Filters and “Straight” Photography

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m big on filters. In the world of digital photography, where anything can be changed on a whim, I like the option of making the best possible photograph with the camera, and not through post processing. In fact, having done retouching professionally, I like to think of it as a last resort, and not a means to an end.

At the turn of the last century, the big debate was whether or not photography could be considered an art form. Image manipulation is not new. No sooner had the first image been printed that someone found a way to manipulate it. In fact, the art of photography had become more about pictorialism than realism. “Group f/64” was founded in 1932 to move away from this mindset, to establish a discipline of “Straight Photography”.

I view the use of filters in digital photography as a means to accomplish straight digital photography. Certainly there are an enormous amount of features built in to each digital camera to control how the image is rendered. But these, like Photoshop, act on the image after it forms on the sensor. I like the notion that I can control the image before it forms on the sensor.

Does this mean I’ll stop tweaking my camera’s white balance, contrast and saturation, ISO, etc, etc? No. But I do like to continue to employ filters and explore the effects I can achieve with them.

The Truth About Filters…Confirmed.

Buying new lenses has meant having to buy new filters, since the lens I will be using most often has a different filter size from any I’ve had in the past. There seems to be a lot of myths and misconceptions regarding filters, so before investing any more money, I decided to do my homework before making any more purchases.

Nikon N80 and Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II

Nikon N80 35mm SLR with Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II

Sweet setup. Brings me back to the days of film and manual focus. The 40mm Ultron is actually closer to a normal focal length than the typical 50mm “normal” length.  On the D90, it’s a nice portrait lens that can serve as a normal lens in a pinch.

Micro NIKKOR DX 16-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED, Complete

1907 Penny

With the recent arrival of the Nikon BR-6 Auto Diaphragm Ring, my new macro lens is complete. I now have complete control over aperture, the ability to focus and compose wide open, and a 52mm filter thread on which I can install the filter of my choice. I thought I would put it through its paces with a 1907 penny.

   

I left off the AF-S and VR designations from my new lens name, because with a reversed lens in manual only-mode, they just don’t apply. It was no bother at all to guestimate the exposure, check the histogram and readjust. Being able to stop down greatly increased the depth of field, and It was easy to control the aperature by means of a standard cable release. Live view was helpful, as it provided a nice depth-of field-preview and focus assist.

Nikon D90 + AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR + BR-6 Auto Diaphragm Ring + Cable Release + Filter 

There are no stops to the aperture settings, it’s completely infinite from f/3.5 to f/22. This “shorty” cable release allows me to lock in any setting. Longer ones assist in keeping the camera from moving. Predictably, the sharpest images were somewhere in the middle, probably around f/8. f/22 yielded the greatest depth of field, as seen in the far shot, but was less sharp overall.

The zoom ring controls the magnification/working distance, and the focus ring fine tunes the focus. I set the focus ring at infinity, and back it off just a bit. Then, I get the combination of working distance and zoom worked out so the image is sharp. Then, I fine tune the focus with the focus ring to avoid changing the camera distance. Lighting was accomplished with a halogen desk lamp, but now with the BR-6, a ring flash is an option.

I can see myself making a custom cable release with f-stop settings for this. I can also see myself trying to shoot hand-held at f/8-f/11 with a powerful ring flash, or in bright sunlight. But ideally, this setup is for studio work under controlled conditions.

For field work, extension tubes will be my next step, because they’ll preserve all metering, exposure an focusing functions. They should work great with my already close-focusing Nikkor 16-85mm, and I suspect will work equally well with the super-fast Nikkor 50mm f/1.4

Easter in Infrared

Yesterday was a beautiful day for Easter. Prior to the Easter feast, I dusted off my P5100 ready for some family snapshots. Now that the fascination of the D90 has calmed down a bit, I find myself reaching for either camera, based on the type of use.


The P5100 is great for family snapshots, especially when family members may judge you harshly on your extravagance of owning two cameras.

