PDA

View Full Version : Compendium - Worth the hassle and cost?



Sheldon N
8-Aug-2007, 11:14
So I'm considering getting a compendium shade for my Arca Swiss. Man - they are not cheap!

I know there is a benefit to blocking out all non-image forming light with a compendium shade, versus just shading the front element (my tried and true method). I guess what I don't know is whether the improvement in final image quality is sufficient to warrant the expense of the compendium, the extra time/effort it takes to set up for each shot, and the added weight in the pack.

Is this one of those things where everyone agrees that it's "better" to use one, but no one actually bothers to do it themselves?

Jorge Gasteazoro
8-Aug-2007, 11:26
So I'm considering getting a compendium shade for my Arca Swiss. Man - they are not cheap!

I know there is a benefit to blocking out all non-image forming light with a compendium shade, versus just shading the front element (my tried and true method). I guess what I don't know is whether the improvement in final image quality is sufficient to warrant the expense of the compendium, the extra time/effort it takes to set up for each shot, and the added weight in the pack.

Is this one of those things where everyone agrees that it's "better" to use one, but no one actually bothers to do it themselves?

I do like you and use a french flag to block light falling on the front element for the reasons you mention, weight, hassle and expense. I have compared negatives using a compendium and a french flag and I saw no difference.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
8-Aug-2007, 11:44
I have a Lee compendium and lots of filters for it, however I only use it in the studio or for architectural work when I bring my studio with me in my car.

When I walk (or bike) out the door with a camera it is always with a single lens and a metal hood attached. Foolish, I know, but I just can't be bothered. I use the darkslide or my hand as a flag.

sanking
8-Aug-2007, 12:12
I have a Lee compendium and lots of filters for it, however I only use it in the studio or for architectural work when I bring my studio with me in my car.

When I walk (or bike) out the door with a camera it is always with a single lens and a metal hood attached. Foolish, I know, but I just can't be bothered. I use the darkslide or my hand as a flag.


I also use a Lee compendium hood, the wide angle one, with a couple of filter slots. I use it for all of my lenses in both LF and ULF, except for a couple that need larger filters than 4" square. This has saved me a lot on filters since I only need one set for nearly all of my lenses.

When working with LF and ULF I rarely make an exposure without using the hood. It is just standard practice to take it along and set the camera up with the lens hood.

Sandy King

Uusilehto
8-Aug-2007, 12:15
The great thing about Sinar is that you can take a regular bellows, attach it to an accessory standard and use the clamp rod thing to attach it to the front standard. Add a bellows hood mask unit to the front of the accessory standard and you can block almost any unwanted light. The bellows hood mask 2 costs crazy money though. I have the hood mask 1 which is a lot cheaper but still a lot more effective than just the bellows hood.

JPlomley
8-Aug-2007, 12:55
I use it for all of my lenses in both LF and ULF, except for a couple that need larger filters than 4" square

Sandy, what are you using for filters larger than 4" square. I am about to get a 72XL and the CF bumps the front thread up to 112mm. Won't be able to mount the Lee foundation kit on this so 100x100 graduated ND's are not going to work.

Michael Gordon
8-Aug-2007, 13:22
I guess what I don't know is whether the improvement in final image quality is sufficient to warrant the expense of the compendium, the extra time/effort it takes to set up for each shot, and the added weight in the pack.

I operate under the "don't fix it if it isn't broken" idiom. Is there something wrong with your negs/prints that you'd be considering a compendium shade? I use the inexpensive and always-available hand/hat/body block, or at best a Flare Buster, and I've never had reason to consider something more costly or complicated. YMMV.

Ash
8-Aug-2007, 13:27
I have been meaning to buy a compendium shade for a while. My lenses aren't multicoated and are prone to flare.

I'd like to know I can shoot without the sun behind me and get acceptible contrast. I ought to buy one soon!

Walter Calahan
8-Aug-2007, 14:18
I use them on my Arca-Swiss 4x5 and KB Canham 8x10 all the time. Some times I add a flag, as well, from the strong light side (does it have to be French?).

