Do not read tag under penalty of law

It’s January, and that day you’ve been dreading is nigh – really, I don’t know why you keep reading this blog when you know what’s going to happen. Yes, I’m talking about the annual tag roundup, the time when we look back over the post tags that had only one use within the 1500-plus posts to see just why this might be.

On most blogs and suchlike phenomena, it’s because the topic has only been tackled once, and I have plenty of those; species names, mostly, but the names of articles that have been lambasted also get in there, and some topics that simply never came up again. But in these cases, it’s because the tag serves as additional commentary, usually something snarky from the little guy sitting on one of my shoulders, who has plenty of space up there because angels and devils are mythological and ludicrous. Unlike, you know, a sardonic alter-ego… can it be an alter-ego if my regular personality is snippish to begin with?

Pointless introspection aside, let’s dig to the bottom of the barrel and see what kind of muck has accumulated down there. Clicking on any of the tags will, naturally, take you to the post in question, probably making these the least-clicked links on the blog. I’ve said before that I’ll never have advertising on this site, but funny, I’ve never been asked either…

yeegads it doesn’t even have pincers or spikes or nothin’ – And you know how rare that is for this site.

stay on your side of the fence boah – Nature photography does have its hazards.

don’t roll your eyes at me – Also, “fitty towsen” and, really, every tag on that post.

boy that Turing – what a smart guy! – Too clever for my own good. Don’t make me explain this.

and that was the last we saw of Al – No such luck. But additionally, “I used to bullseye wharf roaches in my T-16 back home.” A case where the remainder of the movie quote is commentary on its own. Except I didn’t directly quote the movie, so if you don’t recognize how I altered it, good luck finding it…

the bitch hit me with a toaster – While I’m on the subject of movie quotes. That post has a fine selection of pop culture references that probably reflect my age too well. Also, “ya got any cornbread?”

uncooperative distant pedestrians – And how many times have we all thought exactly the same thing?

The little dickens – I was particularly proud of this one – don’t know why I never included it before.

tell me dammit – Didn’t work anyway.

that’s just you know my opinion man – It would work better if I could put commas in tags, but commas separate tags, so it’d come up as multiple tags of sentence fragments. But this post, a hugely important event in history, also includes “maybe I’d retire if this had helped pay for it” and more!

that’s how Maude bought it you know – Bet you’ve forgotten about this already. And if you have to ask what I’m talking about, I’m just going to tell you that you need to be on the webbernets more.

no it’s not a fucking ‘beanie’ jesus christ – Does it make you feel old when you use the same term that you’ve used for years and suddenly no one knows what the hell it means? But we go to the very next post for,

no combovers there either – Which is kind of a dirty trick, because it might take a bit of reading to get the reference, but I’m evil that way.

I didn’t want to see it in motion thank you very much – Also, “phlegm zeppelin,” which is an even better term than trash panda. With video!

of course I want cheese with it – Subtle, perhaps.

Hey I’m biking here! – Also “fly much Ten-Thousand-Eyes?” and “OMG I just hit somebody LOL Im such a klutz!”

bug photographers definitely gonna die out – I have no illusions.

butthole pachinko – Which also features “snotty chinos,” so you can see my dilemma in determining which should lead off. However, neither of these are actually mine, so there! Blame zefrank on this one (and go to that link.)

oh go ahead if you must – You’ll make me blush.

maybe “bugs and spiders” isn’t as much of a draw as I thought – Also, “first off stop whining.” But I said we were setting the pointless introspection aside…

how many horses ya got under that hood? – I can still see the car driving off…

Beau Blass or some shit – Also, “eradicate neckties now.” Join the movement!

Penultimately, we have “made you look!” and “now tell me if I missed any,” both tags on last year’s tag post, buried in among all of the others which I put in there partially to keep them from reappearing each year. Plus some other stuff. But I’d missed one: “spellcheck doesn’t like “Batlizard””… and nobody told me! Was this a practical joke, or do you mean to tell me no one checks all those tags at the bottom to ensure that I haven’t snuck in something?

Finally, “not to be confused with National S’More Time Day which is a fake holiday started by Hersheys” and “I myself follow the booby calendar” are both from the list of 2018 holidays, and that’s my segue, so let’s take a look at the holidays we all celebrated in the past year:

Find Something Hidden In The Shadows Day, January 29th

Ignore An Utterly Pointless Holiday Day, February 2nd

Relate An Obscenity-filled Story Day, March 21st

Put Something Off Until The Last Minute Day, April 26th

Relate Something That Happened Last Night That Has Nothing To Do With Alcohol Day, May 27th

Do Additional Research for a Blog Post Day, June 22nd… which some people might have found to be a load of fun, but I was working, so no time for levity. Even when it appeared so, I was just playing the part. Not done yet either, so the post is still is the works.

National Pointless Podcast Day, July 20th. No, I only celebrate this once a year – what’re you getting at?

Highly Debatable Humor Day, August 27th

International Look Back and Wonder What Happened Day, September 24th.

