Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Any feedback about the Angry Photographer and lens cleaning?

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Cali

Cali

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,724
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Bay Area

Posted 24 May 2020 - 07:32 PM

Here is

 

Part 1

 

and here we have

 

Part 2 (especially)

 

I know, the guy is insane but he does appear to know what he's talking about. Please don't chime in until you have viewed both Part One and Part Two.

 

- Cal


Edited by Cali, 24 May 2020 - 07:48 PM.


#2 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,439
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 24 May 2020 - 08:48 PM

He had very little to say, and he said it a lot.


  • Wisconsin Steve, cookjaiii, Will_S and 1 other like this

#3 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 24 May 2020 - 08:52 PM

He teaches good proper technique.  He is "colorful" too in his presentation, as you say, "insane".  But this is just a teaching method as it actually helps you retain the information longer.  If he just droned on in monotone then you wouldn't remember anything.

 

Pre-cleaning is a must to get the things off the lens that can scratch it when doing more detailed cleaning.

 

Using the disposables is also a must for the reasons he said.  While I use Q-Tips if the optic is large I first use disposable cotton pads as easier to get a large surface done.

 

I generally use 91% alcohol and not 70%.  At times though something gets on the lens that does not dissolve in alcohol so then will usually spot treat with saliva as the enzymes usually do the trick.  Then redo with alcohol.

 

The final application with distilled water is also a best practice as it does not leave any solvents or other things on the lens.

 

Oh and he is so right with the never blow on your lenses.  You think nothing but air is coming out but in truth millions of microdroplets of saliva are being deposited.  If you don't believe it then clean a lens properly and examine its surface under a microscope at 50-100x.  Then simply blow on it and re-examine under microscope.  You will be horrified!!  I did that once and not never ever blow on the lenses.  Always have a lens brush with me in the field in case a skin flake or whatever gets on the eye lens.


  • Midnight Skies, oldphysics, Steve Cox and 2 others like this

#4 mtminnesota

mtminnesota

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2019
  • Loc: Mahtomedi, Minnesota

Posted 24 May 2020 - 09:11 PM

While coatings "might" withstand the frantic rubbing he does, I prefer to use a more gentle method, the way lens makers recommend.


  • ShaulaB and Cali like this

#5 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,439
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 24 May 2020 - 09:42 PM

Here is the advice from Tele Vue: http://www.televue.c...page.asp?id=103
  • AlanSheppard, zanxion72, Steve Cox and 2 others like this

#6 JohnPancoast

JohnPancoast

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2016
  • Loc: New Haven

Posted 25 May 2020 - 08:45 AM

I liked what i saw. Might be better to watch Part 2 first, then Part 1.

The TeleVue approach was really quite different, what with the suggestion of several solvents and one's own breath. I'd go with the Angry Photographer on that point.



#7 JohnPancoast

JohnPancoast

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2016
  • Loc: New Haven

Posted 25 May 2020 - 08:47 AM

I was set up in the field once at a star party and couldn't seem to focus my refractor. Glancing at the objective, I could see it was covered in pine pollen. The only way to deal with that, and save the weekend, was to field clean with Zeiss alcohol wipes, in the dark, with a red light.



#8 scrane

scrane

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 25 May 2020 - 10:29 AM

Help! I can't get that guy's voice out of my head.


  • Steve Cox likes this

#9 rowdy388

rowdy388

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,829
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Saratoga County, NY

Posted 25 May 2020 - 02:35 PM

Help! I can't get that guy's voice out of my head.

I found him so annoying, I didn't finish the second video.


  • Steve Cox likes this

#10 Steve Cox

Steve Cox

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,719
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2017

Posted 25 May 2020 - 02:52 PM

I've never had trouble following a combination of Tele Vue's and Doc Clay's (ArkSky.org) cleaning methods and solutions, and will continue to use them.  As for the videos, while I agree with much of what the person says, my question throughout the videos was - if this guy is an expert or pro photographer and knows what's best, why doesn't he have either UV or Skylight filters on his camera lenses?  I've never had to clean my camera lenses as I always protect them with filters, which are much less expensive and easy to replace in case something happens (which never has).  Also, modern coatings and multi-coatings are much harder to damage than they used to be.  So while I might like his technique and pointers, he's being too overcautious; which again begs the question, why no protective filters?

 

And yes, his voice is as annoying to listen to as Scotty Kilmer.


  • ShaulaB likes this

#11 scrane

scrane

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 25 May 2020 - 04:01 PM

Although I use UV filters on all my lenses, you'll find many posters in the online camera community who will bite off your head for advocating their use. It is a very polarizing topic.



#12 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,439
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 25 May 2020 - 04:09 PM

Although I use UV filters on all my lenses, you'll find many posters in the online camera community who will bite off your head for advocating their use. It is a very polarizing topic.

Yes, it is like a religion for some photographers.

 

I’m glad there are no polarizing topics on CNgrin.gif.


  • ShaulaB and BFaucett like this

#13 Steve Cox

Steve Cox

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,719
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2017

Posted 25 May 2020 - 04:45 PM

Wow, a lot has apparently changed in the last 20 years since I read any of the photo literature or magazines.  Everyone I talked to years back strongly advocated their use.  Then again, I did live in Utah at the time with its desert, which can be very unforgiving on optic surfaces.  I know I had to be much more careful cleaning dust from my optics then, as the sand or dust was much more coarse.  Even auto paint is more easily scratched out there than here in the midwest.



