Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

I was in Whitby today, it is the first of the biannual "Goth Weekends".    Crowded streets, plenty of people in Goth outfits happy to be photographed,  dull grey sky, intermittent showery rain.     Many, maybe most, photographers with big DSLRs with long zooms have the LH on backwards.   Why???

 

In all weathers I have a LH on the right way round.   It acts a crash barrier, can add a bit of contrast, and does not get in the way of my fingers turning lens rings.

 

Am I doing something wrong, or am I just uncool??

 

Peter, I was there Friday and Saturday, by lunchtime it`s shoulder to shoulder in the narrow streets; and that`s just the photographers!

If they all had lens hoods attached they`d be clashing like rutting stags.

 

With so many agency and news togs in Whitby for the Goth weekend, it`s nice to make a sale via Alamy news: one yesterday in The Star i`m told, also had sales from the two Goth weekends

last year via Alamy news.

 

 

Joe

 

 

Joe,

 

I was the one using an RX10 with the LH the right way round (I did not see anybody else doing that).    I could have put some on Alamy News, but didn't bother - maybe in October.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lens hoods backwards - why?

 

Is it possible the lens hood is on correctly

& the camera is backwards...?

 

Only if you are really fashionable and doing selfies all the tim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the whole notion of intended purpose is outdated. I admit I wear my ball cap backwards sometimes when I'm shooting verticals, but I'm otherwise in firm agreement with the idea that its intended purpose is to shade my eyes, not the nape of my neck. I might put a lens hood on backwards to stow the lens, if space absolutely required it, but otherwise it protects the lens and stays in place even when in the bag.

 

The one I probably won't do, except in rare cases, is to use a tilting lens to throw parts of an image out of focus, mired as I am in the old-fashioned belief that its intended purpose is to employ the Scheimpflug principle to increase depth of field rather than throw it away. When reviewers talk of the virtues of such lenses, old man Scheimpflug seems to be almost never mentioned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the whole notion of intended purpose is outdated. I admit I wear my ball cap backwards sometimes when I'm shooting verticals, but I'm otherwise in firm agreement with the idea that its intended purpose is to shade my eyes, not the nape of my neck. 

 

I had to work at it for a while, DD, but now I shoot verticals using my thumb to trigger the shutter, so that my arms are at my sides. This technique also attracts less attention than holding my right arm above my head.  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps the whole notion of intended purpose is outdated. I admit I wear my ball cap backwards sometimes when I'm shooting verticals, but I'm otherwise in firm agreement with the idea that its intended purpose is to shade my eyes, not the nape of my neck. 

 

I had to work at it for a while, DD, but now I shoot verticals using my thumb to trigger the shutter, so that my arms are at my sides. This technique also attracts less attention than holding my right arm above my head.  :)

 

 

You could rotate camera the opposite way and then you can still use your trigger finger and tuck your elbows in. I don't seem to be consistent which way I turn.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, Martin, but that position is more awkward and makes it harder to keep the horizon even. I grip the strap in my palm and pull down slightly. 

 

It's interesting that I could not find a single video dealing with a vertical hold.

 

Once, a few years ago, I asked this forum if they shot more horizontals than verticals. Almost everyone said it was about even. In fact there are far more horizontals in the collections. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to actively aim to shoot portrait format as much as possible knowing it would still be less than 50%. It was in the days when magazine were printed on paper, remember them? Now more use is online it seems landscape formats are preferred, I remember DK explained why, in some depth, in a post a while ago. These days I probably shoot 15-20% verticals - next time I am in my library I will take a look. Obviously depends on subject matter: for example basketball and perhaps football (soccer) I will probably shoot more than 80% verticals (and of course I use a camera with a vertical grip for those as well, so no flying elbows).

 

Looking at my recent sessions, travel & stock, it seems to vary between 10 and 40% verticals. So I haven't really got out of the habit. That said I am working up some stuff for another library that does a lot of book covers and the like so they will be mostly verticals. So it all depends I guess.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to shoot 50-50, maybe leaning toward verticals. I used to like my little MF camera, the Fuji GS645. You had to turn in on its side to shoot horizontals. For a long time I would shoot with elbows tucked in, but then added a grip on my DSLR that made shooting verticals much easier, although heavier. It departed recently and I'm needing to adjust to the different handling of the Fuji X-E1 that replaced it. If I could make a firmware wish it would be that they would give the option of swapping functions between the AE-L and View Mode buttons. I like the camera and If I could use the View Mode button for focusing I'd love it. Eventual graduation to an X-T1 should fix that.

 

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not even realise you could put the lens hood on backwards, learn something new everyday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look like a tourist. Put your lens hood on backwards, and wear a Hawaiian shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a trick seasoned street photographers use to fool the public into thinking that they are just harmless fools with a dslr.  The Leica used to do the job, especially as many of its users made a point of behaving like demented idiots, ducking and diving in the streets of Paris and NYC.  Now everyone knows the Leica costs as much as a Golf Cabriolet (that is: second hand Golf Cabriolet). 

 

Ever see anyone shooting ducks with the lens cap on?  Watch out.    :blink:

My Leica kit cost a lot more than my s/h Mazda RX8. Isn't there a You Tube clip somewhere of someone prancing about with a new digi Leica with the lens cap on? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason the notice "Front Toward Enemy" is/was prominently printed on the side of a Claymore Mind: obvious information is not always that obvious. 

 

I just looked at the Nikon manual for my D700, and up front on Page 22 (with illustrations) it describes attaching a lens and other hardware details. There is no mention or illustration of a lens hood. Now I understand that the lens hood is something you get with a lens, not with the camera . . . but Nikon could have said something like, "if the lens has a lens hood. . . ." 

 

So I'm now a bit less judgmental towards first-time DSLR or other high-end camera owners, who are not really photographers yet. 

 

Unlike with a Claymore, a mistake with a lens hood won't kill you and your squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason the notice "Front Toward Enemy" is/was prominently printed on the side of a Claymore Mind: obvious information is not always that obvious. 

 

I just looked at the Nikon manual for my D700, and up front on Page 22 (with illustrations) it describes attaching a lens and other hardware details. There is no mention or illustration of a lens hood. Now I understand that the lens hood is something you get with a lens, not with the camera . . . but Nikon could have said something like, "if the lens has a lens hood. . . ." 

 

So I'm now a bit less judgmental towards first-time DSLR or other high-end camera owners, who are not really photographers yet. 

 

Unlike with a Claymore, a mistake with a lens hood won't kill you and your squad. 

A bit like ladders with signs at the stop saying "STOP" and milk bottles with "open other end" on the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon with their new 18-300mm mini lens and Tamron with their monster 150-600mm solve the problem. Just don't supply a lens hood :-)

 

Feel really letting down test conditions by using the huge Tamron without a hood, but they make it an optional extra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon with their new 18-300mm mini lens and Tamron with their monster 150-600mm solve the problem. Just don't supply a lens hood :-)

 

Feel really letting down test conditions by using the huge Tamron without a hood, but they make it an optional extra.

 

Olympus has done the same thing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason the notice "Front Toward Enemy" is/was prominently printed on the side of a Claymore Mind: obvious information is not always that obvious. 

Unlike with a Claymore, a mistake with a lens hood won't kill you and your squad. 
 
;-)
DG00M2.jpg
 
wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.