International I Need Some More Time Day, October 31st

Sudden Insight Day, November 17th

And of course, Forget Something Important Day, December 13th.

We’ll go back to the tags for a moment. To do these lists, I do a SQL query in the blog database that not only lists the tags, but how often they’ve appeared, so I can sort by the ones that have only appeared once (over 3300 at this point, when I’ve only done a little over 1500 posts.) On occasion, I spot a single-use tag that I’m almost positive should have been used more often – then I realize what happened. The spreadsheet that I use to do the sort has a spellcheck function, as does the blog – but this doesn’t apply to the tag window. Which is kind of small, and I’m often throwing them in there, and they can even scroll out of sight, so misspellings get in there from time to time. The spreadsheet can spot these of course, but it also picks up lots of proper names and scientific names that are spelled correctly, and things that I purposefully don’t capitalize like “christian,” as well as words that somehow never made it into the computer’s dictionary like “clickbait” and “fartsy” and “asshat.” But here are a small handful of the single-use tags that I wasn’t paying close enough attention to:

  • Amercian dream
  • Dayight Saving Time
  • Gerogia Sea Turtle Center (this is the one that caught me, since I’ve featured the place numerous times.)
  • healh
  • NC Musuem of Life & Science
  • not exactly photojurnalism
  • one goddman thing after another
  • pattern recogniton
  • praire kingsnake
  • resiving images
  • stablity
  • won’t somebody please think of the chidlren?
  • And now for some meaningless statistics. Last year contained 162 posts, which is about average among a fairly wide range (1 post in 2008, but c’mon, I started the blog December 27th, to 215 posts in 2017,) while I uploaded 496 photos, tied with last year – well above average, but still a far cry from 2017’s count of 706 photos. However, in July of 2018 alone I uploaded 103 images, which topped all other months to date – that’s largely due to this post with 29 photos alone, but this one and this one and this one had 14, 15, and 14 respectively. So I can’t feel too bad about the end of the year getting kinda slow.

    There will be a small handful of photos from last year that never made it into posts coming along, but this one is long enough for now – plus the more I stretch it out, the higher the post count goes, right? Get that headstart on a new record. So check back shortly – I’m still plugging away here despite the crummy weather.

    Almost had to get ugly there

    Last night I was planning on doing a few housekeeping chores on the blog structure, so I performed the standard database backup (to ensure that I could always restore back to an older version as needed,) then set to work. As is my habit now, I check the functionality after each change, confirming that nothing bad happened.

    Or, so I thought. Among the changes was catching up with updates, both with the current version of WordPress and with the installed plugins. Everything seemed fine until I went to create a new post this morning, and found some utter horseshit sitting where my normal post editor was. WordPress had been toying with a new editor function, something called Gutenberg, and finally decided to roll it out with version 5.0. I always wait for a couple of revisions following a whole new version, because bugs are virtually guaranteed, so I was updating to version 5.0.3 when I got greeted by this monstrosity.

    Plenty of software developers get involved in the, “let’s revamp the whole structure to make it cooler,” nonsense, which is one of the reasons that I never started doing web development on my own; I’m very much of the, “If it ain’t broke,” school, and usually couldn’t care less about the stupid-user-interface changes. That’s not referring to a stupid interface (though that’s usually the result anyway,) but instead an interface for stupid users, often icon-based, and with most of the useful editing tools buried someplace so all the options don’t scare the timid touch-screen crowd. And that’s exactly where Gutenberg is aimed. It took me a few minutes to figure out how to insert a goddamn image! Trying to activate either the old editor or simply some more complete toolbars failed. After a few obscenity-laden Google searches (noticing how many negative comments Gutenberg was getting in the process,) I found that there is a plugin to permit/reinstall the classic editor. I loaded that, and thankfully it worked perfectly, allowing both the previous post and this one to be done back the way that I always had.

    Meanwhile, the Impetuous Mr Bugg had changed his blog over to a new address, without warning or forwarding pages, making all of my links to him obsolete. This is no small number, and I was brainstorming how to go about updating these without a major headache, when I came across another plugin, Better Search Replace by Delicious Brains (I’m fairly certain that is not their birth name.) This allowed me to find all instances of his original URL and change them to the new one, including those to specific pages without needing to know each of them. Within a couple of minutes, all 41 links had been updated. Very smooth – I highly recommend this plugin if you find yourself in need. I should probably use it to correct all of my older references to Chinese mantises (there are several dozen) to reflect the new scientific name.

    I have found no plugin to get Mr Bugg to put his name and info on his site yet, though…

    Storytime 2

    cribellate orb weaver, possibly Uloborus glomosus, at buffet
    This is a spider from the family of cribellate orb weavers – near as I can tell, this is a genus Uloborus, and from the active range I’m leaning towards a U. glomosus. Curious body structure, to be certain, but this image from August 2010 marked the first time (and so far, the most detailed) that I captured a specimen from this family. They’re distinctive in that they’re the only spider family that has no venom.

