Walkabout » Photography

A year goes by fast

Al Denelsbeck — Fri, 11 May 2012 03:46:38 +0000

Last year about this time, I published a post about my little friends the fishing spiders, whom I call ‘friends’ not because we hang out and hammer down Pepsi together, but because my first photo sale featured one as a subject. Lately, a few have been making themselves obvious, clearly begging to be featured again, so who am I to crush their little spirits? And I say with all honesty, it’s not that I’m avoiding bunny rabbits and ducklings, it’s that I simply have not seen anything cute at all. But still, I know some people don’t want to be greeted with spiders all the time, so I’m including the detailed pics below the break.

A little over a week ago, while staging the photo for the previous post, I espied something that can occasionally be found at the edges of ponds and streams that have plenty of reeds, seen to the left: the molted exoskeleton of a fishing spider. Spiders, and most insects, shed their ‘skins’ as they grow larger, splitting the chitin and squeezing out backwards, and then usually hiding for a while since their new exoskeleton is soft, leaving them much more vulnerable to predators. The translucent molt is left attached to whatever surface was handy, usually mistaken for a dead insect, but it’s instead a clue to be watching for the former owner nearby. When I sat down to take this image, I soon spotted the culprit hiding in the tall grasses. With a stick, I carefully flushed him out, whereupon he panicked and scampered for cover practically underneath me, but then froze and held perfectly still for some really tight closeups.

Really tight. The cephalothorax, which is the circular head and upper body where the legs attach, was about 10mm wide, making the entire spider with legs spread not quite able to stretch across my palm. I could have made the image even bigger, which would have shown that the faint smudge on the eye right of center is actually some imperfection or injury. This one is genus Dolomedes, but I haven’t pinned down an exact species yet. They are typically found on rocks, logs, and debris at the edge of the water, and may be seen with their forelegs or pedipalps (those miniature ‘legs’ seen here tucked under the mouth) actually resting on the water, sensing the ripples from potential prey. The hairs on their feet help them spread out their weight against the surface tension of water and permits them to run across the surface as if it were solid, even as large as my specimen here. But they can also dive under the surface effortlessly, both to seek food and to hide from danger, which is very cool in itself.

One might suppose that they would only be seen near water sources; one would be wrong. They also hunt very capably as the wolf spiders do, wandering through the grasses and brush, so they can easily be found far from ponds and streams, far enough to suspect that they might never have seen such in their lives. For instance, the river where I got the photo above is over a kilometer away, and the nearest water source that might feature regular life within is at least a few hundred meters. But when I looked in a bucket of rainwater aside the porch today, the ‘drowned’ spider within made me pause and take a closer look.

That silvery color is a bit of a giveaway. It’s caused by air adhering to the fine hairs along the body, and forms an attendant oxygen supply when the spider dives, since they breathe through spiracles along the sides of their abdomen. Nudging the stray bit of grass that the spider clung to confirmed that my subject wanted to be down there, and in fact could have easily escaped the bucket by simply climbing the grass. This one is considerably smaller than the former, only about 30mm in leg spread, and who can say how often it might have encountered any such body of water before? Yet it took to it instantly, and demonstrated that it was capable of switching between being submerged and skating along the surface as needed. This may not be just an opportunity for seafood on Fridays, but might also serve to get the spider out of the sun during the heat of midday.

A quick poke enticed my friend to demonstrate its surface abilities too, where a few legs maintained its position atop the water while a few others check out the bit of debris under its body, ensuring that nothing tasty was in there. It’s easy to see the distortion caused by the water bending under the spider’s weight, with two legs angled downwards more to break through the surface. Yes, there’s a foreleg missing and no, that wasn’t my fault (I told you, they’re my friends!) My model here was cooperative enough for me to transfer it into my macro aquarium and shoot some ‘underwater’ detail images.

If you’re interested in shooting underwater arthropods and haven’t created a macro aquarium yet, what are you waiting for? It makes things so much easier, from providing a nice clear glass surface to photograph through, to allowing plenty of lighting options, and keeping your subject in a limited environment to prevent them from getting too far away or being obscured by suspended sediment, and even letting you control the background appearance. Even with the short depth-of-field of macro work, whatever is behind the aquarium (or within it) will produce blotches and color in the background, so sometimes it helps to put something a little more natural-looking behind the tank – in this case, the front lawn instead of the white bucket in which I had first spotted the spider. Instead of direct flash from a strobe on the camera, this is natural light, coming from above and giving an overall more realistic setting. I actually tried to obtain some shots of my subject feeding, by making a quick trip down to a pond and collecting a variety of aquatic prey – water beetles, dragonfly nymphs, and tadpoles – but the spider decided to leave the aquarium before partaking of my largesse.

And so, one last shot, returning to my specimen from the beginning of the post.

