Stanley L Moore wrote:
The UV-Haze filter on the Canon 50mm f/1.8 has gone bad. I think the coating is damaged... it shows color fringes. I did a shoot without it and cannot see the difference.

Then your problem probably isn't the filter.

Stanley L Moore wrote:
I got a rubber one that can be folded out for different focal length lenses. Anyone use these? Are rthey helpful?

They are helpful if they prevent lens flair.  The plastic "petal" designed for your specific lens will give you the best results.

Stanley L Moore wrote:
Next I have vision problems and simply cannot see the LCD screen outdoors. The friendly photographer behind the counter was eager to sell me a Hoodloupe 3.2 which like the traditional loupe you wear around your neck and hold up to the screen to view it. It has a diopter adjustable lens. My problem is it makes the screen look smaller plus it cost over $100.

Anyone have solutions to the daylight glare problem with LCD screens?

I can't see the screen outdoors either.  I have to move into shade.

Stanley L Moore wrote:
The UV-Haze filter on the Canon 50mm f/1.8 has gone bad. I think the coating is damaged... it shows color fringes. I did a shoot without it and cannot see the difference. But what the hey, UV filters don't cost much..... though they seem a lot pricier than when I last got one.

But that is not the problem. I do mostly studio shppts and decided aI needed a lens hood. I got a rubber one that can be folded out for different focal length lenses. Anyone use these? Are rthey helpful?

Next I have vision problems and simply cannot see the LCD screen outdoors. The friendly photographer behind the counter was eager to sell me a Hoodloupe 3.2 which like the traditional loupe you wear around your neck and hold up to the screen to view it. It has a diopter adjustable lens. My problem is it makes the screen look smaller plus it cost over $100.

Anyone have solutions to the daylight glare problem with LCD screens?

UV/Haze filters were useful when shooting film - they filtered out the UV which could make film look "hazy". Digital sensors don't respond to UV, so the filtration is unnecessary. The other reason to use them is to protect the front element of the lens from scratches - these days you can buy a clear protective filter to do that job better (some of the protective filters are made from toughened glass). You can shoot without (and some people will tell you that you must because using a filter will "destroy" your image).

Hoods are useful to block bright light sources which are close to but not in the field of view (sun is the most obvious instance). Without a hood you can get lens flare (not "flair") caused by the light bouncing off the insides of the lens.

The Hoodman is a way to block ambient light from the rear screen - it's effective and simple - basically a light-proof tube. I have seen a jury-rigged alternative manufactured from cardboard and gaffer tape - perhaps you try that before buying one. There are also popup shields, but the one I tried was not very effective.

Erik Ballew wrote:
I put a towel over my head... It's a Spiderman one, so I don't look too stupid!!

Jakov Markovic wrote:
Honestly, looking at your camera screen will give you nothing but hisotgram and framin/crop check.

Maybe you should shoot tethered?

Also you can buy or even make a collapsable black fabric box and put the camera in to see what's on.

I need to see the screen to check composition and if the exposure is in the neighborhood. I tried tethered using Light Room 4 and for some reason it would not recognize the camera. In any case tethered outdoors seems even more problematic than in studio.

For a guy may age the towel over the head is just retro enough to appeal. It recalls the days of photographers using large format with the black cloth covering the rear of the camera and the photographer. People who saw that sight knew photography was being done. Those days slowed everything to a crawl and often made for better photographs. I shall try the Hoodman loupe.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:

UV/Haze filters were useful when shooting film - they filtered out the UV which could make film look "hazy". Digital sensors don't respond to UV, so the filtration is unnecessary. The other reason to use them is to protect the front element of the lens from scratches - these days you can buy a clear protective filter to do that job better (some of the protective filters are made from toughened glass). You can shoot without (and some people will tell you that you must because using a filter will "destroy" your image).

Hoods are useful to block bright light sources which are close to but not in the field of view (sun is the most obvious instance). Without a hood you can get lens flare (not "flair") caused by the light bouncing off the insides of the lens.

The Hoodman is a way to block ambient light from the rear screen - it's effective and simple - basically a light-proof tube. I have seen a jury-rigged alternative manufactured from cardboard and gaffer tape - perhaps you try that before buying one. There are also popup shields, but the one I tried was not very effective.

I am aware that UV Haze filters were designed for film shooters. I use it to keep my greasy fingers off the front element, and protect it.

Senior moment on the misspelling of "flare". I should have reread the post before sending. Lens flare is one of my pet peeves in TV and movies. Some of these jerks think it looks cool. CSI Miami is one of the worst offenders. it is distracting and adds nothing to the story. I hate the lighting of all the CSI shows. Maybe it is artsy to some  but as an old guy I was taught to avoid it as much as possible.

Mark Salo wrote:

Then your problem probably isn't the filter.

You may have missed my point. I can see no difference in the resulting photo whether I use the UV filter or not. But when I look at the lens from the front I see the coating of the filter is damaged, showing a slight rainbow effect. The filter was probably still OK but I did not like the way it looked.

Stanley L Moore wrote:
I am aware that UV Haze filters were designed for film shooters. I use it to keep my greasy fingers off the front element, and protect it.
...

How do you keep your greasy fingers off the filter?  Greasy fingerprints in the optical path are an issue whether they are on the front element of the lens, or on the filter.

In my experience a lens hood is much more effective in keeping fingerprints out of the optical path.

Marc Damon wrote:
Try using the anti-glare screen protectors for a cell phone. Just cut to fit.

I think the Hoodman will be better. My eyesight is very poor... I am actually disabled because of partial blindness. (one eye was destroyed in a childhood accident. The so-called "good" eye  has vision of 20/100. I cannot even drive. I  stumble into things and lose my lens and camera in my studio. Models often have to locate them for me.) Even standing in the shade does not help view the screen.