    Now, the first thing I have to point out is that the reddish-brown thing is not its head, but its current meal, or what’s left of it – the arachnid was apparently loathe to relinquish the morsel even while it trussed up a brand spanking new leafhopper. Which is faintly amusing to me, because most monkey species will drop whatever food is in their hand if they have the opportunity to grab some more. This misshapen meal was blocking the spider’s eyes, so you’d think that was reason enough to at the very least set it aside, perhaps anchored someplace if the spider could determine some method of doing this, while putting its new meal in the to-go box, but here we are.

    Curiously, from the series of photos that I got at this time, it would appear that the species actually has fangs (chelicerae,) and so we come to the part that I’m wondering about, because as I said, they have no venom so they need nothing to administer this lack. Perhaps they have the fangs just as a prank, like those little spring-loaded fake stage knives, so they can scare their prey species:Ha ha!” they say right after they have plunged their fangs into a cringing caterpillar, “You thought you were going to start dissolving from the inside! That’s two for flinching!”

    This is the hazard of getting information in little chunklets, often from unreliable sources, because I’ve been slowly revising my understanding of arthropod habits over the years and (patently) don’t have an adequate understanding of them yet. Having been told that spider venom liquefies the organs of their prey so they spider can simply suck out this milkshake, I assumed that these handy little piercing bits also worked as straws. But no, the chelicerae are only venom-injectors; not all that long ago, I learned that spiders actually have mouths, hiding underneath behind the chelicerae, and that some of them simply chew up their prey (or what passes for such with their anatomy, anyway.) So, why does this species have them fangs? And two things occur to me: 1) because this family evolved from another which did have venom, and have the leftover fangs; or 2) that the chelicerae are functional holding/manipulating digits in their own right, which this photo would seem to attest to. Though I suppose there’s always a third option, which is that they obtained the fangs with the intention of developing venom, but just never got around to it. I know where I’d be putting my money…

    Back in my day…

    … we ate every bit of the mammoth!

    Okay, this is way before “my day,” whatever that may be; the camera I’m about illustrate was produced from 1949 to 1955 or so, a solid decade or more before I was even born. The camera that the family had while I was growing up was a Kodak Brownie Super 27, while my first camera, aside from yard-sale finds, was a Palmatic 110 from an unremembered manufacturer (I suspect whoever first used the word “palmatic” failed to register it and so several manufacturers ended up using the same name.) That camera had the option for an electronic flash, but I didn’t receive it and couldn’t afford it myself (I was twelve at the time, I think,) so I used Flip-Flashes for it, a plastic bar of eight flash bulbs, purposefully raised above the lens to prevent red-eye; fire off four shots, then flip the bar over to plug in the opposite end and fire off four more. No other options or controls, and even the film loading was via drop-in cassette, so hardly a challenging camera. When I later moved up to a true 35mm film camera, my mother happily took over the 110 camera and used it until the film could no longer be found, even after I bought her two 35mm cameras of her own.

    Eventually, I acquired a Graflex Graphic View II, which is a classic full-motion large format rail camera. I haven’t done a lot with it, for several different reasons which we’ll be coming to. But first, let’s examine the concept that is “large format.”

    Graflex Graphic View II large format camera
    What this refers to is the film size, which in this case is 4×5 inches, or 100×125 mm if you like – much bigger than a 35mm film frame (24×36 mm,) which itself is larger than the vast majority of DSLR digital sensors (15×23 mm, give or take – it varies by manufacturer.) Rather than making a huge roll of film to crank through some apparatus, the film comes instead in single sheets, reflecting its origin in chemically-treated metal plates, and later on glass panes, both of these well over a century old now. 4×5 film was the ‘portable’ version, reduced from the old standard of 8×10 inches. Roll film first appeared in the late 1800s, but couldn’t compete with the clarity and detail of sheet films, especially glass plates, for a long time.

    So with large format, this large piece of film pretty much takes up the entire back of the camera, and instead of putting a shutter curtain in front of the film itself (what’s called a focal plane shutter,) the shutter was built into the lenses, generally as an iris diaphragm that doubled as the aperture – in other words, it would slap open to a fixed point, the ‘f-stop’ setting of the camera, when the shutter was tripped. Most LF lenses come bundled complete with the shutter mechanism, though variations exist. This does, of course, make them expensive in their own right.

    Now, to throw an image over such a large area, the lens usually has to be further away from the film. Moreover, there was no such thing as ‘zoom’ (variable focal-length) lenses during the heyday of LF, so each lens was a fixed focal length. Thus, let’s say an object six meters from the lens would only be in sharp focus if the lens was 30 cm from the film (I’m making these up for brevity’s sake.) To focus, you moved the lens, mounted on its own board, the correct distance from the film.

    Which is where those bellows and rail and all that come in. The front of the camera, with lens board and lens attached, could slide forward and back as needed, usually on a small crank wheel attached to the rail, but sometimes on a track beneath the lens board (you’ll see these on the old pocketable rollfilm cameras.) To keep this heavy apparatus balanced on a tripod, usually both the front (lens) and back (film) portions of the camera could move independently.

