PDA

View Full Version : Lens hoods advice



MWitmann
4-Dec-2011, 12:24
Hi,

just recived my first two lens setup so i was wondering about the possibility to buy 2 hoods.


Any advice would be great, thank you!



PS- sironar s 135 & nikkor 90 sw

Sirius Glass
4-Dec-2011, 12:32
Check out: http://www.photofilter.com/hoods.htm

MWitmann
4-Dec-2011, 12:51
Sirius, thank you for the reply.

I was looking also at the lee filters/hood system but it seems to be a bit pricey, considering its used price on ebay and the fact that i must also buy an adaptor ring..

Joanna Carter
4-Dec-2011, 13:18
I was looking also at the lee filters/hood system but it seems to be a bit pricey, considering its used price on ebay and the fact that i must also buy an adaptor ring..
Yes, but once you have the Lee system, it will work on all your lenses; all you would need is one adapter per different lens filter screw size.

MWitmann
4-Dec-2011, 13:38
Yes, but once you have the Lee system, it will work on all your lenses; all you would need is one adapter per different lens filter screw size.

Yes, i know that, but regarding the lee system i've considered that i will need an adaptor per lens, and one is (used) between 30-80$.

So in my case i wil have to pay someting like 200/250$ for the hood with two ring adaptors, instead of 40$ for two hoods from photofilters.com.

I'm just trying to find out if the price difference of the Lee system worths...

I intend to use only an ND and a polarizer.

Joanna Carter
4-Dec-2011, 13:45
The big difference between the Lee hoods and the others, is that, with the Lee hoods, you get a compendium hood that can be adjusted to suit the focal length of the lens.

You do realise that anything less than a hood that is, at least, as long as the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference to the contrast of the image?

John Koehrer
4-Dec-2011, 16:35
Watch for Lindahl hoods, but not as versatile as Lee.
I've been using a Mamiya RB/RZ bellows hood G3 hood, it's 77mm and with step up rings you can use it on many lenses. Step up rings are much less $ than brand specific adapters.

hiend61
4-Dec-2011, 16:39
Lee system is perfect. Modular and very user friendly. Unfortunately, lately there are issues with avaiability.

Once
5-Dec-2011, 17:00
<snip>
You do realise that anything less than a hood that is, at least, as long as the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference to the contrast of the image?

Oh, oh - slow down, please. Where do you have that from? Surely not from an experience. Do you realise it is not correct, neither for the length nor for the difference made?

Joanna Carter
6-Dec-2011, 01:39
Oh, oh - slow down, please. Where do you have that from? Surely not from an experience. Do you realise it is not correct, neither for the length nor for the difference made?
Yes, from personal experience. Even with a Lee Hood, which is only really long enough for a 90mm lens, the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens.

I also attended a masterclass, where the the photographer giving it showed a Sinar setup for studio work, with a second set of bellows used as a "full length" hood for a 210mm lens and the difference in contrast was even visible on the GG screen.

It's all matter of eliminating any extraneous light from outside of the image area. If you've never tried using a proper deep hood, like me, you may not realise just how much difference it can make.

Tony Karnezis
6-Dec-2011, 02:37
Oh, oh - slow down, please. Where do you have that from? Surely not from an experience. Do you realise it is not correct, neither for the length nor for the difference made?

Do you have first hand experience that it is not correct? If so, I'm curious about your testing methodology. I too was skeptical of the importance of a hood until I saw this test by Robert Zeichner (a forum member) titled "Can better shades improve lens performance?".

http://web.mac.com/razeichner/RAZP_large_pix/Shade_pg_1.html

Joanna Carter
6-Dec-2011, 03:36
Do you have first hand experience that it is not correct? If so, I'm curious about your testing methodology. I too was skeptical of the importance of a hood until I saw this test by Robert Zeichner (a forum member) titled "Can better shades improve lens performance?".

http://web.mac.com/razeichner/RAZP_large_pix/Shade_pg_1.html
I saw that article some time ago and found it interesting and the results are certainly demonstrably better than no hood. In theory such a short hood doesn't quite give the protection that a longer one would; but, then, have you ever tried fitting a 210mm deep hood on the front of anything other than a monorail camera? Which is why I settled for the compromise of the Lee hoods for use on my Ebony :)

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 05:06
Yes, from personal experience. Even with a Lee Hood, which is only really long enough for a 90mm lens, the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens.

