lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Not that it matters, but as I have told you before - I have read Tom Ang.
And did you ever stop to think that maybe we came to our conclusion from our own personal experiences.
I may not quite be the grizzled old fart that you are yet, but I do measure my experience in decades and not in years.
I really do doubt if my panties are bunched up. I go commando a fair bit of the time.

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

Yes, well, I measure my experience over 5 decades, I too,have learned from that experience, which I pass down to my students-and I know when i read crap- I just did. But this repartee of ours is no help to the original poster, to whom I say keep your lenshood on whenever making images.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Well I am a noob, only been doing this for 30 years.
I do a lot of photography without a hood.
I haven't bothered to buy one for my Lee kit.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

I can see this subject is like a Boil on Their Butt for some people. For myself I will stick to using a UV filter for a few reasons.
I am not a pro and the tiniest bit of loss of quality will not bother my one bit.
I don't have to $$ to replace or repair a damage lens- my UV filter is like my camera strap - it is insurance too- it is there for protection from dropping and damaging my equipment.

My cameras are not always stored in a bag -one is always under my feet on the floor of the car -the lens cap is often knocked of and the UV filter takes the brunt of dust and grime. I dust and clean my cameras as I use them - which is quite often.

You mentioned using two condoms being stupid - well during my drinking days there were times when a second condom and a paper bag would have been greatly appreciated.

Back to the main subject. I started my SLR & DSLR works on a limited budget - heck I still am on one. So some or most of the time I did not have lens hood and learned to shade my lens with many things - my gray card, my hat even my hand - BUT - now I have a few of the inexpencive flexible, retractable rubber hoods that screw onto the lens filter threads and I am happy
have them on my camera 99.9% of the time now.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Don't get me started on Bryan Peterson. I know that some will consider this heresy. While he is clearly a fine photographer and apparently quite successful, his book on Understanding Exposure is surprising riddled with errors of fact and very odd and misleading analogies. On page 20 in a an extended sidebar, for instance, he has this bizarre analogy between worker bees and ISO and strongly implies the main benefit of higher ISO is to use faster shutter speeds. No discussion about increasing ISO in lower light or increasing it to accommodate smaller apertures for narrower depth of field, or the noise issues associated with raising ISO. There are also a number of glaring errors that anyone with a high school diploma and a couple of years experience would have picked up on. According to him, "To produce a background of out of focus circles, you must use a wide-open aperture. This is the only aperture that is 100 percent circular in shape. All other apertures are hexagonal". That of course is incorrect and would depend on the number of aperture blades, an important point he seems to ignore. He also doesn't seem to believe diffraction is ever an issue. Very odd for such a popular book.

krakkaz Loc: Cleveland, OH

I don't see any reason not to have a hood unless you are shooting in a very tightly crowded environment with a long range telephoto.

I have done concerts and the bars / clubs were packed wall to wall. It did get to be very crowded and the hood did get knocked off a few times from people falling into me or bumping it. It eventually got cracked and it wouldn't clip back on. I haven't replaced it yet but I plan on ordering the replacement once I recover from Christmas.

Matter of fact, I haven't done another concert since for that reason.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^Thanks nekon! :thumbup:

It's called projection. And you're right; lighthouse is the one with his undies in a wad.

If he want's to waste his money with a UV filter more power to him.

You know what they say about opinions right? EVERYBODY HAS ONE! :lol:

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

I'm thinking that if you DIDN'T have that hood on, that one of those people would have REALLY knocked that lens of yours around and damaged it....

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Hey Nekon,
just found this on Moose Petersons site.
It looks like your guru doesn't agree with you.
Moose is talking about his landscape gear.
He uses a protective glass filter on every lens.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/about/whats-in-mooses-camera-bag/mooses-landscape-gear/

Moose uses a protective glass filter on every lens

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

That's his problem, not mine.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

(insert Precious Pup laugh here)
hehehehehehehehe

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

quit it with the endless arguments...everyone knows the linn sondek lp12 is way better than the sota star!!!

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

I didn't know that, but then, I never watched star wars, or whatever programme that came from, as I live in the now, not in some surreal,quasi-futuristic zone....

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

OK, I'll bite. So how did this conversation turn from filters to comparing middle/high end turntables? But having done it, maybe instead you should be comparing a Walker Audio Proscenium Black Diamond V to a Continuum Audio Labs Caliburn turntable with the Cobra tonearm instead. But... the Linn and the SOTA are good too. :-)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The Link Sondek and the SOTA are high end audio turntables. Not sure why he brought them up.