It’s a bargain!

Al Denelsbeck

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.

I’m late! I’m late!

Al Denelsbeck

Damn, meant to post this to go up today, and forgot all about it. No, I’m not going to obsess over this blog to the point where I’m putting reminders on personal calendars, and my little “one year ago” plugin on the side failed to work since Easter falls on different days each year. Anyway, a repost from last year:

*     *     *

Easter quiz!

It’s okay, you’re not being graded on how well you’ve been paying attention. Just give this a shot, then pass it along to your christian friends who spent this morning in church.

8. When/Where did Jesus ascend back to heaven?

a. Jesus returns to heaven on the same day he arose, right after dinner, from a room in Jerusalem.
b. We don’t know exactly, but it’s at least 8 days after the resurrection, when the despondent apostles have gone back to being fishermen on the sea of Tiberias.
c. After his resurrection, Jesus spends at least 40 days of teaching his disciples in Jerusalem before ascending to heaven from the Mt. of Olives.
d. Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven; he met his disciples in the mountains of Galilee and told them he would be with them always.
e. We don’t really know; Luke is the only gospel writer who actually mentions the ascension.

Thanks to David Fitzgerald for the quiz, Phil Ferguson at SkepticMoney for hosting it, and Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist for the linkage.

Attorney for god

Al Denelsbeck

Over at Why Evolution Is True, Jerry Coyne featured a comment from a reader giving very precise criteria for his/her own conversion to believing evolution. Provided with several examples, however, said reader suddenly became intently interested in the fine print and actual wording of both their own statement and those of the responses. Why am I not surprised?

I guess it’s because I’ve seen this more times than I can count, enough that I’m coining a phrase, if only for my own use: “Attorney for god.” What I mean by this is the supremely selective application of interpretation, attention to small details, and meticulous definitions of terms in order to produce loopholes and caveats in support of their standpoint – actions that are never applied in the least against their beliefs. When it comes to such things as relying on what science has determined over the past several hundred years, these ersatz attorneys are quick to point out how we haven’t seen any species evolve into another (which is incorrect info anyway,) or that geological and radiometric dating haven’t taken into account the possibility that atomic processes just might have occurred with different speeds in the past. Yet if we consider talking snakes and a worldwide flood, somehow their intellectual rigor evaporates, and of course is deemed unnecessary.

It certainly provides no small amount of amusement. I suspect they believe they’re promoting an air of philosophical and epistemological sophistication (and in no small part trying to stump those evilutionists,) while only betraying their complete lack thereof. I’ve written before about double-standards, but this is even worse, and more juvenile: this is elaborate effort to deny – perhaps only to themselves – that their beliefs lack even the slightest connection to rational thought, and are emotionally driven instead. “I don’t believe in a 4.5 billion-year-old earth because it doesn’t make sense!” – yet the alternatives require countless properties never demonstrated and remarkably mythical.

In many cases, no doubt, it’s not even a matter of applying intellect in any way. Efforts such as Blas’ in the linked post are often intended only to score points for themselves, as if reality is determined by who wins a debate. There really are people who assume that the strength of their position lies in finding any weakness whatsoever in any opposing position – not by actually having a strong position of their own. If applying rules selectively leads to their emotional supplication, then it’s perfectly legitimate, right?

Unfortunately, those who endorse critical-thinking and even just the scientific methods can be exploited by such tactics. Such pursuits require a certain level of rigor, and especially the consideration that any standpoint or conclusion may be wrong; in most of the professional sciences, putting one’s work up for dissection is standard practice. So we respond honestly, even when suspecting that in most cases such challenges have no honesty behind them. When considered from the standpoint of having any effect whatsoever on the originator of the questions, it’s an abject waste of time.

Except when it takes place publicly, such as in a forum or open discussion. Then the dodges and the double-standards can become obvious, and show any ulterior motives (and emotional blindness) in sharp relief. There is often no feedback from any listeners, so it can seem like efforts to answer forthrightly fall on empty ears, but everyone has their own experiences where they realized one person in a conversation wasn’t being honest, and these discoveries can mean a lot more than repeated facts. Small battles also have impact.