#14 AstroVPK

AstroVPK

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 265
  • Joined: 12 May 2019
  • Loc: Sunnyvale, CA

Posted 25 May 2020 - 07:07 PM

Wow, a lot has apparently changed in the last 20 years since I read any of the photo literature or magazines.  Everyone I talked to years back strongly advocated their use.  Then again, I did live in Utah at the time with its desert, which can be very unforgiving on optic surfaces.  I know I had to be much more careful cleaning dust from my optics then, as the sand or dust was much more coarse.  Even auto paint is more easily scratched out there than here in the midwest.

 

 

Film is sensitive to UV which ends up looking like a layer of haze - the filters get rid of the haze & so used to be recommended back in the day. Also, pixel peeping with film used to be much harder & required the use of a loupe - I don't remember pixel peeping back in the day.

 

CMOS sensors fall off in sensitivity towards the blue end of the spectrum & so don't respond to UV light. So the filters are unnecessary. It turns out that most UV filters, especially the cheaper ones, tend to not be of good optical grade & hence cause visible image degradation especially if one tends to pixel peep. This is why a lot of people recommend not to use a UV filter these days.

 

I take a middle ground personally. I usually leave a clear filter on, except when I'm shooting something artsy, in which case i'll take the filter off - problem solved. I slipped on wet mud at Maroon Bells once & got lots of mud on the filter, lens barrel, and camera body, so i'm glad I had a filter on that day.



#15 AstroVPK

AstroVPK

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 265
  • Joined: 12 May 2019
  • Loc: Sunnyvale, CA

Posted 25 May 2020 - 07:17 PM

Here is

 

Part 1

 

and here we have

 

Part 2 (especially)

 

I know, the guy is insane but he does appear to know what he's talking about. Please don't chime in until you have viewed both Part One and Part Two.

 

- Cal

 

One thing to bear in mind is that the camera lens makers expect their gear to be abused & engineer accordingly. For example, they expect the front element to be the one most likely to break & try to make it easy & cheap to replace. They also try to design the lens such that the front element is one of the less important elements in the optical train. Case in point being that fancy coatings such as Canon's Subwavelength Structure Coating (SWC) are not applied to every glass-air surface but only to the ones that reduce reflections the most.

 

Another point to bear in mind is that pro photographers are paid for the content of the shot as long as it is of a certain reasonable image quality - raw image quality is relatively unimportant. The moment, framing, etc.. are far more important and are what distinguish the best photographers from the herd, So it might be totally OK to slightly damage a lens surface by cleaning it this way because even after the damage, the lens performs well enough that it doesn't matter. When looking at faint fuzzies, this kind of cleaning may be less acceptable. I'm not going to try it to find out.

 

My point being that just because its OK to clean a camera lens that way does not mean that it's a good idea to clean an eyepiece that way.


  • Cali and mtminnesota like this

#16 Steve Cox

Steve Cox

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,719
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2017

Posted 25 May 2020 - 08:32 PM

Film is sensitive to UV which ends up looking like a layer of haze - the filters get rid of the haze & so used to be recommended back in the day. Also, pixel peeping with film used to be much harder & required the use of a loupe - I don't remember pixel peeping back in the day.

 

CMOS sensors fall off in sensitivity towards the blue end of the spectrum & so don't respond to UV light. So the filters are unnecessary. It turns out that most UV filters, especially the cheaper ones, tend to not be of good optical grade & hence cause visible image degradation especially if one tends to pixel peep. This is why a lot of people recommend not to use a UV filter these days.

 

I take a middle ground personally. I usually leave a clear filter on, except when I'm shooting something artsy, in which case i'll take the filter off - problem solved. I slipped on wet mud at Maroon Bells once & got lots of mud on the filter, lens barrel, and camera body, so i'm glad I had a filter on that day.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this.  Thanks for the info.  Does this include the Hoya Digital UV filters too, which is what I have on my lenses?

I've never seen a problem in the last 15 years I've had the setup, but maybe I should experiment by taking side-by-side shots in RAW with and without.



#17 AstroVPK

AstroVPK

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 265
  • Joined: 12 May 2019
  • Loc: Sunnyvale, CA

Posted 26 May 2020 - 12:29 AM

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the info. Does this include the Hoya Digital UV filters too, which is what I have on my lenses?
I've never seen a problem in the last 15 years I've had the setup, but maybe I should experiment by taking side-by-side shots in RAW with and without.


Lens Rentals did a really nice shootout by comparing how much the filter degrades a point source image taken with the EF 70 - 200 at 200mm. Look in their blog section. I can't remember how the Hoya fared, but I think that there will be some sample-sample variation which could be difficult to control for. I know that Lens Rentals regularly see sample to sample variation even in the pro series lens, so I'm sure there situation must be worse when it comes to filters.

#18 OneGear

OneGear

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Minneapolis

Posted 26 May 2020 - 10:32 PM

"Skylight" or UVfilters are a great way for camera shops to pad their sales.  It's akin to bolting lead weights on the roof of your sports or economy carr so it rides more like a family sedan.  If they offered nothing but benefits everyone would have one on their telescope.  Jmho :)



#19 cpper

cpper

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 772
  • Joined: 23 May 2013
  • Loc: Romania

Posted 27 May 2020 - 05:10 AM

So is (distilled) water supposed to be able to clean oily marks ? Wouldn't water + q-tips only spread the oil on the entire surface of the glass ?



#20 scrane

scrane

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Boise, Idaho

Posted 27 May 2020 - 11:40 AM

I think by rubbing that hard he is creating enough heat through friction to vaporize any organics. smile.gif


  • Steve Cox and mtminnesota like this

#21 PatrickVt

PatrickVt

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 340
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2018
  • Loc: Vermont, US

Posted 29 May 2020 - 09:51 PM

He's considered the village idiot in most photography circles... 

 

Patrick


  • BFaucett, Steve Cox and mtminnesota like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics