People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards

[Bungle73]

If you've got 40-50mm of lens hood on the end of 120-150mm of lens, some people will be more prone to bumping their camera into stuff with the lens hood on, rather than off.



Like I said, coated lenses rarely have trouble with stray light (how many pictures have you seen, even snapped by people using film or digi point & shoots, that have lens flare evident? I haven't seen any, except from so-called "lomographers").

Also, lack of a lens hood doesn't leave the lens exposed to dirt. Lack of a "sacrificial" filter might leave the lens surface prone to dirt,, but a lens hood is only there for one reason - to cut stray light in the tiny minority of shooting situations where you might need it.

But that's not the only reason people have them on their lens.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The only time I use a lens hood is when it's drizzling - to keep rain off my lens. When it stops raining, I turn the lens hood round until I can be arsed to put it back in my bag. I don't care if this is illegal or not.

Was Judas Priest's "Breakin' the Law" playing in the background when you wrote this?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So I say again, we're only supposed to listen to people who a) you've heard of, and b) agree with what you think? What's you're experience?

A quote from Tony Northrup's book:

One issue with Mr. Northrup: A decent filter, made from optical glass (as all decent filters are - although Mr. Northrup appears to assume that people all use "cheap filters") will have an unnoticable effect on image quality, unless one is using scientific equipment to measure image quality with every shot they take.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because in certain lighting situations here, the photos seem to look better. Actually, I swore by it. Last summer, I dropped my camera and the filter broke. I said 'fuck' so loud, that everyone within a block of me at Italian Days heard it. I haven't replaced it yet.

A mate has bought B & W UV filters for every lens he owns, although it's a sort of "religious" practice for him, as he was mugged for his Bronica, but the thief dropped it, straight onto the lens. The B & W filter broke, but the front lens element came out unscathed. Given that about £15 of expenditure saved him either paying a £120 excess on his camera insurance, or having to spend £350-400 on a new lens, he's fairly committed to this religious practice.

 

[ViolentPanda]

To me, 300mm lens photography is cheating.

Personally, I quite like cheating with a 400mm lens, because it enables me to be a bigger cheat than with a 300mm lens.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A phone doesn't come anywhere near to equalling the quality of even a budget DSLR, no matter how many megapixels it's got. Have a look at this website, and compare the sensor size of a phone to any DSLR - the difference is enormous:
http://cameraimagesensor.com/

Not to mention a DSLR lens outshines the one a phone by about a million times.

Oh and is that "30x zoom" digital, as I suspect it is? Digital zoom gives a completly rubbish picture.

Digital zoom uses magnification of the sensor image, rather than mechanical magnification of the image before it arrives at the sensor, so of course it's not going to have quite the same degree of quality.

"Rubbish", though, is in the eye of the beholder. For some pictures a degree of digital zoom is fine, although if I were using 30x digital zoom, I would do the maths (pixel count divided by amount of zoom) so that I'd know the amount of pixels that would comprise my image, and wouldn't expect miracles.

 

[ViolentPanda]

...and a tiny tiny sensor.

Some of them have got comparably-sized sensors (physical dimensions) to decent digi-compacts, although it is fair to say that some have got "fly-speck" sensors.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Photography: it's really just imitating the habits of famous photographers.

For some photographers it also seems to be about buying the same kit as famous photographers in the touching belief that it'll make them better at it, never realising that photography is an art as well as a technical practice.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sounds like he's using screw on hoods (which are rubbish) and not proper ones that go with the lens, but then this is the guy that tells everyone to shoot JPEG and that RAW is no good.

Um, up until about 25 years ago, most lens hoods provided by manufacturers with their lenses were "screw on" rather than bayonet.

As for JPEG vs RAW, it's horses for courses. Me, I have those cameras that can do so, set to record both at the same time (my DSLR and my Fuji compact), and the one that can't (an old Nikon 5400 "semi-pro" compact) set to RAW in preference to TIFF or JPEG), but only because RAW has better editing possibilities IMO.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you can't take a good photo with that camera, you will never be able to take a good photo.

This is why I like my "old skool" Pentax K100D. The "limitations" make me think about what I'm doing - I have no-one and nothing to blame but myself if the picture is shite, because you should be able to take an excellent picture in most circumstances with a camera with a 6.3 million pixel APS-C sensor.

 

[Corax]

For some photographers it also seems to be about buying the same kit as famous photographers in the touching belief that it'll make them better at it, never realising that photography is an art as well as a technical practice.

"Art" my arse. It's just pointing it at stuff and pressing a button FFS.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If that's a camera phone photo, I'll stick to my DSLRs and SLRs, thank you very much. It's not a terrible photo by any means, but the quality of the image isn't high. The quality of a photo is limited by the equipment used to take it.

Load of bollocks. Bert Hardy proved all this nearly 70 years ago when he provided his employer with a magazine front page pic taken not with the standard LF press cameras of the time (stuff like Speed Graphics), but with a meniscus-lensed Kodak Brownie.
Equipment quality is just an excuse, unless the difference in quality is profound. The difference between a phone's camera and an SLR (D or otherwise) isn't profound.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"Art" my arse. It's just pointing it at stuff and pressing a button FFS.

It's art when I'm taking nudie pics of your mum. She told me!

 

[DaveCinzano]

quality bugle once more

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Would it really, Johnny? At f2.2?

Is that the only f stop available?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

For some photographers it also seems to be about buying the same kit as famous photographers in the touching belief that it'll make them better at it,

They're like golfers in that way.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The difference between a phone's camera and an SLR (D or otherwise) isn't profound.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They're like golfers in that way.

Mmm, although better clubs (invariably better-balanced clubs) can make a difference for the better by improving your stance, whereas a better camera doesn't lend anything to improvement - if you don't have a decent "eye" for a picture, then a better camera doesn't help.

 

[Corax]

It's art when I'm taking nudie pics of your mum. She told me!

That was actually just me in a wig.

I'm not a big man

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Mmm, although better clubs (invariably better-balanced clubs) can make a difference for the better by improving your stance,

Maybe if the clubs have been measured for you; otherwise, it's knowledge that improves stance.

Expensive clubs don't make a bad player into a good one. Not even if they have a famous golf name on the bag.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You appear to base your ideas of "good" and "bad" photography primarily on "the quality of the image". Your posts lead any rational person to believe that you equate "quality" to resolution and definition, whereas to many photographers/photographic artists, "quality" is about the what your image communicates, not about pixel count.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That was actually just me in a wig.

I'm not a big man

Great tits, though!

 

[Corax]

Mmm, although better clubs (invariably better-balanced clubs) can make a difference for the better by improving your stance

Amazing how much of that's psychological though. You ever see the thing about the putter designed by a 'NASA scientist'?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You appear to base your ideas of "good" and "bad" photography primarily on "the quality of the image".

That would be a erroneous conclusion. The more powerful, versatile and exact tool extends the possibilities of expressing oneself via the medium.

Btw, you attempted to move the goalposts, there. The discussion has been about good or bad cameras, not good or bad photography. It's very possible to take a good photo on a bad camera, and vice versa.

 

[Bungle73]

Um, up until about 25 years ago, most lens hoods provided by manufacturers with their lenses were "screw on" rather than bayonet.

As for JPEG vs RAW, it's horses for courses. Me, I have those cameras that can do so, set to record both at the same time (my DSLR and my Fuji compact), and the one that can't (an old Nikon 5400 "semi-pro" compact) set to RAW in preference to TIFF or JPEG), but only because RAW has better editing possibilities IMO.

But old Mr. Rockwell's opinion is that no one should ever shoot RAW because RAW is "no good", and it requires "tweaking" and "tweaking" is "bad", apparently. Jared Polin has a whole set of videos where he takes Rockwell's opinions on RAW apart. I have nothing against people shooting JPEG if that's what works for them, but personally, I shoot RAW because of the creative control it gives me.

"Art" my arse. It's just pointing it at stuff and pressing a button FFS.

^Not sure if serious or not.

Of course it's an art. There's far more to getting a decent photograph than just "pointing at stuff and pressing a button".

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Amazing how much of that's psychological though. You ever see the thing about the putter designed by a 'NASA scientist'?

A very common sight at golf courses is rich assholes pulling up in fancy cars and extracting bags full of expensive clubs, and then proceeding to the green and performing like crap.

 

[twentythreedom]

Bungle, have you reached any conclusions about the people who put their lens hoods on backwards?

 

[Corax]

Great tits, though!

Thanks for noticing x

 

[Corax]

Of course it's an art. There's far more to getting a decent photograph than just "pointing at stuff and pressing a button".

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Virtually anyone can press a button - I'm sure you bend your finger in a particularly clever way though

 

[fuck seals]

A very common sight at golf courses is rich assholes pulling up in fancy cars and extracting bags full of expensive clubs, and then proceeding to the green and performing like crap.

Guilty as charged m'lud