Attorneys, by nature, aren’t trying to obtain ‘truth’ in any court case – they represent their client (and, too often, not even that, but only themselves.) They have one standpoint to consider, and put their efforts solely into that end of things. But reality is not a court case, nor a matter of public opinion; as humans, our efforts to fathom what is are only effective and worthwhile if we don’t advocate at all, but serve as the jury instead. A jury that only listens to one side isn’t a jury, and obviously, finding reality in such a case is highly unlikely. Being this one-sided is effective if you’re afraid of what reality may bring, but if anyone has stopped being scared of monsters under the bed, honest consideration of every argument is the only thing that leads to knowledge.

Eye eye, Captain!

Al Denelsbeck


Aw, c’mon! Some titles you can’t resist!

This jumping spider (genus Phidippus, perhaps a Phidippus audax) produced a great pose while I was working with it, appearing to salute with its pedipalp, or maybe shield its eyes form the sun. In reality, it was cleaning its eyes, perhaps trying to wipe away the spots in its vision from my strobes going off right in its face. I have no idea if spiders get those kind of after-images or not, and its entirely possible no one does.

But I have to say, if you want a straight-on face angle on a spider, go for the jumpers – they have no problem with staring you down. They can’t quite be said to be fearless, but they prefer by far to directly face the threats that loom, and if real danger doesn’t make itself known within a few seconds, they often return to their business, providing the inspiration for stop-motion animation. They don’t walk, they simply blink into a new position slightly different from the previous one.

The pedipalps mentioned earlier are an additional set of limbs – in spiders they’re much like small legs, right alongside the chelicerae (fangs) – which may be used for sensing or food manipulation, and in males, they also serve as the method of impregnating females, having sperm deposited within them to then be inserted into the female. Dude! You eat with those things…

I like how some images can betray a lot about how they were taken, and I often look for details like this. Note the reflections in the eyes of this full-resolution crop:


The spots to the upper left are from the sun itself, but the triangular blob is the softbox on my strobe, a Lumiquest Big Bounce angled forward to provide diffuse lighting from above, and the dot below that is a mini slave strobe (triggered by detecting the light from the main strobe) strapped right to the lens, that fills in direct lighting and some shadow detail. Pay attention to such things when you see closeup photos, and you can often tell how many light sources a photographer is using, or whether they used a ring-flash.

The lighting rig was one of numerous options I tried while chasing another subject. I caught a second black widow just a few days ago, this one a northern variant (Lactrodectus variolus,) which makes sense in that I found it about 20 meters north of the previous one – it would seem the Mason-Dixon line for spiders runs right through the yard. I retained this one in an attempt to do some extreme detail images, but unlike the jumpers, widows aren’t terribly fond of facing the camera. Overnight she’d constructed a typical web of random strands in the jar I was keeping her within, but the only way to get a clear view was through the opening at the top, and she simply wasn’t ready to smile for the camera. With many attempts, I managed to snag the image below, which is clickable if you want the full effect:



While this didn’t quite show the pedipalps detail and chelicerae that I was after, I did at least catch the eyes, reflecting the flash so brightly, and the ventral markings are very distinct. The softbox controlled the reflections from the shiny black body very well, preventing contrasty bright spots, and shows some of the chitin contours. I can live with it. Okay, maybe I should have phrased that differently…

I could arrange the lighting and poses however I liked for dead specimens, which isn’t uncommon in entomology, but that’s not my approach. It’s just a personal thing, since I prefer working with live subjects despite the additional challenges; meanwhile, other photographers won’t even use captive subjects or arranged settings like I do sometimes, so it’s all a matter of taste. My in situ photos of this spider when I found her don’t show very much detail, since she was deep in a crevice of leaves and rocks and largely in shadow. I suppose I could train an assistant spider to manipulate a tiny studio strobe or reflector in such circumstances…

While i would prefer not to have too many arthropod photos here, I’m just going with what presents itself immediately at hand, and I’m in an area that’s a little too urbanized for bears and wombats. But I’m keeping an eye on my neighbor red-shouldered hawks, quite certain there are eggs in the nest now, and a five-lined skink has been making appearances in the morning on the front steps. I’m unsure if this is a Common (American, Plestiodon fasciatus) or a Southeastern variant (Plestiodon inexpectatus); the genus Plestiodon is apparently now preferred over the former Eumeces for these species. While the scientific names are preferred for accuracy over the ‘common’ or even colloquial names, which tend to be repeated for many species and can be specific to a particular culture, it would help if scientists wouldn’t keep changing them. It would help even more if they didn’t insist on bastardizing a dead language and stuck with something pronounceable. Those elite ivory-towerers!

