What would it take?

Al Denelsbeck

All right, I suppose I have to comment on this after all – I usually try to let other bloggers handle things like this.

Long story short: In a discussion between Richard Dawkins (notoriously shrill and strident militant atheist, according to ‘media sources,’ which means vapid nitwits,) and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Dawkins noted his personal ruler of belief – on a scale from one to seven, one being ‘absolutely sure of god’s existence’ and seven being ‘absolutely sure of god’s nonexistence,’ Dawkins did not rate himself as a seven, just really close. This isn’t astounding news for anyone familiar with his very same statements many times in the past, but some media outlets (no doubt desperate to appeal to readers with the intellectual prowess of wet sticks) trumpeted it with great delight. This does, of course, imply that at least some religious folk are more concerned with the opinion of a prominent atheist than with half a million sources of unquestionable faith.

From a scientific, and for that matter logical, standpoint an attitude such as Dawkins’ is the only one that can be reasonably taken. There is nothing that is ever proven beyond all doubt, unable to be overturned later – the very nature of both knowledge and humans renders this an abstract superlative. What we have instead is the weight of the evidence, which can give us a nice precedent but does not actually prevent exceptions. Dawkins has simply, generously, admitted that he is not omniscient.

An interesting aspect of all this is the desperation of religious folk to find a crack to hold up triumphantly, but the very search for such things becomes hypocritical. Dawkins’ offhand statement is taken to mean that even the high priest of the atheists [bear with me, I’m being sarcastic again] has his doubts, yet if he’d said instead that he was 100% sure there is no god, that would be considered stubborn close-mindedness and claimed to be as much faith as a belief in god. The amusing sidenote about this is that in one stroke, faith has changed from being virtuous to being facile. The very trait that the religious want to be held in esteem for having is apparently not cool in anyone else.

The related question, posed so often in discussion forums by religious folk, is, “What would it take to make you believe?” I admit I have a hard time treating this as an honest question, but instead merely an attempt to force an admission of blind faith in god’s nonexistence, or alternately to begin to prey on ‘doubt.’ Numerous atheists have pointed out, however, that the typical definitions of ‘god’ are either too vague to be searching for evidence of, or self-contradictory (‘omniscience’ and ‘omnipotence’ rule one another out – if you know everything, there is nothing that you can do except what you already know will happen.) Some have quite simply said, “Give me your definition of ‘god’ as a starting point,” which is either dodged, or confuses the hell out of religious folk: “What do you mean? You know: god.” Which makes it pointless to try and demonstrate, for instance, that supernaturality is defined by being outside evidence in the first place, so the question is stupid.

While it seems efficient to simply avoid playing senseless games with religious folk who either aren’t being honest or never considered the implications of their beliefs, I’m not a fan of dismissing such questions, because that plays into the hands of those who simply wanted to show atheism as a stubborn and intractable emotional crutch. Comments about pots and kettles here won’t cut it either. Instead, I proffer a simple analogy:

If you were to tell me some person is an excellent golfer, I’d want to see some nice low scores to agree with you, as well as watching them play. If you were to tell me this person was the best around, I’d want to see several playoffs among many other golfers, preferably under the auspices of an organization that was not only qualified to judge, but under enough scrutiny to reduce bias as a viable influence.

If you were to tell me, however, that this was the best golfer that ever lived or would ever live, you’ve presented a situation that has no possibility of being demonstrated. The statement has exceeded evidential support and has entered the realm of baseless assertion. While you might feel slighted that I dismiss your statement as meaningless, tough shit.

The various definitions of ‘god,’ of course, far exceed ‘golfer,’ as well as not even being restrained by something like the rules of golf. Most religious folk can’t even agree on whether god answers prayers or not, and dodge the subject by resorting to “mysterious ways.”

Part two of all this is even more damning, unfortunately. Some have pointed out that a large pile of miracles and sudden violations of physics might be leaning in that direction, at the very least – does that count? And, barring the possibility of doubting one’s own senses or sanity (which has indeed been offered as a response,) and allowing that we’ve relaxed the definition to forgo unprovable omnipotence or perpetual existence, then I might admit to the existence of a really powerful being or force. I’m not sure I would rashly label it as ‘god,’ though, with all the assumptions that entails. But hey, if all it takes to provide evidence of a remarkably powerful being is a lot of stunning physical demonstrations, well, go for it.

Although the ability to snuff out my life with a thought, or read my mind, or send me to torment for a long time isn’t enough to make me praise such a being. I don’t really think worship through fear is an honest response – ‘worship’ and ‘fear’ are fairly contradictory. I don’t even have the ability to be grateful for my life or the planet or anything of the sort, since it’s pretty clear that we see both good and bad, and face adversity on a regular basis. You see, I can accept that people dying in natural disasters is how things happen in an undirected world with countless variables. I can’t see any magnificence in someone who supposedly designed it to happen that way, with hardship and disease and competition over resources being, well, omnipresent. I find it hard to glorify life when any proposed supreme being obviously does not. According to the interpretations of some scripture, we were even created with the deck stacked against us, to see if we’d find the right path before we die, or stumble and face everlasting pain – and we cannot ignore the claims of omniscience, where god already knows the result anyway.

There’s a lot that gets missed with all of this. The benefit of knowledge isn’t simply knowing something, peace of mind or whatever, but in being able to use it – preferably to improve our lives in some way. Finding out that any scripture is actually perfectly factual, or even merely inspired by divine communication while getting some portions off a bit, doesn’t change the bare fact that countless portions are incredibly corrupt and vicious. Claims that we mere humans cannot understand the secret goals of a supreme being are not explanatory in the least; if scripture is the guide that’s intended for us, then it’s inept to not have it in a form that we can understand and value. Surely an omniscient being could manage this.

But that’s not the goal in the slightest. The goal is for adherents to feel self-righteous, backed in their particular views not by rational argument, but by an unassailable superbeing, the pinnacle of authority. That’s all that such approaches are trying to establish. No one gives a damn about what evidence really is – they simply want to find a way to forestall disagreement, or render their opponent as intractable and childish.

Lots of pursuits that we engage in as a species, from scientific endeavors to legal proceedings, from auto mechanics to medical exams, rely on a method simply enumerated as, “Here are the facts; where do they lead?” On too many occasions, however, people resort to something else: “Here is the conclusion that I like; how do I build support for it?” Operating in this way means that facts which do not lead in the desired direction are ignored – obviously there are some issues that are going to arise. What it does, to be blunt, is place emotional supplication over dealing with the real world – that’s not something that we should encourage in the slightest. It’s actually pathetic, and should be treated as such.

My god! It’s full of snails!

Al Denelsbeck


When I was in Florida, I maintained a saltwater aquarium in the most casual way possible, by simply replenishing it with water from the nearby Indian River Lagoon routinely. The occupants were primarily porcelain crabs, tiny hermit crabs, and grass shrimp, all hardy and easy-to-feed critters. Since grass shrimp (too often called “ghost shrimp”) are available at some aquarium shops in the area, I’m considering getting a few as photographic subjects (and just ’cause I like ’em) and so dug out the small, cheap fish tank that I have. And since aquatic life is already visible in the streams and ponds around here, I collected some local water and debris, kind of as a warmup to see just what could be found.

The main thing that I caught were snails and copepods, no surprise. Copepods are not-quite-microscopic aquatic organisms that are exceptionally common and definitely exotic-looking, but also hyperactive and hard to photograph, not the least because of their size. One can be seen in the photo at top, on the left. But the snails busied themselves with laying eggs all over the sides of the aquarium, also seen in that image, which means I’ll be holding off on switching this over to a saltwater tank for a little while, since this presents an opportunity that I don’t want to pass up: hatching! Seen here, one of the larger snails has been captured in the process of producing yet another egg sac, sticking it directly to the aquarium side. In natural conditions, such snails attach their eggs to rocks, twigs, and debris, usually in sheltered conditions – I had collected some others on dead leaves from the pond edges. If it helps, the snail itself is about 2 cm long – and the back end of the snail is towards the top of the image. Yeah, snail anatomy is kind of weird.

The gestation time varies with the species and the temperature, so I can expect anywhere from one to five weeks until they hatch, but likely on the shorter end of that because they’re indoors now, much warmer than the ponds outdoors. Somewhat frustrating, however, is the fact that the small tank is only plastic, and significantly marked and scratched, so it’s far from the best photographic conditions. I had planned to swap out one side with a piece of glass, like the macro tank seen here, but like a dummy I put the sample water in it before I tackled that project, and now I have to shoot through the scratches. My planning could have been a little better.

While I’m not going to be moving the egg sacs adhering to the sides, I can still transfer other subjects into the macro tank for better images. Aside from having clean and unmarked glass to shoot through, providing less distortion and things to scatter the lighting from, the smaller tank means that I can keep photo subjects closer to the front (less suspended sediment to shoot through,) manage the setting easier, and put my lighting anywhere it’s needed, including behind or underneath the tank. Tiny yet perpetually active subjects like this water beetle still have a lot of room to hurtle around within, but will now pass within view of the camera more often, and remaining focused at the water’s edge improves those odds quite a bit. Using the bellows like I was here requires manually closing the aperture down after achieving tight focus, which darkens the viewfinder pretty much to the point of ineffectiveness, so it means align the camera, focus sharply, and then close the aperture down and snap the image quickly before the subject gets bored and leaves, all while not bumping the rig in the slightest. The aperture needs to be quite small to extend the limited depth of field as much as possible; even with this, effective sharp focus is usually measured in millimeters. But with a small tank you can pick a particular area that is distinctive, focus and set aperture, then simply watch the tank without having to have your eye at the viewfinder, tripping the shutter when the subject enters your viewing area. This is helped by using a fairly high shutter speed and a flash/strobe to prevent any motion blur. A word of warning for those who want to try macro tank photography, though: at high magnifications, you find out just how hard it is to keep everything clean, and tank sides that appeared perfectly clear will show the hairs and schmutz that sneak in constantly. Often it’s hard to stay on top of the air bubbles that form constantly against the glass, requiring their dislodging just when you think you’ve got everything arranged, and as seen here, a tissue is a lot less useful to clean the outsides than you’d expect – those white squiggles are paper fibers. It goes without saying that difficult subjects always choose to pose helpfully right alongside something that you don’t want in the photo.


Another capture was a dragonfly nymph, the larval form that is as serious a predator upon aquatic critters as the adult form is upon flying insects. This one is sporting some kind of atypical appendages that, while FAB-u-lous!, are probably some kind of fungal growth and none too healthy. While appearing to be less active than the water beetles, dragonfly larva have this habit where they wait until you’ve got focus nicely pinned down and then move a little bit or change poses, something that any child photographer probably knows only too well. Did I forget to mention lighting tests? Yeah, TTL flashes are pretty undependable for macro work, especially when using a bellows which won’t feed aperture info into the camera, so you’re going full manual lighting with such setups, and will spend no small amount of time adjusting both light intensity and angle. While a strobe with adjustable output is not absolutely necessary, it will make your life much easier, as will a manner of repositioning and angling it quickly. Nevertheless, once a few tests have determined just what power and angle are working best, that’s when the nymph goes behind your setting. You should rest assured, however, that a gentle nudge to move it back out into the open will sending it swimming frantically all around the tank instead.


It may take a lot of frames and an abundance of patience, but eventually some compelling images can be captured, and with aquatic subjects it doesn’t matter how much or loudly you swear (I say smugly to the child photographers.) Collecting these subjects, by the way, required a jar and access to a pair of ponds, assisted by no aversion to getting a little muddy, so it’s not like stalking lions on the African veldt. Coming soon, I’ll detail another method of getting extreme closeups that is easier to arrange than you might have suspected.

Occam’s razor

Al Denelsbeck

Occam’s razor is a proverb, if you will, that underlies critical thinking and the consideration of alternatives. In its most commonly used form, it reads rather simply: If there are multiple explanations for some observed phenomenon, the simplest one is likely the most accurate. As can be seen from that link, however, this is paraphrasing. It’s not exactly a law of probability, but instead a reminder that elaborate circumstances rarely exist in nature, and when they do, they’re usually obviously elaborate – the evidence of their complexity will be clear, and not mistaken for something simpler.

I don’t find the proverb itself terribly useful, but it serves as a starting point for something a bit more important to critical thinking. I don’t know if it has a name or not – considering that this is how philosophers justify their existence, it probably does – but in essence, it’s the idea that every explanation bears its own consequences. This is better illustrated by an example.

People who support the idea of a US government conspiracy behind the attack on the World Trade towers on 9/11 maintain that there is compelling evidence that the planes could not have caused the collapse, and that signs of controlled demolition exist. When we apply the idea of consequence to this, we start asking several pertinent questions:

  • Why would the government do this?
  • How could this be accomplished and kept secret?
  • What, exactly, is the evidence in support of this?
  • What, exactly, is the evidence against it?
  • Can the evidence for either be interpreted in more ways than one?

    • These cannot be considered unreasonable questions by any stretch, and in fact, our judicial system relies on exactly this type of examination. Virtually every court case requires the demonstration (aligned with the questions above) of motive, opportunity, means, and being beyond reasonable doubt. It also underpins the scientific method, where a firm conclusion (which is, again, defined as “beyond reasonable doubt”) is only reached by eliminating as many other options as possible.