    Achieving sharp focus was much more fun, and now you’ll know what those guys were doing under the dark sheet (usually, anyway – I won’t say they never took the opportunity to fish out a booger or anything.) Before the film was even put into place, a ground glass back was affixed to the exact same location that the film would be, and this would allow the photographer to see the image that would eventually make it to the film, since it acted as a see-through projector screen. But it had to be pretty dark to make it out clearly, so hiding under a blackout cloth was necessary. The photographer would put their head underneath, then open the shutter to throw the image onto the glass, and focus and compose the image as they desired. Once it was all set, they would lock down the settings and close the shutter.

    Graphic View II showing ground glass focusing screen and hood
    [You can see the ground glass focus screen here, the grey area within than pop-up hood, etched with grid markings to make composing images easier.]

    4x5 film holder
    Film holder with darkslide partially removed – note the dot pattern on the white edge of the reversible slide, used to tell if the film on that side has been exposed or not
    Then, they would remove or flip away the ground glass back, and insert a film cassette. With the old style glass pane film, this cassette was often wood and pretty bulky, but as acetate film came into common use, the film cassette could become slimmer and lighter, made of plastic and light metals. These, by the way, were preloaded in a darkroom, because of course the film couldn’t be exposed to light before the photo was taken. The 4×5 cassettes that I used are double-sided, one sheet of film per side, with a thin plate over top to seal out the light. By the way, large format film comes with a notch pattern along one edge, because film has to face a certain way, so loading it in complete darkness would be haphazard without this – the notch also tells the type of film you’re handling, a kind of photographers’ Braille. Which makes me wonder why cameras don’t have Braille markings on their controls. It’s discrimination…

    Once the film cassette is in place and the shutter has been confirmed closed, the cover plate over the film, called a darkslide, can be removed. At this point the film is ready for exposure, and the shutter can be safely tripped. Once the film has been exposed, the darkslide is reinserted and the cassette can be flipped over to use the second sheet of film therein.

    Let’s go over that again, right from the start, just so you get the entire idea. Get out on location and set up the tripod – this is typically very heavy, because the camera is heavy and the weight will make it more prone to tipping, plus it needs stronger materials just to be held motionless. Open up the camera case and take out the bellows and rails, and affix to tripod. Crank out both lens and film standards (the bellows end frames attached to the rail that hold their respective components) to rough working distances and to maintain balance. Select a lens, already attached to a lens board, and slot it into the lens standard. If necessary, affix the ground glass back, then drape the blackout cloth over top of the back of the camera.

    The *cough* author using a large format cameraGet underneath the cloth, and lock open the shutter (most shutters have separate controls to lock open, for focusing, or trip the shutter for exposing the film, more often in the fractions-of-a-second realm.) Adjust the standards and the tripod until the subject is framed as desired and in tight focus, and adjust aperture until desired depth-of-field is achieved. Lock down all controls. Close the shutter.

    Get out a film cassette and slot it into place – the Graphic View II has a spring-loaded glass back (‘Graflok’ back) that simply lifts up out of the way and lets the film cassette slide in underneath, so it doesn’t have to be swapped. Take out exposure meter and determine the proper exposure for the scene at hand and the already-selected aperture – no, there is no auto-exposure meter built anywhere into this assembly, so light readings have to be done with a handheld meter.

    Remove darkslide from film cassette. Ensure everything looks hunky-dory, and trip the shutter. Replace darkslide. Congratulations – you just took one frame of film!

    As you might imagine, large format isn’t used for anything except the most exacting of images – not sports, for instance. The benefit is the extremely fine detail that can be made into very large prints, because the film is so large and the grain commensurately smaller for the final print. But because so much time and effort is expended into just one frame, typically the photographer will ensure that everything is ideal, as perfect as possible, before tripping the shutter. This means a lot more time is spent picking the right location, the right conditions, and the right light – but it also means that nearly all images taken, once someone is familiar with the whole process anyway, are keepers. There is little to no experimentation – the photographer usually knows exactly what they’re going to get, and has paid attention to, for instance, how deep the shadows under the trees will render, and where the clouds are in the sky. Solely due to the effort involved, large format makes the photographer compose the image meticulously, ensuring that what they take will be captivating.

    In this way, it’s an interesting learning tool, but there are cheaper and easier ways to accomplish this too. One is the exercise of only shooting one frame a day, with the idea that it has to be a keeper, able to be displayed – I’ve done this a couple different times over the years, and it remains beholden to both conditions and available time. This can also be done by not limiting the number of shots per day, but still stipulating that at least one is meticulously planned and cannot be discarded. And then there’s simply the ‘checklist’ method, where you ensure that a list of factors has been checked or met before tripping the shutter – this can be as simple as ensuring the settings (like white balance and aperture) are optimal, or as complicated as following some specific composition rules like determining that every part of the frame contributes to the whole, or the subject maintains the proper framing and relationship to the background.

    But wait! We haven’t even touched on some of the unique reasons for using large format, or specifically one with full-motion standards. And for this, we’re going to have to illustrate some traits.