This is, once again, the molted exoskeleton of the larger spider down at the river – my finger provides a little scale. The clublike pedipalps dominate the frame, strongly indicating that this one was a male, and the chelicerae (“fangs”) are visible above them. Just like snakes, even the caps over the eyes are shed, but this particular species splits the exoskeleton horizontally just above the leg joints, so the top of the cephalothorax is out of focus to the left. Since most arthropods molt only when they feel safe, I have yet to actually witness this in action, but rest assured I’ll provide a post when it happens. And I’ll give you fair warning, too.

One good reason

Al Denelsbeck — Fri, 04 May 2012 13:42:43 +0000

Did I mention that, to be a nature photographer, you had to get up early? No one ever looks back on their life and says, “I wish I spent more time in bed.”

Okay, wait, that’s probably a tad inaccurate. It likely happens a few hundred thousand times daily. That doesn’t make it a bad proverb, though.

Okay, yes it does. But ignoring all that, if you want to get interesting nature photos, get your lazy ass out of bed anyway. And be aware that the sun moves very quickly when you’re counting on backlighting, and may simply stop throwing light through your chosen subject even as you’re trying to focus. Seriously, I had to abandon another, even more photogenic leaf as it dropped into shadow again. But I guess I can’t complain.

Okay, yes I can, and frequently do. Cuss a lot while shooting, too (and, for that matter, at all other times.) Maybe I should quit here…

Pride

Al Denelsbeck — Tue, 01 May 2012 19:23:04 +0000

Yes, I know this appears to be a crass copy of the pose seen here, but unless that otter is actually eating a vole, I’d hazard that the evidence leans towards coincidence.

I had earlier spotted the same species jumping spider as this one, atop a log and showing off its vivid rust-colored abdomen, but it was so shy that I never got remotely close enough to photograph – the same can be said for some vivid green tiger beetles. But this one held still quite cooperatively, and it wasn’t until I was looking at the magnified image in the viewfinder that I tumbled to why. Jumping spiders are just like kids in this regard: give them a treat and they’ll cooperate for a while.

I went down to the river specifically to stage a shot for a post, which will be coming shortly, but got several images unrelated to that topic, so there’s at least one other post coming from the trip too. And if you think this one’s creepy, you ain’t seen nothing yet. This one’s cute in comparison.

There isn’t always a complete answer, part one…

Al Denelsbeck — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:25:28 +0000

For those of you who have been hanging on the edge of your seat, checking thrice daily to see if I’ve offered an update, I apologize for keeping you in suspense. Actually, no I don’t – suspense is good for you, and anxiety strengthens the heart. Well known fact.

Anyway, I mentioned trying to follow-up on the attack snail, and I did; in my online searches I came across the name, repeatedly actually, of Kathryn E. Perez, Ph.D., who has published a fair amount about land snails. She had also done postdoctoral work at two of the nearby universities, Duke and UNC, so it seemed likely that she was directly familiar with the species in the area. I dropped her an e-mail and got a prompt response – yet, not a definitive answer. Here’s how that goes sometimes:

First, while I did several direct measurements of the snail while I had it (guided by a PDF on snail identification) and got lots of images of my subject, I didn’t pay attention to the umbilicus area. Snail shells form in a spiral, of course, but they may do a flat spiral, or they may ‘stack up’ a bit making a cone, which would leave an empty space on the ‘underside’ of the spiral. The umbilicus is the axis around which the spiral twirls, and I paid attention to the top side in detail, but simply never thought to take note of the underside, which would have narrowed down the species choices a bit. The other aspect that would have given more clues was the lip of the aperture, which is the opening of the shell itself. In this case, I got a few measurements and examined it closely, but the snail wasn’t cooperating, and simply refused to retract fully so the aperture was unobstructed. What I have is a tentative identification of Neohelix albolabris, with a possibility of it being either Mesodon thyroidus, Mesodon zaletus, or Allogona profunda. These are all members of the Polygyridae family, so at least I’d gotten that correct, even if I copied a typo when relating that for the initial post.

As for the burning sensation when I contacted it? Dr. Perez confirmed that many snails have such defenses, also including yucky-tasting mucus (I know that shocks most of us who imagine snails to be succulent and fruity,) but it appears not to be known if this species in particular sports such a defense. In fact, from the dearth of information I found about this on my own, this topic hasn’t been a matter of too much study. I don’t feel bad about not finding this, since the mention of the chemical composition of snail mucus that Dr. Perez forwarded me was buried in a scientific paper.

I mentioned this before in the Amateur Naturalist series of posts, but we’re still finding out a lot of details about species as we go – biology and taxonomy are not as well-explored as we might believe. Among the smaller and more prolific members of the animal kingdom, there are such large numbers and subtle divisions that biologists are still slogging through them all, so it’s possible to come up against questions where the answer either isn’t known, or is still kind of vague. Which means that if my finger turns mauve and drops off tomorrow, I may be the catalyst for a new avenue of research, possibly resulting in a toxic snail snot being named after me. So there’s that to look forward to.