    From a skeptical standpoint, the goal is not to automatically doubt any explanation, but to open the door to questions and seek support for any particular conclusion. If A is the case, then we should expect B and C to follow. If B and C are missing, A is thrown into question. With this rides another aspect, where A may lead to B, but so might Q and J; in order to be comfortable with only one explanation, the others must be ruled out somehow. This aspect of logic is routinely ignored when statistics are quoted, where rising intelligence and rising housing costs are considered connected in some way because they both rise. My example is silly, but this kind of mindless comparison is used far too frequently.

    Applying this to our 9/11 conspiracy claim (it doesn’t qualify as a theory,) we have to determine useful answers to the questions listed above. Some of them, such as how the government could have kept it secret and how they could have mined the incredibly busy buildings with demolition charges without anyone noticing, already start to strain explanatory scenarios. Moreover, neither one culminated with the collapse of the buildings, but need to be maintained in secrecy, even to this day, and thus require a support structure that must continue through changing administrations. And there had to be a purpose to all of these shenanigans, which supposedly was to goad us into war with Iraq. The fact that the ‘pat explanation’ of this being Al Qaeda’s doing had nothing to do with Iraq, wasn’t sufficient to convince Congress, and wasn’t needed anyway since Bush simply pushed the war through without them, all make the ‘motive’ part rather lame.

    Then, when we look at the evidence, we find such marvelous things as offhand comments made by firefighters (during a massive disaster,) puffs of ‘smoke’ (supposedly demolition charges) from a 200,000 cubic meter office building already in the process of collapse (we have to assume, I guess, that the dust clouds that covered dozens of city blocks were also demolition charges, and not caused by displaced air,) and that jet fuel does not ignite at a high enough temperature to melt structural steel. The last is the only one that seems to have a smidgen of science behind it, in that someone actually looked up flashpoints. Perhaps it would have been nice if they had progressed beyond the smidgen, though, or even just remembered that blacksmiths hammering horseshoes are not working with iron that is melted, but merely softened for pliability, and that the furnaces to accomplish this are fired by fuels with a lower flashpoint than the melting point of iron, too. Flashpoint refers to ignition, not resulting heat, which depends on the enclosure and supply of fuel. Yet, these little bits of highly questionable ‘evidence’ are claimed to support the vast idea of the conspiracy.

    It is important, in fact vital, to ask if the evidence is solid, incapable of being misconstrued or misinterpreted, before even embarking on scenarios that might support such evidence. Can the observed traits be explained by means other than the initial posits? In the case of the puffs of smoke, supposedly from ‘squibs’ (explosive charges,) there are countless other possibilities, especially since the collapse of such huge buildings would have required several hundred charges, and they would have detonated before the collapse began. We’ve already addressed the jet fuel issue, and it could be pointed out that having the buildings fall almost immediately after impact would have made more sense to most viewers, not to mention keeping a million different media cameras off of the collapse. The collapse of the third building, Seven World Trade Center, should have occurred commensurate with the destruction of the twin towers – there is no earthly reason to let it remain standing for the entire day, nor for any ‘responsible party’ to utter the supposedly damning comment captured by news crews. The claims that the damage was insufficient to bring down the building are trashed by seeing the photos of the damaged side of the building, where the North Tower debris ripped through perhaps 20 floors, not the side opposite, which is the only side that the conspiracists ever show.

    Which is another point in itself. All too often, when conspiracy claims are made and the supporting evidence presented, it takes little effort to find that such evidence is not understood, poorly presented, or outright edited – but it takes the motivation to look for it. Taking any claim on faith, no matter what side, is exceptionally uncritical – there is no method of ensuring that any source of information cannot be wrong, nor reason to believe such a thing. And it says an awful lot that most conspiracies throughout the ages only survive by being selective about evidence. Claims that the cryptic line, “We’re going to pull it,” is demolition jargon turn out to be completely false, and photos showing how strong the building was before collapse should not be solely of the undamaged side. The same goes for things like the Kennedy assassination, where a faint haze in one photo and a witness’ claim that the gunshots came from the grassy knoll are used, totally ignoring the countless witnesses who claim the shots came from the book repository, including those that saw someone up there. Witnesses that saw no aircraft anti-collision strobes from the ‘mysterious light in the sky’ do not magically override those that actually did see the strobes.

    Going yet further with the application of critical thinking with our first example, we can imagine ourselves as the government trying to spark a war, and think of what kind of apparatus would be sufficient. Considering that the towers had already been attacked earlier by a simple car bomb, it seems rather elaborate to switch to hijacked airliners – an explosion at ground level would fit the planned demolition scenario far easier. Even if sold on the aircraft idea, a cargo plane with a small nuclear device would have been tons more effective in communicating the threat of Al Qaeda/Iraq/whatever, and not subject to passenger interference either. The construction workers that reinforced the Pentagon months before the attack would have had a legitimate excuse to be deep in the bowels of the building planting explosives, and could have done far more damage to the building than what actually occurred. As a conspiracy, it’s actually incredibly inept.

    That’s how Occam’s Razor is wielded. As explanatory scenarios get more elaborate, they require a supporting structure of details, that we either should be able to find easily or must have explanations why we do not. Those explanations themselves must also be plausible, and have supporting evidence or good reasons why no such thing is available. The very first part of the claim – that the US government (or some faction within) planned it all – is an attempt to explain how the buildings could collapse if not because of the planes, but lacks any kind of direct evidence at all. Everything related to it is simply wild speculation about how and why, a supposition just to try and patch the very first holes in the conspiracy claim, but bearing nothing at all to bolster it. Something of this nature would be huge, and require untold hundreds or thousands of accomplices – in other words, a structure of vast proportions that is still completely secret. To maintain this as a plausible scenario, one must create more and more elaborate circumstances to explain away the total lack of evidence that could lead anyone to suspect it in the first place. It’s not actually possible to keep building a structure on the scaffolds of the next structure – somewhere in there must be a foundation.

    Even science operates with this idea constantly, as scientists test posits through the consequences of their supporting structure, sometimes quite ingeniously, but it always must come back to something fundamental, or at the very least (like the counter-relativistic rules of quantum physics) a dependable set of results. This also requires accepting what the evidence says, which is usually the hardest part for we humans to get past. We have a strong emotional tie to solving puzzles, and get a serious sense of accomplishment from it. In fact, this is likely the prime motivation behind conspiracy claims and paranormal explanations in the first place; something abnormal is noticed, and various explanations for such are contemplated (occasionally abetted by other desires or beliefs, such as feeling like a victim of the government or a belief in realms outside of the merely physical.) The sense of pride inherent within the idea that “I figured it out” is naturally much more powerful than, “Oh, wait, that isn’t right” – this can even be applied to those who did nothing to piece anything together, but merely feel they are part of the elite few who know. Yet the emotional attachment to ‘knowing the solution’ makes us reluctant to let go of an explanation when the evidence fails to bear it out, so we need to be aware that this is emotional, and nothing more. Quite simply, when a good idea cannot be supported through a few specific tests, it wasn’t actually a good idea in the first place, and it’s time to let it go. Adapting critical thinking skills from the outset actually makes this far easier, since the tests are being applied right from the start, before we convince ourselves of how good an idea it is.

    Interestingly, it also switches the emotional sense of accomplishment to a different puzzle: not whether our hypothesis is correct, but if we can effectively test such things and catch the errors. Rather than feeling disappointed when a hypothesis fails to bear fruit, we can feel triumphant that we caught the problems – especially before someone else did! Like much of what we do, we get a better sense of self if the trials that we face are tougher, and we constantly raise the bar on ourselves.

    Spoke too soon, perhaps

    Al Denelsbeck

    In yesterday’s ‘Too cool’ installment, I lamented not being able to illustrate the topic with my own images, and suspected I’d have no opportunity to do so. This was an abject ploy to make you feel sorry for me.

    However, I soon became wracked with guilt over such blatant manipulations. Not to mention that, while searching through my images last night to illustrate a couple of presentations, I came across this insect photographed not six meters from my door one summer. While the wings are not being held in the right position, compare their pattern with that illustrated by Alex Wild in his post. This isn’t sufficient to demonstrate how the illusion works, but it does mean that I might be able to do so later on, without traveling to the tropics.

    This is how the mind of an insect photographer works. This goal will remain in the back of my mind (along with many others,) and every tiny fly is going to be examined from now on to see if it might be a target species. if spotted, I’ll be trying to achieve just the right angle to illustrate this trait, at the same time watching to see if I can ever catch the function in action with a jumping spider. I admit to spending a lot of time crawling around looking for this kind of thing, but think about it: how often have you yourself ever seen, for instance, a jumping spider catch any prey? This could be a long time coming…

    I am reminded on one of my past frustrations, when two jumping spiders faced off against one another on a railing. I scrambled to get camera out, missing the action where they launched to attack, but capturing the two of them clutched tightly together and dangling from a dragline, spinning madly. After regaining their perch on the railing, I could see they were belly to belly; both faces peering at me, though the smaller one was upside down on its back under the larger one and, I suspect, dying.

    Then, somehow, I lost that roll of film from my bag. I never found it, and have never seen such a thing since. It is, as they say, a first-world problem, but considering that most of my sense of accomplishment comes from nature photography, I’m going to reserve the right to be annoyed over it.

    Too cool, part 13: I’m a spider, raargh!

    Al Denelsbeck

    Since I have yet to obtain any images illustrating this (and because there may not even be examples of such within this country, I may not ever, sniff,) I refer you to Alex Wild of Myrmecos fame, guest-blogging on Scientific American’s site, for his post on “The fly that banks on arachnophobia.”

    If you wish, pause for a second and try to imagine how a fly might benefit from something being scared of spiders, like I did. Chances are, it’s better than you imagined. Most especially, when you see a different (and more appropriate) angle provided by Warren Laurde in the comments.

    It all leads me to wonder, how long before spiders develop secret signs amongst themselves, like visual passwords, to flush out the imposters?

    *      *      *      *

    My competitive side tells me not to link to Myrmecos, since Alex Wild is a much better photographer than I, but the unwritten rules of the net dictate that he reciprocate, right? And if that works, I’ll be praising Canon for their MP-E 65mm soon…

    More classes

    Al Denelsbeck

    Now that the details are finalized, I can announce that I’m instructing another photography offering, sponsored by Youth Community Project in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area of North Carolina. This is a basic photography seminar, open to youths aged 12-18, and will run for six weeks on Thursday evenings from 6 – 7 pm at the Street Scene Teen Center on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill, starting March 1st (that’s this coming Thursday.) This is a community involvement project, and it runs under a ‘suggested donation’ system, meaning that there’s no fixed fee but donations are strongly encouraged (it helps pay for things like instructor’s fees, ahem.) You can download the PDF right here, with contact and registration information available therein. If you have any issues with downloading the PDF, contact me and I’ll send it directly – I get enough spam comments on this site that I’m not publishing e-mail addresses openly.

    It’s a loose structure, without grading or assignments, but including suggested exercises and experiments. Doesn’t matter what kind of camera you have, or the level of experience, and everything’s casual. Should be a lot of fun – I know I’m looking forward to it.

    And if you’ve read other items on the blog and are concerned about me expressing my views to your kids, relax – that’s for the blog, and has nothing to do with photography. I do have a bit of professionalism. The same goes for my other instruction offerings.

    You'll even find out what I'm up to here
    There is still space in both day seminars held at the North Carolina Botanical Garden as well. Nature Photography: Within Your Grasp is held on Saturday March 10th from 9:30 – 11:30 am and gives an overview of how to seriously approach nature photography and what to expect, as well as a few war stories. And the Spring Garden Photography Seminar is a hands-on workshop that includes both a brief classroom session and the opportunity to try it all out in the garden itself. It’s held on Saturday, March 24th from 1:30 – 4:30 pm; definitely bring your camera! Click here for descriptions and registration information.

    By the way, while both of these are listed as adult classes, mine are open to all ages and experience levels. Even if you shoot in “green mode,” you shouldn’t have any trouble with either of these.

    So if you’re in the area, come on by – we’d love to have you! And be sure to check out the other offerings from the NCBG as well.

    I just do what I’m told

    Al Denelsbeck


    When going back through my files of images, I can get a rough idea of what time of year photos were taken by the apparent seasons displayed within. Sometimes.

    Friday, after meeting with a student I went down to the North Carolina Botanical Garden to drop off some paperwork, and took the opportunity to check the potential of staging a few photos that I needed for seminars. It was a gorgeous day, so while we had just come off a severe cold snap a few days earlier, I was walking around without a jacket and sporting a faint sunburn from meeting outdoors. However, some of the ponds in the garden had an apparent texture to their surfaces from the thin veneer of ice still present. At the same time, I was seeing clusters of frog eggs and some massive tadpoles, and did some grab shots of bees on flowers that were blooming. Most people see the arrival of spring in a positive light, yet I may personally feel this even stronger; I start coming out of my winter funk because I know I’ll be having lots of subjects to chase after the dry period. The following Saturday was, if anything, even better.

    Then came Sunday, when the wind picked up, the skies went dark, and rain turned to sleet and then snow, this first snow we’ve had this winter here in central NC. In fact, I think we somehow went through 2011 without any snowfall at all here; even though we don’t get much, it’s rare that we get none. This one served as a reminder that spring is not here yet.

