Sometimes it’s simple. When I say, [...]]]>
Moods and metaphors are present in a lot more images than many suspect, and in many cases they’re recognized only subconsciously. Being able to induce them in the viewer is one thing, but simply noticing when the opportunity presents itself to your camera is a directly related skill.

Sometimes it’s simple. When I say, “Dawn on the beach,” you automatically get a visual impression (even if you don’t know Dawn.) Chances are, you filled in details on your own, such as the beach being empty, the sky being clear enough to see the sun, no trash, and so on. You might even have stirrings of some emotion just from the associations. Others are often much harder to define, so it may take a bit of effort to pin them down. An empty bench may speak of an unused park, abandonment, old age, the rough part of town, and countless other things, depending on what other elements are in the frame. Very few metaphorical or mood-evoking subjects stand alone; they may be enhanced or suggested by lighting and contrast, surroundings, framing, even weather conditions. One drop of water in the right place is a teardrop, evidence of rain, or even a recently-used sink.

One that few people register consciously, but virtually everyone knows instinctively, is lighting. Sunny days are very contrasty, with brilliant highlights but hard shadows. Overcast days have low contrast and no distinct shadows, but more importantly, the lighting color has gone much more blue because clouds filter out the red and yellow in sunlight – by extension, blue light seems cold to us. Alternately, light that is yellow, orange or red speaks of sunrise or sunset. We are also capable or reading light angles from the shadows, and get the same impressions.

Light plays another role, too. A subject facing into the light is optimistic, while facing away is depressing or even sinister. Harsh light is more tense, while low-contrast light is mellow. The difference in color, quality, and rendition is what makes candlelight different from streetlight, natural light different from artificial, and they all lend a different air wherever they appear. Using this, or better yet controlling it, can express different things in your images. “Wine” and “candlelight” together express intimate evenings and romance, and you’ll notice that there’s nothing else in the image at all – even the candle isn’t visible (actually, that’s not quite true, if you look close…)

While, on occasion, it is possible to offer anachronistic elements, subjects that clash with their surroundings insofar as the metaphor goes, it is usually far better to keep these in line so that the impression is strong. People can be confused by clashing elements, which leaves them unsure how to view the image, and weakens the emotional impact.

Remember that the mood evoked by an image does not have to be pleasant to be powerful, and there’s a certain appeal in photos that deny the constant ‘happy thoughts’ of the advertising that surrounds us, even conveying the idea that they are more real. The discarded condom, graffiti, and generally unkempt conditions all contribute to impression of an encounter that was less than romantic, as well as speaking volumes about the local inhabitants. A beer can, slightly crumpled, would have rounded out the concept nicely. The elements make up a story or situation in the viewer’s mind because they all have distinct associations, and while they start to appear clichéish when examined closely, we have to remember that clichés are actually made up of common elements. The more known they are, the more direct the message is to the viewer.

Recognize, too, that the angle used here wasn’t at all how I first encountered the elements; having it work in this way required making the connection and seeing that I could frame the condom against the background for a stronger feeling [and I realize as I type this that I'm deconstructing a used condom as a photo element, which is scary in itself], which needed a low shooting position, a wide-angle lens, and a high depth of field. When the metaphorical properties of some photo subject present themselves, it’s up to the photographer to know how to enhance or supplement the idea within the frame. This might even entail controlling the lighting, or returning when the conditions are more effective. Fog, for instance, almost always gets me out searching for subjects or scenes that make the best use of it.

It should come as no surprise that the expressions of people within the image convey the strongest emotions, since we relate to what others feel – this even applies to the expressions that animals have, or seem to have (this is a distinction that I’m quick to make when speaking as a naturalist, but happy to exploit as a photographer.) Human expressions are a little tricky, though. A single person among many can convey a mood for all of them, especially if they’re either the dominant person in the frame or the one showing the strongest emotion. But a single person can also trash the mood, by displaying something that counters the others too much. As examples, notice how Hillary Clinton is the only one in this image that actually shows (apparent) anxiety, but it seems to serve for everyone – cover her over and boredom seems to take over. Yet, consider the wedding photo of the first dance, where just one person in the background is yawning while everyone else looks happy. How much does that affect the impressions of the image? Such appearances of emotion might even be fleeting or misleading, so timing is also important in conveying what the photographer wants.

This is often what separates an artistic photographer from a technically proficient one (I make no claims in either direction); it’s not simply an image, but a method of directing and even manipulating the viewer to react in a chosen way. Advertising photographers use this all of the time, often to some degree of clumsiness, and such images are carefully staged. But there are different impressions from the viewer, depending on whether or not they believe the image is candid. We accept the manipulation of ad photos as typical (if perhaps crass,) but resent the idea in any image that we think is supposed to be ‘real.’ If I told you that I placed the condom in position, you would think considerably less of the image, not to mention what you’d feel about someone who would have something like that handy [I didn't, on either account, just for the record]. We appreciate the skill in finding the strong metaphor or story, but far less in staging it.