I also attended a masterclass, where the the photographer giving it showed a Sinar setup for studio work, with a second set of bellows used as a "full length" hood for a 210mm lens and the difference in contrast was even visible on the GG screen.

It's all matter of eliminating any extraneous light from outside of the image area. If you've never tried using a proper deep hood, like me, you may not realise just how much difference it can make.

So let’s put the things in some light. First of all, somehow (a strange type error?) you contradict yourself, saying first that anything less than the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference and then going to say that the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens and 90mm length of a lens shade.

Secondly - (to go back to your first incorrect saying) - you don’t need and don’t have lens shades long 600mm or even 1200 mm for lenses of those focal lengths. Not only would it be impractical ad absurdum but unnecessary too. Why? Because the length of the shade has a very small impact after a certain «*optimal*» length. Say, to name an example, you have the Fujinon C 600 lens. If you make a lens shade of 600mm length you eliminate (under certain given conditions, without going into details) 95% of the stray light vertically on 4x5 film format. If you make the lens shade long 400mm you get the percentage down to 92%. If you make the lens shade long 200mm you get the percentage down to 83%. You see that the huge difference in the length of the shade makes just a small effect on the percentage of the offending light getting on the film. But - even 60 % (or 50% ) of the eliminated stray light makes a very important difference (clearly visible) on the picture. Usually, the «*optimal*» length after which making the shade longer is not practically important and viable is about 70%. After that, you add an unwieldy length to the shade with a small improvement in the optical performance.
So much for an example.

By now you probably understood that me too I know about lens shade construction something... Regards, GPS

Bob Salomon
6-Dec-2011, 05:31
So let’s put the things in some light. First of all, somehow (a strange type error?) you contradict yourself, saying first that anything less than the focal length might not cut out enough light to make enough difference and then going to say that the difference in contrast is noticeable even on a 210mm lens and 90mm length of a lens shade.

Secondly - (to go back to your first incorrect saying) - you don’t need and don’t have lens shades long 600mm or even 1200 mm for lenses of those focal lengths. Not only would it be impractical ad absurdum but unnecessary too. Why? Because the length of the shade has a very small impact after a certain «*optimal*» length. Say, to name an example, you have the Fujinon C 600 lens. If you make a lens shade of 600mm length you eliminate (under certain given conditions, without going into details) 95% of the stray light vertically on 4x5 film format. If you make the lens shade long 400mm you get the percentage down to 92%. If you make the lens shade long 200mm you get the percentage down to 83%. You see that the huge difference in the length of the shade makes just a small effect on the percentage of the offending light getting on the film. But - even 60 % (or 50% ) of the eliminated stray light makes a very important difference (clearly visible) on the picture. Usually, the «*optimal*» length after which making the shade longer is not practically important and viable is about 70%. After that, you add an unwieldy length to the shade with a small improvement in the optical performance.
So much for an example.

By now you probably understood that me too I know about lens shade construction something... Regards, GPS

That is why some manufacturers include or offer cropping masks for the front of the shade so you don't need to have a bellows equal in length to the camera bellows.

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 05:40
Really? Hmm. Bob, I'm the one standing behind the origin of the Lee lens shades...

Bob Salomon
6-Dec-2011, 05:42
Really? Hmm. Bob, I'm the one standing behind the origin of the Lee lens shades...

I am not talking about the Lee shade. I am listing a feature of a true compendium for a view camera.

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 05:45
Hmm. Could it be why you miss the point?

