Flare fanatic? Would no hood works

[reddot925]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of our forum friends here recommend me to use the great but heavy 50 Summilux black chrome without the hood.     The thought never crossed my mind because flare is something most of us think can ruins a picture.

 

Then I saw this picture on DPReview, in the description Rishi says he's flare fanatic.  Interesting.

 

Would not using hood and flare be the same thing?   Or it's different kind of flares, good flare and bad flare so to speak?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Dan Bachmann]

I've got the 50mm Summilux pre-asph and Noctilux and they really don't flare so much.

 

I had a Summicron which flared, but not in a way I liked. My best flare lens is a 28mm Avenon. So what character do you want in your flare?

 

At work we hired a company who removed the coatings from their £28,000 lenses to give us vintage flare!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff S]

I made that suggestion to you. Photography is all about light.... and using it to good (or bad) advantage. Flare is but one consideration, and lenses perform differently... from each other and under different conditions. One needs to learn his/ her tools within an overall workflow (from shot to edit and PP to print and display). There are ways to either minimize flare (a hood is only one factor) or to use it creatively.

 

Jeff

[reddot925]

@Dan Bachmann very interesting!

@Jaff S Indeed, thank you for suggesting, that's why I'm exploring further that I'm not ruining my image if I don't take the hood along. Even more than not ruining the image, it's a surprise that some actually prefer flare!

[pgk]

Each lens has its own flare characteristics. But its not simply about removing the hood. Shooting into strong point source lights can be effective if the flare pattern is understood and controlled. Veiling flare can reduce contrast and cause effective shifts in an image's look too. Its all about knowing your lenses and how they respond to different lighting situations. Flare can be a pain when not wanted or an essential component of an image if used to best effect.

[lct]

Either you consider flare as part of your photography or you want to avoid it rightly or wrongly. In the latter case you'd better use a hood on your lenses as all do flare more or less. Now the Summilux 50/1.4 asph is one of the least flare prone 50s among my Leica M & R lenses so i would not worry too much about that. That said, the front element of your superb 50/1.4 asph black chrome is vulnerable in case of drop or bump so i would use the hood to protect it personally. YMMV.

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That picture is a funny example. Smells like photoshop to me. Photoshop is a dream come true for flare lovers.

[mahakalaka]

I don't think that photo smells of photoshop. You can tell that the sun is not far out of frame. I personally like the flare in that photo. I like shooting into the light and often get flare. The tricky part is knowing what you are getting. Sometimes I love the flare, sometimes I don't. The worst is when no flare shows up, but the whole picture just turns flat.

[NB23]

I don't think that photo smells of photoshop. You can tell that the sun is not far out of frame. I personally like the flare in that photo. I like shooting into the light and often get flare. The tricky part is knowing what you are getting. Sometimes I love the flare, sometimes I don't. The worst is when no flare shows up, but the whole picture just turns flat.

 

Photoshop is a powerful program. You can add as many extremely high-fidelity suns as you like in one single image.

[jdlaing]

high fi·del·i·ty

ˈˌhī fəˈdelədē/

noun

the reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original.

Feedback

[pgk]

Photoshop is a powerful program. You can add as many extremely high-fidelity suns as you like in one single image.

 

Photoshop is blamed for many things these days. Often though, its quicker and easier to actually take an image than create it. The other day I overheard someone confidently comment that a print was clearly a product of extensive photoshopping - although I am aware it has had very, very minimal adjustment to optimise it only. We no longer believe what we see unfortunately .

[Jeff S]

@Jaff S Indeed, thank you for suggesting, that's why I'm exploring further that I'm not ruining my image if I don't take the hood along. Even more than not ruining the image, it's a surprise that some actually prefer flare!

But as I wrote, the best way to answer your question is to try it and see what you find. Photography would be boring if we all took the same pics or liked the same results.

 

You liked your lens already, but wanted something smaller... removing the hood will accomplish that...the rest is up to you to see if you still like the results and can learn to control outcomes using the light.

 

Just take care not to damage the front glass.... and maybe consider using a high quality clear filter.

 

Jeff

[erl]

That picture is a funny example. Smells like photoshop to me. Photoshop is a dream come true for flare lovers.

No way Neil!

I have seen/suffered too many flared images when I didn't want it, to not recognize that image flattening demon. OK, If it is what you want, and some do, fine, but I have spent a lifetime avoiding it (with just a few exceptions) and I know it when I see it. As for faking it in PS, why the hell would you? It is sooo easy to generate it with the click of a shutter!

[EddieJ]

All lenses exhibit flare if a point light source hits the edge/s of a lens.

 

That being said some like it and some go to great lengths to eliminate, including lens shades, reducing the angle at which the point light source enters the lens. Deliberately pointing 'any lens into a point light source' will produce lens flare. Photographers will as a general rule try to eliminate any lens flare. I can say categorically that I will eliminate any flare or for that matter any light source entering the lens. Be it lens hood, a flag, black card, barn doors etc.

 

Photoshop 'panel-beating shop' is sometimes used to produce lens flare, sometimes 'too perfectly'.

 

Others have mentioned that the OP's supplied image is fake? Maybe. I tend err on the side of the photographer attempting to produce something different, perhaps a mistake, deliberate or not it does not add anything to the image.

[Robert M Poole]

Photoshop is blamed for many things these days. Often though, its quicker and easier to actually take an image than create it. The other day I overheard someone confidently comment that a print was clearly a product of extensive photoshopping - although I am aware it has had very, very minimal adjustment to optimise it only. We no longer believe what we see unfortunately .

 

As a geography teacher I come across this a lot. I show a picture of a volcano erupting I get shouts of, "photoshop!" as much as I try to convince them otherwise they are convinced they are fake and shake their heads at me. On the other hand if someone tells them there are killer clowns in the woods they are 100% convinced this is the whole truth. I guess even children are fed up of experts...

[reddot925]

Thanks all for your input.

 

I'm still slightly uneasy going with no hood, so I ordered Thorsten Overgaard's hood for the summilux black chrome, I read user reviews that it's light and accept filters, although Thorsten himself admits that it doesn't block as much stray light as the original hood. 

[pgk]

..... if someone tells them there are killer clowns in the woods they are 100% convinced this is the whole truth.

 

I suggest photoshopping a picture of them. That should sort it out .

[luigi bertolotti]

Instead of trusting in photshop for my flare needs, I'm thinking to attach a strip of LEDs inside the mouth of some of my hoods (or directly on the front lens' ring)...  ...it will be anyway more "natural" than photoshopping... photogs have used flashes for decades...

[NB23]

As a geography teacher I come across this a lot. I show a picture of a volcano erupting I get shouts of, "photoshop!" as much as I try to convince them otherwise they are convinced they are fake and shake their heads at me. On the other hand if someone tells them there are killer clowns in the woods they are 100% convinced this is the whole truth. I guess even children are fed up of experts...

The only problem is that I am a photoshop expert and fake flare is the latest fad in the business.

 

Sorry to interrupt.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

The only problem is that I am a photoshop expert and fake flare is the latest fad in the business.

 

Photography can be faddy for sure, first time I've heard Photoshop described as faddy though. I'll stick to 'in camera' flare:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!