    Then Monday dawned clear and bright, promising to melt off the little snow that we’d received. In The Amityville Horror, visitors supposedly heard a voice saying, “Get out!” and while that book was a total crock of shit, I get much the same internal reaction when we have sunlight on snow. After doing a few shots around the yard, I scampered off down to the river to see what could be found there.

    These are the kind of conditions that fool the exposure metering functions within cameras. Sunny days already produce high contrast, and the presence of snow makes it even harder, even when it’s patchy. Cameras are calibrated for average scenes which usually feature a mix of middle tones, so when the tones are either very dark or very bright, the camera is often fooled. Wet ground with little foliage tends to be dark, while snow is bright, so depending on what is being read through the viewfinder, the camera’s recommended exposure can go way off base. Unless you like working with ambient light meters and fixing your settings manually, it’s much better to bracket exposures by adjusting camera settings to over- and under-expose several frames of the same subject to try and capture the one that works best. If you look closely at this image, you’ll notice that very little of the snow becomes fully white, and in fact, the shadows are actually quite dark. Letting the snow become too bright takes away the detail and looks harsh, and might even hide the textures that indicate snow in the first place. One of the prime advantages of digital is taking several versions of the same image with different settings just to ensure one keeper, but this should be done judiciously, with at least some idea of how the exposure is being measured and what is necessary to compensate. At the same time, one of the disadvantages of digital is reviewing the results with the LCD on the back, since these are rarely very accurate and can be exceptionally misleading about how the resulting image really looks. Never, ever trust the LCD.

    Even in winter at minimal tree foliage, the number of pines we have here reduces the amount of snow reaching the ground in wooded areas, so the river featured even less snow than the yard, and that was disappearing fast. I’ve had issues with camera batteries fading fast in cold weather, but the greater risk was from moisture, as snowmelt produced a light rain throughout the forest, constantly threatening the camera every time I selected a subject and paused. The reflections from snow and water drops also contributed to the difficult shooting conditions, since such specular highlights exceed the exposure latitude by a wide margin, creating flare, ghosts, and color-fringing. Then there’s the winter sun, sitting low in the sky throughout North America and thus casting long shadows, or getting into the lens if one faces the wrong way. Shadows are sneaky little things until you’re used to watching them, since they appear much less distinct to our eyes than they do in photos, and we readily ignore the darkness cast across our subject until we look at the images later and realize the dark patches aren’t contributing to the positive effect.

    What still images don’t convey is the sounds of the day. The snow melting from the branches produced a steady patter of drops, heightened somewhat by the crackle of them hitting snow on the ground. More interesting was the enthusiastic calls of the frogs from just up this stream a short ways, where they seemed quite pleased with the weather conditions and proclaimed that appearances can be deceiving – spring really is kicking in. Back home, the cries of the red-shouldered hawks have been making the same thing clear for the past week or so, since this is mating and nesting season. None of them were giving me a decent view for any images yet, but that’s only a matter of time.

    The conditions were also pleasing to the songbirds, who were raiding the yard for seeds and showing off to potential mates. Last fall during the migration period we had a cluster of Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis) checking out the new bluebird box we’d put up much earlier, which had gone unoccupied last year, so we’re hoping they elect to use it this season. While I’d rather have a setting that looks much more natural, just their presence will provide lots of opportunities for behavior shots, and perhaps I can catch the young during fledging and flight practice.

    I’ll use this to point out a small, yet very effective, trick for better animal images – the catchlight. You can see a pinpoint reflection of sunlight in the bluebird’s eye here, and this adds a tremendous amount to the vibrancy of the animal in the photo. Since animals prefer not to have the sun in their eyes, they don’t sit in positions to produce this effect very often, so it usually takes patience, readiness, and a quick shutter to capture it – but it also takes knowing that this improves the image so that you actually seek it. The benefit is that you’re also ensuring the sun is coming from a better angle (showing off the great colors of their plumage or fur, as the case may be) and remaining aware of shadows. I tracked this one back and forth a few times, down to the ground and back up again, before he finally posed to bring it all together.

    So yeah, if I was trying to judge the season by weather and animals, I’d be seriously confused right now, but as a photographer I’m led around by the subject matter. Whatever works.

    But how? Part six: Love and Beauty

    Al Denelsbeck

    Walkabout podcast – But how? Part 6

    I probably should have tackled this one sooner, but I’d gone through a period with too few discussions on religion and this favored argument had simply slipped my mind. So for the next part of the “But How?” series of posts (and in honor of the date,) we examine the question, “But if there is no god, how do you explain love and beauty?”

    There are variations of this question too, such as, “Doesn’t the majesty of nature speak of god?”, but this isn’t significantly different. All variations are great examples of leading questions, implying a particular condition that isn’t readily apparent. The question never varies so much as to be, “How do you explain hate and ugliness?”, and this is telling all by itself. The ultra-mysterious concepts of love and beauty certainly have to be attributed to a creator, so the questions imply, but a moment’s thought reveals that everything else must fit the same bill too. The devastating natural disasters, diseases, predation by and throughout the other animals, and in fact, even our own species’ tendencies towards conflict and outright sadism, all must be credited towards the supernatural being that created it all. Somehow, though, we’re supposed to recognize only the good bits.

    I’ll take a quick moment to address the return argument that may come up, where the blame for all the bad bits goes to satan, demons, or even human nature (which doesn’t explain nature’s ugly parts,) and point out that these were all created by the same being too.

    The point of these posts, however, isn’t to try and deflect the questions in another direction, nor to highlight the inconsistencies, but to show how a worldview devoid of religion answers such things. So it is incumbent to explain why we have love, or see beauty, if these are not transcendent properties.

    Love is an easy one, of course, and at the same time the one that will be the most difficult to accept. Our species, like most, survives by sexual reproduction, requiring a member of the opposite sex to procreate. The desire to choose an optimal mate, one that increases the survival chances of the offspring, is an evolved trait itself; when something works better, it tends to get passed on. I feel the need to point out that such feelings did not appear full-blown in our species, all at once (any more than the tornado blowing through a junkyard assembles a 747); what almost certainly happened is that some small variation developed way back in our past, something that encouraged selecting a mate that appeared more capable than others in terms of child care, health, or survival. Such things are readily apparent in other species, where mate selection may rely on physical size, competition among other contenders, apparent health, ability to obtain proper housing, or even a large repertoire in mating calls that signifies experience. Because such things, even in highly simplified forms, give an edge to any offspring, the numbers of offspring with these traits gradually increases, outcompeting the others, and the traits get strengthened and refined.