Dr. Perez provided more info than expected, especially now as colleges approach final exams and the workload gets heinous, so I’ll take the opportunity to thank her once again, publicly. There is often a disconnect between the ‘scientific community’ and information readily available to the public, even in this age of electronic publication; working scientists often don’t have the time or funding to create general education works, and most papers are too specific and dry to attract a serious consumer market. I’ve had very good luck contacting universities with questions, but am always a little circumspect, since the people within these departments have their own work to do, often quite a bit. This is also coupled with the fact that many people specialize in a narrow field, and finding one that knows your topic may take some searching. So while I don’t want to encourage anyone to immediately contact their local universities with all questions, and will stress that numerous answers are available online with a bit of effort, sometimes this is still a worthwhile avenue of information.

I’ll use the idea of special efforts among working scientists to educate the general public as a springboard for the next post, which is unrelated enough that I decided not to pursue it in just one ;-)

That’s 154 to you and me

Al Denelsbeck — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:00:22 +0000

Source: Hubblesite.org

On this date 22 years ago, the Hubble Space Telescope was borne into space on Shuttle Discovery, the one that recently did its last flyby over DC (well, okay, it had help) before delivery to the Udvar-Hazy center. The Hubble will be retired soon, and while this is viewed with some disappointment by everyone who has even a faint interest in astronomy, it’s not like anyone can complain. The images alone have been stunning, revealing a universe that is fascinating in its complexity and variety – but this is a little of a mixed blessing, too. I’m not alone in wondering how breathtaking it would be to travel to some of these cosmic locations like the Cats Eye Nebula (NGC 6543) above, diving through its diaphanous bubbles like a stormchaser circling the eye of a hurricane, but let’s face it – we’re virtually guaranteed never to be able to do something of this sort. The distances are just too vast [you are required by law to use the word "vast" when talking about space], the energy and time required far beyond the reach of our human efforts. And we are restricted to one vantage point as well, save for three-dimensional renditions by clever programmers. Yet, we also have to temper this with the knowledge that getting too close to some of these distant neighbors would be, as they say, “bad.” We’re not getting these light shows at this distance because of a laser in a smoky disco.

Yet, being the source of pretty pictures is the superficial way to look at Hubble, like judging someone by their shoes. We have obtained a tremendous amount of information from these optical observations as well, such as refining the measurements that led to the concept of “dark energy.” In a nutshell: after the initial acceleration of all the mass in the universe from a very small point, gravity should have been slowing things down, dragging its metaphorical feet against the coasting bike of space-time (no, I’ll never be asked to write popular science articles.) Instead, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and something must be feeding energy into this. I could have continued the space-time bike simile by comparing it to going downhill, but that acceleration is caused be gravity and I’m now confusing the hell out of even myself. Let’s let someone else do this (autoplay video at that link – I wish people would stop doing crap like that.)

Hubble has also contributed a lot to our knowledge of planetary formation, as well. The photos that I highlight in this post disproved a prediction by astronomers that planetary discs would typically remain hidden from our view by surrounding dust clouds. Hubble has even imaged a planet itself around another star, something that is remarkably hard to accomplish:

There’s a little bit of trivia that is worth knowing, if you’ll permit me to return to the idea of Hubble as a camera (just try and stop me!) The bare truth is, every camera, every method that we have of producing images from light, fudges things a bit. Film emulsions contain metals that change their nature when exposed to light, forming crystals, and digital sensors generate a difference in electrical charge. But neither of these can determine the difference between wavelengths except in a very broad range, mostly what we call visible light – in other words, they cannot differentiate color. To accomplish this, they must filter light through substances that permit only specific wavelengths; in film, that’s the emulsion base, a colored gel in which the metals are suspended, and in digital, it’s a membrane over top of the digital sensor. It’s no different for the Hubble Space Telescope, which has colored filters that can be interchanged over its own digital sensors. Every color image from Hubble is a composite of several strictly monochrome images sent back to earth, edited to reintroduce the color, and in most cases enhanced to increase the contrasts between them. A typical computer display does not even remotely approach the range of light and color that our eyes can see, so to provide a better idea of the subtle differences within any photographic target of the HST, the images must be altered. It’s no different than any image I produce myself and put here on the site. This article from Sky & Telescope magazine, used with permission by Hubblesite.org, explains it in more detail.

And finally, I refer you back to this post from two years ago, which contains the video made from the Ultra Deep Field photos, simply because it’s one of the coolest animations ever made. Yeah, you might have seen it already – so? Watch it again. It’s a great dose of perspective, in both directions. While it is easy to feel insignificant in comparison to the unfathomable distances involved, there’s the other side of the coin: we figured out how to actually see this. Damn clever little apes, aren’t we?

But then, I guess we would think that…

Back atcha

Al Denelsbeck — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:42:50 +0000

Last year, I did a post on macro photography that featured some detail pics of a Giant Water Bug, also called an Electric Light Bug but better known by the scientific name Belostoma flumineum. This post totally rocked the internet, and by that I mean, was just another post on just another blog, probably read by five people. My definition of “going viral” seems to be, “really really small and not moving.”