    First off, LF lenses are typically optimized for the flat plane. If you think about it, the center of any lens is closest to the center of the film plane, with the edges of the film plane being a smidgen further away, so LF lenses are ground to accommodate these slight differences – and well outside of the normal field of view too, because there’s a specific use for this.

    Let’s imagine shooting a tall building, for instance. To get it all in the frame, you’d have to tilt the camera back a bit and aim upward, and what this does is tilt the film plane too, with the end result that the film is no longer parallel to the front face of the building, with the top edge leaned away. Coupled with the lens distortion, this exaggerates the ‘taper’ of the top of the building and makes it seem to be leaning away from the camera/viewer (and in a way, it is.)

    Graphic View II with forward standard shift
    So instead of tilting the camera back, the film plane is maintained vertical and parallel to the building, and the front standard with the lens attached is raised vertically – itself still parallel to the building too, but much higher horizontally than the rear film standard. You might think that this means the image doesn’t even reach the film, but LF lenses are designed with this in mind, and throw a large enough image area that the film still falls within the circular image projected by the lens. Basically, the light path is not horizontal, but at a vertical diagonal, with the far end being the top of the building and the near end being the film itself. With film plane and lens held parallel to the building, the leaning distortion vanishes. They even make specialty lenses for SLRs that can do this same trick, called tilt-shift lenses, and they’re expensive as hell while having a limited application, largely because the mirror box (the space between the lens and film/sensor where the reflex mirror sits) is only so big and cannot accommodate much of a shift in the light path.

    A full-motion rig can also maximize depth-of-field, especially for closeup subjects where the depth often drops much shorter – the more you magnify something, the shorter the depth-of-field. So picture a scene with an insect or reptile or something. Typically, the top of the frame contains stuff that is further from the camera than the bottom of the frame, with the subject (the focused point) falling in the middle. This can mean that the top and bottom of the frame go out of focus, because they’re not at the right focal distance. But if we tilt the rear film standard to mimic this slope, leaning the top forwards while keeping the front lens standard vertical, we tilt the film closer to the focal distance for as much of the frame as possible, increasing the sharpness of those areas which are not at the focal distance, and making depth-of-field increase greatly.

    Except, we actually tilt the film backwards, because all lenses throw the image upside-down onto the film/sensor, so we have to move the bottom forwards, because that’s the top of the photo. And yes, this means that, when composing and focusing the image on the ground glass, it’s upside-down.

    This trick has also been used in reverse, usually on large scenic images, tilting the standards to minimize depth-of-field and throw everything but that at the correct focal distance well out of focus – there are even digital filters to do this now without needing a tilting film plane. When this is done, it gives the appearance of a macro photo with its very short depth-of-field, and can make a standard landscape suddenly appear to be a model, just because the focus seems to indicate this.

    I still have this camera, but haven’t dug it out in a while. Large format doesn’t lend itself very often to what I shoot, and I never developed the style and subject matter to take best advantage of it – this would typically be large size prints of elaborate landscapes (or, you know, big group portraits intended to fill a lobby or something.) I did a few experiments on B&W film, developed myself and contact printed, but did little more than that. Right now, the market for my own images isn’t what it should be, and I can’t imagine developing a market for specialty large format slides. Still, it remains in my possession until I either sell it to an enthusiast or decide to start working on a different aspect of photographic work.

    4x5 monochrome contact print
    8×10 inch contact print of 4 experimental negatives

    Confession time

    Three years ago on this very day, I wrote about a curious enigma, a potentially mystical path known as Squirrel Level Road. I’m going to encourage you to go read that post first, because it’s important to the thread. When I wrote it I was working from memory, which I pride myself on.

    Or used to. You see, since that time, I’ve had to drive through the area twice, or four times if you prefer, because it was two round-trips. The first pass, I saw no vestige of Squirrel Level Road and suspected that, having drawn so much attention to it with my voluminous readership, the otherworldly properties of that curious path caused it to vanish from sight, perhaps to reappear someplace deeper in the hills. But on the return trip, I spotted the signs, big and distinct and clear, “Squirrel Level Road,” indicating that I wasn’t imagining it after all.

    Except, this was not just a sign on an overpass, and not in rural Virginia, and even had its own exit. It was right at the edge of Petersburg which, while not a huge metropolis, cannot really be called “rural.” So much for my memory. And of course, with its own exit I could have stopped easily at any time to see this peculiarly-monikered footpath for myself.

    I didn’t, however; a reflection of my driving habits. Even with the shortest leg of my journey ahead of me, I still had two hours of road time to go, with much, much longer on the outward portion, and couldn’t convince myself to take the time out of my trips to reassure myself that the road really existed. No, not even for the obvious excitement that a follow-up post about it would have generated. I did examine it on Google Maps, and determined that it probably wasn’t a highly traveled road after all, barely meriting its own exit, so there yet remains the idea that setting foot or tire on it might not be the wisest choice.

