Sunday slide 36

unidentified seahorse in aquarium Museum of Natural Sciences Raleigh NC
This week, we go back to 2005, and over to the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh. There, a seahorse posed enigmatically among the fronds of seaweed in an aquarium, with just barely enough natural light to pull off the shot wide open at f2.8.

I make no bones about it: true underwater photography is demanding. Just being down there generally takes a good amount of equipment, but then doing good photography takes no small amount more. Everything is different, and developing the skills is time-consuming and, so far, beyond my budget (especially since the only locales even worth the effort are far removed from where I am.) So, yeah, I’m cheating by shooting in an aquarium.

Yet, even then there are demands – not nearly as many as dive photography, but enough to make things challenging in a lot of different circumstances. Lighting is still an issue, since the available light in most places is inadequate, but using a flash unit isn’t very straightforward, from the glare that can reflect from the glass to the balance and diffusion of the light for best effect. Worse still is the simple trait of shooting through glass into water, because distortion occurs at even a minor angle from straight on, and bob help you if you’re shooting through curved glass. It’s easy to think, Oh, I’ll just shoot dead flat to the glass and eliminate the distortion, until you see how hard it is to get dead-on to the glass and how your subject doesn’t really line up as you’re doing it, and so on. I toss out a lot of stuff that I’ve shot in aquariums, just because the adverse effects are so prevalent.

So when you see something like this, it’s a lot less guaranteed than you might think, a select frame out of loads that never worked. The Aquatic section of my slide drawers is pretty sparse…

What goes on when no one’s looking

We reside in a small housing development, nothing too crowded or active, and with this comes the peculiar concept of the listserv, the ability to e-mail everyone who has subscribed with items of (dubious) collective interest to the homeowners. Not too long back, there came a couple of accounts of cars being ‘broken into,’ only they really weren’t because the owners hadn’t bothered to lock the doors; the result was a handful of trivial items missing like phone chargers and spare change, and the capture of a shadowy figure on security cameras. We’re good about locking the vehicles here, so no biggie, but I figured I had the camera handy and I switched it over to a different vantage point and activated the motion detection. The key difference being that I’m often up late and, if the trigger occurs while I’m at the computer, well, let’s just say that there will be more than a video clip of a shadowy figure.

The number of clips that I end up with is huge, since it triggers for passing cars, moths, gusting wind, and so on; usually I spend the next morning perusing the countless clips that occurred after I went to bed and deleting nearly all of them. Occasionally, however, I have captured something telling.

This one was far from the first, but I loved it for the ominous nature. I tried for a short while to attach an appropriate music clip to it, but that’s beyond my software and abilities at the moment, and probably not worth the effort anyway. Still, pay attention:


I can’t argue with that effect at all. But it confirmed that the homeowners around here were being typically paranoid, as well as likely exaggerating the nature of the thefts. If you’re gonna be dumb enough to leave cracked corn sitting in your unlocked car, you deserve what you get.

We actually had several visits from a small herd of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus,) and they spent no small amount of time poking around the yard. I made it a point to place the camera in an unobtrusive location, but it appears that at least one of the deer was aware of it yet tried to pretend he hadn’t noticed the camera.


Now really. Like the full profile shot right smack in front of the camera, followed by the lingering fruitbasket, was all just happenstance. Do I look like an idiot? I thought the damn thing was going take a shit there for a moment – he might well have been trying…

But the deer were no surprise, since I’ve been seeing evidence of their occasional visits since we moved in, and even had plenty of visits at the old place too. But another visitor was slightly more surprising to capture on camera, because the evidence of them has been pretty thin. There’s no mistaking this visitor during a downpour, though.


That’s a fox, but there are two species in the area, and this one didn’t provide enough of a view to spot the distinguishing characteristics. Another clip came closer, but still didn’t quite answer the question.


Both red and grey foxes have mixed red and grey coats, with a lot of variation possible within species. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) has the classic white tail tip, while the grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) has a black stripe down the spine and tail that sometimes colors the tail tip. Unfortunately, I seem to be able to see evidence of both in this clip, so I can’t offer a distinct ID.

When the camera has been set up in other places within the yard, it always attracted spiders, which set off the motion-detector not just by crossing into the frame, but by throwing webs across it too; they can reflect the infra-red light emitted by the camera and, naturally, move in the breeze from an ant fart. Yet the camera had been up in this position for days and somehow never garnered the grasp of any spider, which struck me as odd. This is always a stupid thing to speculate on, even just internally, because I left the computer for a little over an hour and came back to dozens of clips, a lot of which pretty much the same as this:


Those… are the questing legs of a spider on the front of the camera, one that decided not to build a web efficiently, not to simply cross the lens to anchor its web or search for food, but instead it wanted to dance on the front of the camera.

No, listen – I’ve watched spiders thousands of times, and there are a few general behaviors: industriously building webs, actively hunting across their territory, or lying in wait. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one wandering aimlessly as if lost and stoned.


