[UncleVanya]

Indoors I have been known to take off hoods and outdoors at night. Neither for reasons of photographic excellence - just because they interfere with handling in certain situations.

I also have been known to change the hoods out for slightly less efficient rubber hoods or circular metal hoods with slip on caps for ease of use and storage.

[BrianR]

Doing macro in my "studio" with strobes off camera I still sometimes leave a hood on to avoid having the front lens element catch a bit of light from the strobe and either causing a bright spot or cutting down the contrast.

A hood is a good all-around catchall, but in the studio the flags come out for any lights that might be hitting the front element.

[THoog]

I generally use an oversized rubber hood for shooting through glass at museums, but if I didn't bring it, hoodless is less likely to have reflections than a petal hood. Likewise, I don't usually carry it to zoos; if I discover a shot I want into a windowed enclosure or aquarium, I'll take the petal hood off.

My other exception is the Sigma Art 30 - the hood is almost as large as the lens, and the lens is so flare resistant that I usually don't bother with the hood. The front element is relatively small compared to the barrel; the wide beauty ring prevents stray fingers touching the glass.

[UncleVanya]

My other exception is the Sigma Art 30 - the hood is almost as large as the lens, and the lens is so flare resistant that I usually don't bother with the hood. The front element is relatively small compared to the barrel; the wide beauty ring prevents stray fingers touching the glass.

My F 100 Macro wasn't supplied with a hood and one isn't even recommended. The front element is set DEEP in that lens.

[monochrome]

Since most of my lenses are K-series manual primes I have actively sought and acquired the correct OEM hood for each lens. I even stuimbled across the OEM collapsible rubber hood specified for the A35-105/3.5. Since I still mostly shoot film (and still use filters) mounting the hood is an extra step - but film is slower anyway.

On digital I never use a filter, even the prophylactic UV prptection filter, so the hood also serves as 'bump' insurance.

[Kerrowdown]

I can't think of any photographic reason

My "Ladies" always keep their hoods on and are never seen naked in public.

[audiobomber]

My F 100 Macro wasn't supplied with a hood and one isn't even recommended. The front element is set DEEP in that lens.

Not recommended on film camera, maybe. The fact is, a hood is always better if you can use one. The F 100 would definitely benefit from a hood on an APS-C body,

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 08-06-2015 at 07:02 PM.

[dms]

I almost always use a hood--except for shooting through (and close to) window, or other reflecting surfaces--as in glass/plastic covered art.

For these I use a black cardboard (about 8"x11" for photo's from commercial aircraft) with hole punched out, which mounts on the lens and kills reflections off of me and the camera (I did this setup a lot when I flew on commercial aircraft a bunch--in the 1970's-1990's). If thin enough you could put a filter ring or step up/down ring to hold it in place.

I haven't done it more recently--have no idea if terrorist paranoia would lead to concerns about it.

[WPRESTO]

I almost always use a hood--except for shooting through (and close to) window, or other reflecting surfaces--as in glass/plastic covered art.

For these I use a black cardboard (about 8"x11" for photo's from commercial aircraft) with hole punched out, which mounts on the lens and kills reflections off of me and the camera (I did this setup a lot when I flew on commercial aircraft a bunch--in the 1970's-1990's). If thin enough you could put a filter ring or step up/down ring to hold it in place.

I haven't done it more recently--have no idea if terrorist paranoia would lead to concerns about it.

During the film era I made a black cardboard shield with a cloth around the center hole to block out reflections when shooting with an ultrawide* through glass of Plexiglass windows, but it was more clumsy and not as effective as an over-sized rubber lens hood that can be pressed directly against the reflective surface and allow a little camera tilt in any direction.

* SIgma 15~30mm, I also used this cardboard shield when using a big Cokin polarizer hand-held in front of the lens,otherwise the corners of the frame almost always showed reflections off of the filter (lens had a permanent hood and no filter threads)..

[dms]

During the film era I made a black cardboard shield with a cloth around the center hole to block out reflections when shooting with an ultrawide* through glass of Plexiglass windows, but it was more clumsy and not as effective as an over-sized rubber lens hood that can be pressed directly against the reflective surface and allow a little camera tilt in any direction.

* SIgma 15~30mm, I also used this cardboard shield when using a big Cokin polarizer hand-held in front of the lens,otherwise the corners of the frame almost always showed reflections off of the filter (lens had a permanent hood and no filter threads)..

Clarification on my method of using the black cardboard, and the ideas presented by WPRESTO.

1) I generally used 50mm lens on FF 35mm (film), so the angle of view was not that of an ultra-wide.
2) In a plane the windows are (were) generally somewhat ahead or behind one and it may be difficult/impossible to manage pressing the lens rubber hood against the surface (and still see through the viewfinder), not to mention the potential for vibration to affect the shot--a real problem shooting typically at 1/15 second (at f/1.8, and iso 320 slide film).
3) In a museum and such they likely will not let you approach so closely as to use the rubber hood as described.
4) Conditions permitting (and with a wider FOV lens) the use of a rubber hood sounds like a great way--thanks.

BTW the following is a reference/discussion for the method I described--Russ Kine, "The Complete Book of Nature Photography," Revised Edition, 1979, Amphto, pages 146-148.

[WPRESTO]

Clarification on my method of using the black cardboard, and the ideas presented by WPRESTO.

1) I generally used 50mm lens on FF 35mm (film), so the angle of view was not that of an ultra-wide.
2) In a plane the windows are (were) generally somewhat ahead or behind one and it may be difficult/impossible to manage pressing the lens rubber hood against the surface (and still see through the viewfinder), not to mention the potential for vibration to affect the shot--a real problem shooting typically at 1/15 second (at f/1.8, and iso 320 slide film).
3) In a museum and such they likely will not let you approach so closely as to use the rubber hood as described.
4) Conditions permitting (and with a wider FOV lens) the use of a rubber hood sounds like a great way--thanks.

BTW the following is a reference/discussion for the method I described--Russ Kine, "The Complete Book of Nature Photography," Revised Edition, 1979, Amphto, pages 146-148.

Seems to me I had some edition of Kine's book once (threw out all but a handful of photobooks from the film era). Seems to me Kine, or someone, recommended cutting the center out of a plumber's helper for dealing with a reflective window. I've mostly used rubber hoods at aquariums. Museums are far more touchy about touching anything. One church I was in got touchy about using one of the movable posts that holds a rope railing to support my camera (laid it flat on top to photograph the ceiling). With the 15~30mm Sigma and LX on a tripod, a Conkin X-Pro circular polarizer could be hand-held resting against the permanent petal-hood and was large enough that its outer plastic ring did not show on the chrome, but the cut-out sections of the that hood would pick up reflections on the surface of the filter leaving bright curved triangles in at least some corners of the resulting slide. In general I like rubber hoods. Prefer one on my 180 Voigtlander to the more elegant bayonet-mounted metal hood. Beautifully made is not always most practical.

[UncleVanya]

I'm sorry I have to do it...

"Hoods ask the dumbest questions..."

Ok - it's out of my system now.

I do like the idea of using a rubber hood when confronted with glass. I have had this problem in skyscrapers at night and wished I had a rubber hood with me.