    Right alongside this we also have the terrible state of newborn humans, which are pathetically helpless and require huge amounts of care for the first several years at least, necessitating at least one parent, but doing much better with two. While we tend to concentrate on the conscious aspects of our minds, the parts that make (so we like to think) the rational decisions, what is going to be passed on by natural selection are the internal functions that reward us for behaviors that strengthen our survival. Most of our emotional system revolves around glands and chemical stimuli, and just like the avian species that have instincts to build nests, humans have instincts to seek mates for a strong family unit, driven by the physiological demands of our bodies. The purposes and usefulness of hormones and endorphins have long been established.

    This is not to say that culture does not play a part in what criteria causes us to react with approval, since we also have instincts to remain in ‘tribes,’ which are also strong units; getting along with the other members of the tribe or village is an important survival trait too, since we achieve much more cooperatively rather than individually, so we are also influenced by social pressures. If some particular trait is viewed favorably by the ‘tribe,’ then we can obtain the same internal reward when selecting for such, even though the reward does not (necessarily) come from the mating drive, but the social one instead. The process isn’t simplistic, and involves lots of different, sometimes competing, factors. But there isn’t any aspect that is not explained by known processes, nor readily visible in other species. ‘Love’ – at least the version that involves our spouses and families – is a behavior of distinct benefit to us as a species.

    This doesn’t cheapen it as much as it might seem. Being driven by glands towards a strong family unit isn’t any different than being driven by, what, spirit or soul? Grace of god? What special property of love must be bestowed by magic? And I apologize for falling back on the tactic that I said I’d avoid, but wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for our sex drives to kick in only after we’d selected and bonded with a choice mate?

    Emotions are simple things. They are internal reactions to external stimuli, providing rewards or punishments, essentially good or bad feelings, based on relatively simple criteria, and require no rational support. Much as we might like to view love as a special property, that produces lifelong commitments and soul mates and every last descriptive phrase found in romantic comedies, the reality is that many, many people make commitments, no matter how big or small, yet find they were mistaken later on. As a transcendent emotion, love misses the mark really often, frighteningly so if we’re honest with ourselves. Whatever is supposed to tell us that we’re perfect matches seems none too accurate. Who hasn’t known someone, if not themselves, that fell head over heels for what turned out to be a really bad choice? Or, imagined personality traits for someone based solely on their appearance? Moreover, how often were such errors obvious when viewed with a practical, critical eye? In such circumstances, it needs to be asked how the rational parts of human minds were overridden by something that turned out to be totally wrong. How, for instance, can god’s gift be thwarted by pickup lines or insincere platitudes?

    Unless love is a nonspecific drive that responds to simple criteria, like beauty, camaraderie, touch, and eye contact – or first impressions, “intuition,” “kind eyes,” physical shape, and even hair, eye, or skin color, voice, scent, dancing ability, and whether or not we feel the compliment was honest. And if the very desire just to have someone around can color our decisions – who hasn’t heard the phrase, “biological clock”? Which brings up our sex drive, which many people really don’t like to see in such discussions, but cannot realistically be left out; only the hopelessly naïve can try to ignore it. The glandular impetus towards reproduction isn’t quite the same thing as the impetus towards selecting a long term mate, but both remain so close together that one is mistaken for another far too often, and from a species standpoint, they have to work together. The fact that they can stand alone, that the sex drive is often more intense than the ‘spouse drive,’ raises even more questions about a supreme being’s intent, or even competence. As an evolved trait, however, it makes perfect sense – while offspring surviving to adulthood is important, it cannot happen without reproduction to begin with. A child with one parent can still survive; a child that is never born probably has the odds stacked too firmly against it. This has nothing to do with the religious ideas of ‘love,’ but everything to do with basic biology.

    Let’s tackle ‘beauty’ now. I feel obligated to point out that, as a supposed gift from god, it seems quite odd that it’s so subjective; is it pristine woods, or a well-manicured lawn? A spotless ’57 Chevy Bel Air or a ’10 Lamborghini Murciélago? Supermodel or milkmaid? Even more interesting is that the passages within scripture extolling the virtues of beauty are few and far between, perhaps because word limits would have meant cutting out more important bits regarding rules, punishments, and begats. Come to think of it, I’m not really sure why beauty is brought up as an argument at all…

    No, that’s not true – I know exactly why. It’s because emotional reactions are the prime evidence anyone has of the existence of a god in the first place. Anything that causes feelings of awe in us gets seized upon because there’s little else that can be used. Besides images in tortillas, I mean…

    Awe is a curious thing, to be sure, because we’re really not sure why we have it. It’s interesting to note that, if someone thinks they’re seeing a classical painting, they’re more in awe than if they think it’s a forgery, regardless of what they’re actually seeing. The same can be said for musical experiences, like hearing a Stradivarius or a tubed amplifier, or for meeting a celebrity – it’s not the quality of the experience in such cases, but the impression that the experience is special or unique. While these aren’t what are being referred to when someone mentions ‘beauty’ as a magical thing, it does bear noting that we can experience feelings of awe over a very wide variety of stimuli, some of which are fostered only by how we perceive them internally.

    The beauty of nature is something that I tend to work with a bit, as you might have noticed, and I’ve spent no small amount of time trying to define what, for instance, makes a better image, and what people respond to the most. Nobody argues when I point out that lush foliage, clear water, and brilliant skies are good photo subjects, and it also doesn’t take long to figure out why we, as an evolved species, would value such things; gosh, healthy plant life and clean water with good weather, who would want to live there? And we respond to colors too, most likely because brilliant colors often signify health and ripeness. In fact, pause right here for a moment, and think of ‘brilliant colors.’ Did you think of brown, grey, or black? Can these be any less ‘brilliant’ than red or green? Even when we think of ‘color,’ we think only of certain select colors – unsurprisingly, ones that often denote healthy and ripe plants for food. Once we stop and examine what it is about a scenic area, for instance, that we find ‘beautiful,’ it begins to make sense as to why we might be inclined to see it as such.

    There’s also some interesting indications that awe is often invoked by unique or rare experiences. By itself this doesn’t seem very useful, until one realizes that, to achieve such, we have to seek such things out, which means exploring, and trying something different. We already know how much we like exploring, and that drive is enough to help us cope with increasing populations as well as changing environment; most birds, and a handful of other species, do much the same through migration. It remains a possibility that the awe we feel over unique experiences is a left-handed method of goading us in directions that let us survive a variable environment, and could also be one of the significant differences that sets our brains apart from others’; we may not be any less creatures of ‘instinct,’ if one of the instincts is to learn.