If you were wondering, yes, that was the spider’s abdomen pressed right against the center of the lens. Kindly don’t ask me why the local fauna have decided that mooning my camera is warranted – I’m fairly certain it isn’t anything that I’ve done.

[I have to note that, as I am typing this post, a spider has for the third time dropped down on a web from somewhere above the camera, paused almost exactly right in center frame, then climbed back up the strand again. Different nights, no web building, just a cameo. Don’t try telling me this is an accident.]

Upon discovering way too many clips of this nature when I returned to the computer, I felt I had to go out and convince the spider to peddle its wares elsewhere go home and sleep it off do its thing away from the camera. Since I needed the detail shot of the culprit, of course, I went out with camera in hand. If the video gave you the impression of size as firmly as it did me, well, we’re both wrong.

unidentified spider and the infrared camera it was dancing upon

And while I probably should’ve shut off the motion detection before going out there, I didn’t, and ended up with video of myself actually taking this photo. Since most of the light is coming from the LED focusing light on the macro rig itself, I’m not going to be winning any awards with this clip, but I’m amused by it. At times, you can see the circle of the softbox, and the flash going off is quite obvious. And then there’s my grossly oversized fingers clearing the web strands from the lens.


I know, not quite as exciting as an unboxing video, but it is what it is, and I’m vapid enough to post it…

By the way, if you’re the type that finds the video ‘evidence’ of ghosts (as in, supernatural phenomena) to be interesting, you should probably know that a spiderweb can produce a wide variety of semi-transparent figures, depending on the lighting and the debris in the web, to say nothing of the spider itself, or any other arthropod, walking around on the lens. The chances are huge that, when you see some compelling figure walk down the stairs or whatever, you’ll never see all of the other clips where it zigzags back and forth in the breeze or gets a bug stuck in it. It’s not hard to produce an optical boogie, and selectivity and editing (along with a little suggestion) fills in the rest.

* * *

A brief word on my time. Two nights ago I started writing this post, finally able to sit down and devote some time to it, and literally couldn’t keep my eyes open. Planning on returning to it the following afternoon, I got unexpectedly, (but all too frequently) held up again. I would like to be more regular, I really would, and still have another set of photos to feature (better than this, trust me,) but jesus, do things interfere.

I’ll also attempt to excuse the quality of the video. While infrared IP cameras operating in low light are not going to be especially high in resolution anyway, for reasons beyond me the program that operates on motion detection only records at half of the resolution of the camera itself – I know this because I can monitor the camera directly and see much better detail. I’m trying to fix it. I know you’re excited over the prospect.

Not daily Jim pics 41

striated hills in Badlands of South Dakota by James L. Kramer
While these are pretty similar to the previous couple of images from Jim, I’m featuring them for a particular reason. The scale of the first image is almost indeterminable, and it would be easy to believe that the hills stand reasonably tall – not mountains, of course, but a pretty impressive barrier at least. Until you look closely.

Did you see the footpath leading not just to the hills, but up onto them as well? Jim was standing right on it, if it helps. Or if that isn’t enough, there’s this one:

a pair of hikers in striated hills, Badlands of South Dakota, by James L. Kramer
The path is pretty obvious now, and so is the black and pink splash of a hiker just a little ahead. If you look closely, there’s a spot of turquoise even farther to the right, the head and shoulders of another hiker further down the path. Since this was shot at 20mm focal length, they appear more distant than the reality, as well. These hills may not even top 30 meters.

Armed with that, we can go back to the first image, and see the spot where the second image was taken, close to the right edge of the frame about halfway up the hills. And see a hiker in a pale shirt on the path up there, too. Unless you’re trying to view this on your phone, but naaaah. Why would someone do anything that silly with a site full of pictures?

Monthly Al pic something-or-other

rain on a forgotten flower's reproductive organs
It is the last day of the month, and in the time-honored traditions of my culture (what an absolutely nonsensical phrase,) that means we need an abstract image. I am woefully unprepared, thinking a couple of days ago that I had plenty of time to work on blog stuff and somehow working on far too many other things instead. So as you ask me what this flower is (you didn’t, and likely don’t care, but I made it a point early on to provide that info,) I have to say that I don’t know. The Girlfriend bought these as decoration for some planters on the front porch, and she’s told me what they were several times and I’ve forgotten each time. But anyway, they’re wet. I’ve done this before, haven’t I?

Daily Jim pics 40

Okay, so, part of the idea of doing a ‘routine’ on your blog is to goad yourself towards making regular posts, which helps visitors find something new nearly every time they come by. And one of the hazards of this is that you’re obligated to be creating new content, even when you might not necessarily have something strong to post. A lot of sites suffer from this now, putting up stuff that’s not terribly interesting, or even searching other sites to repost or copy their content.

I started the Daily Jim pics to handle a large number of photos forwarded to me by Jim Kramer, following his productive trip out west. Which is fine. But now that I’m finding myself with very little time while I still have a couple of subjects that I can be tackling, I’m spending it fulfilling this daily obligation while letting other content slide. So now that we’ve hit forty days, I may be letting this flood subside a little in order to get some more of my own content up. There will still be Jim’s pics coming, just not quite daily, with more interspersing of my pics and/or curious self-absorbed ruminations.

