View Poll Results: Do you shoot with a lens hood?

Voters
222. You may not vote on this poll
  • Always! Without fail. Take no chances.

    111 50.00%
  • Never! Why bother?

    26 11.71%
  • Sometimes! Depends on the weather and whether I forgot to bring it!

    79 35.59%
  • What's a hood? (don't whack me for saying this! Kenna Hood - ah !)

    6 2.70%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 78

Thread: Do you shoot with a hood?

  1. #21

    Default

    i always use put on my hood, coz when i sling my cam i'll hold my front of the lens with my whole hand, and if there's no hood can see a lot of fingerprints

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius
    Well, too bad - you're all idiots then.

    Why spend so much money buying the best camera you can afford, the best film you can afford, the best lens you can afford, and then skimp on a $10 accessory which will demonstrably help your lens perform better?

    Even your megabuck L lenses will look worse than a P&S if you start getting lens flare. You pay extra to get extra performance, and then you throw it away by not putting on the lens hood - which comes included with some lenses.

    Yeah good one!

    The only time I don't use a hood is if I forget to bring it along (idiotic mistake!) or if I'm shooting in low light conditions.
    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.
    Last edited by Belle&Sebastain; 9th September 2004 at 10:16 PM.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain
    i use the flare for my personal works, its my style to you 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 my a 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.
    upz for u belle&sebastian!

  4. #24
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default

    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.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius

    And yes, you know what I think of you.
    an idoit, fine.......

    for your info, i have not come across any lens hood that cost less than $10, maybe the el cheapo types rubber hood.
    Last edited by Belle&Sebastain; 9th September 2004 at 10:23 PM.

  6. #26

    Default

    erm, after reading i still cant understand the use of hood, can anyone post sample pix taken wif and wifout hood pls? thx

  7. #27
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default

    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.

  8. #28

    Default

    Actually, what's the problem with transporting the hood in the bag along with the lens? You can just turn it round and fix it in. It does not take up much space, if any, at all.

  9. #29

    Default

    "...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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius
    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.
    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
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roygoh
    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
    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.

  12. #32

    Default

    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.

  13. #33

    Default

    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!

  14. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius
    If you shoot without a hood, you are an idiot.
    Need not to pass a harsh remark like this!
    Shooting with a lens hood means you are a genius?
    Care to show me some of your award-winning pictures that is shot with a lens hood?
    Last edited by XXX Boy; 10th September 2004 at 10:03 AM.

  15. #35

    Default

    I guess it's a Two way thing, Amfibius flamed someone... and everyone is flaming him back... and the process repeats itself...

    why don't we just focus on the Hood? hahaha

  16. #36
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RossChang
    I guess it's a Two way thing, Amfibius flamed someone... and everyone is flaming him back... and the process repeats itself...

    why don't we just focus on the Hood? hahaha
    Aren't we? HOOD AH!!!!!!

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    TheDaysMovie.com
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    just lock the thread lah....~
    peace peace!!!

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Some equitorial, tropical isle
    Posts
    2,398

    Default

    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?

  19. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    Need not to pass a harsh remark like this!
    Shooting with a lens hood means you are a genius?
    Care to show me some of your award-winning pictures that is shot with a lens hood?
    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.

  20. #40
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default



    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.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •