Snowy Egrets and Black-Crowned Night Herons

Yesterday I grabbed my camera and took a bike ride to the bay near Shoreline Amphitheater. To be more specific, I took the Steven's Creek trail in Mountain View (see the City of Mountain View site for more information including a map). My goal was just to get some exercise and find something interesting to take some pictures of.

The good news was that it was cloudy and the sky wasn't a boring blue. The bad news was that it was cloudy and cold. And the other good news was that I found plenty of birds for pictures.

The first bird I encountered while riding out to the bay on Steven's Creek Trail. If you don't know the trail, it is a relatively narrow path at the top of a large embankment (dike?) with office parks and a tree farm storage area on one side and a small stream with a dirt path beside it on the other. As I was riding, I saw a large white bird in the stream so I went down to check it out.

It turned out to be a Snowy Egret. During my first approach, it got scared and flew 20 yards up stream, but in that area, there was a bank with long grass between the path and the stream, so I was able to creep up without disturbing it. That was how I got the image that started this post (as always, click the images to see them larger).

Then, this kid rode up with his family near behind and spooked the bird. They eventually took off the direction they came because they weren't able to cross the runoff that was joining the stream at that point, but the damage was done.

At least I got a decent shot when the egret took off (honestly, I'm amazed that my camera locked focus in time for the shot). Of course, that's the Canon USM for you on my Canon 70-200mm F/4 USM, which isn't really a birding lens, but works pretty well for the large birds.

A bit further down, I climbed up the embankment and gathered my stuff to continue once more when I realized I had just walked by a rather large bird sitting in a tree. It was this guy:

So, back down the hill to check it out... Originally I thought it was a Great Blue Heron, although it seemed a little strange to be sitting in a tree and I don't remember GBHs having red eyes. For the record, I only boosted the saturation on the image -- the eyes really are that crimson. Turns out, it isn't a GBH, it is a Black-Crowned Night Heron, a nocturnal bird of genus Nycticorax. BCNHs are pretty common in this area and they roost in groups during the day and eat at night, making a sound loud cawing sound like a crow. I think I finally solved the puzzle of these birds!

After that, I moved on, although I encountered another Snowy Egret at a distance -- with white plumage they stick out like a sore thumb in the drab bay marshes. So I grabbed this shot which I'll leave you with:

Anatomy of a Photo: Staring Down a Fly

Our Hero
(all photos can be clicked to see them larger)

Above is my highest scoring DPC entry ever, What are you looking at?. Even more notable is that it got a 6.8 in a the November free study, and I was expecting about a 6. I guess DPC'ers like bugs; fly macros always seem to do super well.

Although, if you think about it, a fly is just about the perfect macro subject:

1. They're all over the place. It isn't hard to find a fly on any given day, as opposed to something like a praying mantis. I haven't seen a praying mantis in decades.
   
2. They like to hang out in one spot and are relatively docile -- I was within inches of the fly above and he just looked at me.
   
3. They have great macro detail with large compound eyes, hairs all over their body, membranous wings, and interesting mouth parts. All at a level which we don't normally see, but is readily apparent at 1:1 or 2:1 magnification.

Getting the Shot:

He was buzzing around one morning while I was cleaning up the kitchen, so of course, I dropped the broom, grabbed my camera, and outfitted my camera with 20mm of extension tubes, my reversed Nikkor-H 50mm F/2, and my newly-made macro ringflash mounted on my Sunpak 383 in the hot shoe.

Then, I proceeded the chase the sucker around, blinding him with the flash whenever I could get a decent shot. The combination gave me approximately 2:1 magnification. It was also my first time using the macro ringflash "in the wild".

The first place I got him (the "money shot") was when he landed on the corner of one of the plastered white walls in the kitchen (hence the moon-like texture on the white surface). The image has been rotated 90 degrees to the right, plus another few degrees to get the horizon perfectly horizontal. The shooting parameters were F/16, 1/200s, and ISO 100. I think the Sunpak 383 was at 1/4 or 1/2 power. At left is a high-res result of the file. I also posted a high-res shot on Flickr (but not as high-res as the shot at left).

I shot handheld, which ended up making focus super-difficult. The process was to depress the aperture lever on the Nikkor-H to open it up, lock my focus with the bright(er) viewfinder, then pop it back into the working aperture and take the shot without moving. At 1:1 I have no problems, but at 2:1 I had a pretty low success rate.

When I first looked through the images I actually didn't think the image was good. For one thing, I had screwed up the settings and not noticed at the time, making the image very dark. More on the extensive post-processing later. For another, I didn't get enough light on the back of the fly and I had wanted to get the wing detail.

When I looked the next day, I realized this image has a lot more punch to it than the others. While I am disappointed that I lost the wing detail, the light-dark contrast, fixed stare of the fly, and focus are dead on.


Lighting:

A few words about the lighting. Technically, I used on-camera flash since the Sunpak 383 was in the hot shoe and the macro ring flash adapter just moves the light down to the lens. But, from the fly's point of view, he was facing a 16 foot ring light about 6 feet in front of him which is about as off camera flash as you can get. Kind of makes the lighting a bit more nuanced than you might think. Also, the wall did a lot to both fill the underside of the fly yet shadow the rear part of the fly.

Yet, as nice as this shot came out, I generally feel that straight ringflash leaves macro subjects a bit flat and lifeless. The best use of the ring flash is in conjunction with backlight or side light, which I used on my later images of the fly. Remember, you can't get the donut catchlights when your subject has a compound eye!

Another thing to keep in mind, which worked to my benefit in this image, is that the light drops off very rapidly at macro distances. This causes the flash to be very bright on the front of the subject (an advantage since the ring diffuser eats so much light) yet very dark even a centimeter behind. So you need some sort of second light on your background if you don't want a black background. And ambient is really tough to work with since apertures are small and any camera shake is greatly magnified in macros. Another issue to keep in mind is any foreground items will almost always be blown out by the brightness of the flash.

My general macro scheme from now on will be to use the ring as fill and a second flash (or the sun) as a side or backlight. Ringflash only will be useful, but only if I really want to isolate the subject and darken the background.


Post Processing:

At right, you can see what I started with. Yeah, that's dark.

Really dark.

The problem was I had the lens at a larger aperture on accident, and when I stopped down I didn't boost the flash power or the ISO. Luckily, I shot RAW (like I usually do for anything remotely tricky) so I could address the problem in RawShooter Essentials. As I've mentioned in Quick Tip #7, RAW lets you save exposure problems.

So, the first step is to adjust everything using RSE. Here is a screen-capture with my adjustments (click to see it full-size):


I used pretty much every feature:

• Color balance adjustment was minimal. The copy paper changes the color of the flash a bit (turns it slightly blue I think) but the camera doesn't have too much trouble detecting it.
• I had to use almost two stops of exposure compensation, a bunch of fill light, added shadow contrast (deepening the blacks) and removed highlight contrast (which helps to not blow out highlight detail).
• Max the saturation. Gotta have those eyes red.
• Some sharpness and detail extraction. Honestly, probably not even needed since I downsampled it anyway.
• A decent amount of noise suppression.

The uncropped end result after RAW conversion is to the left. This has been resized and had a USM pass, but that's it. I converted into TIFF so I could continue to battle the noise and the darkness of the image in PSP XI; I probably boosted brightness almost another stop using curves.

The end result of the boosting of exposure (or pushing in film terminology) is the noise is equivalent to ISO 800. And for DPC, noise is bad. So I had to be real aggressive with noise reduction, starting in RSE, and then running two passes of noise reduction in PSP XI. In my opinion, NeatImage produces the best results and preserves the most image detail, but it doesn't work for 16-bit per pixel images. PSP XI is a relatively close second, and for whatever reason, RSE's noise reduction isn't that great, especially at higher levels.

Other than that, I did a lot of localized sharpening, cloning, and HSV. Specifically, the eyes needed even more saturation and a little brightness boost, but not as much sharpening as the legs. Oversharpening the eyes made them look really bad. There were also a lot of noise-removal artifacts on the horizon, so I deselected those areas during the second sharpening pass.

Again, the high-res version (approximately 1/4 of the pixels of the original, a 50% reduction in each dimension) is at right. You can see it still doesn't have as much detail as can be represented in the pixels -- a factor of both an imperfect optical path and noise problems. Luckily, at DPC sizes (640pix) the image really pops and doesn't lack detail.


Conclusion and Bonus Image:

Overall, I'm really happy with the shot. Yeah, I'd love to get more detail and less noise, but I'm sure I'll take more pictures of flies. They really are impressive creatures that we rarely see up close.

As I mentioned earlier, I kept shooting after the DPC shot and start experimenting with the ringflash and a hard side-light to bring out details in the fly. Most of the shots aren't great, especially since the fly decided to move onto our sliding glass door and got rather active, but I have one nice one to share with you below. This was shot at 2:1 (reversed Nikkor-H with extension tubes), 1/200s, ISO 200. The angle isn't nearly as dynamic, but I love the color and detail on the back of the fly.

Enjoy!

DIY Macro Ring Flash #3: Usage

(rev Nikkor-H 50mm, f/16, 1/250s, ISO 100)

This is the final post in my series about my DIY Macro Ring Flash light modifier. I'd recommend reading the Introduction first, then the Construction, then this post. To refresh your memory, this is what I'm working with:


Depending on the shot, the lens I've used is either a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime, Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 (reversed for approx 1:1 macro), or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (above). Wherever possible, I've noted the shooting parameters. Of course, I've had a real hard time remembering what I set my flash power too, so those all have implicit question marks next to them. All were taken with a Canon 20D. And of course, click to see them larger.


Analyzing the Light:

The first step is to really analyze what sort of light I get from ring flash, and more specifically my ring light construction. As Strobist says, ringlight is a bit cliche in high fashion modeling circles. I mean how many pouty models can you really look at with that halo shadow on the wall behind them (actually, I can look at quite a few without getting tired, but...). To demonstrate the effect, I shot my trusty wedding cake topper in front of the wall (Canon 50mm, f/6.3, 1/250s, ISO100, 1/4 power). There you go... cliche ringflash shadows.

Ultimately, a ring flash is simply an area light located on the lens axis. Move it off the camera, and it is essentially a soft box with a hole in it. In the case of my macro version, the area is pretty small (maybe 6 inches in diameter). So if the ring is large compared to the subject, you get the nice soft halo shadows (due to light from each side going around the object) and the brightest part of the object is normal to (facing) the camera. Also, you get a really nice, slow, roll off of light around the subject with some wrap-around light.

But, if the ring is small and/or far away from the subject, the wrap-around light is lost and the ring light acts as an on-camera flash exactly on the lens axis. For instance, the image at left I used the ring flash as fill and it gives slightly better results than on-camera flash because the light is coming directly from the lens, not 3 inches above it. It also helps that the total area of the ring flash is much larger than an average on-camera flash which makes a more pleasing fill. (Tamron @ 20mm, f/3.2, 1/30s, ISO400, 1/2 power)

When it comes down to it though, this flash modifying contraption really isn't meant for human subjects (although it works well as fill light). It really won't give a different look than a small on-camera flash and it lacks the punch to really light up a room (the light path and diffuser eat a ton of light, something like 4-5 stops by my estimation). At 400 ISO you can get it to cover maybe 6 feet. If you are serious about getting cover of full bodies, you'll want to look at a beefy ringlight like the Strobist ring flash. My flash does work pretty well on faces though as long as you are pretty close and fill the frame (sorry, I don't have any flatterying face photos yet).

It was designed for macros, so that's what I'll discuss next.


Macro Use:

I'll admit it: I like to chase bugs and animals around the yard shooting macros. And that's why I built this thing, because it is nearly impossible to not blur a 1:1 macro at f/16 in natural light shooting handheld without going to ISO 1600 (which introduces more grain than I can safely smooth out). Plus, at a macro level, a 6-inch ring flash is a monster and gives a great wrap around look.

While I don't have many images I'm super proud of just yet, I've got a few macro examples from when I was playing around with the thing a few days ago. I'd have more, but it has gotten really cold around here lately (60s during the day, high 30s or low 40s at night) and the bugs are harder to find. Soon though!

First up, the required bee shot. Not my best (especially because I had to be inches from the thing and it was moving enough to make me nervous). In this case, I left the motor drive on and let it take a shot without the flash afterwards to show you the difference.

(reversed Nikkor-H 50mm f/2,
1/250s, f/16, ISO 400, 1/2 power)

A few notable things. First, I'm overpowering sunlight, which was one of my goals from the beginning. The sunlight is probably two stops lower than the flash, but it still gives a nice highlight to the wings (note how the natural light image at right exhibits a bit of blur even at 1/250th!). While it takes about all the power my flash has, it is nice to know that I have the flexibility of not depending on the sun as my key light. It is still a bit tricky to find the right balance between shutter speed and flash power, mostly because of the blur at these levels.

Second, I can get the shot at f/16, which is a huge pleasure. I finally can stop struggling with the smaller depth of field that the larger apertures leave me with. Between the action-stopping power of the flash and the larger depth of field, I'm getting great sharpness from my $20 Nikkor-H. Not bad for something I made for free.

Ok, almost done. Next up, I have the lower portion of my fuschia (stamens and pistils). The real thing to note on this image is the staggering sharpness of the waterdrops in the upper left (too bad I focused slightly behind the flower) and the beautiful wrap-around light on the stamens).
(rev Nikkor-H 50mm, f/16, 1/125s, ISO 400, 1/2 power)

Finally, another nice thing about the ringflash is it lets me go mobile with higher magnification than 1:1. For instance, I slapped some extension tubes on the lens and tried to chase a few things around (ants move really fast at 2:1!). The subjects that moved slow enough were these baby snails, which are actually quite tiny. This image is almost the full frame!
(rev Nikkor-H 50mm, ~20mm extension tube, f/16, 1/125s, ISO 400, full power)


Conclusion:

Ok, hopefully by now you get what the macro ring flash adapter can do, and what it can't. Like many people hope, it isn't going to revolutionize your photography overnight, but for macro work (or a large enough ring at human-scale) it can really add a new look. Futhermore, the design is very handy; I slap it on the camera and it stays with me, leaving the camera very maneuverable (I used a little strip of scotch tape to hold it on). And if I don't want to use it, I'll turn it off and flip it out of the way with the tilt option on my Sunpak.

Yes, I'd love some more power, but for macro work, it has plenty of power (and isn't too powerful, as in the case of the bare flash at 1/16th power). Larger would be nicer too, but a larger flash will but more stress on the hot shoe and result in more light drop-off in the ring. As it is though, the paper is super light so I don't worry about hurting the flash or my 20D's shoe.

So, if you have some time, try to whip one up. Once I've spent more time with it, I might build another, more improved version. For now though, I'm quite happy and it will be just one more photography tool I keep around!

Crouching Dragonfly, Hidden Frog

My interest in photography is coming back; I've submitted two images during the past week to DPC and one is running at 5.7 while another is running around a 6.3 and will likely get a top ten.

For today, a few pictures from a walk in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve that I took a few weeks ago. These aren't amazing pictures, but I wanted to post them just for the title opportunity... Both pics were taken with my 20D and Canon 70-200mm F/4.

My goal on the walk was to get some pictures of the red and blue dragonflies in the area. But I was running late and didn't get to the far side of the pond (or do they call it a lake?). So I just stepped down off the levy (right next to the sign that says stay on the levy, I'm such a rebel) and settled in a spot near the edge of the water. I wasn't disappointed, as the little guy below perched a couple of yards away. Although I would have preferred a different view (and should have stopped down a bit to get his head in focus) I had a few come out nice.


As I was quietly getting shots of the dragonfly, I spotted a rather large frog watching me from the cattails at the edge of the water. So I got a shot of him too, although I was pretty constrained on my angle and had to shoot around some weeds.

Korean Wasp

Found this little guy while I was walking near the beach one morning (actually, I saw his type a few times). Of course, he's actually not that little -- maybe an inch and a half long (about double the size of an American wasp). So I wasn't exactly going to put my hands near him to give a sense of scale.


He was so big that he couldn't fly very well -- which made it easier for me to photograph him.

A Chicken Vulture!

I noticed The Dish was open again on Saturday and we decided to take a walk around yesterday to see what devastation the fires caused. The good news is that the fires didn't spread too far, the bad news is that the area will bear a dark scar for a while. I think I'll use my observations and photos from that walk for my second entry in my article series, so stay tuned.


Now, about that photo above. There's a funny story about that...

My family (my wife, son, and daughter) were walking on the path when my wife pointed at a big brown bird and the following conversation occurred:

Her: "Hey look." [quietly, while jabbing my shoulder] "A chicken... No, a rooster."

Me: "A turkey!" [pause] "A turkey vulture!"

[much laughing]

Me: "A chicken vulture!"

[more laughing, maybe we were just lightheaded from the walk]

During this conversation, I happened to have my 70-200mm reading and on the camera, so I managed to fire off a few shots before the chicken turkey vulture flew away. Sadly, I missed the focus on a few of them (I swear there is something up with this 20D) but a few came out ok.

The lighting and my angle wasn't ideal. The conversation (and the timing of the conversation) was hilarious.

Oh, and this is what it looks like when a turkey vulture flies away.


For as big (and fat) as it looked on the ground, it was very graceful in the air. I can only assume it was in the area looking for toasted animals from the fire.

For the Birds

Long ago in a land far away (upstate New York), I was interested in birds. I had received a bird guide for Christmas (or was it my birthday?) and spent many an hour in the woods, identifying birds. I even took a few photos of birds, including one shot of a bird on a telephone wire. Of course, since I was on the ground, and my little 110 camera had only a wide angle fixed lens, I took a picture of a dot on a line in a featureless overcast sky.

Well, at least I knew it was a bird...

I've since lost interest in birds, mostly. I've also forgotten pretty much anything I had learned. But lately I've had my interest rekindled, at least in part due to the wide variety of interesting birds around Stanford. Stanford residents see hawks, herons, and hummingbirds daily. I'm not kidding, I've been seeing the hawks pretty much every day (as the little birds, their meals, chase them around) and the great blue heron has been hanging out a lot lately, eating gophers. Hummingbirds constantly visit, but I've yet to catch one of them on silicon. Soon though, soon...

The Canon 70-200mm F/4 has contributed to this revival -- finally a lens good enough to get some good telephoto shots. It is a really sharp lens, astonishingly sharp. Take the following shot of a hawk... flying overhead... with no sharpening, just RAW conversion:


Did I mention that that is a 100% crop, with no sharpening?

Which brings me to the primary weakness of the 70-200 when it comes to shots of birds: it is not nearly long enough. The opening image was a crop from the full frame shot at right. As you can see, 200mm (320mm with the Rebel XT's 1.6x crop factor) isn't enough magnification to get close enough to small birds. It works well for larger birds (like herons and hawks, if they are near the ground) but nothing smaller.

Quality long lenses cost big money though, so it is unlikely I'll get a birding lens soon. $600 is probably the minimum you'll pay for anything semi-decent that is 400mm or longer.

I borrowed a book on bird photography from the library which has also helped rekindle my interest. Yesterday, while at work listening to KZSU (I need something to drown out my lab-mate when he digs into his crunchy nuts) I heard a public service announcement about birds. I didn't catch all the details, but a quick search found the Birds of Stanford site, a repository of species seen around Stanford. Very informative, and now I have a resource when I see a bird I can't identify (which is most of them).

The site seems to be somewhat abandoned, but I found out a little more info. There's a Stanford Magazine article by Don Kennedy which references the site. There's a set of galleries which includes a small gallery of photos. One of the photos features a great blue heron, and happens to be by one of my neighbors, Carlos Rodriguez-Lluesma. In fact, when I got my heron pictures, I was outside of his home. His son used to be in my son's class! Small world, huh?

No offense to Carlos, but my photo is technically better (his was taken five years ago, so considering digital camera technology, that isn't at all surprising). Since there is a photograph submission form on the site, I figured I'd submit one of my heron images and see what happens. I don't expect much, since the site looks like it hasn't been touched in a few years, but I figured it was worth a try.

I'll keep you posted if I get any interesting bird shots or hear back from whoever is managing Birds of Stanford.

Canon 70-200mm F/4: First Test Drive

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (see how I got it cheaply) arrived Tuesday, but other than shooting a few shots inside, I didn't get a chance to really test it until yesterday. I was halfway to work when I realized I had forgotten some library books due that day, so I turned my bike around and rode home to get them. When I pulled on our court, a heron was standing at the corner. It was a perfect time to test the lens!

Luckily, he stuck around long enough for me to grab my camera and pop the new lens on. He and I then stood around staring at each other for about a half an hour while I got over 60 shots. Of course, none of the shots were remarkable because he didn't find any gophers to eat and I wasn't heartless enough to scare him into flying away just to get a good picture.

First impressions of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM:

• It is long but not nearly as heavy as I thought it'd be. It handled pretty well on my little XT, but I can see how the tripod mount would be useful. Apparently 3rd party mounts are much cheaper (~$50) than the Canon mount (~$140).
  
• The length of the lens doesn't change during zooming or focusing (an awesome feature).
• The included hood and bag are really nice.
• The USM is super quiet and fast (but my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is pretty fast too, but it sounds like angry bees). I had a little trouble focusing on the heron, but I think that was more my Rebel XT not finding it's skinny little neck. The ability to hold the focus ring, autofocus (without the ring turning) then turn the ring to tune the focus is very useful (also called full time manual).
• The zoom ring is opposite of Tamron lenses. Not a big deal, but all my lenses have been Tamron to this point so I keep turning it the wrong way :(
• I think this would be a good lens for outdoor sports, but it'd probably be good to get a monopod and tripod mount ring because it is hard to hold it steady at 200mm for long periods of time.
• Image quality is quite good. So far, I've only shot wide open at F/4, but it is nice, way better than the Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 even stopped down. The ability to shoot wide open without worrying about quality is really nice; click either image above to see a bigger version.
  

I am planning a more in depth review/comparison between the Canon 70-200mm F/4 and Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 but I'd like to get a bit more time with the Canon before I do it.

Below are 100% crops of heron shots from both lenses:

100% crop from Canon 70-200mm F/4 USM
(ISO 200, 200mm, F/4, 1/2000 sec, processed in RAW)

100% crop from Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Macro
(ISO 400, 300mm, F/7.1, 1/400 sec, JPG)

Obviously, there are some differences between how the two images were shot: the Canon was at a shorter focal length, faster shutter speed, lower ISO, and used RAW processing. By the way, the Tamron shot is from this day, but is pretty indicative of how the Tamron performs (at 200mm it is slightly sharper though). My general feeling is I don't need to worry about the image quality of the Canon, while I have to keep the Tamron from being wide-open and avoid situations where chromatic abberation would get too bad.

Of course, the Tamron cost less than $100, while the Canon cost $500. I still contend the Tamron is still a great value for the money.

Review: Reversed Nikkor-H 50mm F/2

Background:

Over three weeks ago I ordered a used Nikon Nikkor-H 50mm F/2 lens off eBay. It came a few days later and I've spent enough time shooting with it that I feel like I can write up a little review. Since I shoot Canon, my only reason for purchasing this lens was to use it as a macro lens.

First things first though. I bought the lens for under $20 including S/H when they usually go for a bit more ($25-30). Upon receiving the lens, I checked it out thoroughly, and there is nothing at all wrong with it, so my calculated risk paid off.

The 52mm reversing ring is currently available on eBay for about $12, including shipping. Make sure you get the right mount though: one side will be a camera bayonet mount (Canon EOS for my Digital Rebel XT) and the other side will be a male 52mm filter thread. Just screw it on to the lenses filter threads (52mm is the most popular filter size for 50mm lenses) and attach it to your camera like a normal lens. Shooting takes a little more technique than usual, but more on that later.

The short version is I am very happy with my Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 for macro work. But, like any reversed lens for macro, it has a few limitations. If you have the money, you're generally better off getting a new dedicated macro lens. But, if you are financially impaired, I would say an old, AI (or pre-AI) Nikkor/Nikon lens is your best choice for a dedicated reversing lens.


Physical Description and Operation:

In the image at the top of the post you can see the Nikkor-H in full macro mode. Moving from left to right, there's the Nikon lens cap (since that end would normally go on the Nikon camera), the aperture wheel (going from f/2 to f/16 in full stops), the focus wheel (which doesn't really matter for macro work), a 52mm EOS reversing ring (more in a bit), and finally a Canon lens cap. This is how I store it, since I don't need the reversing ring for anything else.

The lens itself is from an earlier era, so almost all of it is metal. Compared to a Canon 50mm f/1.8 (see left and right, click for larger image) it is just about the same size and uses the same filter size (52mm). The Nikkor-H is slightly heavier and much more solid because of the metal construction. While I always felt like my Canon 50mm was on the edge of breaking when it was reversed mounted, I have no such concerns with the Nikkor. This thing is solid, and it better be, considering it is about as old as I am. Also, because the Nikkor-H was designed for old manual cameras, it has a lot more levers and other projections (don't hurt yourself!) and doesn't fit on newer Nikkon cameras.

Both lenses have similar optics and the primary distinction between the two is the newer Canon includes autofocus and auto-aperture while the Nikkor has manual everything. When reversed, the focus is generally useless anyway, so no auto-focus is not a problem. The ability to set the aperture on the barrel instead of the usual Canon aperture dance (unmount, put it on the right way, set aperture on body, hold DOF preview, remove and reverse) is very convenient and allows me to take better pictures because I can change the aperture instantly. It also is a big help in focusing because you can open up the aperture, get your focus, then stop down before you trigger the shutter.

Speaking of stopping down, the Nikkor-H has one feature that I didn't know about before I bought it: it has a lever on the mount that lets you momentarily open up the aperture. The lever is circled in the picture at left (click it to see it larger). Originally, this is how the camera body allowed the lens to be wide open when using the viewfinder and stopped down when shooting pictures. While a little awkward to reach, it conveniently lets you pop open the aperture to focus, then stop down right before you shoot. Very handy, and something an old Canon FD lens won't do (in fact, quite the opposite: FD lenses are stuck at one aperture unless you pull a lever).

One of the few advantages the Canon 50mm has over the Nikkor-H 50mm is a larger aperture range. The Canon can stop down to f/32 while the Nikkor can't go past f/16. This isn't too much of a problem unless you need extreme depth of field. On the plus side, the Nikkor has 6 aperture blades instead of the Canon's 5, so bokeh should look a little nicer.

The 52mm reversing ring screws onto the Nikkor 50mm f/16 nicely, but it doesn't stay very well; I sometimes unscrew it on accident when using the aperture control. Not a big deal, but something to keep in mind. Once on, the reversing ring acts as part of the lens and feels very solid (unlike the Canon 50mm, which has a lot of slop between the lens barrel and focus section). Reversing the lens also puts the aperture control conveniently at the end of the lens.


Shooting Macros with the Nikkor-H 50mm F/2:

I find the Nikkor-H 50mm f2 much more convenient to use than the Canon 50mm f1.8 II because I can open and close the aperture as needed to get focus without removing the lens. Optically, I've noticed no difference between the lenses, and both give me good shots. As is the case for most macro work, the final sharpness of the image is usually more of an issue of technique than the quality of the lens.


This is the usual process I go through to get a shot:

1. Set the camera to aperture priority (Av) mode. This lets the camera meter determine the right shutter speed (my aperture display always says 0.0 because it doesn't detect a lens). Depending on the shot and lighting issues, I may use full manual mode to set the shutter speed myself.
2. Open up the aperture to f/2 or f/2.8 to get focus. I'm almost always using a tripod on a stationary subject, so I use a wide aperture to make it easier to see the scene in the viewfinder and get focus.
3. Stop down to my desired aperture and meter the scene. If necessary, I'll change the ISO to make sure I get a fast enough shutter speed. With macro shots, I need a higher shutter speed than I would generally use (even on a tripod) because a tiny motion of the camera or subject will be magnified into a large motion in the image.
   
4. Wait until the right moment and press shutter release. Unless I've got a really high shutter speed, I'll use my homemade remote release. I'll usually use mirror lockup to keep the mirror from wiggling the camera on the tripod too.
5. Check the histogram and shoot again. I'll often bracket exposures and even bracket apertures (take a range of shots with different apertures) to make sure I get a good shot.
   

The Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 improves this whole process because it makes aperture changes instantaneous and doesn't disturb the camera position. In the past few weeks, I've taken some macro shots of the flower I mentioned earlier and a penny. There's something else going on in the penny image, but that's a topic for another post.

There is one big disadvantage of the Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 (or any reversed lens): you cannot easily change the field of view. With a relatively fixed focus point (since the focus wheel doesn't work), you cannot easily move closer or farther from the subject, making it difficult to frame the subject. Yes, you can use extension tubes or bellows, but they don't help you zoom out past about 1:2 magnification. Sometimes I get frustrated when I want to include more in the image but physically can't. At that point, I switch to a non-macro lens and plan on cropping the image in post processing.



Conclusions and Future Plans:

For about $40 you can get an old Nikkor-H F/2 on eBay with a 52mm reversing ring. That, other than a tripod and remote release, is all that you need to start out doing macro shots. As far as I have noticed, the quality of the shots are similar (but probably not as good) as a true macro lens, the main difference is in the convenience of use. If you have more patience than money, this might be a great way to get started shooting macro photographs. But, if you have the money ($300+ for a decent macro lens), you might as well get a real macro lens and enjoy the convenience of it.

Personally, a 90-100mm macro lens is next on my list of hardware acquisitions, but it might be a year or so before I get one. For now, this $40 combination meets most of my needs.

If I need more magnification than 1:1, I have a cheap set of extension tubes ($15 on eBay, shipped) which gives me about 2:1 (2x) magnification. With the addition of a male-male macro coupler (two 52mm screw mounts on each side) and one or more step-up rings, my Nikkor-H can be reversed in front of my other lenses to get super-macro images (beyond 2:1). At some point I'll grab what I need on eBay and experiment with it. I'm also considering closeup lenses for my Canon 70-200 f/4 to see how well that works.

For now though, my Nikkor-H has joined my other lenses as just another tool for getting the best picture.




Update:

Here's a handy eBay search for the 50mm Nikkor lenses. Sadly, eBay has recently updated their editor kits and ruined some of the functionality. So, to really look for a Nikkor-H f/2, plug "Nikkor-H (50mm, 50) (f/2, f2 2)" in the search box and you'll get better results.

Quick Tip #5: White Balance

[It has been a while since I've added to my Quick Tip series because I've been waiting for a decent image or two to illustrate the tips. Well, I finally got some images, so I have another Quick Tip waiting in the wings for posting in the next few days.]

[Oh, and if anyone knows the type of flower I've pictured in this entry, leave a comment. I haven't been able to figure it out (I haven't tried that hard either).]

Key Idea: Taking a minute or two to consider white balance before you start shooting may save you hours of post processing.

If you agree with that and know how to manage white balance in camera, you can safely ignore this post. Well, unless you want to hear more about the image above. I'll wait a second or two for the know-it-alls to leave...

. . .

Still with me? Let's start at the beginning.

White balance (a.k.a. color balance) refers to the representation of white in an image. Wait, you're thinking, isn't white just equal amounts of red, blue, and green? Well, yes and no. In a perfect world, all white would always look the same. In our world, our eyes compensate for the color of the light so that white objects still look white, EVEN if they aren't truly white. If you've ever looked at paper under a colored light (I was cursed with a green nightlight during my early teens), once your eyes adjust it will still look white even though logically you know it isn't. For our eyes, white is relative to the ambient light. For a camera, white is absolute based on the sensor chip.

As an example, during the rainy season (October through May) we have a light green tarp over half of our back patio. As a result, our living room is bathed in green light through the sliding glass door, while our dining room gets normal skylight. The greenish cast in the living room is generally unnoticeable unless I am either: A) taking pictures or B) editing pictures on the living room computer. Then, if the camera detects the wrong white balance, everyone looks sickly green. When using the computer, I have to put a black blanket over the window so the green ambient doesn't add a magenta cast to the monitor image.

The solution is to set the white balance on your digital camera, which modifies which ratio of red, green, and blue corresponds to white. On my camera (Canon Digital Rebel XT/350D) I can set it either in the menu under White Balance or directly by pushing the WB button (down on the directional). Most cameras provide sunlight, florescent, tungsten (incandescent), cloudy, and flash white balance. Often cameras do automatic white balance and extract the most likely white balance from the image. And auto white balance (AWB) works fine... most of the time.

Case in point -- the above flower shot with a daylight white balance looks like crap. When I shot it, I used a florescent desk lamp (the cheapest lighting solution EVER) which doesn't get hot enough to wilt a flower like an incandescent. The down-side is the lamp has a really strange color balance that doesn't correspond to any Rebel XT setting.

In the interest of full disclosure, after an hour of shooting the flower must have taken some heat. In the morning it had lost three petals, and by the next evening it was totally naked!

When will auto-white balance not work? Lets say you take a picture of an orange flower. If there is no white in the image, there is no way for the camera to tell what the white balance really is and no way to get the orange color perfect. Even worse is florescent lighting -- the spectral emissions from florescent lights vary wildly and the florescent setting on the camera will not fit your lighting. So, what can you do?

Well, you can always set it in software. At left is the Paint Shop Pro XI color balance control. WB is represented by two values, usually color temperature (red-blue mix) and tint (green-magenta mix). Sadly, these controls are not very intuitive and it is hard to adjust color balance manually especially if your monitor is not calibrated to your ambient. Luckily, most software lets you select something that should be white in the image and figures out the right WB for you (called Smart Select in PSPXI).

The thing is, fixing WB in software is an extra step in your post processing -- if you've got 100 images to process, you don't want to be doing it for each image. Also, many times you can't get it right in software because your image lacks a pure white that isn't blown out. That usually won't matter for snapshots, but if you want to submit your photo to a contest or print portraits for a paying customer, you really want to get WB right.

The solution is simple if you have custom color balance. The short version is: shoot a white object, set the custom color balance based on that image, and as long as you don't vary the lighting, all your later pictures will be spot on. Do you need to get a $50 ExpoDisc? No, any white or gray paper will do as long as it doesn't have a color tint. Here's the process on the 350D:

1. Hold a piece of paper, gray card, or whatever in the position of your subject and take a picture of it. White balance does not matter at this point.
   
