On composition, part 14: Clichés

Al Denelsbeck

[This was originally intended as an article, many years ago, but I’m resurrecting it here because it fits the bill.]

Once anyone gets into photography in a serious way, especially if they begin investigating the artistic aspect of it, the topic of photographic clichés comes up. And it’s a loaded topic. The definition of a cliché is something that has become overly commonplace, hackneyed, and trite. Thus the implication is that producing a photographic cliché is a bad thing, to be avoided at all costs for the sake of art.

This is a trap, pure and simple, and one you should be careful of falling into. The trap is not of producing a cliché, in and of itself, but of worrying about it. Here’s why:

It’s almost impossible to avoid producing an image that someone, somewhere, will not call a cliché. Photography has been around a long time now, going through numerous different permutations and being handled by untold thousands of people. Most techniques have been tried before, and virtually every subject has been explored, often in great depth. Going through the effort of discovering something that hasn’t been done previously may mean an awful lot of research and stress, and in the end, are you producing something of value to anyone?

We respond to many photos because they strike something familiar to us. And of course, when you’re aiming to appeal to a broad group of people, you have to strike something familiar to all of them. This narrows down how many approaches you can actually use. One example: baby photos. And often, baby anything. We’re inundated with countless numbers of these, but we also know that they will remain popular, especially with anyone that possesses a maternal instinct.

Remember, too, that many elements of composition have been arrived at because they are almost universal in appeal. In other words, people don’t respond to them because they’ve been trained to, but because it’s instinctual. Because of this, those elements get used very frequently. This doesn’t make them bad – far from it. It demonstrates good photographic habits by knowing how and where these will work best and using them to their advantage.

It can be argued that this is not what is meant by “clichés,” but instead, certain subjects or approaches. Flower shots. Long exposures of waterfalls that turn the water cottony white. Black & white form studies of nudes, or high-contrast portraits of elderly people. Any of these, and many more besides, can earn a sneer from someone who has any kind of background in art. Chances are, they’ve seen hundreds of such examples before, and quite likely, better ones as well. And to some extent, such a response has a degree of merit. If you’re trying to stand out with your photography, you have to display some originality, something to identify photos as your own, rather than blending in with others. And this is to be encouraged. Most especially, you would want to avoid copying the work of others, or falling into a style that has been done in great detail before. These might prevent you from getting any recognition whatsoever.

But be wary of the ‘art world.’ It is a sinister place where the dividing line between following an approved style, and shamelessly copying other works, can snap back and forth according to whim. And in many cases, it has no bearing whatsoever on what might appeal to the broadest range of people, and thus sell very readily. Many professional photographers know that originality often takes a backseat to what people want to buy. Countless wedding and portrait photographers make comfortable livings off of producing package after package of the same shots, over and over again. They know that traditions and fads often dictate what people expect to see, and that this system has been around for ages.

Others eschew this and opt for a unique approach, and some of them make it work very well. But many have found that the competition from bulk outlets shows that the customers aren’t driven by originality too often, and that sales are often dictated by the nature of the customer, the marketing approach, and the other options within an area. So it’s not always the content of the image or the skill behind it. It bears noting that many things considered cliché arrived there because of their popularity, and that fashion, fads, memes, best sellers, and related concepts do not exist because originality is paramount; just the opposite.

So many photographers have found that they have to forsake the ‘artistic’ side of their pursuits in order to produce photos that the clients will buy readily. These might very well be trite or hackneyed, but does it matter if the client is willing to purchase it? Remember, the ‘Starving Artist’ is a cliché too (as is the ‘Art Snob.’)

You have to find the balance point that you’re comfortable with. If you’re after sales, you produce the images that sell the best, and it really doesn’t matter if they’ve been done before. If you’re trying to create art, or become a photographer known for a unique style, then you certainly have to invest your time and efforts into originality. As long as it isn’t originality for its own sake, ignoring the idea that appealing to a fair number of people might actually be a wise move. Believe it or not, this attitude is more prevalent than is often suspected.