Sometimes, the metaphoric idea within the image isn’t strong enough to let it stand on its own as an artistic or evocative image, but works much better when accompanying an article or story – I use this from time to time myself, right here. The simple ideas conveyed therein help illustrate the overall tone of the writing, as well as breaking up walls of text, which tends to be more inviting to the reader (or so the theory goes.) These types of images have a wide variety of uses and do not have to be especially poignant, even though on first glance they might be only vaguely interesting. When illustrating abstract concepts, there are very few specific images that could be used, particularly to communicate the concept directly on their own, but quite a few that might complement the written expositions.

Developing the eye for these takes time, and the ability to interpret simple elements in terms of the feelings or messages they can produce in the viewer. Most photographers, I suspect, stumble across them, rather than specifically seeking images that fit a certain bill, so it becomes more a matter of studying one’s surroundings with the goal of asking, “What does this say?” Once the initial idea has presented itself, the effective photographer can then compose the image to present the mood or metaphor as distinctly as possible, hopefully creating an image that speaks those ‘thousand words’ and sparks the strong emotional reaction from the viewer. The technical aspects of wielding the camera are nothing compared to learning the artistic aspects, so don’t expect to pick this up quickly – study those images that produce strong feelings within, and try to deconstruct them to see how the visual cues evoke the emotional responses. It’s a great way to get your conscious and subconscious on speaking terms ;-)

This past summer, [...]]]> Okay, I admit it: I have no idea what the hell “yore” is. But since it’s not the season for nature photography, I’m hearkening (yeah, ditto) back to a time when it was. That I’m intending to make this an occasional habit is indicated by the ‘part one’ in the title…

This past summer, a tree alongside the house played host to a fairly common sight, which was a minor invasion of planthoppers. Gardeners usually consider these a pest, because of the damage they can do to preferred plants given adequate numbers of them, but I’m more egalitarian – it’s all grist for the mill (I’m just slamming out these ancient phrases, aren’t I?) Especially since they have an interesting relationship with another insect.

In nymph form, like the brown example at right, they display a curious ‘tail,’ which is actually their fecal matter, unused material filtered from the sap that serves as their food. While the species shown here (almost certainly Acanalonia conica, though at least one source indicates that the nymph form is green instead) displays only a simple plume reminiscent of cotton candy, some planthopper species produce long and distinctive ‘tails,’ in some cases appearing iridescent from the light diffracted through their crystalline structure. Once they become adults like the green examples here, however, things change a little bit.

In both forms, they attach themselves to plant stems with a proboscis and suck sap from the plant, largely remaining in place for longer periods of time. The adults excrete waste in liquid form, generally a drop every five to ten minutes. What the planthoppers have no use for, some ant species do, and it’s usually a matter of time before an ant colony discovers a planthopper colony and the milking begins. As the planthopper squeezes out a deuce, it usually remains attached to their hind end for a minute or two, and if the ants are on schedule, they will come by and suck up the offering, using this as their own food.

I first witnessed this one evening as I was examining the trees by flashlight, while the camera was not in hand. This, naturally enough, was a challenge, so I returned the next day and set up a rig to capture this behavior as it occurred. This is easier said than done, since my planthopper subject here is about 8 mm long, so I was working in fairly high magnification. And that means that depth-of-field is quite short, so the range of sharp focus is tiny. The slightest breeze would move the supporting branch, carrying my subject well out of focus, but even when perfectly steady, the planthopper could be in focus but the ant, approaching ever so slightly from the side, would not be. Moreover, the planthoppers usually chose spots under a leaf to retain some shade, and I can’t say that I blamed them, because I was sweating buckets getting these daytime pics. But that shade also meant reducing light and contrast. Coupling this with the small aperture being used to get the highest depth-of-field, the light was reduced so much that the longer shutter speeds to compensate meant that the hyperactive ants, which never held still even while drinking, would be blurred out. So this also required strobe units to provide enough light for a fast shutter, offset to the side for better light characteristics. This occasionally leads to its own problems.

Okay, quick explanation here. Small aperture means more depth-of-field, but less light – this results in underexposure unless you lengthen the time the shutter is open (usually producing motion blur) or add some light from a strobe. Now, the light from a strobe drops off exponentially, in inverse-square proportions, meaning at twice a given distance, your photo subject receives only 1/4 the amount of light; at four times the distance, only 1/16th. When working with close subjects only a dozen centimeters or so from the camera, it’s very easy for the light to drop off to almost nothing on the background leaves, even when they’re little more than a hand’s length further away. This light falloff, and the small apertures, are what produces the dark backgrounds in so many insect photos even when taken in daylight. To compensate, you can add another strobe unit specifically for the background, or use light diffusers that allow the background to receive more light while your subject receives it only peripherally, balancing out the affect.

None of this is very portable, and usually requires not only a tripod, but an extra bracket for the main strobe, and perhaps a stand for the secondary – not something that’s going to work well with moving subjects. That’s why I could even accomplish this with the planthoppers, who obligingly stayed put even when I loomed close, counting on their camouflage for protection. Ants don’t seem to worry about anything and constantly ran back and forth no matter what my actions, but they presented their own challenge anyway. Shiny black bodies are difficult to photograph, since it takes a certain light angle to capture detail properly; otherwise you get very little to distinguish, as seen above. A good softbox diffuses the light and makes ant bodies stand out better, but even small examples of these are bulky and don’t lend themselves to use within the branches of a tree.