Yet, it garnered the attention of a couple of biology students who were doing a project on the species, and they asked permission to use the images therein. I’m virtually always cool with that, since it wasn’t for profit, was a good cause, and proper attribution was given. I’ve just been notified that their project website is now online, so in return, I’ll send you over there. It’s a nice collection of information on the species, certainly more than I usually impart, and if most websites were as clean and well-organized as theirs, there would be far less strife in the world. I also want to note that this is a portion of the larger site devoted to student projects from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, known as MultipleOrganisms.net (that’s organisms, don’t get excited,) also worth the visit.

I have to add in a small note: When I remarked about the snail that might have attacked me with acid a few days ago, I had spent a fair amount of time doing internet research on snail species, eventually finding the name of someone who seemed to know quite a bit about snails. I set her name aside to contact as a side project, and now realized that she’s a biology professor at the same university, even linked on that MultipleOrganisms site. Small world, but now I’m obligated to follow this up. I’ll let you know what I find.

And good luck with the project, guys!

Good morning!

Al Denelsbeck — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:53:25 +0000

I thought I was pretty fortunate to discover a few tiny praying mantises on the azalea bushes out front yesterday, until I went out this morning right after sunrise when the dew still hadn’t cleared…

If you look closely at the top pic, you’ll see a large dewdrop adhering right between the mantis’ eyes. Which means, if you look at the image to the left, that forward bump by the antennae isn’t the other eye on the far side, but that dewdrop again.

My model here is about 20mm long (less than an inch.) These were taken with the Vivitar bellows and the Vivitar 135 2.8, Metz 40MZ-3i strobe on-camera direct (top) and off-camera above subject with Lumiquest Big Bounce diffuser (bottom). Oh, and a Canon 300D/Digital Rebel – yes, the first one. Now do you think you really need the latest and bestest? In fact, everything used today except for the tripod was bought used – and the tripod’s fourteen years old…

Okay, maybe I don’t do “cute”

Al Denelsbeck — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:41:22 +0000

I’ll let you in on a little secret. No, it’s not that I can’t photograph cute animals – that’s pretty damn obvious. This has to do with book reviews. You see, I spend more time on the illustrating image of the book cover than I do on the review itself, largely because I get a concept in my head and try to produce that image, which may or may not work.

In the case of my most recent review (which is the previous post,) naturally the image had to involve bugs. My first attempts showed that a scale problem was evident, but I also missed a rare opportunity. While I was unprepared with the camera, an unidentified pollinator hovered over the book for a moment while it sat on the lawn, attracted by the bright yellow color. This would have been a fantastic convergence not just of an insect for the cover, but a demonstration of the simple instructions for finding food within a bug’s brain, based on certain colors – what a great illustration for the book! But it was gone before I could bring the camera to bear, and I waited (twice!) out in the yard for a long time to catch a repeat performance, in vain.

So I needed a more cooperative insect. But getting anything that would show up against the size of a hardcover book and still be recognizable, especially in the size constraints of the post formatting, required a big bug. I had in mind an Eyed Click Beetle, but they’re usually not found until much later in the season; nevertheless, I took a short excursion to the local riverside forest to see what I could find under bark and rotten logs. Pretty quickly, I found a collection of Patent-leather Beetles (Odontotaenius disjunctus,) which are typically 35mm long or so, probably the best I was going to do. Aside from their size, the most distinctive thing about them is the noise that they make when disturbed, by rubbing their wings against their abdomen. I managed to record this and amplify it a bit, so you get to listen to the sound while looking at this breathtaking portrait below of one of my photo subjects.

While on this quest, I also found the salamander at top, which I believe is in the appealingly-named Slimy Salamander complex (Plethodon glutinosus.) This would have to count as the cutest thing I found this trip, and believe me, I’m sparing you the photos of the Patent-leather grubs I found along with the adult beetles. My salamander model up there is about 25mm long, and much more cooperative than the beetles were, willing to hold reasonably still for a few shots with the softbox for lighting.

And I found a larger specimen of a local land snail, though determining the species has proven quite difficult – the best I can say is it appears to be from the family Polgyridae, though this is little more than a guess. In my efforts to capture my large friend here, I had to nudge the body near the foot to get it to relinquish its grip on the branch; immediately afterward, my finger started burning slightly but distinctly, as if I’d had contact with weak battery acid. It took two tries wiping it off before this ceased, and I’m quite sure this was not my imagination. So far, I have not determined that any species nearby is capable of exuding a strong irritant (some aquatic species actually use sulfuric acid as a defense, but they’re definitely a distant relation to my capture, being sea slugs and nudibranchs,) but I’m still looking. Naturally, this made my handling for this photo session a little more circumspect. I mean, when someone is asked, “How’d you get those scars?” who wants to confess that they got on the wrong side of a snail?