    While I’m at it, I’ll tell you that I also found the exit in West Virginia that I mentioned in the same post, the one where a weary traveler could pray all they want but couldn’t pee. That can be found off of Interstate 64/77 right at the town (and I use that word loosely) of Sharon, West Virginia. The town was as I recalled, but it was nowhere near as far south as I remembered being for that trip, so we can see that my memory, again, isn’t what I believed it was. Getting old – but we knew that already.

    Actually, I think I’m supposed to be at work right now…

    *    *    *    *

    I just have to note this. After finishing this post but before I published it, I checked my e-mail and had received a bit of spam entitled, “Have tinnitus and ringing ears? Your memory could be next.”

    At this point, it should go without saying that I have tinnitus, but at least I have something to blame now. Not my age at all. Nope.

    Let’s milk this subject some more

    This is going to be another observation about our visit to the North Carolina Museum of Art last month, and yes, it’s coming from one of the Great Unwashed, so feel free to skip ahead if that bothers you.

    We pretty much toured the entire museum, which included the multi-faceted European section; plenty of examples of the styles and techniques usually considered ‘classic’ and what most people think of when it comes to discussing art – you know, Rembrandt and Botticelli and so on. I admit we skipped past the Italian Medieval section, which mostly consisted of flat depictions of people with halos. Grouped together as they were, it was easy to see an overriding style, a popularity of approach within each of the periods, but there’s always the question of whether the majority of artists at those times tended to stay within those styles, or if only those that did were selected to represent the galleries (or even became popular because they stuck with a particular style.) Were there cubists during the Renaissance that people simply thought were talentless hacks?

    But then, in the Dutch section we came across a prominently-displayed still life, Banquet Piece by Jan Jansz. den Uyl, which was immediately impressive. After a very large number of drab-colored depictions of people with disturbing proportions in unrealistic poses, this one had an almost photographic quality to it, inordinate attention to detail and accuracy. Listen, I’m cool with impressionism and moods and such, but I personally find the real talent is depicting something as it is. There’s a part of me that believes too many artists, struggling to get the skin tones right, simply give up and claim it’s representative of some damn thing or another. But hey, you can see it for yourself because it’s public domain under Wikimedia Commons:

    Banquet Piece by Jan Jansz. den Uyl
    Banquet Piece – Jan Jansz. den Uyl, from the North Carolina Museum of Art collection, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

    Clicking on this, by the way, will take you to the source page where you can see it in better detail than we even could in person. It took me a little while to find this, because I couldn’t remember the name (I was thinking Van Der Rijk,) but my webbernets expertise paid off.

    I will draw attention to the light quality overall, especially the reflections and shadows, but also the texture of the linen – exacting attention to detail. Moreover, the perspective on all these elaborately-shaped vessels is bang-on, something that can be hard to get right even when copying from real life or a photo – it’s easy to take the curve a little too much in the wrong direction (yes, I speak from a bare minimum of experience, because I still draw and paint a little.) Note the highlights on the golden centerpiece, and the reflection of the linen in the lid of the overturned pitcher to the left. It’s easy to believe that he was working from a staged scene in front of him rather than imagination, to be this accurate, and it’s still impressive for that.

    However…

    There’s one little aspect that was missed, something that didn’t quite ring true. If you like these kind of challenges, I’ll let you check out the image to see if you spot the same thing that I did.

    I’ll just add a few dead lines in here to carry the reveal down out of immediate sight.

    No peeking ahead now.

    Dum de dum de dum de dum…

    Found it? Okay, well, first off, I’ll mention the owl that can be seen at the top of the golden thing, because Uyl (the artist’s name) is Dutch for owl, and so he usually included an owl someplace in his paintings. That’s not what I was talking about, but a bit of trivia that was listed on the plaque in the museum, which would have made it much easier to find had I remembered it.

    What I’m referring to instead is the glass goblet right in the center. I suspect, actually, that this was not part of his original composition or the setting itself, but added later on, because the details seen through the glass have no distortion at all. From long experience shooting into aquariums and various glass containers, I know that even seeing at an angle through perfectly smooth and clear glass will distort what’s beyond it, and this will be enormously so when it comes to curved glass – that’s what defines a lens, after all. But the objects behind it in the painting haven’t the faintest indication of this, and having gone into the really big version available at the source, I can find no evidence that it was not painted over top of the finished painting, a later addition. In fact, there’s another bit of evidence for this, something that I didn’t notice until writing this post. Now that you know where to look, can you spot that?

    [I really am curious to know how many people find it with these clues – maybe it’s obvious, maybe not, I don’t know. I just know I missed the second one, even though I spotted the first in the museum within a minute or so of examining the painting.]

    There appears to be no reflection whatsoever of the glass goblet in that same pitcher that reflects the linen, though you can see the reflection of its own handle, as well as the centerpiece and possibly the candle holder. There might be a faint indication of it, the bright spots between the reflections of the gold/brass items, but that’s hardly as distinct as I would imagine it to be, seeing as how the goblet appears to be resting against the handle of the pitcher itself.