And if you’re doing photography as a hobby, primarily for your own satisfaction, choose the subjects and approaches with which you’re most comfortable. Does this mean sunsets and butterflies? Then go for it. Sunsets and butterflies have become clichés, to some, precisely because people like them so much, and in the long run, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you try to avoid that in its entirety, you end up producing images nobody likes. And that can’t be good.

This is how it goes

Al Denelsbeck

So, are you considering becoming a nature and wildlife photographer? Then let me tell you a little story, but I’ll caution you not to consider this typical.

Last night, while examining the dog fennel plants for photo subjects, I came across a few dead ants and a wavy-lined emerald moth caterpillar trussed up in a small web, and began examining the surrounding area for the arachnid responsible. I was sidetracked by a jumping spider who actually dropped directly in front of the camera while I was looking – I knew this was a red herring, since jumpers don’t make webs to capture their prey, but I take whatever subject I can get. On returning, however, I did find the culprit, a tiny black spider about 3-4mm in body length, and managed a few pics even though it was shy and avoided posing (unlike the jumper.)

On unloading the card, I discovered something curious, which was that the spider had abdominal scaling that reflected the strobe almost exactly like mother-of-pearl. I returned for better pics, but in trying to flush out my model I panicked it, and it scrambled around agitatedly before escaping from my sight – when working at night by flashlight, it’s easy for something to hit the shadows and get under cover while you can’t see it.

I forgot about it until tonight, and went back out with the intention of capturing it and doing a ‘studio’ shoot in controlled conditions. Alas, it was nowhere to be seen, so I chased a few other subjects instead. After returning inside and unloading the memory card again, I was showing some of the images to The Girlfriend when I felt something walking on my arm, and lo and behold (you have to employ archaic phrases like this every once in a while or they’ll freeze up,) there was the spider I’d been searching for. I’m guessing it was curled up in hiding someplace on the fennel, and when poking around for other subjects I had brushed it off. I quickly popped it into a film can (ask your grandfather what this is) and set up my studio. If a subject comes to me, there’s no way I’m going to miss the opportunity.

I set up a white box, which I’ve never tried before, and did a few test shots, not really liking the results, so I went with more direct flash again. I stuck with the box since I knew my subject would scamper for cover and might go anywhere, so being within the box would limit its escape routes. The first setting, a sprig of fennel held in a soldering jig, proved not to work, since my eight-legged model simply ran down the fennel and across the jig arm, seeking shelter in a crevice. I then switched to the bug moat, again with the fennel, and this time managed to capture a fine selection of identifying images.

This is not to say that I’ve identified it yet – BugGuide.net is being balky right now, and what do you search on? Black & mother-of-pearl spiders? So I’m still looking, but if anyone knows, feel free to enlighten me. As I said, body length is roughly 3-4mm, and the web appeared to be of random strands, not an ‘orb’ or ‘net’ style. If it helps, it seems to have a habit of carrying along ants attached to its spinnerets, which it had even retained while on my arm, but lost when I ensnared it within the film can.

[Update 10/05: Found it! This is almost certainly a female Euryopis, probably Euryopis funebris.]


After my session, and after confirming that I’d gotten enough decent images, I popped my subject back into the film can and started out to release it. At this point The Girlfriend pointed to the floor and, somewhat less than calmly, inquired what that was. The front door doesn’t seal too tight, and a fairly sizable wolf spider had come inside and was scampering across the living room. The exchange of instructions and exclamations that ensued would have been quite entertaining to any spectator, but suffice to say that the spider was safely enclosed under a cup without loss of limb or too many accusations.

I took it outside and released it into the grass, then stalked it with the camera (believe me, doing a studio shoot was out of the question unless I wanted to sleep outside myself.) After a bit of dodging the spider paused, and I went in close for some introspective portraits – I was still using the reversed Mamiya 45mm and could do the serious closeups. This specimen was roughly 30-35mm in leg spread, probably about 12mm or so body length, which translates to appreciable size, though not as large as some that I’ve chased. The dewdrop above one eye was gained in its flight through the grass.


So, I have to say that having subjects come to you this directly is something you probably shouldn’t count on; in fact, get used to the opposite. But perhaps if you start a blog, they’ll figure they can obtain their fifteen minutes of fame by seeking you out.