Now that I’ve reacquainted myself with the optical viewfinder, I find myself turning off the EVF on the P5100 more and more. It’s hard to do, because then I want to see the image right away, so I turn it back on. DSLRs solve this problem by keeping the LCD off while shooting, and briefly displaying the image right after its capture. This would have been a great feature for the P5100. I am also accustomed to seeing all the shooting info in a DSLR’s viewfinder, which is missing from the P5100 unless you use the EVF. And I can’t disable the EVF in full auto mode. But I can turn down the brightness of the display so it’s not glaring in my eye as I look through the OVF.

Also prior to dining, I took the opportunity to revisit Infrared on the P5100. with my 52mm R72 filter installed, I captured some similar images to those I took yesterday with the D90. Using the Program mode, I can also dial in a consistent exposure with exposure compensation, same as the D90. However, the P5100 has difficulty focusing. I could not get a positive focus confirmation on the P5100, but I could almost always get it on the D90. The P5100 only goes up to ISO 2000 (for a full resolution image) whereas the D90 can go as high as 6400, and the quality is considerably better.

Interestingly, the same white balance settings yielded similar results in both cameras. Tungsten produces a purple image, fluorescent a deep magenta image, and auto a salmony-red image. The tungsten image, closest to the 2500°K image of the D90, showed the slightest hint of color, but not distinct enough to recognize the grass as green. If I were to suggest a setting to someone with limited options, I’d say go with the fluorescent. At 3800°K, it’s the closest to custom white balancing to green foliage, which is about 4440°K, without the extra step.

One thing I can do on the P5100 that I can’t on the D90, is white balance through the R72 filter. This yields a relatively neutral image with some nasty purplish flaring. I’ve seen this before, but I thought it was a hot spot. I can definitely see now that it’s a flare which varies depending on the angle of the light source. It’s actually pretty cool, and oddly, these images have less noise than monochrome captures. I must explore this further to see how it fits in to my workflow.

But I’m pretty sure the D90 will be used for nearly all of my Infrared work from this point forward. But, now that I have a DSLR, the way I use the P5100, and what I use it for will undoubtedly change.

First Impressions: Infrared by D90

Today was a beautiful, sunny day, just perfect to capture some infrared rays. So, outfitted with a Hoya R72 filter, I grabbed my D90 and decided to try my luck with some hand-held infrared photography.

I have had some experience with infrared every since reading a book and discovering that my P5100 could capture infrared. Having passed the “infrared remote” test, I decided to invest in a 52mm R72 filter. The results I got were interesting, however limited by the P5100’s eight second maximum exposure. I would set the camera to manual, select the widest aperture, and set the exposure to 8 seconds. Depending on how much light I had, I could vary the ISO to improve the quality, but it was always pretty high. Then I would set my camera on a tripod, shoot, and hope for the best. I was able to capture in color or black and white, and the color images were a deep monochrome magenta.

With the D90 and some further reseach, I discovered I’ve been making more work for myself than is necessary. With a maximum metered exposure of 30 seconds, up to 30 minutes of bulb exposure, an ISO up to 6400, and much more control over white balance, many more things are possible.

Using the same R72 filter, only in a 67mm size to fit my 16-85 f/3.5-5.6, I am able to capture hand-held images at about a 1/15-1/25 second exposure at 3200 ISO. The D90 has no problems with either focusing or metering. Depending on how I set the white balance, once I dial in the appropriate exposure compensation, I get consistent exposures.

It’s the white balance that’s the key, and I have more control over it with the D90, than with the P5100, so I have more variables to explore and overcome.

It seems that setting the white balance manually to 2500°K produces less saturated magenta images with good shape and detail, and distinct color information. While most of the image appears monochromatic, green grass and shrubbery appears a pale, desaturated green. Apparently setting the white balance this low forces some of the visible spectrum to come through. I’m not sure if this is true IR or not, but it is no less interesting. The grass definitely has that “Infrared” look, only in color. Nothing in Photoshop seems to improve this effect, although adjusting the tint in Camera Raw seems to control the saturation of this green, making it look less Infrared-like.

However, setting the white balance to the other extreme, 10,000°K, produces saturated red-orange images, not unlike redscale. And, longer exposures produce even more interesting color effects with colors ranging from highlight to shadow of white, yellow, orange, red-range and black, respectively. These images translate well to black and white images when you adjust the red, yellow and sometimes magenta sliders in Photoshop’s “Black and White” adjustment layer, or the red, orange, yellow and sometimes magenta in Camera Raw’s “Convert to Grayscale”. I think this might be a more faithful example of Infrared, as all the camera’s settings are coaxing it away from anything not in the red spectrum.