    It’s easy for me to believe that the goblet was added in, perhaps to provide a little more detail to the center of the scene, perhaps because the artist wanted to play around with glass and reflections some more (and except for the lack of distortion, it’s really well done.) So far, nothing that I’ve come across has made any mention of it, but I admit I haven’t looked very hard into the painting’s history. I know some artists often tinkered with their work, never really finding their favorite pieces to be ‘done,’ and I’ve been that way with model kits at times (not trying to make a direct comparison, just observing that I know the feeling,) so maybe this was the case here? Can’t say, but I felt like pointing it out. I have to admit that I appreciate the realism that the still life trend brought to paintings, and that I don’t even want to know how many hours this took.

    Storytime 1

    So, this year the weekly post will be an image with a story behind it – maybe informative, maybe amusing, more likely trivial to be honest (I don’t lead an exciting life, or at least that’s what I tell people to throw them off the trail.) I guarantee that they will post at least before 8 PM so you can read them to your kids at bedtime, because I’m that helpful. Finding a therapist for them afterward will be up to you however.

    To start off, we’ll feature one that’s been sitting in the blog folder for a bit, because I’m lazy right now.

    likely grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella in apartment complex pondWhere I lived in Florida, the apartment complex had a decent-sized pond right outside my back door, handy when poking around casually for interesting pics (and testing out experimental equipment.) Within were innumerable minnows, some small panfish that were possibly perch, and some monster fish that I’m fairly certain were grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella,) an Asian species introduced into the US primarily as weed control. When the light was good, these could be seen cruising around slowly, or nibbling on the weeds within.

    One day as I was standing on the little footbridge that crossed a neck of the pond, I watched one of these carp patrol slowly below, and when it was almost directly underneath me, I distinctly saw it blink. I’m fairly certain this photo was taken within seconds of that, but at the very least it illustrates what I was seeing at the time.

    After a moment I blinked myself, not as a signal nor in a yawnlike involuntary response, but because fish do not have eyelids, so they can’t possibly blink. I was left wondering what I actually did see.

    Just a little later on, I had even more to wonder about, because I realized that the eyes of the fish are those bulbs directly along the sides, and not the distinctive things more on top of the snout. Those resemble nostrils more than anything, which is unsurprising because they are nostrils, something that I did not think fish had until I started researching piscine anatomy for this post to determine what they did have. But of course it makes sense, because how else are they gonna smell when something’s burning? Now, why these have the ability to blink, or to be more specific, appear to retract momentarily, is something that I have not yet found, but I saw it clearly enough that there’s little doubt in my mind. I’m a little jealous mind you, since I can’t close my nostrils without one of those little swimmers’ things that horrify people when they find them in your bathroom cabinet, and I’ve had to deal with vulture vomit. It’s not fair.

    But setting aside this gross injustice, here’s another view of the same species, this time with an escort which gives a small indication of scale. It’s a wonder, actually, that we still had raccoons visiting the pond…

    possibly grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella and unidentified minnow

    Podcast: Modren Art

    Let’s start the new year off right with a rambling collection of uninformed opinions that no one asked for, shall we?

    Walkabout podcast – Modren Art

    Some of the things we heard about in the audio:

    NC Museum of Art

    Georgia O’Keeffe, of course.

    My own ‘version’ of the approach. Not really intended (and even less so now,) but just happened that way.

    Candida Höfer.

    And Cynthia Daignault, who impressed me the most. Definitely check this link out. The exhibit that we saw is entitled, “Light Atlas” and is featured on her site. I’ve included a couple of my own photos of it below, though it’s better and a little more complete at that link.

    section of 'Light Atlas' by Cynthia Daignault
    detail of several panes from 'Light Atlas' by Cynthia DaignaultI was shooting with my [*blech*] my smutphone, without the benefit of a flash, so I ask that you excuse the quality of these images. No, wait, never mind – it’s intended to look this way; it’s incisive yet whimsical commentary on technology from a post-neo-farcical standpoint…

    One particular effect that I noticed, which may or may not hit others as well, was that I thought I almost recognized several of her painting locations. The likelihood of her actually choosing anyplace that I knew as a subject for one of the panels is extremely low; instead, I suspect that what she chose were scenes that had a fair commonality with many regions of the country, representative of, for instance, certain building styles or ecology.

    Again, the combination of minimal brush strokes and detail with the notable accuracy in colors and shading just captured my attention, pure efficiency (though I suspect that’s not a descriptor most artists seek.) Very cool.

    There was one aspect that I neglected to mention in the podcast, one of the other photographs that we saw early on. It was a scene of an amusement park at dusk, lots of detail and complication which communicated the popularity and crowds. But right away, I could see the evidence of digital manipulation, with the streaks of a car’s taillights curving through the people, ostensibly a time exposure of several seconds. Yet only a few of the people themselves were blurred even slightly, while an ascending roller-coaster train and a freaking plane in the air remained sharp, evidence of a shutter speed no slower than 1/30 second. To me, that’s a significant alteration which no longer makes it a photograph, but instead a composite or digital creation – this doesn’t necessarily make it less artistic, but it does take it out of the realm of strictly camera work. This is becoming more common, especially with astronomical landscape images (the ones with a distinct and elaborate starfield appearing above a sharp and well-exposed field or tree or whatever, next to impossible to accomplish in one frame,) but I personally still opt for such things to be clearly labeled as manipulations, if only to distinguish them from the in-camera shots that really do take a bit of skill and planning.

