On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:25:52 -0400, you wrote:
>I took the Nikon School of Photography a few years ago and in one segment
>they showed side-by-side scenes with excellent contrast/saturation and the
>same scene with mediocre contrast/saturation. We all presumed they'd used
>some pol filters or fancy developing or hot ED glass. They showed us that
>the scenes with the excellent contrast/saturation were taken with lenses
>with lens hoods. That was THE ONLY difference.
>
>I am no longer convinced that expensive glass is an absolute requirement
>for excellent images.
I find this fascinating, and it brings up a slightly OTquestion
regarding flare, contrast, etc.
Say I wanted to do a series of tests comparing the same shot with and
without the lens hood. Just successive frames with the same lens, same
scene, same film. Under what circumstances of light (angle to sun,
etc.) am I likely to see the greatest difference? The least?
Also, I'm not sure what the technical term for it is, but there's that
certain kind of flare that manifests as a series of hexagonal
impressions of the shutter - are lenses more prone to that at the
smaller apertures and do lenses vary a lot in this respect? Is that a
separate consideration from "contrast reducing", more general internal
flare? I ask becuase even with a lens hood I've gotten that type of
flare - admittedly from shooting too close to the axis of the sun, but
sometimes when I thought I was safe.
Ken Durling
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/
Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