Which might not be the best incentive for starting a blog…

Ain’t it the truth?

Al Denelsbeck

[Edited to add the podcast, and correct a couple of typos while I was at it]

Walkabout podcast – Ain’t it the truth?

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating (because, somehow, people still aren’t getting it – am I not reaching anyone?!?): “truth” is one of the most abused words that I’ve ever come across. It stands radically apart from “true,” which almost always shares a binary state with “false” and remains in the testable, demonstrable realm, frequently associated with mathematics. But truth somehow goes beyond that, inhabiting a space far beyond human knowledge and testable assertions – truth is what people seek, or even a transcendent property of being. If you doubt this in the slightest, pay attention to the context when someone uses the word. You won’t see it every time, but I’m betting you’ll see it used in this manner three times as often as not.

It is, of course, a great favorite of the religious, and ever-so-frequently in such cases, ‘truth’ is actually differentiated, even polarly opposed, to ‘that which can be demonstrated.’ The word is flung about to imply a special state of being that we cannot observe and cannot rely upon for any result, yet should form the backbone of our behavior. Scientists and their ilk cannot find ‘truth,’ since it lies outside of human experience, so despite the millions of discoveries and physical properties that we utilize daily, quite readily and happily I might add, it is all a sham that does not approach ‘truth.’

Now, I want to bring your attention to something. Truth is never something that goes against someone’s beliefs, desires, or moral attitudes, no no, but it often goes against those of someone else. Truth is self-affirming, by its very nature – truth will never prove you wrong, but you can easily wield it to prove others wrong. And I feel the need to point out that truth is good, so of course when you find it, it will support you. That’s how you know it’s truth. Lest I forget, there is also personal truth, which isn’t really any different until someone finds themselves without any decent way to argue their standpoint, in which case they can blurt it out in their own defense and save the day.

The most startling thing about the abuse of the word ‘truth’ is the irony. So many of the things chosen to receive the accolade of truth are in no way demonstrable, provable, dependable, or even the same for everyone. You’d think that the truth would be self-evident and inarguable, but very often this is exactly the opposite case; in fact the word is almost certainly used in such cases precisely because it gives weight to something that has none of its own. It becomes an emotional appeal, hopefully stirring something supportive in those who do not possess the ability to make simple judgments on their own. Little wonder, then, that it is tied so tightly to religion and conspiracists.

In fact, we can often use the word truth as a litmus test for corrupt thinking processes, since it forms a handy ‘out’ for the lack of supporting evidence. Those who favor the ideas of alien visitations and government conspiracies are inordinately fond of the word, claiming that it always waits just around the corner (while they already know what it is, of course.) Advocates of alternative medicine and paranormal powers apply the word to every circumstance that appears to support their beliefs, while (curiously) not applying it to the circumstances that fail to, no matter how badly those outnumber the former. Evidence is crass and clumsy, suspect by its very blatant nature, but truth can be found in the hints and clues hiding in the dust. That’s what makes it special.

The phrasing of that last sentence wasn’t accidental, by the way. In far too many cases, someone’s own idea of truth is what makes them special, perhaps a large part of the reason why it departs from common-as-muck evidence (that word must be read with a sneering tone to get the full effect.) If they followed the mainstream, they wouldn’t stand out, but they’re also not part of the fringe; instead, they are the few who know. The truth will set them free. Truth cannot be said to represent any distinctive property in these cases, but merely an eventual vindication of what someone wants to believe, the Big Reveal that finally justifies their desires.

There’s probably also an aspect of the human search for absolutes in there as well. Like good and evil, truth is supposed to denote something that can be counted on, never in question, never up for debate. Science changes all the time, and relies on evidence that is up for interpretation. It’s easy to get frustrated over the constantly changing ideas of what’s healthy for us, and whether a new fossil is important or not. Science on the whole doesn’t truck with absolutes, but only probabilities, in logical recognition that we could never establish an absolute anyway. Ironically, the few things that come closest to scientific absolutes, such as the laws of physics, are the things all too often countermanded by someone’s opposing ideas of ‘truth.’ This is potentially because facts are too impersonal to be good, like truth is.