But we’re not out of the woods yet – in fact, my next subject was found very soon after arrival, just off of the path that a trio of fisherfolk had only moments before traipsed down without noticing. Northern Watersnakes (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) are curiously massive reptiles, typically about a meter long but very thick-bodied, with larger heads than most species found in the area. My friend here was remarkably docile, holding the exact same pose while I not only moved to several vantage points, but switched to the strobe for lighting as well.

They’re fairly common around streams and ponds in the area, usually seen basking to raise their body temperature since most rivers are fairly brisk this time of year. They’re nonvenomous and can’t hurt anyone, though they’re distinctly defensive for snakes, very quick to bite – this is in contrast to at least half the species in the area, including the Black Rat Snakes that can get over two meters in length, which usually just struggle and poop. Northern Watersnake’s teeth are quite small and the worst anyone will get is a series of blood spots.

Yet, people are notoriously bad about knowing or remembering anything about their local snakes, so most water snake species get killed in the belief that they are either Cottonmouth Water Moccasins (which are not found in central North Carolina) or Copperheads (which are, but are much rarer than water snakes and significantly different in appearance.) I have some basic advice: if you can’t tell the difference and can’t leave them the fuck alone, stop going into areas where wild animals live. Stay indoors, watch TV, whatever. The only situations where anyone is bitten by a venomous snake is where the snake was provoked – snakes can’t eat people and don’t know what hate is; they simply want to be left in peace. This takes far less effort and risk than trying to kill them.

My subject here finally reached the limit of its patience when I tried placing my sandaled foot alongside for a scale photo – it took a quick shot at my foot, pretty half-heartedly I must admit, then simply slid off purposefully but still not quickly and ducked into the water. Yes, this means the encounter with the snail provided more actual harm to me. Despite appearances in this image, I’ve looked closely at the originals and those reddish marks along the jaw are almost certainly natural coloring, and not blood from a recent meal (it’s rare that snakes even draw blood from their prey, since they swallow their meals whole.) Also, quite some time back I featured an image ostensibly of an Eastern Cottonmouth Water Moccasin, but that I’m now fairly certain was simply another example of my friend here. I’ve never seen a Cottonmouth in the wild, and in my defense that was the identification that the zoo provided on the enclosure, but the markings on the face are not consistent – I think they simply had both species in the enclosure and one not marked. Yeah, two and a half years for a correction – that’s still better than the catholic church…

Finally, Sunday morning The Girlfriend and I sat out on the porch and watched our resident Five-lined skink (genus Plestiodon) venturing out on the steps. That afternoon, The Girlfriend came in and remarked about how bold the skink was getting – she had perched on the brick edge at shelf height right alongside the door, and hadn’t budged when TG had passed. I fetched the camera and, sure enough, the skink stayed in place for several frames at a very close range, even allowing me to remove the thermometer transmitter that serves as the backdrop in this image. I have never seen a skink this complacent about close approaches, and have no idea why it occurred. I also suspect it’s a different one than we’d been seeing, since that previous (linked) shot had to be obtained with a focal length of 320mm, and she disappeared every time I made any distinct movement. But hey, I’ll take the opportunity to get those nice detailed closeups any time I’m offered.

And another thing…

Al Denelsbeck — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:00:11 +0000

First off, even if you don’t like spiders, you really need to check out this video, an extremely well done collection of jumping spider behaviors. This comes courtesy of The Dragonfly Woman. Even though I’m embedding it here, I encourage you to go to the source for all of the details about it. While watching the clips of male-male interaction, I was reminded irresistibly of elementary school fights – they had much the same ratio of posturing to action…

I reached that website through another, Arizona Writer, who also provided another link. When I did the Amateur Naturalist series, I pointed out that, with insects (that’s part one, and to be more accurate/pedantic/anal, it should have been arthropoda,) it was actually possible to discover either a new species or a new behavior. The details in the above video tell that some of the behavior seen within had not before been seen; this post tells how an amateur naturalist discovered a previously unknown species of jumping spider. The phylum of arthropods is huge, hundreds of thousands of different species, and their habitats are sometimes very limited, so yes, keep your eyes open. Bugguide.net can help a lot to identify what you have found, but some of the participants have been far snottier than necessary, so be warned.

Meanwhile, I’ve been keeping an eye on the local Red-shouldered Hawks, but it’s gotten more difficult. The female has built the nest up a little more so she’s often obscured by twigs around the edge, and a few tiny branches right near the nest produced far too much foliage – most of my lines of sight are blocked, and the nest remains almost perpetually in shade. Yesterday evening, as the sun was low and the wind was blowing fiercely, I fired off a few dozen frames attempting to catch her when the leaves moved aside and the light broke through, but the light never reached her position – they knew what they were doing in choosing that location. The photo at left, while still a crop from a larger frame (the best I can achieve right now with the 170-500mm lens,) shows the conditions I’m attempting to thwart, while the image below is a full-resolution portion of the same frame; you can see the female’s head turned to the right, beak slightly open. It’s obvious I won’t see any nice views of her feeding the young when they’ve hatched unless I manage to get up a nearby tree, but if I have my timing right I might catch the early fledging behavior and first flights. I have no climbing gear (and not even a ladder right now) so the idea of just getting up a tree for a better vantage is easier said than done, and I might simply find that my views from there are no better than on the ground (having to deal with the foliage of the tree I’d be within, as well.) We’ll see what happens.