On the subject of common names, I once conversed with an animal control officer who was recounting an argument he’d had with someone else: “She said we don’t have buzzards around here, but I see them all the time!” I was forced to point out that his opponent was correct – the large scavenger birds in the area are vultures, not buzzards; once a term gets into the language it’s difficult to keep correcting it. And the more rural you are, the more colloquial the names become, such as “chicken hawk” for red-tailed hawks and “sparrow hawk” for kestrels – I’m not even going to bring up the insects.

Yeah, on the bandwagon

Al Denelsbeck

Just in case you haven’t already come across enough recaps of the Reason Rally, I’m going to succumb shamelessly to the fad and feature a few of them myself, vicariously through several people who were able to attend. While I want to get these out of the way before recaps of Rock Beyond Belief come rolling out, I also greatly admire the various perspectives evident in the Rally.

One thing that I’ve noticed is that, given how often fervent-yet-fatuous religious folk manage to troll nearly every online manifestation of secularism and reason, they have been far fewer than expected within everything regarding the Rally that I’ve come across. Even Tim Minchin’s Pope Song barely got a negative comment, and hell, that’s intended to get negative comments – consider it trolling for folk that can’t fathom sarcastic irony. [If you haven’t heard it before, this is a better audio version where you don’t miss any of the lyrics, but the live version has the bonus of someone interpreting the song in sign language!] I can only surmise that, with the voluminous positive responses to the video and audio from the Rally, typical web-preachers felt like their support base was in small supply anymore and they didn’t feel capable of maintaining their viewpoints in a vacuum. I rather doubt that it was because too much of the content actually made sense, since they never took any notice of that before.

The speakers were great – normally one gets the chance to hear such things every now and then, here and there, but to have such a collection together in one place is fantastic, and I’m glad so many people shared their video, audio, and photos of the event. It’s very easy to find plenty of examples online, so I’m going to feature just a select few, and let you seek out more if you like.

Of all the great, practiced, experienced, and educated speakers in the lineup, my favorite is actually Adam Savage of Mythbusters. Not only a superb speaker, but he put together an informal yet compelling short speech about reason, science, and benefit:



True be told, I do disagree with him completely on one particular point – see if you can guess which one it is.

I’m a big fan of Eddie Izzard, and his performance demonstrated his ‘stream-of-consciousness’ style more than adequately. Lawrence Krauss gave a great talk as well, beating Richard Dawkins as far as I’m concerned. I haven’t yet found a good version of Greta Christina’s talk, but since her topic was the same as her new book, I’ll link to her promo video for that.

While putting this post together, altogether far too much of the video I’ve located has been terrible. So, a little tip: buy a cheap phone, one that works properly as a phone. Then buy a proper camera and/or video recorder. Or don’t, but don’t inflict such godawful shit on anyone else if you’re too “hip” to do it right, and only want to play with toys. If you reeeallllly insist on using your Tricorder, hold the fuck still!

But then, there’s this. The Thinking Atheist did his own video impressions of the Rally, and he’s not only eloquent, he has a hell of a voice and mad editing skillzzes. Just a fantastic video:


Now, here’s something a little different. The American Atheists Conference was immediately following the Rally, on March 25th and 26th, and it also had some powerful speakers. One in particular I’m going to highlight because, as nice as the video above is, this one is unedited and lacking in any dramatic music, and twice as powerful for it. Teresa Macbain [I believe this is the correct spelling, but there are several variations given from different sources] is one of three former clergy members who spoke at the convention as open atheists – Ms Macbain’s testimonial was her first under her own name. After receiving stunning applause for her admission (that’s what you hear leading into this clip,) she had a little more to say:


For all those who feel offended by atheists and our attitudes towards religion, take note: It’s not you we have issues with, it’s your ridiculous standpoints. Leave behind the arrogance and the ersatz authority, the hatred and bigotry, and everything’s cool. That’s what reason is. No foolin’.

Turn ’em off

Al Denelsbeck

I feel bad about this, because I think I should be more in the loop, but this really is the first I’ve heard about it. “Earth Hour” is tonight, between 8:30 and 9:30 PM. As a show of support for energy efficiency and easing our reliance on limited resources, people across the world are shutting down as many electrical appliances as possible for an hour tonight.