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 05:50
That is why some manufacturers include or offer cropping masks for the front of the shade so you don't need to have a bellows equal in length to the camera bellows.

So, theoretically, you could just insert cropping masks right at the lens rim and voilà - you don't need any longer lens shade? ;) Geometry, geometry...

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 06:07
Another question, Bob. When a mask of the film format size put at the focal distance of the lens eliminates (as you affirm elsewhere) all the extraneous light why is it that a half size mask does not do the same at a half of the focal length?

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 06:12
Or the other way round - why - when a half size film format mask put at a half focal length distance does not eliminate all the extraneous light - the mask in the film format size put at the full focal length distance suddenly does (according to you) eliminate all the stray light? What doesn’t give?
Geometry, geometry...

Joanna Carter
6-Dec-2011, 06:14
That is why some manufacturers include or offer cropping masks for the front of the shade so you don't need to have a bellows equal in length to the camera bellows.
Indeed. Having seen the Sinar setup, they are obviously interested in getting the very best out of the camera, providing for being able to use bellows as a compendium shade and providing adjustable cropping blades for the front of those bellows.

For GPS benefit, I will reiterate that, without going to the extent of the Sinar system, the Lee hoods are a reasonable compromise, but there have been times when I wished I had a "compromise" compendium with adjustable masking as well.

When using a field camera, there always tend to be compromises, like weight versus rigidity; the length of a compendium is another.

In this LF world, sometimes we have to forego "technical perfection" in favour of being able to carry the camera bag without injury.

Joanna Carter
6-Dec-2011, 06:16
Or the other way round - why - when a half size film format mask put at a half focal length distance does not eliminate all the extraneous light - the mask in the film format size put at the full focal length distance suddenly does (according to you) eliminate all the stray light? What doesn’t give?
Geometry, geometry...
Inernal reflections, internal reflections…

The more ridges in the shade, the more chance of eliminating them.

rdenney
6-Dec-2011, 06:49
Here's what I heard Joanna say, for those avoiding the debate: Any hood is demonstrably better than no hood, a compendium hood is better than a screw-in hood, a hood adjusted for the focal length is demonstrably better than a hood that is too short, a hood for a long lens may need a mask to avoid having to be impractically long, and that the hoods that are practical for use on a field camera will be a compromise on what is possible.

One thing I would like to add: The farther the opening of the hood is from the lens, the sharper the cutoff of extraneous light because the less out of focus it will be. Short lenses may need hoods that are quite large on the front to be long enough and still not intrude into the picture.

And another thing: The opening on the hood has to move with respect to camera movements. Thus, a compendium shade that is adjustable only in length will be a compromise when significant movements are used. Related to this is that a shade with a rectangular opening will be more effective than a shade with a round opening, assuming both are adjusted to just avoid vignetting.

Flare that can be improve by shading traces to several causes. One is when the main light source is shining on the front of the glass. That will cause visible internal reflections in many lenses, and also overall veiling flare. When that light source is part of the subject, that flare is unavoidable and part of the picture. But when it is outside the frame, we want the rim-lighting effect and not the flare. Much of this sort of flare can be alleviated by just holding a hand or dark slide between the light source and the lens to shade it.

A second cause is non-subject light bouncing around inside the camera. Bellows minimize the effect of this, but don't eliminate it. It would take all sorts of tight internal baffling to really eliminate it, but that would inhibit all the other things a view camera must do. Tight shading on the front is like adding some of those baffles outside the camera.

One of the really strong features of my Sinar is its many paths to effective shading. At the extreme, one can extend the rail, add a multipurpose standard, stretch a bellows between it and a holder affixed to the lens standard, with an adjustable mask on the front of the multipurpose standard. The bellows can be stretched out along the subject axis to obtain the deepest possible shading, and the mask can further reduce it down to the rectangular format. This was intended for the studio, of course.