Brian Ellis
8-Aug-2007, 15:14
Using your hand or something else to block light from the top is fine with a single, direct light source. Compendiums are more useful when the light is diffused and isn't coming from a single source, such as the light on a bright overcast day, or when sunlight is bouncing off of things like rock walls in a canyon. Those are the kinds of situations where compendiums are supposed to be better than your hand or something similar. I can't speak from experience, I didn't encounter situations where a compendium would clearly be preferable to my hand often enough to use the one I owned for a while. I think you either do as Sandy does and just automatically put it on every time or else don't bother buying one.

Captain_joe6
8-Aug-2007, 15:19
I would tend to think that the choice would depend somewhat on the lenses you plan to use. If you're using modern multicoated lenses, you may not need the compendium shade. If you're going old-school with single- and non-coated lenses, then it may be a little more worth it to combat flare and other reflections.

The Lee System seems like a worthwile investment, especially considering the screw-on nature of most of their products and the near-limitless possibilities of 4x4 filters. With slip in, screw on, and Arca-Swiss at your fingertips, I can't imagine there's much you couldn't do.

Robert A. Zeichner
8-Aug-2007, 16:43
I certainly haven't played with every compendium shade out there, but the ones I have seen have a couple of drawbacks. First of all, if they aren't necessarily proportioned to the aspect ratio of the format you are shooting, you will not block anywhere close to all the non-image forming light visible to the lens. Second, if there is no provision for raising and shifting the shade, again you will not exclude all non-image forming light. This is the reason I invented my barn door shade. It allows me to adjust for any format and any combination of movements. I can confirm its proper adjustment by sighting through the clipped corners of the ground glass or, with my special Dick Dokas ground glass, right through it. The barn door shade is relatively cheap and easy to make and is lightweight and foldable. It therefore goes with me anytime I shoot.

Does it make a difference? I have tested it with uncoated, single coated and multicoated lenses and there is no question it makes a difference. Less, so with the multi-coated lenses, but with the others, a dramatic difference. More local contrast in the shadow areas is the immediate thing I noticed.

How I got interested in all of this was a result of two exposures I made on a rainy day in the Canadian Rockies. It was a dull, grey day and I was shooting a detail of a black steam engine with my Fujinon 240 A. I made one exposure without any shade at all. My good friend Dick Dokas noticed there were some small raindrops on the front element. I thought the rain had subsided, but apparently not completely. So, just to be safe, I made a second exposure with a folding round rubber shade attached. The difference in the identically processed negatives was an eye opener. It was after that experience that I started to experiment with a more efficient way to completely shade lenses. See my article in the March/April 2007 edition of PhotoTechniques magazine, pg.33.

sanking
8-Aug-2007, 20:27
Sandy, what are you using for filters larger than 4" square. I am about to get a 72XL and the CF bumps the front thread up to 112mm. Won't be able to mount the Lee foundation kit on this so 100x100 graduated ND's are not going to work.

I only have three such lenses,and two of them have smaller rear elements that allow me to use glass screw in filters. For the other lens I have a set of glass filters 6" in diameter that I purchased from a place called Surplus Shed several years ago. These are war surplus items, having been made by Eastman Kodak for the Army. Old but in excellent condition and cost almost nothing and the quality is very high. I just hang them off the large lens or hold them up in front of it. Unfortunatley I only have these filters in yellow and red.

Sandy King

Andrew O'Neill
8-Aug-2007, 21:21
I've never bothered. I've just used a darkslide. I've often considered picking one up but the price always scares me.

Kirk Fry
8-Aug-2007, 22:12
Take a 300 mm M Nikkor. This baby covers well over an 8X10 negative. What do you suppose happens to all that light with a 4X5 negative. If you are not using a compendium hood in bounces around inside your camera and into your shadows on the negative. Essentially it will kill your contrast. Why do you suppose they use black material for the inside of camera bellows?