Except, it seems, in the US. Even a brief, token show of environmental awareness is a bit too much to ask in this country. Whether it’s considered impinging on the indulgences of prosperous Americans, or pandering to tree-huggers, or just not welcomed by our energy corporations, news of this event has barely appeared in any media in this country. In fact, there’s a fair chance that, if made aware of it, no small number of residents here would do exactly the opposite, turning on as many lights a possible, as if their show of defiance against ‘eco-hippies’ accomplishes anything more productive than shoring up their own weak egos. For those of you outside the US who might be reading this, yeah, we really are that juvenile in this country (okay, that’s probably not news.)

You might notice that the link above, and this one, shows lots of candles being lit, giving an unnecessary impression of what the event means. There’s no reason to even light a candle, much less a buttload of them, and while such things contribute far less to atmospheric carbon that powerplants do, they still contribute. Speaking as someone who enjoys the night and often goes out as far from lights as I can, going without light is actually pretty cool, and yes, your eyes not only adjust to the darkness, they get better with practice. Late one night, wandering in the woods searching for luminescent fungi, I stared hard at a very large patch of mushrooms trying to determine if they really were faintly glowing. But they weren’t luminescent in the slightest; the amount of reflected ambient skylight they were reflecting fooled me, since they contrasted so sharply with the dark forest floor. The photo below is a 221-second exposure under a full forest canopy, barely a patch of sky visible, and probably comes fairly close to what I was seeing.


I said “token” above, and this really is a token effort, not much of an impact at all on our energy usage when you consider how many lights and devices we have on constantly, so here’s the challenge: go for longer than an hour, more than just one night. See how well you know your way around your house (better than you might think, I suspect – our spacial awareness is pretty well developed.) Watch the backyard and see what actually moves out there when things get quiet – and that means take a listen too. Get familiar (again) with the night sky, and see how many satellites you can spot in an hour. Find a glowworm.

Did you buy a lottery ticket? Didn’t do a damn thing for you, did it? This does, and it’s a guaranteed return, even if only on your power bill. And you know what they say: “Once you go black, you never go back.”

Have fun!

Personal god

Al Denelsbeck

Walkabout podcast – Personal god

I am, if nothing else, a fan of perspective. One of the greatest benefits of critical thinking is that it can often encourage people to take stock of a situation, compare it against other experiences, and most especially, to see where a common attitude can lead us to fall for unwarranted assumptions or misleading values. So I’m slightly irked in that I never really noticed this post topic until recently, but at the very least it appears I’m not alone (is there a good reason to take comfort in that?) In the time that I’ve had it in draft form, I’ve come up with numerous aspects to add to it, and will likely discover more now after I’ve published it, but this is enough of a start.

I’ll be blunt: I am astounded at how incredibly selfish most religion is. It is a near-constant litany of how any individual’s status is determined and maintained, frequently at the expense of others, and it is incredibly anti-social. There, now that I put every religious person firmly on the defensive, they won’t be reading any further, and I can put anything I want from here on in. Yet I’m perfectly serious, so if you’re curious (or up to the challenge,) keep reading.

Miss me?

Al Denelsbeck


Probably not. I really shouldn’t ask questions like that.

In winding down this evening (well, yesterday evening now,) I noticed that a lot of my favorite bloggers have nothing new to post, with good reason. They’re all at the Reason Rally in DC, most of them probably starting to get a bit bleary and manic from the long day and the after-rally get-togethers as I type this (it’s 1:00 am Sunday morning.) I would have liked to have been there, but I had already committed to teaching a seminar on Spring Garden Photography for the local botanical garden by the time I realized how cool the Reason Rally was going to be. I guiltily admit that a small part of me was hoping for something to happen and reschedule the seminar, so I could do both, but I honestly can’t complain. It looked like DC got some pretty heavy rain storms today, and while we did too, we got a fortuitous break in the weather at the time that we all left the education center to go chase pics in the garden. The clouds were widely variable, so we actually got bright sunlight and blue skies, partial clouds, and full overcast all in the space of 90 minutes, but no rain. There was a pretty good turnout, and everyone seemed pleased with the seminar – one attendee was kind enough to tell me I was a natural teacher, which was great to hear (and repeat.) I also want to take this opportunity to thank Nik for his assistance with pointers in the garden session, and of course, I owe a lot to the North Carolina Botanical Garden. While details are not firmed up yet, it appears I will be doing a children’s photography workshop in the summer there, too.

The nasty throat infection that I got early in the week had mostly cleared by this afternoon, so I was able to speak, but that had remained iffy for several days, and it definitely slowed down my writing activity. I’ve learned that if I’m not in a decent mood for writing, pushing it doesn’t accomplish anything, and I should just scribble down some basic thoughts and come back to it when the words are flowing better. That’s part of the reason why a new topic this week hasn’t been tackled until now.



You will (of course!) remember about this time last year when I watched the red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus) cavorting (or canoodling) nearby and hoped to find the nest; this did not come to pass. To make up for this, because they obviously saw how disappointed I was, the local pair this year took up residence in the neighbor’s tree, within easy sight from our back yard, front yard, and even the road, and it appears that I’ll still have a nice break in the foliage once the trees are fully leafed out, so I won’t lose sight of them. The female is currently spending a lot of time in the nest and may soon deposit the eggs – I don’t think they’ve been laid yet since they pair were doing the old flap-and-squawk a few days ago, several times. Newlyweds.

This is possibly even more fortuitous than it could have been, since the house next door that sits right under their nest (the same one that hosted our new editions to the household) has now been put up for sale, and so will likely remain unoccupied and quiet throughout the hatching and fledging period. There is even a chance that a nearby tree will be sufficient to provide a higher vantage point for photographing the nest, since it sports numerous branches at decent spacing.

I have been paying attention to the reactions of the pair to my presence, since they can see me far more easily than I can see them, and I’m concerned about them getting too spooked by humans nearby and abandoning the nest. Apparently, just to show that I’m being irrationally condescending about their timidity, the other day the male alighted in a tree in our backyard during his daily territorial patrols, and gave voice to some wonderfully piercing calls. My actions of slipping out the back door and firing off several frames with the 170-500mm lens disturbed him not a bit, despite the fact that I was roughly 15 meters away – he’s seen me too many times before, I guess. Red-shouldered hawks are among the noisiest of raptors, at least around here, because they soar about the perimeter of their territory a few times a day and issue a series of cries that are very distinct and carry no small distance. I’ve been in phone conversations and had people on the other end remark about the noise – it would probably help if I didn’t wander outside so often when I’m on the phone. If I manage to record these at some point (the hawk calls, not my phone conversations,) I’ll upload them to the site.

Nest weekend brings us the Rock Beyond Belief event at Ft Bragg, which should also be well worth attending. I had planned to be there, but I don’t think I’m going to have available transportation that day, so right now this is up in the air. I am more than happy to carpool and split costs with anyone who’s leaving from the Chapel Hill/Durham/Raleigh area, so get in touch! I promise to keep the critter stories to a minimum, unless you like them.


If you can read this…

Al Denelsbeck

First off, your assignment for today: read the post found at The Diamond In The Window – it shouldn’t take five minutes. I’ll wait here and chase the cat off the keyboard.

oiuc3uvcdugfybel,,l

Done? Good. That was a great example of how too many school systems within the US have completely lost sight of their goals, and most especially, a demonstration of the issues with “teaching to the test.” I have no problems with saying that what I learned in English classes in school has virtually nothing to do with how I write, nor what I present here. I always did well in English class, and have been an avid reader since before I started school. But in my years of school, there was one book, just one, assigned in class that I actually enjoyed: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. On the flip side, I am completely lost as to why anyone would bother with F. Scott Fitzgerald or John Knowles, not terribly impressed with William Shakespeare or Ernest Hemingway, and think John Steinbeck was a ham-fisted amateur at tragedy.

At this point, English majors and those who think the word “literature” is a mark of esteem would all be preparing to rip my writing apart in retaliation (presuming they had not already fled in horror long ago,) or at the very least assuring themselves that I’m certainly not sophisticated enough to understand such magnificent works. Never realizing, perhaps, that there is nothing that will be considered good by everyone, and such labels are merely expressions of opinion. The Appreciation of Literature is not something that we should aspire to, anymore than we should all have the same opinions of politicians, food, or hobbies; writing is about communication. If I’m completely put off by unrealistic depictions of human interactions, or obvious attempts to instill certain emotional responses, then that author is not communicating effectively to me. This is no more a fault of mine than it is of theirs.