But they also make a straight rod and a pair of clips that allow a standard bellows to be affixed to the lens standard and adjusted for length. This alone provides as much protection as any lens-mounted shade, and has the advantage of being fairly large so that even with short lenses the shade can be deeper. Sinar also makes a rod with a ball joint in the middle so that the clip-on shade can be aimed without having to nail the front of the shade to the rail in a new spot. Both of these are quite practical for field use--I use them routinely in the field.

Lee probably makes as good a lens-mounted shade as there is. I also use a Hasselblad lens-mounted compendium shade for some of my medium format stuff, but its adjustment rail may project back too far to make it practical for adapting to view camera lenses--it may run into the board with short lenses.

Even a screw-in rubber shade is better than nothing, especially if you get one that is too long and trim the rubber to just avoid vignetting. I would favor a bigger shade for a larger filter ring on a step-up ring--it will be larger and deeper for the target focal length.

Rick "sometimes wondering why people argue about the difference in contrast between multicoated lenses and then use them without shades" Denney

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 06:59
...
For GPS benefit, I will reiterate that, without going to the extent of the Sinar system, the Lee hoods are a reasonable compromise, but there have been times when I wished I had a "compromise" compendium with adjustable masking as well.

....

Here at least we agree. Indeed, any lens shade (inclusive Sinar one) is a compromise. Stray light can never be completely eliminated, even with lens shades twice the focal length (make it trice, if you prefer).
There are lens shades that are better than anything on the market today. But those are manufactured specifically for the optical characteristic of the individual lenses used on a specific film format - the very same reasons for which they are not marketed by any firm.

Bob Salomon
6-Dec-2011, 07:03
Or the other way round - why - when a half size film format mask put at a half focal length distance does not eliminate all the extraneous light - the mask in the film format size put at the full focal length distance suddenly does (according to you) eliminate all the stray light? What doesn’t give?
Geometry, geometry...

Maybe it would, but that is not what the manufacturers have done. They have chosen to add the masks to the front of the compendium and have been doing so for decades. If you have invented a better way then go for it. But I am familiar with Linhof, Wista and Sinar systems and they all put the cropping masks in front of the compendium. Maybe they tested other placements and found them lacking? For instance, it is very easy to stand behind the camera, look through the gg and adjust the masks while checking to make sure that they do not vignette.
It would be a royal pita to try to do that with masks at a different position.

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 07:04
Inernal reflections, internal reflections…

The more ridges in the shade, the more chance of eliminating them.

Forget about internal reflections - bellows shaped flock paper is more than enough to eliminate them, especially with longer lens shades. And - if you were tempted to make a lens shade with the "appropriate" mask not at half a focal distance but right at the lens rim -wouldn't you eliminate those internal reflections? Yes, you would - but the lens shade would be very pitiful from an optical point of view. Geometry, geometry...

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 07:12
Maybe it would, but that is not what the manufacturers have done. They have chosen to add the masks to the front of the compendium and have been doing so for decades. If you have invented a better way then go for it.
...

Maybe won't do here. If the lens shade at half a distance had the same optical effect the manufactures would go for it like crazies - a smaller lens shade with the same effect would be only an advantage.
The reason why they go for longer shades is - well, a geometrical one. The shading effect is better. Unfortunately, never 100%. Never. Even with a Sinar lens shade.

Bob Salomon
6-Dec-2011, 07:21
Maybe won't do here. If the lens shade at half a distance had the same optical effect the manufactures would go for it like crazies - a smaller lens shade with the same effect would be only an advantage.
The reason why they go for longer shades is - well, a geometrical one. The shading effect is better. Unfortunately, never 100%. Never. Even with a Sinar lens shade.

The basic Linhof and Wista compendiums are short ones, that is why they have the mask option. Either as an add-on accessory or as part of the compendium itself.

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 07:28
One thing I would like to add: The farther the opening of the hood is from the lens, the sharper the cutoff of extraneous light because the less out of focus it will be. Short lenses may need hoods that are quite large on the front to be long enough and still not intrude into the picture.