It’s a bargain!

Al Denelsbeck — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:28:08 +0000

Every once in a while this topic gets brought up again in my mind, and I just feel the need to put some of it down.

It is no surprise that, as a photographer, I notice the countless people who want to get some kind of reduced rate on photographic services – and because of this, I may be mistaken when I perceive it to be extremely common. It certainly doesn’t help that I peruse Craigslist fairly frequently. Most common are the pleas for a cheaper wedding photographer, someone to just “take a few pics and put them on a CD,” but also prevalent are the searches for a photography student to “build their portfolio” and provide services on a TFP deal – this means “Time For Prints,” or basically a trade, the model’s valuable time and experience can be compensated by the photographer providing free prints, or nowadays a CD of images. In exchange, the photographer can use those images as marketing or stock of their own.

For some reason, I never see anyone seeking out a medical student to diagnose their illness, or an auto mechanic to trade repair services for the opportunity to have worked on some classic car. Yet it seems very common for people seeking photographers. I have been approached myself on a couple of occasions, but have only fallen once for this little tactic. It occurs to me that perhaps someone may benefit from hearing the various reasons why such appeals aren’t all that appealing.

Let’s assume that I’m a professional wedding photographer. This means that I not only have a decent camera and lenses, but several of each, because equipment can fail at the worst times. And the lenses aren’t those cute little things that come with the average camera kit, because the quality and properties of those aren’t going to produce competitive results – and yes, since I’m in business for myself, I’m going to keep ‘competition’ very firmly in mind. But, if I’m smart, I’m also going to keep a couple of other things in mind, like the overhead of the business itself, which includes not just the equipment, but the support network of wedding expectations, which means editing suite, computer storage space, the services of a decent photo printer (no, not some consumer inkjet piece of shit, but a lab service,) an account with album wholesalers, a knowledgeable assistant, and let’s not forget the business insurance and advertising, neither of which is cheap. Unless I really love the demands of wedding photography, I’m also going to want to make a little scratch for myself while I’m at it – that I pay my own income taxes on as well. Health insurance package for the self-employed? Yeah, those are cheap, too…

I don’t work for just those three to six hours of the wedding and reception – I’m busy in advance, meeting with clients and hashing out what they want (often for several hours,) and perhaps either renting or cleaning the tux. I’m checking all of the equipment and backups, cleaning it, charging batteries, packing lights, and making sure everything is ready to go, plus using my own vehicle for all of this (gas and repairs and insurance.) Then following the event, I’m picking through hundreds of images and selecting the best, putting together proofs and albums, and maintaining all of the necessary records of a small business, plus making it all look snazzy for the customer. I might have several events on any given weekend in the high season, but not a hell of a lot during the week, and virtually nothing during the winter. Yet, I’d better be around to answer the phone and schedule meetings during that season, since that’s when people are planning.

My costs are all up front, from equipment to advertising to processing costs to travel, with the exception of a deposit. I’m not getting paid until after the honeymoon and the proofs have been reviewed and the subsequent prints are done – and then the happy couple finally schedule the last meeting (that means usually four trips just to see the clients, and perhaps four to the lab, depending on proofing methods.) This might mean settlement comes nine months after first contact, and if I’m doing any kind of decent business, this is what every client is doing, so I’m continually spending and waiting for the reimbursement.

And, I’d better have experience, because that’s what people want from a photographer – otherwise the guests could handle it, right? And that means lots of time learning the trade, from getting good results consistently (and being a bit creative) to knowing how weddings work and what shots everyone wants. And the part that no one ever thinks about, which is knowing how to handle people and work with them, producing nice poses and honest smiles so the shots don’t look like cardboard cutouts pasted in front of a church postcard. Not to mention that very few wedding clients are models, but I’d better make them look as much like one as possible. If you think this is a minor thing, try it sometime. How often have you shown off a great photo only to have the person in it disappointed over how they look (and they always looks like that!) Very few people want accuracy.

I also feel the need to point out that, while weddings are stressful for the happy couple (and often the parents,) it’s only a little less so for the photographer. People want this moment to be perfect, and very few wedding photographers that I’ve known have no stories of unhappy clients. I’ve only done such on the side, and vividly recall the couple who scheduled a last minute wedding in the week after christmas in a tiny cinder-block church, then didn’t like the color cast of the images. You may already be aware that fluorescent bulbs and camera flashes are two different colors, so when shooting in a church using fluorescent lights, the flash-lit portions won’t match those areas lit by ambient light (like the background.) I was smart enough to throw a color filter on the flash unit, since there was no way I could shoot with only the weak indoor light, and counted on the lab to tweak the color cast back to neutral. But the filter wasn’t a perfect match for the fluorescents, and the lab did a poor job on the proofs. Somehow, naturally, this was my fault for shooting with three days notice and a nice low price that did not include a rack of extra lights (and see the rest of the story at bottom.)