Jorge Gasteazoro
9-Aug-2007, 00:01
Take a 300 mm M Nikkor. This baby covers well over an 8X10 negative. What do you suppose happens to all that light with a 4X5 negative. If you are not using a compendium hood in bounces around inside your camera and into your shadows on the negative. Essentially it will kill your contrast. Why do you suppose they use black material for the inside of camera bellows?

Huh?.....

Uusilehto
9-Aug-2007, 07:38
Huh?.....

The point is that the light that isn't used to form the picture is going somewhere and those somewheres have the potential of bouncing the light so that it fogs the film.

I don't see why precautions shouldn't be made. The whole argument about "not fixing it if it isn't broke" is just silly. I'm sure the people of New Orleans would agree. What I'm saying is that maybe sometimes it's a good idea to fix something BEFORE it's broken. No reason to lose that critical shot because "there hasn't been a problem before".
I did that mistake and paid for it dearly. I was in a hurry and didn't think I would need a hood. Guess what happened. Yes, the shot was ruined beyond salvage by flare.

David A. Goldfarb
9-Aug-2007, 08:08
I don't always use a compendium, because it's not practical with every camera that I have or in every shooting situation, but I do whenever it is practical. It will almost always improve contrast to vignette any non-image-forming light and to shade the lens as much as possible from all sides.

Kirk Gittings
9-Aug-2007, 09:04
I've never owned one, but have did try them many years ago when I was worried about off image light sources in architectural interiors. Much more trouble than they are worth IMO. A dark slide (or my hand when using readyloads) does the trick.

I understand Kirk's point and have seen some issues with that on my field camera on long lenses that have huge excess coverage, but found when I replaced the original bellows on my ZVI the problem went away. The interior of the original very was slightly reflective.

Brian Ellis
9-Aug-2007, 10:37
The point is that the light that isn't used to form the picture is going somewhere and those somewheres have the potential of bouncing the light so that it fogs the film.

I don't see why precautions shouldn't be made. The whole argument about "not fixing it if it isn't broke" is just silly. I'm sure the people of New Orleans would agree. What I'm saying is that maybe sometimes it's a good idea to fix something BEFORE it's broken. No reason to lose that critical shot because "there hasn't been a problem before".
I did that mistake and paid for it dearly. I was in a hurry and didn't think I would need a hood. Guess what happened. Yes, the shot was ruined beyond salvage by flare.

I don't think anyone is questioning "why precautions shouldn't be made." There's no question that flare can be a problem. If it was never a problem nobody would make compendium shades or lens hoods. The original question was whether it's such a serious problem that purchase and use of a compendium shade is necessary or at least desirable. Many of us have found that we can generally deal with flare adequately by using our hands or something similar to shield the lens. So our response to the question hasn't been that we ignore flare. We've just said that we haven't found it necessary to deal with the problem by purchasing a compendium shade.

Jorge Gasteazoro
9-Aug-2007, 12:02
The point is that the light that isn't used to form the picture is going somewhere and those somewheres have the potential of bouncing the light so that it fogs the film.

I don't see why precautions shouldn't be made. The whole argument about "not fixing it if it isn't broke" is just silly. I'm sure the people of New Orleans would agree. What I'm saying is that maybe sometimes it's a good idea to fix something BEFORE it's broken. No reason to lose that critical shot because "there hasn't been a problem before".
I did that mistake and paid for it dearly. I was in a hurry and didn't think I would need a hood. Guess what happened. Yes, the shot was ruined beyond salvage by flare.

In addition to what Brian Said, the post implied that image circle and coverage has an effect on flare, which with exceptions of a few instances it is not true. For example, if you have a lens with a copal 3 shutter and you use it in a 4x5 camera, you might see some flare from internal lens reflections when the lens is wide open, but few of us use the lenses wide open, and when we do, flare is not a problem. If anything if you have a lens with big coverage, and you use it in a small camera you should see less flare since light travels in a straight line and you are using a smaller portion of the image circle. It is when you try to use all of the coverage that you are more prone to flare.

