New Lens or Lens Hood?

[sully75]

So...

I've been using a Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180mm since I started shooting 5x7. I got it for $100 and have been generally pleased with the results I've gotten.

That said I'm slowly realizing that my images lack contrast and have a lot of flare...I'm kinda guessing that these things are related. I end up doing a lot of photoshop to be able to make nice prints of them.

I have heard this lens is prone to flare. The kind of shooting I do is generally wandering around stopping strangers and asking them if I can take their portrait. So...I'm open to using a lens hood, but I'm wondering, could I get really nice results with a much nicer lens and no hood? The hood thing would just add an element of futzing around to what already can be a somewhat awkward experience.

Short answer: do I need to use a lens hood with a modern 210mm lens on 5x7? Could I get great results without one?

And any particular 210mm lens you'd recommend as a balance of quality and price?

[GPS]

Instead of crying for help, why don't you make a simple lens hood for your lens and see for yourself the difference?

[sully75]

Thanks! That's really helpful.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Short answer: do I need to use a lens hood with a modern 210mm lens on 5x7? Could I get great results without one?"

There is a good reason Hollywood uses really tricked-out lens shades with baffle plates: they work very well, even with super multi-coated lenses. Even one of the collapsible rubber lens hoods would work better than nothing.

[GPS]

Thanks! That's really helpful.

Isn't it? You can make (out of paper) a simple and very effective lens shade in about 30s. Then you can take a picture and compare it with your non shaded lens. Nobody else can do this for you.

[Jim Jones]

A larger hood made of mat board and attached to the front standard of the camera requires a little more effort, but could be much more efficient. It might also be more intimidating to strangers, though.

[E. von Hoegh]

So...

I've been using a Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180mm since I started shooting 5x7. I got it for $100 and have been generally pleased with the results I've gotten.

That said I'm slowly realizing that my images lack contrast and have a lot of flare...I'm kinda guessing that these things are related. I end up doing a lot of photoshop to be able to make nice prints of them.

I have heard this lens is prone to flare. The kind of shooting I do is generally wandering around stopping strangers and asking them if I can take their portrait. So...I'm open to using a lens hood, but I'm wondering, could I get really nice results with a much nicer lens and no hood? The hood thing would just add an element of futzing around to what already can be a somewhat awkward experience.

Short answer: do I need to use a lens hood with a modern 210mm lens on 5x7? Could I get great results without one?

And any particular 210mm lens you'd recommend as a balance of quality and price?

Is your lens hazed inside? This lens is NOT prone to flare, although a decent hood ALWAYS helps, at least somewhat. Which version Symmar do you have? I use a 150 convertible that is sharp and contrasty, even with a crappy rubber screw in (or no) hood.

[GPS]

The deeper (longer) the lens shade is (and consequently also larger) the more efficient it is. Additional efficiency is reached with a shade that corresponds with its sides ratio to the film format (unless you use movements but that eliminates a lot of the shading efficiency of a fixed lens shade.) Black flocking paper, bellows folds also help the good result.

[Ken Lee]

If you're shooting where sunshine enters the front of the lens, then you can hold the dark slide in the air, out of the image, but close enough to shade the lens. That goes a long way to reduce flair.

[sully75]

Is your lens hazed inside? This lens is NOT prone to flare, although a decent hood ALWAYS helps, at least somewhat. Which version Symmar do you have? I use a 150 convertible that is sharp and contrasty, even with a crappy rubber screw in (or no) hood.

This is I think the original Symmar?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4554900437_8a13399c78.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/4554900437/)
Eastman View Camera No.33 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/4554900437/) by Paul McEvoy (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulmcevoy/), on Flickr

It's in that picture. That's funny, I've heard it mentioned a few times that this lens actually is prone to flare.

I totally get that using a lens hood with this lens would significantly reduce potential flare problems. In thinking about it though I'm just wondering if there's a lens where I could get a super contrasty flareless image without a hood. A hood would definitely slow me down for the particular kind of image I'm trying to take.

[sully75]

This is the sort of image I'm thinking I'm having trouble with:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6252391235_6a76dbf631_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/6252391235/)
Stomp Festival, 2011, Harvard Square (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/6252391235/) by Paul McEvoy (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulmcevoy/), on Flickr

It was a hazy day, all the open sky in the distance seems to have fogged my subjects. I can sort of pull them back with photoshop but in general they're a little dissapointing.

[GPS]

The deeper (longer) the lens shade is (and consequently also larger) the more efficient it is. Additional efficiency is reached with a shade that corresponds with its sides ratio to the film format (unless you use movements but that eliminates a lot of the shading efficiency of a fixed lens shade.) Black flocking paper, bellows folds also help the good result.

That said, don't necessarily imitate compendium shades with their big openings - they're far away from the best efficiency for a lens shade, for many reasons. To give you an idea - for your 180mm lens, used on 4x5 film format, try with an opening 65x80mm and depth of 60mm (measured from the lens surface)... ;)

[E. von Hoegh]

I can't tell what version from your pic. How is it marked?

The original Symmar was an uncoated Dagor type, in the teens or twenties of the last century. I've used both, they aren't flarey.

[GPS]

...
A hood would definitely slow me down for the particular kind of image I'm trying to take.

Not necessarily. A paper (plastic) lens hood can be attached to the lens and detached in a matter of seconds. The advantage is that it doesn't need any additional construction attached to the camera standard. Again - compendium lens shades are the worst mechanical constructions for a lens shade! Lee lens shades are better, amateur paper/plastic lens attachments the best...;)

[Ken Lee]

It was a hazy day, all the open sky in the distance seems to have fogged my subjects.

If you're shooting an inherently hazy subject, you can expect haze.

A modern multi-coated lens will help, but the real solution is to shoot a subject that you know, in advance, will look nice.

In other words, when you see a shot that is going to look bad, just say no. :)

I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but simply move the tripod to point your camera where the photo will look nice. The film you save will be your own.

Or, do what the old Speed Graphic guys used to do: shoot with a Flash at all times.

[sully75]

Ken, do you think the above shot is impossible to take well? I didn't think it was?

[E. von Hoegh]

Not impossible. But a lenshood or new lens won't help. You have a backlit subject. Try fill flash, or a reflector. (edit) Or do an incident reading of the subject, expose for the subject.

This is not lens flare.

[Ken Lee]

One of the advantages of Large Format in particular - and film in general - is that we often have to work slowly and then wait for the results. Because of that extra effort, we tend to better retain the lessons we learn, and our photos and vision can improve more quickly.

It's one thing if we are on assignment and have to adapt to conditions "on the ground". It's another thing if we're out with a beautiful vintage camera and making Fine Art photographs. In that case, we can set things up in advance to maximize our chances of making a bunch of keepers.

Over the years we learn to "just say no" more and more - because we remember the results of previous "experiments". Ironically, this improves our photographs. It is, after all, largely a process of selection.

[ROL]

I experienced horrific flare for the first time last winter with both my Nikkor 300 and Fuji 180 lenses, shooting in the same general conditions I've always shot in. Same camera and lenses I've been using for years, without excessive flare. I normally shade with the drawn dark slide when necessary, and haven't used lens hoods, even in bright sun. But suddenly, no dice. So I went back to Adams' The Negative and found a brief reference to unexplained flare that both he and Weston were experiencing. They were only able to tame it with the application of lens hoods, as I am now.

There's a lot of light coming through LF lenses, traveling long distances to the film plane and then dancing around on large pieces of acetate. Ah, the joys of LF...

[John Kasaian]

If you're doing the Weegee thing, use your fedora for a shade.
or if you don't like your fedora you can even cut a hole in the crown for an even better shade ;)