    But yeah, go ahead and say it: “Hey, Al, at least they’re taking some photos!” I deserve that…

    December’s Abby… something

    sunrise on North Topsail Beach
    Don’t make me explain the movie reference in the title…

    Given that I’ve shot maybe six creative frames throughout the entirety of December, this month’s abstract shot comes from back in May, a cropped version of one of the many (hundreds, I think) sunrise images that I obtained while at North Topsail Beach. I did a slight tweak in contrast to bring out the waves better, but otherwise the colors are as found, a nice alien landscape. It’s funny – as I look at it, I could easily believe that it was taken this month, because the overall humidity cut out a lot of the yellow registers, making blue dominate the frame and giving the appearance of coldness. It wasn’t, of course – I was standing in the water in shorts and sandals, though I suspect The Girlfriend, had she been out there that morning, might have worn a light sweater mostly due to the stiff ocean breeze.

    Just a little later on (less than two minutes actually, as I check the EXIF info,) I endeavored to do a fartsy composition with a seagull, firing off numerous frames as it cruised near the sun. These all came out less than ideally, partially due to most of the frames catching the wings at a downward angle, but also due to the lower light. Even slightly underexposed, the shutter speed was slow enough for a bit of wing blur to come up each time – I think the best effect would have been with the silhouette tack-sharp, so maybe next trip.

    seagull against sunrise, North Topsail Beach
    Notice how this one is a bit more orange in comparison to the one above it; this is actually what was happening at the time, because I had the white balance set for full sunlight so it wasn’t altering anything in-camera. The exposure probably shifted a little, as the sun emerged further from some of the semi-obscuring clouds and got a lot brighter – you can see the clouds underneath now look a little darker.

    And if you look closely, you can tell how far the sun moved between frames. In the top image, there is a ‘fork’ in the clouds at upper left on the sun, and that same fork is still visible in the second image at lower left. Bear in mind that the sun was not rising straight up, and never does at this latitude, but instead shifting diagonally up and to the right – you can see an animated sequence of this motion within this post.

    My New Years’ resolution is going to be either a) take more photos, or b) stop whining about not taking enough photos. I’m not sure which is the more attainable goal…

    Per the ancient lore, part 42

    Bodie Island lighthouse at sunrise
    And so, we reach the last Ancient Lore post of the year, and coincidentally we’ve finished our third pass through the folders, ending here with Sunrise/Sunset. “But wait, Al,” you say sharply, “you’ve been doing this weekly; shouldn’t this be number 52? Or somewhere in that general vicinity?” Which is pretty cool how you talk in URLs like that. Except that I started late in March, because I took my own sweet time trying to decide what to do as a weekly feature.

    This is from March 2006, and I was now using the Canon Pro90 IS, my first digital camera – nothing exciting, but it had some cool uses. The aforementioned Jim Kramer and I had taken a trip to the Outer Banks strictly for photography, which is where I nearly lost my life to a treacherous quicksand trap. Or something. But that was yet to come – later this same day, in fact. At sunrise we were out by Bodie Island lighthouse, where the sky was resolutely uncooperative and almost totally without clouds, which doesn’t make for the most dramatic of sunrises. Nonetheless, we still got a hint of sunrise color, which can be seen by the faint yellow color cast on the lighthouse itself and the pinkish clouds. I have also used this image to demonstrate how light is tinted differently depending on conditions, because looking at the foreground boardwalk shows a blue cast that’s typical of open shade and hazy days; the reds and yellows scatter first and don’t bounce into the shadows, but the blues do.

    In looking at the EXIF info, I find that I shot this on Auto White Balance, a poor move to retain the sunrise colors because the camera will often notice the color cast and try to correct it towards neutral. Yet this actually looks fairly accurate, or as near as I can recall about the conditions anyway. I suspect this is because there are enough shadowed portions in the lower region of the frame and they balanced out the sunlit portions with an opposing color cast.

    same image tweaked with more orange/redIt’s also easy to do a little color tweak and make some more dramatic colors without looking unrealistic at all – except that I know there was too little humidity, and too few clouds, to produce this. [Yes, it’s really been altered slightly – look closely at the grasses if it helps.] And it’s easy to get into the whole debate about what’s appropriate when it comes to editing, and a lot of it may depend on usage; artistically, you could paint a picture in any damn color you wanted, so is there any big deal when producing an art photo print? While for photojournalistic purposes and some contests, the practice is frowned upon.

    This boardwalk, by the way, no longer exists, having been replaced with a larger and better one. So one day this image will be immensely valuable for its historic record, I’m sure. Because, you know, no one else ever took any photos from this perspective…

    1 158 159 160 161 162 311