So sometimes I cheat a bit, and set up my own conditions. Here, a nymph was collected on a leaf and carried over to a table on the porch, where the leaf was placed in a clamp (actually a “third hand” soldering rig, a huge help for macro shooters) and the lighting adjusted as needed. Even when the nymph wanted to move around, all I had to do was slide the rig along the table to keep it centered, and rotate as needed to get the facial angle I wanted. This allows for nice detail shots, helpful for both identification and biological uses, while still remaining a fairly natural setting. That’s one of the benefits to shooting macro: an appropriate “set” can be a few centimeters across and doesn’t require a team of gaffers.

If you were paying attention, you have noticed the difference in eye color seen in these images. This is not indicative of different species (though the pale green one two pics up certainly is,) but instead different times of day. For reasons I have yet to determine, planthoppers (and other insect species) have eyes that change color when it gets dark, which means the red-eyed examples show that I was actually shooting at night. This can be more useful than you might have thought, partially because of the difference in appearance or behavior of your subjects, but also because the breeze has often died down and the plants are holding still better. Not to mention that there’s no longer any chance of sunburn or sunstroke, which I figured we could all use the reminder of right now when the weather’s cold.

The first is Saturday [...]]]> Just thought you should know that I’m offering two new seminars in March 2012, in partnership with North Carolina Botanical Gardens in Chapel Hill, NC. Since I know you’ve been dying to meet me in person, this is the best opportunity to do so since my handlers will be absent…

The first is Saturday March 10, from 9:30 AM to 11:30 AM, called Nature Photography: Within Your Grasp. I like the timing of this one, since it falls right at the start of National Wildlife Week. Aimed at all ages and skill levels, this seminar is about approaches, goals, and what to expect from nature and wildlife photography. No, two hours isn’t going to gain you mastery, but it does serve to give the right perspective, plus you have the chance to pick my brain if you like. Indoors, no materials necessary, but I’ll send you home with some handouts and reference materials.

The next is Saturday March 24, from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM, called Spring Garden Photography Workshop. This one starts off in the classroom, providing tips on approaches, lighting, framing, making the most of conditions, and working with small subjects. Then we move out into the garden itself to try out our techniques, and I’ll be available for questions and guidance. I do a lot of shooting at NCBG (like the image at left,) and it’s full of opportunities, so this should be a productive seminar.

Both of these are held at North Carolina Botanical Gardens and registration is handled through them – click here for details (on the sidebar.) They are not appearing on the website yet, but I have been told they’re coming out with the next newsletter – in the meantime, you can refer to their PDF linked here (I’m on the second page, third column.) They also have a lot of other offerings, so be sure to check out everything for more interesting things to do. It’s a highly recommended stop when in Chapel Hill. You can also click on the ‘North Carolina Botanical Gardens’ tag below for more posts regarding the garden.

Just in case you’re in the Triangle area of NC and haven’t noticed this, I offer individual photo instruction as well.

Hope to see you there! And there’s more in the works, so watch for further updates as they get pinned down!

I mentioned earlier that I would include a tutorial on removing noise, and so I have: it can [...]]]> There have been a couple of things I’ve been working on and trying to update, and I finally have them available, so this post is simply a short list of new things available on the site.

I mentioned earlier that I would include a tutorial on removing noise, and so I have: it can be found here. Bear in mind that this is limited to noise from bad sensor pixels, the kind that shows up in many images, especially low-light or long exposure shots. The other kind of noise, usually multi-colored speckling from low light or high ISO, is a very involved thing to remove, and the tutorial would be much longer, but I still may get to that someday.

I might have to start teaching my students directly about the next one, which is how to effectively resize an image. I’m still amazed at how few people understand this, and how many websites I see where the images load slowly because no one knows how to make their images web-sized. You can save a lot of download time and server load by making web and e-mail photos the right size, and get better results from your prints too.

Last year I provided instructions on making a year-long guide to rise and set times for the sun and moon, and I have updated it for 2012 (formatting and leap year stuff.) Call me optimistic, but I didn’t cut it off after December 21st, either. It’s admittedly a bit fussy, but you only have to do it once and then have a quick reference for the sun and moon for the year, which you’re going to use frequently to get those great landscapes and ‘golden hour‘ shots, right?

And I figure I’ll just mention this here, rather than make another post about it. You may recall my taking Cecil Adams of “The Straight Dope” to task on his wishy-washy answer to the question, “Does god Exist?“, and apparently I wasn’t the only one. Yesterday, he responded to one of his detractors in a disparaging way, claiming that he really was making the point of how weak the Cosmological Argument is. I’ll be blunt: bullshit. If you’ve ever read the details of some of his answers, you’ll know that he’s more than capable of getting past the appearance of importance to deal with the crucial details, and if anything, his advisory staff is even better. Even the Straight Dope Message Board handed him his ass over the reply, which is no doubt what prompted the revisit. That he couldn’t do so without both shameless backpedaling and several petty digs is just a lack of character.