And another thing: The opening on the hood has to move with respect to camera movements. Thus, a compendium shade that is adjustable only in length will be a compromise when significant movements are used. Related to this is that a shade with a rectangular opening will be more effective than a shade with a round opening, assuming both are adjusted to just avoid vignetting.

Flare that can be improve by shading traces to several causes. One is when the main light source is shining on the front of the glass. That will cause visible internal reflections in many lenses, and also overall veiling flare. When that light source is part of the subject, that flare is unavoidable and part of the picture. But when it is outside the frame, we want the rim-lighting effect and not the flare. Much of this sort of flare can be alleviated by just holding a hand or dark slide between the light source and the lens to shade it.

A second cause is non-subject light bouncing around inside the camera. Bellows minimize the effect of this, but don't eliminate it. It would take all sorts of tight internal baffling to really eliminate it, but that would inhibit all the other things a view camera must do. Tight shading on the front is like adding some of those baffles outside the camera.

One of the really strong features of my Sinar is its many paths to effective shading. At the extreme, one can extend the rail, add a multipurpose standard, stretch a bellows between it and a holder affixed to the lens standard, with an adjustable mask on the front of the multipurpose standard. The bellows can be stretched out along the subject axis to obtain the deepest possible shading, and the mask can further reduce it down to the rectangular format. This was intended for the studio, of course.

But they also make a straight rod and a pair of clips that allow a standard bellows to be affixed to the lens standard and adjusted for length. This alone provides as much protection as any lens-mounted shade, and has the advantage of being fairly large so that even with short lenses the shade can be deeper. Sinar also makes a rod with a ball joint in the middle so that the clip-on shade can be aimed without having to nail the front of the shade to the rail in a new spot. Both of these are quite practical for field use--I use them routinely in the field.

Lee probably makes as good a lens-mounted shade as there is. I also use a Hasselblad lens-mounted compendium shade for some of my medium format stuff, but its adjustment rail may project back too far to make it practical for adapting to view camera lenses--it may run into the board with short lenses.

Even a screw-in rubber shade is better than nothing, especially if you get one that is too long and trim the rubber to just avoid vignetting. I would favor a bigger shade for a larger filter ring on a step-up ring--it will be larger and deeper for the target focal length.

Rick "sometimes wondering why people argue about the difference in contrast between multicoated lenses and then use them without shades" Denney

Rick,
the sharpness of the hood mask doesn't play any role on its optical effect (is minimal) and is not the reason why shades are made longer. The cutting function at its edge is the same.
Right you're - Sinar solution is for the studio, Lee also for the field. But nobody contests that.
For lenses used in a field the total majority of them can use - with an excellent optical effect - shades between 60-150mm long (depending on the focal length in use) provided they are made for the specific lens/film format combination. There is the devil's detail. Movements make a mess of practical lens shades but that is comprehensible. Geometry, geometry.

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 07:32
The basic Linhof and Wista compendiums are short ones, that is why they have the mask option. Either as an add-on accessory or as part of the compendium itself.

Even the Sinar compendium lens shade cannot fully eliminate all the stray light. All lens shades are a compromise. A very good one, good or a bad one.

Helen Bach
6-Dec-2011, 07:41
Here is an old APUG thread (http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-33564-p-5.html) about lens hood design geometry. I have linked to the last page so that you are spared the 'discussion'. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page - the summary is in the last few posts. The first page (http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-33564.html) has a summary of the method and reasoning, though I would use the entrance pupil in the calculation, for better performance.

Good luck,
Helen

BrianShaw
6-Dec-2011, 07:43
Even a screw-in rubber shade is better than nothing,

At the risk of embarassing myself in front of family, friends, the nation, and the world... no matter how much I read about the physics and theory of lens hoods (and I must admit that I simply LOVE these discussions), this is the answer I keep coming back to when not using a compendium on a view camera OUTDOOR.