But hey, after setting my prices and worrying about whether I’ll have enough clients with every friend who’s ever produced a “good shot” getting into the game, now I’m supposed to drop my prices for the client for… what, exactly? Because they know lots of people getting married and will provide lots of referrals? Because all they want are “just a few” shots? (Wanna know what the difference is between “just a few” and a whole wedding? One, maybe two hour’s worth of time out of the whole affair. Seriously, is someone going to line up the key parts of the ceremony, first dance, bouquet toss, and cake cutting all at once so I can be out of there faster?) Because all I’m going to do is burn a CD? Because the client is going to pay promptly after the wedding, or even (a ha ha) up front?

Beach weddings with the lifeguard and power poles in the background also aren't going in my portfolio

Wedding photography runs on referrals, and on people being made to look special in their photos of the event. It doesn’t matter how many people anyone shows their discount pics to, if those images don’t look impressive, I’m not getting the referral, so even if relaxing my standards made much difference in the time and effort spent, I’d be taking a bigger hit than just the discount. Most likely, the only business I would get from discount packages is even more discount packages. I don’t even put the home or basic weddings in my portfolio – I put the big, elaborate and decorated shots in there, because that’s what every bride imagines, even if she knows she’s not going to have it. And if I book a wedding, I’m committed, even when a much better offer comes along. Sign a contract for the new home portrait sitting, next wedding, and children’s photos, and we’ll talk.

There’s also the common idea that “all I want is a CD,” which is somehow supposed to be easier. Yes indeed, some of the money wedding photographers make is off of the subsequent prints, so dumping this aspect means simply reducing profit even more – yet, nobody is going to want to see the unedited RAW files on that CD, are they? How many know the framing differences between 5×7, 8×10, and 11×14 prints, and how they should be subsequently cropped? Oh, I need to provide all of these on that CD too? That’s even more work than a print order, save the trips to the lab (which is often consolidated with other orders anyway.) A CD is a onetime sale – nothing further comes from it – and in contract terms this is called, “All rights;” it carries a hefty additional fee.

The digital revolution dropped the costs, because “you don’t have to pay for film anymore”? Don’t make me laugh. Digital cameras are a lot more expensive than their film counterparts, and require more support in the form of computing power, digital editing suite, and storage – yes, I’m a businessman, so I’m running multiple backups externally. Because of the different size of digital sensors, that means a whole new lineup of lenses – or I can spring for a full-frame digital body for a few grand, to keep the same viewing angles in my existing lenses, an important aspect of the equipment kit (ever tried to find a distortion-free wide angle that was both fast and sharp?) That all translates to a few years worth of film costs, so I can break even if none of that needs replacing or upgrading within that time, maybe even bring out a little extra profit margin. That I’m supposed to give up for the client, just to be nice I suppose?

Or, there’s the aspiring model wanting to start their portfolio. Until someone has seen just how lackluster, if not outright bad, photos from an inexperienced portrait photographer are, they have no idea how much is involved in making someone look good. Lighting is a whole facet of knowledge in itself, and not cheap, either. Does anyone think reading light levels with a handheld meter and knowing which units to add softbox or barn doors to is a basic skill? Or that some student is going to have radio triggers and variable power sources? Not to mention the cost of maintaining, or simply renting, a studio, especially one with a variety of settings. Sure, you can do a few shots outdoors for the “natural” look, but even that is involved, and good settings and good light don’t just pop out of nowhere. And I’ll be blunt with you: as a model, you won’t pull down any decent clients if your comp looks like it was shot by a student.

Then there’s the photographer’s end. Whatever ego causes the aspiring model to believe that their mug is portfolio gold to the photographer, it doesn’t take the place of actually knowing what the hell the model is supposed to be doing. Numerous professional photographers that I’ve known and heard from would rather burn their fingernails off with a soldering iron than work with an amateur model, because poses and expressions are not a casual thing, and hard as hell to try and communicate. Do you know the difference between “look to your left” and “turn your head to the left”? How about hearing, “now look a little bit impish,” and knowing how to pull this off? That’s just two of the basics I’ve struggled with myself, and I’ve done this only casually. Not looking contrived is perhaps the biggest hurdle for models to overcome, and an inexperienced photographer isn’t going to teach it better, either.

And finally, my portfolio gains nothing by having a full shoot of only one person. What I want is a variety, and only a handful of images from any one model at best. Imagine the model that sets their hair, does full makeup, picks the best of their wardrobe, waits patiently for the lighting and set to be arranged, and then has two frames taken? Seems like a waste, doesn’t it? Yeah, that’s how most photographers feel about TFP shoots. How about this deal: You pay the full fees for a photo shoot up front, and every time I land a client based solely on your image, I’ll kick back a small percentage of the money I receive from that client.