Sometimes you need to KNOW what you need to fix before you go do it....

naturephoto1
9-Aug-2007, 14:07
I just recently purchased the Lee Cokin P Compendium Hood. I am starting to use it when I feel that there will be a flare problem. If no Lee or Singh-Ray filters are used in the Cokin P holder I try to block any light from entering the lens (may lay my dark cloth over the openings) when using the hood.

Rich

Terence McDonagh
9-Aug-2007, 14:37
Rich,
I made a cover for the slot using some "grip" tape (for hockey sticks, etc) and a small piece of card stock. It gets taped to the top/back of the shade and closes over the slots, but hinges up easily to allow filters to be slid in. A slight modification would be needed for the longer graduated/split filters so as not to scratch the filter, but couple of "standoffs" at the edge distance of the filters would do the trick.

Daniel Geiger
9-Aug-2007, 16:56
I also use an AS 4x5 with a Lee compendium shade. There are some instances, particularly with polarizer filters, that make the use of a Lee hood very difficult, if not impossible. I have been toying with the idea of the original AS compendium for that reason. Have to see how urgent it will be by the end of the year.

I also shoot quite a bit of close-ups in the 1:1 range. I have taped a white piece of card board to the compendium and position it by adjusting the compendium. This can balance unidirectional natural or flash light, and is much more easy to work with than a hand-held reflector (Litedisk).

Robert A. Zeichner
9-Aug-2007, 18:20
In addition to what Brian Said, the post implied that image circle and coverage has an effect on flare, which with exceptions of a few instances it is not true. For example, if you have a lens with a copal 3 shutter and you use it in a 4x5 camera, you might see some flare from internal lens reflections when the lens is wide open, but few of us use the lenses wide open, and when we do, flare is not a problem. If anything if you have a lens with big coverage, and you use it in a small camera you should see less flare since light travels in a straight line and you are using a smaller portion of the image circle. It is when you try to use all of the coverage that you are more prone to flare.

Sometimes you need to KNOW what you need to fix before you go do it....

Before incoming light ever reaches the diaphragm, it passes through all the optics in front of it. Any non-image-forming light entering the lens has the potential of contributing to flare, which manifests itself as a homogenous veil over the entire image. So regardless of selected aperture, the veil is there unless you do something to prevent it. That's the job of a proper shade. Now let's examine what goes on behind the diaphragm: Assuming no shade of any kind, the entire image circle will be projected rearward at any aperture (understanding of course, that the eveness of illumination might be influenced by aperture). So if say a 300mm lens with an image circle of 325mm was used on a 4x5 camera, more light than could possibly strike the film would flood the interior of the camera creating the potential for bellows flare. Even black cloth can reflect light striking it at an acute angle. The interior parts of the camera back can also be reflective, sending rays back toward the lens. We are not talking about huge amounts of light, but any is too much if it's easily avoided. By using a proper shade, the projected image is "cropped" and spills ever so slightly beyond the confines of the film. No bellows flare and reduced veiling glare from reflexive effects both in front of and to a lesser extent, behind the diaphragm is the result. Less flare, increased contrast, particularly noticeable in shadow detail. You really need to try this and compare the results from two identical negatives, one with and one without an effective shade.

sanking
9-Aug-2007, 18:47
Before incoming light ever reaches the diaphragm, it passes through all the optics in front of it. Any non-image-forming light entering the lens has the potential of contributing to flare, which manifests itself as a homogenous veil over the entire image. So regardless of selected aperture, the veil is there unless you do something to prevent it. That's the job of a proper shade. Now let's examine what goes on behind the diaphragm: Assuming no shade of any kind, the entire image circle will be projected rearward at any aperture (understanding of course, that the eveness of illumination might be influenced by aperture). So if say a 300mm lens with an image circle of 325mm was used on a 4x5 camera, more light than could possibly strike the film would flood the interior of the camera creating the potential for bellows flare. Even black cloth can reflect light striking it at an acute angle. The interior parts of the camera back can also be reflective, sending rays back toward the lens. We are not talking about huge amounts of light, but any is too much if it's easily avoided. By using a proper shade, the projected image is "cropped" and spills ever so slightly beyond the confines of the film. No bellows flare and reduced veiling glare from reflexive effects both in front of and to a lesser extent, behind the diaphragm is the result. Less flare, increased contrast, particularly noticeable in shadow detail. You really need to try this and compare the results from two identical negatives, one with and one without an effective shade.


