126 THE NIDOLOGIST 
The Photo Fiend, 
BY REV. P. B. PEABODY. 
(Concluded. ) 
word about ‘‘taking’’ nests, in brush- 
JN land—in the woods. Sometimes we 
leave the stems or stalks that stand 
between camera and nest; for they are a 
part of the bird’s choice. But, tar oftener, 
they are both accidental and destructive, — 
and should be cleared away. 
For example: A nest and eggs of the 
Western Grebe lie but a trifle above the 
water, on a narrow bed of marsh-grass, in 
a two foot clear space, and surrounded 
by a dense growth of grass and rushes, 
into which a boat cannot possibly be 
drawn. How elsein this case, with a five- 
foot focal limit, is one to secure a negative, 
than by clearing away the grass and rushes 
in a ‘‘lone’’ five feet extendent from the 
nest? This fact, alone justifies the setting 
of a minimum two-foot focal limit as 
being the szve gua non of a perfect camera 
for next photography. 
For example: in June, 1895, I went, 
en route, five miles out of my course, 
taking back eggs collected in May, to pho- 
tograph a most beautiful nest built by my 
favorite pair of Krider's Hawks, on the 
semi-horizontal branch of a small elm with 
no adequate branches above. My camera 
has a five-foot limit. The wind was blow- 
ing terrifically. I couid not come again. 
From any place whereon I could stand, I 
could not possibly hold the camera more 
than two feet from the eggs,—and view, 
meanwhile, the finder. But it was cloudy, 
—raining. No snap-shot would avail. The 
very best that I could do was to strap 
the camera to a higher branch, three feet 
away, (having previously strapped myself 
to the tree), just guessing at the allign- 
ment. So, I obtained, a negative, indeed, 
but autoffocus. ‘The very features of the 
nest that I wished to preserve—location, 
material, perspective—all were lost. <A 
two-foot focus would have saved them. 
But there are further limitations to be 
conquered. ‘The photograph of a nest, 
unusually picturesque, of the Ferruginous 
Rough-leg,in far-off Calgary, Alberta,shows, 
as taken from the ground, a huge mass, 
ensconced in the triple crotch formed by 
broken-off dead limbs at the very apex ofa 
large cottonwood tree. How, now, could 
my enthusiastic friend have photgraphed 
im situ the exquisite set ot five eggs that he 
took with a scoop, hanging by spurs and 
rope, beneath the nest? Some day, some 
genius will invent a light, rigid, simple 
apparatus, of aluminum., elevatable and 
and tiltable, which, being fastened to the 
tree trunk and used conjointly with the 
Miller climbing apparatus, will enable the 
operator, by aid of automatic focus—er and 
a marvelously simple combination of view 
finders, to photograph, effectively, the 
surface and contents of a nest into which 
he cannot even look, himself. 
The Krider’s Hawk incident above referred 
to, and many others I might give, well 
illustrate the value of marking nests of 
rare birds, at the time when eggs and ne- 
gatives are taken, ‘‘for future reference.’’ 
The negative may be spoiled, or perhaps 
the eggs were taken at dawn or at dark. 
But one can always ‘‘(pack) and come 
again.’’ A similar and equally valuable 
precaution is, to duplicate, perhaps with 
change of positions, the negative that 
registers a rare find. Among my many 
mistakes has been that of using two 
great a vertical angle, in taking views of 
eggs 7 stu in case of ground nests, in the 
grass. Why a mistake? First, because 
the point of view is unnatural; second, be- 
cause the environment of the nest cannot 
properly thus portrayed; and third, because, 
for some unexplained reason, the resulting 
negatives are not likely to be good. One 
most happy exception has been for me, the 
nest of a Prairie Horned Lark, only two 
feet from the highway wheel tracks, among 
dense three-inch rag-weeds, photographed 
with a substituted set of eggs, (the young 
having been removed for that purpose, ) 
at high noon, in brilliant light, on a windy 
day, the operator standing on a box that 
surmounted another box that rested on a 
rickety wheel-barrow. 
We may now suppose our roll of film to 
have been exhausted; and we are ready to 
develop; having learned not to let the 
factory ‘‘do the rest.’’ Admitted that the 
skilled operative might do the work better, 
we still begrudge their employers the cost, 
and we begrudge chem the fun ! 
But first, as to “‘continuous film.’’ One 
fails to see what possible ordinary advant- 
age there can be in a roll of over fifty ex- 
posures. Certainly, there can be none that 
would justity the manufacturers in charging 
an additional price,just for that continuous- 
ness. A film properly measured and autom- 