For now, we travel to the “Badlands” of South Dakota, appropriately if unoriginally named. I prefer, “the Realm of Disreputability,” or, “Geologically Forbidding Locale.”

rock spire in South Dakota Badlands by James L. Kramer
The rock formations are stark enough, but made even more dramatic by the contrast with the clear deep blue sky; some clouds would have reduced the impact. But we’re going to compare this against another photo to see just what I was talking about with lighting in some earlier posts.

nearly two-dimensional rock peaks in South Dakota Badlands by James L. Kramer
The light angle is only a little bit different here, now almost directly behind Jim, but it’s changed the appearance significantly. The hills have gone much flatter, becoming almost two-dimensional without the sharp shadows to define the ridges and valleys.

Portrait and studio and macro photographers can position the light sources for maximum impact, of course, but for landscapes it’s a bit more demanding. Unless you want to spend a lot of money on some really huge lightstands, you have three options: 1) Pick another time of day when the light is at a better angle; 2) Pick a different section of landscape that shows the relief and defining shadows better; or 3) Move around (sometimes a lot) to position yourself in a more optimal spot in relation to the sun. Obviously, getting just the right effect might take a bit of effort or time.

Oh, yeah, I forgot the fourth option: carry around a lot of thin dark stain to paint in the shadows that you want. That way, you’d even be able to create textures where none actually existed. Sculptors have wasted a lot of time actually shaping the rock to their liking, the idiots…

Daily Jim pic 39

rock face composition in Custer State Park by James L. Kramer
And so we close our visit to Custer State Park with a rock formation under a little smear of clouds and a gibbous moon – the exact same moon that produced the recent solar eclipse, as hard as that may be to believe.

I’ll use this image to illustrate a basic trait of photography: photos always have increased contrast over what our eyes see at the time, which is why it’s important to pay attention to how bright and sharp the light is. See that dark cave in the rock face? If your monitor is adjusted properly, you should be able to just make out that it’s not a cave at all, only a shadow of the boulder to the immediate right, but there’s a good chance all you see is blackness there (especially if you’re viewing this on a phone or some other piece of shit that doesn’t allow you to adjust the dynamic range usefully.) Standing where Jim stood, you would likely have been able to see that it was just a shadow, but the darkness was increased within the photo – not by anything that Jim did, but just by being a photo with a limited range of light available. Looking into the real sky would probably also make you squint a bit, but the photo doesn’t hit you that hard, does it?

inset of deep shadow lightened considerably, by James L. KramerIf it helps, here’s an inset of that same shadow, brightened considerably – proof not only of the lack of caves, but that the scene managed not to exceed the range of the camera, even when it got damn close. It can be easy to lose detail within shadows in such light conditions, and for brighter areas to bleach out to pure white as well. Which is why I always say that, with high-contrast light (bright with distinct shadows,) look for low-contrast subjects – in other words, not brilliant flowers, and not zebras. And not people, on the whole – the shadows makes faces almost into caricatures. Plus there’s the squinting.

Daily Jim pic 38

rock spires in Custer State Park by James L. Kramer
I think we’re still in Custer State Park, and I’m not going guess at the process that formed these distinct rock towers – oh, hell, yes I am. It’s likely layers of a harder stone, formerly sedimentary, that got uplifted by geologic folding and then weathered away. But that’s not important (sorry geologists.) More useful to us – since you’re on a nature photography site – is the way the light works. Textures like these beg for sharp and distinct sidelighting, which emphasizes their coarse nature. Direct light, such as immediately behind the camera, wouldn’t make these half as forbidding. High contrast light can have a negative effect on many kinds of photos, but it’s situations like this where it works very well, throwing all of those edges into sharp relief. And the framing with the tree layers really kicks it, too, providing a lot of depth to the scene while mimicking the rock formations. I like it.

Daily Jim pic 37

pronghorn Antilocapra americana profile by James L. Kramer
I don’t care how the stupid song goes, this is not an antelope – there are no antelopes in North America. This is a pronghorn (Antilocapra americana,) more closely related to giraffes than antelopes. I expect you never to make that mistake again (or suffer the wrath of a nature photographer – you know how we get.)

Meanwhile, Jim’s got this thing about his subjects facing right. It probably says something deep-seated and psychological about him. Walk around to the other side, Jim! It looks like the light was better there anyway…

Daily Jim pic 36

wild white donkey, mule or burro and foal by James L. Kramer
This, and the last few days worth of Jim pics, were all from Custer State Park, where apparently there are a lot of wild donkeys or burros. Something vaguely horselike, anyway. I’m guessing there’s not a lot of white ones, which makes this pair notable at least, but seriously, most of my attempts at elaborating on these images are going to be wrong to some degree, so we’ll just hope that Jim happens along with more accurate details. Or a more interesting fabrication. Whatever works.

1 196 197 198 199 200 325