Hexagons in Photos

Hi,

I took these photos using FM3A with 50mm f1.4 AIS & L37c filter. In

hexagon1.jpg, there is reddish hexagon near forehead of a woman in

distance. In hexagon2.jpg, there is reddish hexagon at the center and

a white hexagon at the left of the photo. In hexagon3.jpg, there are

two hexagons at the bottom left of the photo. Can someone tell me

what caused these hexagons to appear in these photos? I thank you in

advance for your comment.

Here is the hexagon2.jpg.

And the hexagon3.jpg.

It usually happens when you're shooting into the light. It's internal reflections of the aperture blades. (If there were 8, they'd be octagons). Sunshade or shading with your hand would help in some cases. I've seen this done intentionally to give a photo that "glaring desert" feel.

if you want to make these highlights look more circular, use the lens wide open (i.e. at f/1.4), or use a lens that has a more circular aperture opening (if i am allowed to generalize, it usually means more blades and/or curved blades). Best thing to do is to avoid such backgrounds altogether (i.e. recompose and shoot). Look up the word "bokeh" for more...

Stephen's got a point too; I, however, think that in your case, these are nothing but out of focus highlights/point light sources.

They are actually seven sided, the same as the number of aperature blades on most Nikkors. FWIW, I've always thought seven sided Nikkor highlight looked a lot better than the ugly six sided Canon highlights - just one of the reasons I own Nikon.

Those are out of focus point lights, and the shape is that of the aperture.

 

You may want to look at the 45/2.8P. It's slower so you don't need to stop down as much to reach a given aperture, it's got rounded aperture blades, and it creates backgrounds that are more creamy.

Dave's a big help.

 

What the others are saying is that some lenses handle these highlights differently (arguably better) than others. It can be almost impossible to see things in the background like this when you're shooting, depends on the situation. Of course, the only way to totally control the light you're using is in a studio...

Hi All, thanks for your helpful responses!

Hi Stephen,

I neglected to mention that I had HR-2 hood on my lens, but I was pointing towards West Side around 4pm for the first two photos, so the light probably had strong influence. Thanks for your comment.

Hi Shakil,

Thanks for your advice. I do usually shoot wide open with this lens in low-light situations, and for that purpose, I bought this lens. I happen to pass by a parade that day on my way to art gallery and art museum, and I took few photos. And that is why I never experienced those hexagons in my photos prior to that day.

Hi Dave, you're absolutely right.

Hi Jean,

I heard a lot of good things about that lens, but I'm planning to purchase 85mm f1.4 AF, and for my interest in low-light photography, f2.8 would not be fast enough for me. But I appreciate your insight on the source of the hexagons in my photos and comment about the 45/2.8P.

Take care.

Rob.

Stephen's answer had a few inaccuracies. Those are not "internal reflections" of the aperture blades, they are just the aperture shape. For a blurred point light source, the blurred shape takes on the shape of the aperture. Everything that is blurred in your photo actually has that shape, but they all average out except for the very bright points, which stand out. You can actually put a cut out star in front of a lens (seee below), and any point highlights (think lights on a christmas tree), will come out star shaped. It takes some playing around, but it works. As mentioned, a rounded aperture will show more round out of focus areas, or you can shoot wide open, where the aperture blades don't come into the equation. Stephen's comment about a lens hood or shading the lens is also false - this is completely independent of any lens hood and that would have zero effect. And it has nothing to do with shooting into the light - it's just whenever you have bright points.

 

I took a few minutes to cut out a small star in a sheet of paper and held it in front of the lens while I took a few photos out my window. I manually "unfocused" so that the streetlights would be blurred. Note that on the shot indoors through the star you can see a reduction in contrast and some vignetting, but it does not look like you're shooting through a star - there are no bright out of focus points, so no stars are seen.<div></div>

,,<div></div>

,,,<div></div>

,,,,<div></div>

Its one reason why I prefer my old Zeiss rangefinder lenses for some applications. 12 or 14 blade diaphragm on my 50mm Sonnars does render circular highlights. The actual smoothness of the background is more dependent on other design parameters, but these Sonnars also fare well in that regard.

 

<p>Here is an example where the lights inside this wedding reception were rendered as heptagons on the Nikkor 50mm. Still think the photo is great, though it might make me (perhaps nobody else) happier if I used a different lens.

 

<p><center><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=17059584"><p>Nikon F3HP, AI 50/1.4</i></center>

If you want round OOF bright spots, you either have to have a rounded, high-count aperture lens or leave your lens wide open. I don't think there's any way around this one beyond one of those two approaches.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your detailed explanation and taking the time to cut out a star in a paper and taking step-by-step photos to provide a clear illustration. That star looks just perfect! And thanks again for your perfect answer.

Hi Mike,

That's great wedding photo! You really caught a Kodak moment there. I guess I need to learn how to count, for there are 7 sides. The heptagons in your photo doesn't look bad; for it doesn't compete with joyful smiles of your subjects. Thanks for your comment.

Hi Steve & Aaron,

Studio sounds expensive, so maybe I should either go for a lens with "rounded, high-count aperture lens or leave my lens wide open." Thanks for your comment.

The problem is, Nikon simply doesn't make lenses with high blade count diaphragms. My 1936 Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 has 14 curved blades but only stops down to f/11. My late 50's Sonnar has two sets of 12 blades in a double arrangement and stops to f/16. Modern Leica lenses have round diaphragms.

 

Have the same issue with my view cameras - the old German Compur diaphragms are round, the Japanese Copals are not.

 

The polygons are not the only story. As I eluded to, the correction of the lens has a lot to do with how the background is rendered. My AI 50/1.4 renders a pretty ragged background and would still do so even if I had some means to affix a round diaphragm to it. Nikon shooters praise the old 50/2, which I do not own.

 

Anyhow, to paraphrase what you said about my photo, its mostly academic - only armchair photographers really agonize over these things. Yes I like the look of my old rangefinder 50mm lenses better but those cameras don't handle like a modern 35mm SLR!