When shooting indoor, I generally use the cheap and easy screw in rubber filters for easier access to the shutter. Even getting "one size larger" adapters is too fussy in my experience.

rdenney
6-Dec-2011, 08:15
Rick,
the sharpness of the hood mask doesn't play any role on its optical effect (is minimal) and is not the reason why shades are made longer.

I may be wrong on the reason but I'm confident of the results, being a wide-angle nut on many formats and struggling with flarey lenses.

Consider these two shades:

http://www.pentaconsix.com/C436_11.jpghttp://www.pentaconsix.com/C436_14.jpg

(Images linked are on Trevor Allin's excellent website for Pentacon Six cameras.)

Both shades are mounted on a 50mm f/4 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon for the Pentacon Six camera. The first shade is the one provided by the factory. The second is a Hasselblad shade for their 50/2.8, mounted in front of a thick UV filter (which makes it vignette, as it happens). The lens has an 86mm filter ring--this is a large lens intended for the 6x6 format--bigger than many large-format lenses. The shade on the left is quite huge--over five inches square on the front.

The shade on the left is more effective, for two reasons. One is that it is longer, which requires it to be wider as well. The second is because it is (mostly) square rather than round. Both shades are tight and will vignette when using a filter.

As to the degree of focus, you may be right. I've compared the effect of shades at different apertures, and wider apertures will see vignetting when narrower apertures won't (or will more clearly), but that's more a depth of field issue than a focus issue. I haven't tested enough to back up my statement, so I'll leave it at that. Clearly, though, a long shade makes it easier to get that large-diameter piece of glass out of view of, say, the Sun than using a shorter shade. There have been times I could not find a way to shade the lens with my hand without seeing some effect of my unfocused hand on the ground glass, while parking in the shade of a fortuitously placed tree provided the shade and still stayed outside the frame. It may not be focus--it may just be the relationship of the distance of the shading edge to the size of the front element, given that the goal is to shade all of that front element from a strong light source.

Rick "noting that particular Flektogon is rather flarey and thus rewards meticulous shading" Denney

chris_4622
6-Dec-2011, 08:19
Here is an old APUG thread (http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-33564-p-5.html) about lens hood design geometry. I have linked to the last page so that you are spared the 'discussion'. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page - the summary is in the last few posts. The first page (http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-33564.html) has a summary of the method and reasoning, though I would use the entrance pupil in the calculation, for better performance.

Good luck,
Helen

A few years ago George did the calculations for my lenses. I made the shades and they worked very well, as long as I didn't use any movements. I am now thinking about how to make a version with barn doors using the measurements he gave me. I would make one for each lens but as long as they fold up I can fit them in my pack.

chris

rdenney
6-Dec-2011, 08:27
When shooting indoor, I generally use the cheap and easy screw in rubber filters for easier access to the shutter. Even getting "one size larger" adapters is too fussy in my experience.

One of the things I like about the Cambo compendium shade is that it swings away very easily or even unclips for fiddling with the shutter, though it doesn't get short enough for some lenses especially when using a recessed board. When using a Sinar bellows on a rod, I adjust the front of the bellows, and the push the back forward if the lens is long enough to allow it, for making adjustments to the shutter. With short lenses, I usually just pull the shade off. For a 65mm Super Angulon, the bellows I use for a shade are just about fully compressed, but still provide good access from the sides to adjust the shutter, given that the lens is on a flat board.

Rick "the camera itself dictates many of the options" Denney

BrianShaw
6-Dec-2011, 08:28
One of the things I like about the Cambo compendium shade is that it swings away very easily or even unclips for fiddling with the shutter...

Yes, that's the exact one I avoid using at times. Mine is the older type that clips on, rather than flips up. Maybe a flip-up would be a better option but I don't have noticable problem just using rubber screw-in shades for portariture in a studio environment.

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 08:40
I'm going abroad for an assignment now and I don't think I'll have internet access there. Have a good shade for your lenses!