Most photographers, by the way, don’t market model images on their own, because there isn’t much market for stock model images, certainly not the kind that aspiring models want taken. Stock photos are “Hispanic person using computer” and “domestic woman looking inspired” – there is practically no use for random models looking intense or joyful, because such things don’t market a product very well unless they’re specific. Images to advertise a model are not images that anyone buys – they’re just advertising for the model. Nor does anybody come to the photographer for model photos to use anyway – they go to stock agencies. So “free use” of whatever images the photographer takes is virtually meaningless. You might be interested to know that such a clause is included in almost every wedding and modeling contract in the first place, which hasn’t dropped the cost of the package down a lot, has it?

Worth even less is the “photo credit” that seems to get offered so often. Wow, my name appears on the edge of an image in a major magazine! That’s free advertising! Yeah, right. Quick now, name the photographer listed on the last three images you’ve seen in a magazine. What do you mean, you never look at that? Okay, but you know the names of everyone who shot the images on the calendar on your wall right now, that you’ve been looking at all year, right? No? Okay, that’s the value of “photo credit.” It should be received automatically on top of the fee that is paid for usage.

Sure, there are circumstances where deals may work out for everyone involved. A student photographer and aspiring model coincide and are willing to work with one another’s inexperience. An established wedding photographer has an apprentice or assistant available that wants to build their own portfolio. In such cases, you get what you pay for, and it’s a crapshoot – go in with low expectations and you might be pleasantly surprised. Or you might simply be a valuable lesson to the photographer about why high-end lenses are usually necessary or light augmentation is a useful expense, and you end up with an album with dark backgrounds, missing the bouquet toss, and the first dance with the awkward position of some guest yawning in the background, one that you really didn’t want to be present anyway. Oh, yeah, part of the skills of decent photographers isn’t what they get in the pic, it’s what they leave out.

And believe me, none of this is accomplished with a “really good camera,” any more than someone can drive better with a “really good car.” What the photographers are paid for are their skills, the knowledge to get great results from the situations, as well as being able to handle whatever comes up. The end result is not a piece of photo paper or a CD, it’s a collection of images that don’t make you wince or frown, that represent your event and spark the pleasant recollections, that make others wish that they’d been there. The cake is long gone, the flowers in the landfill, and the decorations taken down and stored or returned. There was one moment in time when it all came together, and the photos are what remains to serve as reminders or illustrations. Just bear this in mind as you’re working that budget.

* * * *

I mentioned the rest of the story, referring to my experience with a “cheap package.” The happy couple also hadn’t gone for a reception hall, being super-casual about the whole process, which is fine by me, really – I personally think the ceremonies are often overblown and pointless. But this meant that the reception was in a steakhouse, with a cake bought at a bakery on the trip from the church. Everyone at one long table under low, dark-beamed ceilings. Picture this if you will. There was no position where I could see more faces than backs when shooting the guests, and half of them would be beyond the reach of my camera’s strobe unit (remember, I wasn’t working with extra lights for this deal.) Light levels for a row of people running straight back from you, as in, shooting from the head of the table (the only place where I wasn’t seeing the backs of heads,) are impossible to balance, especially without being able to bounce the flash from the ceiling. Bordering tables cut down the room to move, and of course, nothing in the background was anything that should be included in reception photos.

Naturally, the cake was cut right there on the table, not at its own setting as is customary – and every guest with their own camera was leaning in to get that shot too. The restaurant provided the knife, which was this half-meter long macheté used to debone rhinos, I suspect. You know the classic cake cutting pose, with the bride and groom both holding the knife in their clasped hands? Yeah, well, I positioned them to try and disguise the sword they were wielding, with the bride’s hand halfway down the freaking blade and the handle practically going up the groom’s sleeve.

We did some outdoor shots too, in bright midday Florida sunlight (yes, Florida is often warm enough to do outdoor shoots the week after christmas.) Super high contrast, harsh shadows, people squinting, and no balancing reflectors or screening to be found – not to mention a pretty stiff wind. You are remembering wedding dresses and hairstyles, right? Yeah. Take a wild guess how many images from that event made my portfolio…

Don’t let me misconstrue it; they were a nice couple and understood the last-minute deal (they’d been planning to elope until the family got wind of this,) even though they’d hoped for better from the church images. I had to explain why the colors were off, but that doesn’t fix them, and I still felt like I’d failed them. Yeah, I made a little money in a slow period. But the only reason any photographer would subject themselves to such things is through their good nature, and they’ll have nothing to take from it. If anyone seriously has a budget issue (and are not simply trying to save money on the photographer while spending typical amounts on the dress, cake, flowers, and so on,) then they need to understand what they’re asking, and throw the photographer a bone of some kind for their consideration.