2. In the menu, select Custom WB, scroll through to select your target image, and press Set. The custom white balance will be set automatically from the image.
3. In the white balance screen, select Custom. It should be in the lower right.
4. You are good to go until your light source changes!
   

It literally takes 30 seconds from start to finish, but it does wonders to your images. In the case of my flower above, I set it with a piece of printer paper. Checking later in my raw converter, daylight would have been: 5700K, Tint 4. The custom white balance was: 2850K, Tint 39. IMO, those are pretty extreme values -- my Ikea desk lamp has pretty strange color balance :)

I'll leave you with one more unrelated thought. The picture that started this section was taken with my Canon 50mm f/1.8 II with only resizing and sharpening. If you are used to Canon cameras, the saturation should surprise you. So, yes, the flower really was that brilliant and the color and sharpness of the lens is astonishing for something under $80. To back that up, a 100% crop without any sharpening or processing is below.


Note: Copier paper may not be the best thing to set white balance outside because the UV light seems to cause the paper to appear more blue than it should (making your images appear too orangish). Investing in a gray card (or finding something more consistent) might be worth it if you shoot a lot outdoors.

Anatomy of a Photo: Fuchsia

[Over the weekend I noticed my hits increased a lot as a result of this post on Strobist... if you count going from two random hits a day to six random hits a day a lot. Apparently just mentioning Strobist gets me traffic, so Strobist, Strobist, Strobist! Look at me, Mr. Hobby, I'm pilfering your traffic! Strobist! Strobist!

In all seriousness, a little birdie (named Google Analytics) told me that my first Anatomy of a Photo was the most popular page, so I hurried and got this one up. Of course, my kind of hurry involves watching three Sopranos episodes last night instead of working on it. Needless to say, I'll try to keep them coming if people like them.]

Two years ago my parents gave us a fuchsia plant on their yearly visit to the left coast. We promptly killed it... almost. Once we realized it preferred shade and moved it out front, it recovered pretty well. Although, even on a good day, it usually looks like a bunch of sticks with a few leaves on it.

This spring, for whatever reason, it bloomed hard. Large, exquisitely shaded flowers that inspired the name of a color. So, of course, I have to get some pictures. In my mind, I envisioned a brilliant flower on a black background with a few green leaves in the picture. So I set to work making that happen.

Originally I planned on clipping some flowers and shooting them inside. Of course, my wife wasn't wild about that, but she consented. About a week ago after tutoring, I came home to a pretty perfect night for getting photos: no wind and still pretty warm for this time of year. I ended up taking the pictures with the fuchsia hanging in it's usual spot, right by the front door.

First, I set up a black blanket behind the flower and stuck a Sunpak 383 a stand, shooting through an umbrella. Two of the earlier shots were the one at the top of this entry and the one to the left. I shot in RAW because I knew I'd wanted to keep the images high resolution and I would probably need to adjust exposure, highlights, and shadows.

I chose my Canon 50mm f/1.8 because I just didn't see the need for a wide angle and I wanted the camera to have the best chance at focusing. Plus, the 50 f/1.8 prime is super sharp, possibly sharper than my new Tamron 17-50mm.

Keep in mind I was doing this just after dark, and by design, I was overpowering what little ambient there was with the flash so I didn't need a tripod. I liked how the shots looked on my tiny 350d LCD, but focusing was definitely a problem with the low light. So I grabbed a flashlight, propped it up on the ground aimed at the underside of the blooms, and used that as a focusing light.

After a few more shots I noticed the light coming from underneath the flowers made them look really cool. So, I grabbed the Nikon SB-20, stuck it on my tripod right under the blooms, and set to work balancing the two lights. The end result was the Sunpak at about 1/2 power and the SB-20 on 1/16 power. I found I also needed a snoot (taped together from a box I grabbed from the recycling bin) to keep the light underneath from brightening up the background behind the flowers too much. The setup is pictured to the right.

I can't say enough how much I use the family's scotch tape when I shoot. You can tape all your stuff up, then just take it off with no sticky residue! One of these days I need to actually make a snoot though (once I get some gaffer's tape).

I got a ton of good results from the setup like the unage to the left. It can be a bit difficult getting the balance and aim of the lower light correct, and a nasty side effect is it will show any imperfections (like pollen, which seemed to be all over everything). But the hard light can really give the blooms a little extra glow to them and make the image pop just a little.

With everything in place, I also reversed the 50 f/1.8 and shot some macros. I had a lot of trouble focusing though, even with the flashlight, since the reversed 50 f/1.8 needed to be stopped down all the time and my flashlight started running out of batteries. In addition, the wind was starting to pick up, which made it harder to keep focus once I got it. I did get a few good pictures, such as the one below. The fuchsia is still blooming, so I still might take the opportunity to clip one and then really try to get an interesting close-up or macro shot.