Another approach is to do as the books suggest, and perform a custom white balance off green grass or shrubbery. This yields an effect somewhere in between the two, with grass having a slight magenta hue, while the sky goes more of a red orange. This translates well to black and white also. I can simulate these settings without sampling by setting the white balance to 4350°K and adjusting the tint to the magenta side.

But, this is all in color, and there really is no color in infrared, hence the -red part. The main object of shooting in color is to get some color information, so I can tweak the conversion to black and white, or do some false-color post processing. The other option is to shoot in black and white, and let the camera do the conversion, and this works quite well also. With this option, I can choose from a yellow, orange, red or green filter, yet another set of variables. I can say for sure that the red filter cuts down on exposure times, with the green filter producing darker images. But, which yields the best contrast requires more experimentation.

And this is all with one lens. Other lenses will undoubtedly produce different results. Perhaps no lens (pinhole) or even plastic lens (Lensbaby) will produce more variations. I have much work ahead of me. For now, my goal is to be able to predictably produce these two distinct styles of color infrared images, by establishing the appropriate camera settings, and come up with an optimal setting for monochrome infrared images.

The Truth About Lens Hoods

The use of a lens hood is absolutely essential to photography. Professionals, amateurs and consumers alike should all use lens hoods.

The functionality of the hood is enhanced by its size or complexity. The best type of hood to use is either a petal-shaped hood used on large-diameter wide-angle lens, or an extra-long hood on a very long lens. Faster lenses tend to use larger diameter objective lenses, and the larger diameter of the required hood also enhances its functionality.

Bayonet hoods are best, as they can usually be reversed to fit over the lens for storage in the camera bag. This ensures that you will always have your hood with you, but even more importantly that you will use it, since it usually needs to removed prior to using the lens, which means that you’re only one step away from flipping it around and putting it back on.

If there’s no bayonet hood available for you lens, you may choose from the many third-party hoods available. I would recommend the rectangular, expandable bellows-type, which in many instances may be larger than the camera and lens itself. You cannot go wrong with an enormous lens hood.

There are many practical reason why you need to use a hood; here are just a few (please note that these are not necessarily in order of priority)

1. You are shooting toward the sun or some other bright light source.


2. Your height is less than 5'-10".


3. You are single, and in the proximity of one or more attractive females.


4. You are in the company of fellow photographers.


5. You have low self-esteem.

Some professional photographers however choose not to use a hood. Instead, they use their hand to block the light source from creating a flare. This technique works best if you are left-handed and shooting hand-held with a very long telephoto lens at f/8 or above, using a heavy camera (for stability) that is fitted with a battery grip (for extended battery life). The extra length of the lens combined with the battery grip compensate for the lack of the lens hood.

Seriously?
While many may debate the technical benefits of using a lens hood, none can dispute its coolness factor. Happy April Fools’ Day! Seriously, like coatings on filters, lens hoods can help to avoid flares under certain, but not all, shooting conditions. Like filters, they can protect your expensive lenses; in fact, they can protect your expensive filters.

I remember it was always a challenge to find a bayonet hood for a used lens, but a nice bonus if I could. So far, all the Nikon lenses I plan to purchase will come with bayonet hoods. Judging by the outside diameter of the lens, and the fact that the hoods reverse over the lens barrel, I should still be able to use the hoods with 67mm filters and a step up ring, even though the filter sizes of these lenses is 52mm and 58mm. Here’s how I’ll do it:

1. Mount the bayonet lens hood.


2. Install the 67mm filter on the required step-up ring.


3. Attach the pinch-type lens cap to the 67mm filter.


4. With the lens facing down, screw the filter/step-up ring comb onto the front of the lens, using the lens cap as a “wrench”, since I can’t grip the edge of the filters which is blocked by the hood, and I don’t want to get fingerprints on the filters.

If I don’t screw them on too tightly (and how could I) I should have no problem getting them off.

So remember, lens hoods are our friends. Let’s all use them for the right reasons.