Stanley L Moore wrote:

I am aware that UV Haze filters were designed for film shooters. I use it to keep my greasy fingers off the front element, and protect it.

Senior moment on the misspelling of "flare". I should have reread the post before sending. Lens flare is one of my pet peeves in TV and movies. Some of these jerks think it looks cool. CSI Miami is one of the worst offenders. it is distracting and adds nothing to the story. I hate the lighting of all the CSI shows. Maybe it is artsy to some  but as an old guy I was taught to avoid it as much as possible.

I sometimes use flare in a photo.

Michael Fryd wrote:
If your eyesight is bad, you may benefit from an external LCD monitor.

Many modern DSLRs have a video out.  Buy a battery operated portable LCD Monitor.  Run an HDMI cable from your camera to the monitor.  The external monitor should present the same information as the rear screen, only much larger.

Some newer cameras have builtin networking, or have networking available as an add-on.  If this is an option, you may be able to find a remote viewing application for an iPad.  This should allow you to control your camera (including live view for shooting) wirelessly from an iPad.



If you have a habit of getting fingerprints on your filter, then take the filter off.  Your front element is probably recessed, while the filter is right out front.  Removing the filter will reduce your chances of getting a fingerprint in the optical path.

I am pretty good about not touching the filter or front element. But sometimes I hand the camera to the model to look at his pics, correct posing etc. And models are not so careful about touching what they shouldn't,  hence the filter. I shall keep the filter as I can easily and safely clean it better  than the lens.

The idea of the external monitor is great. I do not need the services of Light Room to mediate it. I shall give it a try. I have a portable DVD player with a decent sized screen. Thanks.

MPM Photography wrote:
I can't really speak about the hoodloupe, other than to say I doubt I would spend any money on something like that.

However, regarding the filter and lens hood, my advice is to throw away the filter and buy a hood for each lens that is designed for that lens. Not only will the hood designed for the lens block flare without introducing unwanted vignetting, it will protect the front element. It is much harder to accidentally touch the front element with a rigid hood in place. Also, if you accidentally bump the front of the camera against something, the hood will absorb the blow (within reason.)

Just my two cents.

Thanks, that is an excellent idea. My camera store did not have the Canon lens hood. maybe I'll check out B&H. The rubber hood I got will serve the purpose but won't protect it from b;lows.

Stanley L Moore wrote:

I am pretty good about not touching the filter or front element. But sometimes I hand the camera to the model to look at his pics, correct posing etc. And models are not so careful about touching what they shouldn't,  hence the filter. I shall keep the filter as I can easily and safely clean it better  than the lens.

The idea of the external monitor is great. I do not need the services of Light Room to mediate it. I shall give it a try. I have a portable DVD player with a decent sized screen. Thanks.

I agree that models are not careful, however I came to a different solution.  I have the older 50mm f/1.8.   On my lens the front element looks like it's recessed almost 3/4" from the filter threads.  A model would need to purposely poke a finger in to touch that element.  I don't see it being touched due to careless handling.  A filter puts glass 3/4" further out, with no rim of protection.  In my opinon, a model is far more likely to put a fingerprint on a filter than the front element. 

Quality is a big concern of mine.   I want to minimize fingerprints in the optical path, so I don't use a filter with this lens.  If a fingerprint does get there, I'm not worried.  I can clean a filter just as easily as the front element.   

The 50 f/1.8 sells for about $125.  A really good protective filter is about half that.  For me, the economics don't justify a filter for that lens just to protect against fingerprints.

Erik Ballew wrote:
I put a towel over my head... It's a Spiderman one, so I don't look too stupid!!

Great solution, mine is Wonder Woman...

Photos by Lorrin wrote:
Many years ago, Hasselblad did a test of coatings and lens shades. I wish I had a copy of that pamphlet.

The best result was with a bellows lens shade.

A Jim Simon's (?) in SF did a test of lens hoods and found most were too short.

I have independently replicated his results.

This is especially true of DX camera using FX lens.

Bellow lens shades are really expensive.

Lens hoods can help prevent people from touching the lens.  Deeper hoods are better at this.

Lens hoods can provide shock absorption to help protect lens from impacts.  bigger hoods are better.

Lens hoods can reduce flare by preventing light from outside the field of view from entering the lens.  For this, the hood needs to be matched to the current field of view for the lens.  This can be a challenge for a zoom lens, or a multi-format lens. 

A hood that is appropriate for a 24mm lens, may be much too wide for a 70mm lens.  Typically, the hood does not adjust as the lens zooms, and hence you get less than ideal protection any time you are not at the widest zoom.

Similarly, a hood that is matched for a full frame camera will be let in too much light when that same lens is mounted on a crop factor body.

Of course, hoods are no help when the light source is in the frame (sun setting behind the model, hair light in the studio, or overly bright white background).


Don't get me wrong, hoods can help reduce flare.  Just remember, that there are many situations where a hood is not enough to eliminate flare.  Sometimes you also need to remove the filter.

Michael Fryd wrote:
If your eyesight is bad, you may benefit from an external LCD monitor.

Many modern DSLRs have a video out.  Buy a battery operated portable LCD Monitor.  Run an HDMI cable from your camera to the monitor.  The external monitor should present the same information as the rear screen, only much larger.

Some newer cameras have builtin networking, or have networking available as an add-on.  If this is an option, you may be able to find a remote viewing application for an iPad.  This should allow you to control your camera (including live view for shooting) wirelessly from an iPad.



If you have a habit of getting fingerprints on your filter, then take the filter off.  Your front element is probably recessed, while the filter is right out front.  Removing the filter will reduce your chances of getting a fingerprint in the optical path.

+1