny fingers do you ?    but i digress...     oh,  never mind i forgot my question..   i'll be back....     

[Pacerr]

. . .  those are pretty Qute hoods, 

"Qute" don't count! Shaded lenses count!*

It's very simple: if you want THE BEST images you can produce, USE THE MOST EFFECTIVE HOOD YOU CAN STAND.

OTOH, if you never bother with stuff like windshield wipers . . .

[ "That's not a knife. THIS is a KNIFE!" Crocodile Dundee.]

[lensoreat]

i knew that would get ya      

[Pacerr]

Be careful what you wish for . . . now, go get your hoods, l'il cricket.

[lensoreat]

more serious question now,   why does the fa31 have such a funky hood with cut-outs in it instead of just a round cylindrical thing.   i had the 31,  but sold it cause i felt too guilty using it for one thing,  but i may get another.   and on that lens, one can't even remove that darn hood -   almost like some lens designer put his foot down on that one.   

[Pacerr]

As for the fancy tulip hoods vs. cylindrical hoods: At some point (IME around 50-55mm) the FoV is narrow enough and the hood is long enough that the corner cutouts don't make the hood measurably more effective. Manufacturers seem to have the same opinion since we don't usually see tulip hoods except for WA's and zoom's less than 50mm.

For a given FL the compromises are:

- How long can a hood be without interfering with the FoV in the corners?

- How short must a hood be to prevent vignetting?

The longest cylindrical hood that would prevent vignetting in the corners on a WA lens wouldn't effectively protect against incident light from the side or above/below the FoV cone. That makes it economically feasible, if not absolutely necessary, to offer the tulip shape to gain as much protection as possible. Beginning around 50mm the hood is long enough that the cutouts are no longer necessary in a practical/economical sense.

[lensoreat]

so wouldn't be best to avoid shooting in situations that require a hood at all,  although on some shots i've seen,   especially on some portraits,   it almost looks like the photog wanted all that incident light to wash out the photo,    you know what i mean ?     

[Ron Kruger]

As I understand it, tulip hoods came along after, and because of, the advent of digital sensors, which have a wider surface in relation to the vertical height than the preceeding films and slides. Lenses remained round, but the field they imprinted widened, so especially on wide-angle lenses, tulip hoods were a cheap compromise. We keep trying to fit a round peg into a rectangular hole. I keep waiting for someone to design rectangular lenses to match sensor shape.

[Pacerr]

. . . looks like the photog wanted all that incident light to wash out the photo,    you know what i mean ?    

You mean like, "Oh, cr@p! How'm I gonna explain THIS one?"

Oh, wait, wait, I know . . . I'll write it up, claim it was artistic intent and submit it to Popular Photography magazine.  

--------------

New photographer: "Gee, I wonder why THAT happened!"  

Experienced Photographer: "Look! Damn it, it happened again!"  

[lensoreat]

ok,  and in your honor, pacerr,   i have changed ( for a while anyway  ) my lens hood set-up on my da40 instead of using the sissy-hood with the tiny lens cap. 

[ryanw]

We keep trying to fit a round peg into a rectangular hole. I keep waiting for someone to design rectangular lenses to match sensor shape.

That's one of the advantages of 4/3rds.  They attacked the problem from the sensor side.   1:1 would be the most efficient use of round lenses.  Rectangular -  lenses there might be some merit there.

As an aside, I've often thought that the 4/3rds ratio is one of the main reasons Olympus HG and SHG glass is so nice.  They had an easier time because they didn't have to waste so much glass vertically to cover the sensor horizontally.  Should lead to slightly smaller glass and smaller glass is probably easier to achieve something special with.

[Pacerr]

  1:1 would be the most efficient use of round lenses.

If that were so, we'd still be seeing the old 1:1 format 'cause I don't believe we'll be seeing "rectangular" lenses any time soon.*

Overall efficiency must also include the body design that accompanies the format. The "un-square" format has more to do with efficient, compact body design than lens technology. We had the square format in the "good ol' days" of 4x4 and 6x6 negatives in TLR bodies. Because square or round images aren't often the composition of choice, about a third of that negative was "wasted". The same would be true for sensors. And the wasted silver-based film and processing solutions used to develop it amounted to a significant expense. (And did I hear someone say, "Really big, heavy TLR bodies.")?

The advances in film technology that allowed a smaller negative size prompted the 35mm format (Ok, ok, so it's actually 34.98 ±0.03 mm**) as a way to provide a much more compact body and to gain an economic advantage as well. It's no coincidence that the next next larger nominal metric film size is 70mm which has been around a long time.  

Of course that lead to the need for a tripod head that could be tilted 90-degrees and the inevitable argument over which way is proper to tilt the camera for for portraits, but . . . hey, that was also the era of whether the toilet paper was properly fed from the top or the bottom of the roll, too. Or was it the back or the front of the roll?

The idea of a not-round lens is depressing to me. It would surely take five times as long to decide on the proper "un-round" format standard as did the war over VHS or Beta video! There are photographers involve you know.  


* Actually there is sort of a rectangular lens that was used in some of the early panoramic movies. There was a 1.25x anamorphic lens that horizontally compressed the image and a corresponding lens on the projectors to un-compress it. It had an aspect ratio of about 2.75:1.  

** You can find me at the bar in 'Cheers' later, OK?