    Let’s change tracks a little to examine music, another aspect of beauty. Again, this is an area that isn’t firmly explained in biological terms, but let’s try to avoid seizing on this as significant – there is no default answer of “god” when we’re confused about scientific explanations, and the very wide variety of music that people find appealing makes it hard to find religious roots in the subject, not to mention the lack of scriptural emphasis. Many people like to point out that a world without religion would have resulted in great losses in the musical and art world, since much of our classical works revolve around religious themes. Except that, they also revolve around love, fear, family, and drama, and countless of the religious themes were of the wrong religions, ones that the very same people would maintain were mere myths. If god creates or inspires beauty, why do we even have statues of zeus and horus? Why do we have operas about valkyries and fairy tales? And can we reasonably proclaim that, without religion, such indicative works of art would never have been created, or could they simply have been about something else?

    Music is enigmatic, but there are plenty of potential explanations as to what role it plays in our lives. We have remarkable abilities to recognize specific pitches, even in ridiculously noisy environments, and this lets us hear someone we know calling to us in a crowded room, or determine who is on the phone without them having to announce their name (as long as no one uses an iPhone, anyway.) As social animals, this makes perfect sense, and as hunters, it really helps to be able to identify what might be making a particular sound. The ability to vocally produce, and aurally detect, ‘pure’ tones is a way of differentiating sounds intended for communication from the cacophony of natural sounds, which rarely produce a steady wavelength. Imagine how difficult it would be if we could differentiate only volume, without pitch. And note that birds, who rely on song more than most other species, are remarkably good not only at recognizing pitches, but repeating them as well. While this certainly could be said to be god’s gift, the birds make much more of it than we do.

    Note, too, that bad music is easy to accomplish – it takes skill to produce good music. With some exceptions like the aforementioned birdsong (and how many religious folk actually spend any time listening to that anyway?), we have to make a lot of effort to produce tones and pitches that we want to hear. It’s hardly a natural thing at all – it exists because we put a lot of effort into it. Is this because we get a specific feeling from certain, distinct tones or sounds? Is there a particular reason why any piece of music should give us chills? As I said, “god” is not a default answer; I personally want to hear why I like listening to Adiemus or Heartbreak Beat.

    There’s another little thing to consider too, often expressed as “correlation is not causation.” How can we determine, for instance, that the appreciation of music (and art, and beauty, and so on) is not a natural part of us, conditionally evolved into our species, and religion did not co-opt it for the weight and reaction it could lend? Can we be sure that, like the dramatic music in every movie soundtrack, our response to ‘beauty’ isn’t being used to underscore and enhance the importance of religion in the first place?

    We come back around to a point made earlier, in that ‘beauty’ is often selected from what we experience every day, and arbitrarily assigned to god’s work, even when those scriptural records of god’s work (the only thing we have to indicate gods at all) not only don’t emphasize beauty, they are continually edited to downplay the hugely ugly bits. No one ever gives a sermon on Lot offering his daughters for rape, or the proper attitude towards your slaves. There are no children’s versions of entire cities being slaughtered. To find the beauty in scripture, we have to know what it is first; it is not defined by the scripture itself. Which is probably a good thing, because a society actually based on most of the actions of gods and their followers throughout the ages would be pretty horrendous.

    It would be nice, perhaps, if those that felt that love and beauty were bestowed by god’s grace actually treasured these more than others, but the statistical or even personal evidence of such is decidedly lacking. Good artists, composers, writers, poets, and such are not markedly religious, any more than the general population, and quite possibly even less so. Religious sects are not more likely to promote love; they’re far more prone to divisiveness, even among similar factions, and very frequently set firm restrictions on love and relationships. The abrahamic religions emphasize wives as possessions and servants, which doesn’t jibe with how love is usually considered to work. In fact, one of the few religions that gives great weight to love and beauty, buddhism, doesn’t even have a god.

    Love and beauty are pretty cool things, pleasurable experiences that require nothing special, and are available to everyone regardless. They can serve as nice counterbalances to the various frustrations and trials that we face, and in fact are in many ways defined by such – ‘true love’ is expressed by someone who stays faithful through the tough times, and we can derive satisfaction from even simple expressions of beauty in the midst of ugliness, like the window flowerbox in the tenement house or the city purchasing new buses (feel free to examine what ‘clean’ means as well.) But these aren’t particularly mysterious, any more than competition and violence are, and they certainly serve as least basic purposes to our survival, if not more speculative and involved ones. To assume that such things, simply because we like the emotions, are evidence of divine intent is a leap of faith without any kind of logical background.

    Mortal remains

    Al Denelsbeck

    My recent reading material sparked some older memories and led to an extended examination, which is how many of my posts come about, and while such topics aren’t tackled too often by those who promote critical thinking, there’s nothing that should limit the application of such. So, let’s talk about dead people.

    Many years ago when I lived in central New York (you know, the few million acres of state that has nothing to do with New York City,) my dad and I went out once to poke around in a neighboring farmer’s field in the spring. No, we didn’t live especially boring lives (I don’t think) – instead, we were collecting Native American artifacts, most of which consisted of human bone fragments.

    Since this may raise a large number of assumptions in anyone’s mind right off the bat, let me explain. This wasn’t a known heritage site or plotted burial ground, and had been farmland for decades. Nothing that we found, save for teeth and a phalange I believe, was even intact, due to the long use of the land in the intervening time. To the best of my knowledge, the farmer knew nothing about bones being present – we had initially been looking only for arrow points and stone tools. The field was freshly plowed and had seen recent rains, the best conditions for surface finds. That area of New York was actually pretty good for archaeological work, since it featured fossils from 416 million years ago, Native American history, and colonial artifacts (I used to have a few hand-shaped square nails and the bowl of a clay settler’s pipe, found in our yard.) Once you learn what bone looks like, it becomes relatively easy to spot, and we collected a few dozen fragments, the majority of which were teeth, since they weather better and are easy to spot because of the enamel.

    The question, of course, is how ethical this is. At the time, I was unaware that finding any human remains required notifying the police, and I’m not really sure what their response would have been – this was hardly a forensic find, and probably fairly common for the area. But does the collection and keeping of human remains, in the case of museums and archaeological/paleontological digs, represent an ethical dilemma? Should, for instance, the ancestors of the people in question have some say in the manner? Should people have a reasonable expectation of being ‘left in peace’?

    We have a particular perspective in this country, in that cemetery land is protected and considered sacrosanct, which affects how we see things; in many other portions of the world, land is at too much of a premium to devote it permanently towards dead people. Reusing burial plots is more common than one might think, and many cultures practice disinterment and the stacking of bones in ossuaries, once the soft tissues have decomposed. More interesting to our perspective are the buddhist ‘sky burials’ practiced in some parts of Asia, where the newly deceased are purposefully exposed to the elements and scavengers, continuing the cycle of use and reuse, perhaps the ultimate in recycling. It’s not hard to imagine how creepy this seems, but we need to ask if this is only because of our culture and the emphasis we place on, when it comes right down to it, saving the wrapper for purposes unknown.