I cannot, in the slightest, diagram a sentence anymore, and I haven’t ever regretted this in my life. I occasionally misuse words (perhaps even words like “occasionally,”) and could certainly write a bit clearer at times. But if anyone gets the gist of what I’m saying, and can read through without wincing in pain or getting confused, then I’ve done everything that writing is intended to do. If, by some infinitesimal chance, I manage to produce something that someone enjoys reading, that strikes their fancy or resonates or illustrates or enlightens, then I’ve gone beyond communication. That would be great, because that’s what makes people want to keep reading.

The authors that I like – Terry Pratchett and Brian Daley, Isaac Asimov and Douglas Adams and Gerald Durrell – are nearly all dead the ones responsible for how I write… because what they wrote is interesting, compelling, and entertaining. Sentence structure and the flow of prose do not come from classes, workshops, diagrams, and anal retentiveness, but from frequent exposure. None of the writers above will be considered within the realms of high literature, but if their writing keeps the reader involved, what more should anyone demand? Most importantly, why should anyone try to develop a ‘taste’ for writing based on what someone else deems worthy? Isn’t that simply sucking up to a perceived superiority?

‘Teaching’ and ‘learning’ are two concepts that are, far too often, poorly understood. Learning isn’t a special activity, nor does it take concerted effort. Humans learn as a matter of course, and we’re eager for new, interesting experiences. What we perceive through our senses is automatically stored in our brains – if we have reason to attach significance to it. Teaching is presenting information in a way that helps instill the significance, yet even saying that gives the wrong impression, I suspect. Significance isn’t fostered by putting more emphasis on certain words, or repeating things, but by tying the information into something that stirs an emotional response from the student, whether it be the sudden realization of how this applies to some aspect of their lives, or the discovery that a writer was sneaking in a hint of things to come, or simply that it came through a humorous method. You can’t diagram or structure a good teacher – nor can you judge a teacher by any particular student. Someone that reaches one student extraordinarily well may not reach another, because students are not blank slates cut from the same mold, but individuals with their own personalities.

In this way, I’m not going to agree with some of the comments on that linked post, the ones in essence saying, “Let the teachers teach.” Some teachers simply aren’t very good, and there really does need to be a way of determining such. But we’ve gotten immersed in a pile of standards within this country that now have little relation to anything useful for students. ‘Proper English’ is a completely misleading phrase, because there is no such thing. Language is simply effective communication, and it changes constantly. Nor is there any reason to maintain strict rules about it. The main reason I dislike Shakespeare is that the language has changed so much that his carefully-crafted passages, relying on the structure of the times, needs translation into current terms, changing the activity from following a storyline into building an edifice of context. An offhand double-entendre requires five minutes of explanation; everyone knows that explaining a joke takes every last vestige of humor from it.

Never, ever make reading (or any aspect of learning) a chore – that’s what we call a negative influence. Don’t over-analyze books or language. The term “prepositional phrase” is a sign of having too much time on your hands. Let the kids find the emotional response, the identification, the surprise of lost time because the book is too damn interesting to put down. And this will be different for every kid, and should be. When the student, on their own, starts on the next book from the same author, that’s your criteria of success.

And a hint to anyone who is called upon to administer testing and school curricula: teaching, good teaching, is not just technical, but emotional as well. Not everyone who can do a particular task can supervise others for the same task, and not everyone who knows the material can teach. What’s needed is someone who can produce the enthusiasm and spark the interest in their students, and a lot of that comes from possessing the same traits themselves. Crush that by trying to quantify it in some statistical manner, and you effectively stop someone from actually being a teacher. Or simply think back on the teachers that you preferred, and what classes you remember most. You might also think back on the jobs you yourself have held where the pay was inadequate; were you a good performer then? Did the employers who were micro-managers and clock-watchers produce a better workforce? Were you enthusiastic about going to work each day? Because, for someone to spark the enthusiasm in a student, they need to be enthusiastic themselves. Shit pay and the Sword of Damocles overhead is exactly the opposite of what’s needed.

Granted, most of our political parties benefit from a populace dumber than a bag of lint, which might explain many current trends in our overall educational system, but that’s another post…

1 … 275 276 277 278 279 … 311