Thanks for this excellent explanation and comment. As you suggest, people should really test this in critical situations and see how it impacts their own work.

Use of an efficient compendium lens hood is an example of "best practice" in my opinion. Photography is forgiving and one can often get very good results without the use of such a hood. But there are some conditions where the difference between an efficient lens hood and the use of a hat or dark slide can really matter.

So why take chances? I find it about as easy to exercise best practice as something slightly less. I personally have had quite a number of negatives ruined by failure to use an efficient lens hood. I can not think of a single one that was ruined by using an efficient compendium hood. You rolls the dice and takes your chances.

Sandy King

Ken Lee
10-Aug-2007, 04:11
Have you ever seen a professional cinematographer, without a lens hood ?

Uusilehto
10-Aug-2007, 07:49
Have you ever seen a professional cinematographer, without a lens hood ?

Yeah, well, cinematography is a whole different animal. With changing composition, the results should be consistent from frame to frame. Unintended flare popping up mid-scene is not what you want in the final print.
Obviously, flare is occasionally used as an effect, but that is also a completely different matter.
As a sidenote, movie cameras (and most high-quality video cameras, such as the Canon L/XL series) are often large enough to allow the use of a compendium hood without significant increase in "bulkiness".

Herb Cunningham
10-Aug-2007, 08:08
I have an Arca I got on ebay for $130. Would never buy the new ones, too much $$$.

I like a hood just for comfort. I never backback any distance, so carrying a Lee is easy.

I have been working on a series for some time where I am shooting more or less into the sun, and I find the compendium quite helpful.

A hood in the studio is a must IMHO.

If one is patient, you need not pay new equipment prices. There are a lot of places where used shows up, sometimes it takes some modification, ie. Bob Watkins in going to fit the old compendium to my newer Arca's.

Ken Lee
10-Aug-2007, 11:03
Yeah, well, cinematography is a whole different animal

Different indeed.

We think that Large Format materials are costly - but imagine how expensive it is to shoot even a 30-second length of film these days. Or video. The cost of a lens hood is... inconsequential. The consequence of not using one is... unfortunate.

Tim Brazelton
10-Aug-2007, 12:32
I also am pleased with the Lee shades (both wide and standard shades) after using them for about 10 years. Works well with a polarizer too. For a polarizer, I attach the filter directly to lens, then Lee Filter adapter, then shade. Adjust polarization first, then while holding polarizer steady with one finger adjust the Lee compendium shade. Just takes a bit of practice.


Tim

Sheldon N
10-Aug-2007, 20:51
Well, the poll results seems to be about 58% yes to 42% no on actual usage of a compendium, and roughly 50/50% when comparing those who are "pro compendium" to those who either find fault or dont use one.

I've decided that due to cost, space/weight in the backpack, and extra time in setup I'm not going to go with a full compendium hood. I think the real deal-breaker was when my wife found out that it might take me an extra minute to set up a shot. I believe her statement was something to the effect of...

"You mean that you want to spend how many hundreds of dollars on a compendium hood, so that I can wait around an extra minute with the kids while you take a picture? That doesn't sound like a good deal to me."

:)

Instead, I decided to go with a basic screw in lens shade. I found a really handy lens hood called the Hoya Multi Position Lens Hood. It's a rubber collapsible hood with three positions - fully extended for telephoto, half extended for normal lenses and all the way in for wide angle. All my lenses take the same 52mm filters (with the exception of my 90mm lens) so one hood does it all for me.