    Burial has taken place for a long time, in countless cultures – ceremonial burial is often considered a sign of supernatural belief, which might be reading a lot more into it than is warranted. First off, we identify with the person, the physical appearance, and even when animation has left the body, we’re so used to seeing it that we still feel some kind of connection between the remains and the life it once held, the personality we knew. And we have this thing against death, which is certainly useful, but rather pointless to pursue or worry about once it has actually occurred. We have no reason to believe that what makes up the person we knew is not completely gone at death, save for the cultural emphasis on such ideas, but it seems highly likely that our drive to avoid death hits us really hard emotionally – so much so that we try to find ways to deny it. And so, we worry about what to do with bodies, in the belief that whatever ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ that once occupied them is still paying attention and concerned about their well being.

    Burial itself is a practical matter: it keeps away the scavengers, and prevents the marvelous aromas that follow. And, it keeps us from seeing the whole process, which kind of drives home the idea that animation isn’t going to return unless you’re into zombie movies. The same can be said for cremation (well, except for zombies.) These are practical concerns – there isn’t any reason for believing that burial or cremation does something in particular for the soul or spirit that propping in a corner, leaving on the neighbor’s doorstep, or feeding to the dogs doesn’t. Assuming that a ritual was born from supernatural belief rather than practicality seems like it’s ignoring far too much.

    When human remains are found, there frequently arises the ethical consideration of what is the ‘proper’ way of handling them, which amounts to little more than debate about cultural influences. Using them to further our knowledge of older people is often considered desecration or disrespect, which is an interesting aspect all its own. The individual, or more specifically the collection of thoughts, memories, and personality that once inhabited said body, is long done with it, and making any claim to some lasting connection isn’t really supportable. Left on its own, the body naturally vanishes over time anyway, unless conditions are specific enough to allow for some preservation. We routinely cut off hair and fingernails and discard them without any rituals whatsoever, and often decide what parts of our body shouldn’t be there, from viruses to cancers. Even from a cultural or emotional standpoint, heeding the last request of the departed is more a sign of respect for their memory than concern about their feelings afterwards, especially when most religions maintain that the physical body is left well behind in the thoughts of the lasting soul. Not to mention the number of devout folk who ignore such last requests in favor of their own personal ideas of what’s right…

    Can we say, for instance, that any individual Native American, or member of any other culture, would be upset over their bones sparking interest in their lives, cultures, history, or abilities? I personally love the idea that someone could learn more from me after my death, and even though the majority of my ‘culture’ considers remains to be sacrosanct, using such as a guideline amounts to little more than probability used to obtain a ‘yes or no’ decision, an oversimplification that obviously leaves my personal feelings behind. The amount of information that we have obtained from the study of past (and present) human remains is remarkable, and something that we wouldn’t have if we let ourselves be influenced by the idea that any soul gives a damn.

    Moreover, there’s a subtle but interesting idea that I’ve become more aware of when putting some of these thoughts down (that will receive better treatment in a later post): archaeological and paleontological studies almost always emphasize our common heritage, the idea that all humans are interrelated and possess much the same motivations, desires, and traits, with the added recognition that related species such as Neanderthals aren’t half as different as we often believe. And the information we gain from studying them is available (and applicable) to all. Cultural distinctions, such as Native Americans laying claim to any remains on ancestral lands, or any particular religious concerns, always create a dividing line, not just between individuals, but within the pursuit of knowledge as well. The message, far too often, is that these humans have special rights over and above other humans. When it comes down to it, this is only a demand for personal respect, and has nothing to do with the dead at all.

    We, all humans, are explorers, learners, and puzzle-solvers – we have an innate drive to further our knowledge and solve mysteries. It’s disturbing that we could actually place this lower in priority than feeding our egos as any religio-ethnic representative, which is a title bestowed only by happenstances of birth and not exactly an accomplishment. In fact, I started this post without any intention of coming down on any one side, but it’s not really happening that way; the idea of cultural privilege becomes more absurd as I write it out. Admittedly, I favor science and the promotion thereof, which tends towards a certain perspective, but the cultural reasons for opposing the studies of human remains (and countless other aspects of science) are flimsy and self-centered. Despite the popularity of movie plots such as the one in Poltergeist, where the re-use of Native American burial land as a housing development led to serious TV reception issues, no one has ever demonstrated any after-effect, good or bad, from treating dead people against any group’s preferences. The affronts and desecration are only what we imagine them to be.

    Once I die, there will be no consciousness left to care in the slightest what happens to my old body – yes, I can say that with confidence, because the evidence supports nothing else. If someone gets any benefit whatsoever out of what used to be me, then more power to them, but there will be no ‘me’ to approve or disapprove. I’ve signed my organ donor form, because I think living beings rate higher than dead ones.

    But if what was formerly ‘my’ skull becomes part of a vaudeville act, or my teeth or finger bones a necklace, gaming dice, or even totems for some lame-brained religious cult, well, whatever. That’s life – I’m over it ;-)

    Save the kilobytes!

    Al Denelsbeck

    xkcd speaks to me this morning (click for original):


    And this time, don’t think about pocketable, or not having to carry extra lenses, or that big LCD on the back.

    I cover this with my students, first thing, so I might as well hit it here too: The first and foremost cause of bad photos, the thing that wrecks more of them than anything else, is motion blur – camera shake. Steadiness is essential, so the goal is to remain absolutely still. For best results, this means two hands, elbows tucked down against your body, viewfinder tight to eye.

    Yes, this means you won’t be using that stupid LCD to frame the shot, or walking around with the camera held out in front of you doing the “temple offering.” Photography depends on getting a certain amount of light to the media, and small, inexpensive lenses are not made to admit a lot of light, so the shutter speed goes much slower to compensate for these inadequacies, especially indoors. A tiny twitch of the camera is enough to mess up the image.

    And for Bob’s sake, when shooting video, try not to induce motion sickness! If you don’t know what ‘level’ is, or take the camera away from shooting position while it’s still recording, don’t upload the goddamn file!

    Listen, I’m real cool on not chasing equipment. I don’t think it’s the camera that gets the shot, it’s the photographer, and some great results can be achieved without fancy or expensive camera gear. But if you’re the least bit serious about photography, a pop-up lens that can be entirely blocked by a coin just ain’t cutting it.

    And if you need rules to live your life, here’s an important one: Any picture taken with your phone did not need to be taken in the first place. That’s computer and server memory that could go towards something not stupid.

    I feel better now.

    1 … 276 277 278 279 280 … 311