BrianShaw
6-Dec-2011, 08:42
Good luck and safe travels, Geep!

GPS
6-Dec-2011, 08:43
Thanks a lot, Brian.

Joanna Carter
6-Dec-2011, 09:11
Rick "sometimes wondering why people argue about the difference in contrast between multicoated lenses and then use them without shades" Denney

:D ;)

rdenney
6-Dec-2011, 10:39
Yes, that's the exact one I avoid using at times. Mine is the older type that clips on, rather than flips up. Maybe a flip-up would be a better option but I don't have noticable problem just using rubber screw-in shades for portariture in a studio environment.


The flip-up one clips on, too, at least mine does. But the flipping is no real advantage. It will fall down when you least expect it to, and being flipped up inhibits rather than enhancing access to the shutter controls. But it unclips very easily. The Sinar quickie shade is easier--there is only the one post down low, and it does not impede access to the shutter controls from the sides and top.

Rick "easier than screwing a shade onto the lens" Denney

rdenney
6-Dec-2011, 15:02
One thing to add that hasn't been mentioned. If you have clipped corners on the ground glass, you can see when the shade vignettes--if you see the inside of the shade and not the distant landscape when looking through the corner, then the shade will cause vignetting. I always adjusted a shade so that it just avoided being visible through those trimmed corners.

It may not work for really short lenses--the sighting angle on my Sinar is occluded by the ground-glass frame itself. But it works for longer lenses--90 and up.

Rick "noting this should be done at taking aperture" Denney

Heroique
6-Dec-2011, 15:09
...if you see the inside of the shade and not the distant landscape when looking through the corner...

When checking corners, I have never been able to see “the distant landscape,” but I think we do see what you mean. ;^)

Frank Petronio
6-Dec-2011, 15:56
Did anyone ever help the original poster or did they just pontificate and play a competitive king-of-the-nerds contest? Thank goodness GPS got called out of the country or we'd still be going.

MWitmann: in the field, get a couple $10 wide-angle metal lenshades that screw-in and supplement the shading with physical blockage - darkslide, hat, your body.

In a more controlled environment (or at least not windy) use a compendium shade designed for your camera. Linhof, Sinar, Toyo, Arca Swiss, etc. all make elaborate shading and masking systems (but they can be expensive).

If you can afford it, the Lee system is nice. So are adaptations of the Mamiya and Linedehal bellows shades.

Lachlan 717
6-Dec-2011, 17:57
Cokin also has a good filter/hood system (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/232319-REG/Cokin_CX350_Modular_Bellows_Hood_with.html) (X-Pro). However, it too suffers the Lee issue of needing an adaptor ring.

Pretty handy thing for use with or without filters.

Frank Petronio
6-Dec-2011, 18:07
Remember that not getting the shot because you are dicking around with the shade is the lowest contrast image of all ;-p

Here is an old set-up using a beater Hasselblad shade set upside down so the arms wouldn't hit the camera. A cheap compromise that was still sturdy, fast, and effective for most situations. You could knob out the shade while looking through the ground glass and it wasn't prone to getting knocked around by the wind too much. Probably not ideal with a larger lensboard (like a big monorail) or shallow, wide-angle lenses.

Kimberly Anderson
6-Dec-2011, 20:22
Here's a vote of confidence for the Lee filter system. I was video-taping a live nativity tonight with my D7000 and Lee compendium shade, and the big camel decided it looked like his grain bowl. He had it in his teeth and I had to pry it out. The lens shade is none the worse for wear...albeit a little slobbery.

Jim Michael
6-Dec-2011, 21:33
The shade on the left is more effective, for two reasons. One is that it is longer, which requires it to be wider as well. The second is because it is (mostly) square rather than round. Both shades are tight and will vignette when using a filter.


One benefit you appear to get from the one on the right is no reflection from oblique rays hitting the interior surface of the shade. The one on the left you would want to have some damn good antireflection coating, but we know these are often not manufactured to such rigorous standards.