I can check the corners of the ground glass for mechanical vignetting through the aperture, so it's easy to see if I've over extended the hood relative to the movements applied, or if I need to stop down more to avoid vignetting. The hood works at the fully extended position for my 240mm and 300mm lenses, allowing a normal amount of front tilt without interference. When you put the hood at the half way position, it works great with my 120mm and 150mm lenses.

It's light, compact, and only costs $13. Plus, it's officially "wife approved".

:)

Jorge Gasteazoro
10-Aug-2007, 21:53
Plus, it's officially "wife approved".

You my friend, are wise beyond your years.... :)

John Berry
10-Aug-2007, 23:04
Got the Lee, use the lee.

Mattg
10-Aug-2007, 23:47
I'm one that should but doesn't use a compendium. Cost is one issue but bulk is the real problem.

I currently do what Sheldon does and have worked out that the 58mm hood for my 65mm lens (on 6x9) can be fully extended for no movement, folded back once for less than 1cm displacement and folded back all the way for displacements up to the limit of the lens.

Unfortunately it doesn't work for light sources that are just outside the picture area. I'm currently looking for a Wiggly Worm type adjustable clamp to hold a card. Hopefully by using both of these I'll be better off.

dkmacc
11-Aug-2007, 15:26
Sheldon,

My current LF lenses have 49mm and 52mm filter sizes. When I want to use a compendium lens hood, I borrow the "Professional Lens Hood E" from my MF Bronica ETRSi kit. It is lighter, smaller and less costly ($65 used) than any compendium lens hood intended for large format that I have seen. It attaches using a threaded 62mm adapter ring (the filter size of the Bronica lenses) and I use step up rings for each of my LF lens sizes. It has a removable, front-mounted insert for MF 150-250mm lenses, which adds to its flexibility, and has a slot at the rear that comfortably accomodates filters that are 75mm square and up to about 4mm thick. Removing the front insert provides a slot that can take diffusion material if you so chose.

Don

Atul Mohidekar
11-Aug-2007, 16:04
Hi Sheldon,

I went through the same decision process. I used to use one of the rubber collapsible hoods with three positions. Then I bit the bullet and bought the Lee filter system along with the Lee Compendium hood. One of the overlooked advantages of the Lee hood is that it is very easy and quick to put it on and take it off due to the spring-loaded attachment mechanism as opposed to screw-based mechanism (which is more time consuming). Also, it is way too cheap compared to Arca Swiss compendium hood. The third advantage is, it could be used with any camera (multiple cameras, future cameras, etc.). So if you have multiple cameras or when (not if ;)) you buy another one, this would be a good solution. In view of your comments about the extra time taken to put the hood on and the expense of the Arca hood, it should be quite easy to get the Lee hood "wife approved" :)


// Atul

neil poulsen
11-Aug-2007, 16:21
Every once and a while, an AS compendium with four adjustable blades come up on EBay. I'd wait until you can get one of those for a reasonable price. In fact, with the four blades, they're more effective than the current models.

I think they come in two varieties. One comes with two screws that screw onto the top of the front standard, and one comes with only one. Mine is the first variety, and I have two corresponding holes on my older Classic F that accepts the lens shade.

Eric Leppanen
11-Aug-2007, 16:52
I also use the Lee filter system and use the Lee compendium hood whenever practical. It is not perfect (it won't work with the Lee round polarizer attachment, for example), but it works most of the time and is very easy and quick to use.

One advantage of using the compendium is precision placement. If you are shooting near the sun or some other point light source, properly shading the lens without inducing vignetting can be a very tricky exercise. The compendium solves this problem because it is fixed rather than hand-held, and after shading the lens one can verify that no vignetting is taking place before taking the shot. I often shoot sunrise shots where, while I'm not shooting directly into the sun, I'm at the razor's edge as to keeping direct sunlight off the lens front element without vignetting. In such cases I often have to apply some fairly fancy mojo to the compendium to get the desired result. If I just used my hat or a dark slide, there's no way of knowing whether vignetting will occur. Before I bought the Lee hood, I sometimes would end up photographing the brim of my hat due to an ill-fated attempt at lens shading.