Also, the discussion pertaining to the ideal placement of the opening is akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - the risk from incorrect placement is vignetting. What's the risk from the flare delta? I have enough trouble seeing the edge of the frame on a ground glass. Do you have some technique for adjusting to eliminate the risk?

Joanna Carter
7-Dec-2011, 01:56
… the risk from incorrect placement is vignetting. What's the risk from the flare delta? I have enough trouble seeing the edge of the frame on a ground glass. Do you have some technique for adjusting to eliminate the risk?
Yes, as has been mentioned, that is what the cut corners on the GG screen are for. Simply peer through each corner towards the stopped down iris on the lens;if you see anything other than a full bright circle, you are getting vignetting. Adjust the hood so that you can see that full bright circle.

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 08:04
Yes, as has been mentioned, that is what the cut corners on the GG screen are for. Simply peer through each corner towards the stopped down iris on the lens;if you see anything other than a full bright circle, you are getting vignetting. Adjust the hood so that you can see that full bright circle.

Yes. That's why I came back and described that. It works quickly and precisely for lenses long enough that you can actually see the aperture through the opening in the corner.

Rick "who only goes to such trouble when time is not an issue" Denney

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 08:32
Remember that not getting the shot because you are dicking around with the shade is the lowest contrast image of all ;-p

Here is an old set-up using a beater Hasselblad shade set upside down so the arms wouldn't hit the camera. A cheap compromise that was still sturdy, fast, and effective for most situations. You could knob out the shade while looking through the ground glass and it wasn't prone to getting knocked around by the wind too much. Probably not ideal with a larger lensboard (like a big monorail) or shallow, wide-angle lenses.

That setup is actually quite excellent, and better than nearly any screw-in shade. It's certainly on a par with the Lee shade. I wouldn't say it's for-sure less fiddly than the camera maker's purpose-built compendium shade, but it is certainly less fiddly than some.

As I said at the beginning of my first post: Any shade is better than no shade. Even the shade of a fortuitously placed tree. The most damaging flare comes from strong light sources outside the frame shining directly onto the front of the glass. Preventing that accomplishes a big chunk of what is possible.

Rick "who has made plenty of photos using a dark-slide or hand shade" Denney

rdenney
7-Dec-2011, 08:41
One benefit you appear to get from the one on the right is no reflection from oblique rays hitting the interior surface of the shade.

Good point, and this is a particular problem with the large CZJ shade. It's black on the inside, but quite shiny. I've lined mine with flocking paper and that solved the problem. Many shades are flocked, and many are ridged to simulate baffles, though the ridges are often rounded enough to be only partly effective. Most seem to be painted with ultra-flat black paint, but flocking is better.

Rick "who bought a sheet of self-stick flocking paper from Edmunds a long time ago for such projects" Denney

MWitmann
7-Dec-2011, 14:01
Remember that not getting the shot because you are dicking around with the shade is the lowest contrast image of all ;-p

Here is an old set-up using a beater Hasselblad shade set upside down so the arms wouldn't hit the camera. A cheap compromise that was still sturdy, fast, and effective for most situations. You could knob out the shade while looking through the ground glass and it wasn't prone to getting knocked around by the wind too much. Probably not ideal with a larger lensboard (like a big monorail) or shallow, wide-angle lenses.

Thank you Frank (and to others) for the replies.

I'll really try to not dicking around too much...with hoods or other gear...:) But seeing my setup putted togheter make me notice that there are so many things with which you really can dicking around :))

I've ordered few wide, metal cheap hoods, but i've kept in mind also the Lee system, maybe for the future.

But what about this: Voss Gelatin Filter Holder (with barns) ?

Frank Petronio
7-Dec-2011, 14:57
Those are great in the calm, or in a studio. They get blown around in the wind, but I used to use them often because they were a lot better than simply taping gelatin filters onto the lenses like most pros did (in the day).