Several times in online forums, I have come across those who repeatedly use truth in support of their standpoint, and I immediately ask them to define it. Is it telling that no one even attempts it? Did I make them aware of the problem? Recently, a better test occurred to me: Think about several things that comprise ‘truth.’ Will they all be the same if I ask again in ten years? Are they the same as the answers I would have received ten years ago? If not, what exactly is it that we’re dealing with? This highlights a potential perspective thing going on here, a “glass half full” concept: it’s easy to argue that anyone right now is the smartest they’ve ever been in their lives, but this should not be mistaken for the apex of knowledge – chances are, they’ll be even smarter tomorrow. Many people spend more time in consideration of what they’ve learned in the past and completely ignore what they may learn in the future. Strange but true.

Another fun test is to find two people with opposing ideas of truth and let them duke it out. Truth should certainly win out over anything else, right? Obviously at least one of them is wrong, and if neither one can convince the other, truth isn’t really apparent; so how can either determine who’s the delusional one? See if anyone manages a decent argument to dodge the conclusion that the word “truth” is simply an emotional crutch. You might also notice that people go out of their way to avoid exactly the situation proposed, never engaging in dueling truths; instead, they only express their standpoints to those who aren’t as insistent. Is this because they recognize that mere proclamation has no strength over an opposing proclamation?

Truth does another gross disservice: it halts the examination and learning process. If someone already knows the truth, why listen to anything else? It could only be false. While this implies an underlying arrogance – the idea that being wrong is simply not possible – it more likely indicates that someone actually recognizes the possibility and is trying to crush it. While knowing the truth should certainly make someone completely unafraid of open-minded discussion, this isn’t able to be observed very often. The use of the word can often be seen as a ‘quit while you’re ahead’ tactic, sticking a flag in a summit of knowledge that doesn’t exist, instead of eagerly climbing further. The analogy virtually prompts the question of who will gain the better view.

“Truth” is a word that may tell us a lot about the user, with a distinct chance that it is exactly the opposite of what they intended to tell us. Isn’t this fun?

But it’s not a bug

Al Denelsbeck

I know, I know, I go from bugs to snakes – more of a lateral move instead of an improvement, but chill; something else may be coming soon.

I see about one of these a year, and it seems to be about this time, too. I’m not aware of anything that would make rough green snakes (Opheodrys aestivus) appear in early autumn, so I’m going to guess this is only coincidental. I found it in the exact same location as the black rat snake earlier this year, too – fences overgrown with vines are ideal spots for snakes. But not so much for getting the best photos, so I captured this one and set it loose for the photo session in the dog fennel plants in the open yard. These are the same plants that have been hosting so many of the arthropod photos that I’ve posted earlier, and they served their purpose amazingly well.

Rough green snakes ‘know’ that they blend in much better in foliage than on the ground, and tend to seek height when threatened, even if the ground offers plenty of hiding spots, so this one moved quickly into the upper reaches of the fern-like plant. Since the plants run about 2 1/2 meters (8 ft) tall, this meant my subject was a little above me but not out of reach, and sealed off from escape by my presence below, so I was able to shoot dozens of frames. The down side of this is that the stalks are very slender and flexible; the negligible weight of the snake didn’t affect things too much, but the stiff breeze did, and the snake continually swayed in and out of focus. But my position beneath the snake allowed me to get some nice sky color in the frames, and some interesting positions as well.


I was still on manual flash settings from chasing insects, so I made some hasty adjustments to the light level and balanced it adequately to the ambient sunlight. I suspect no small number of photographers can see that supplemental lighting was used – there wouldn’t be this much light available when shooting from the underside towards the bright sky – but I don’t think it’s so harsh that it looks wrong. The biggest telltale is the shadow of its own head thrown onto the first curve of the body, but had you noticed that before I mentioned it?

One thing that the setting doesn’t provide is any sense of scale at all, so I resorted to my usual trick – I think there are more photographs of my left forefinger, followed closely by the neighboring thumb, than there are of my face. This is certainly true of the images that I’ve taken, but perhaps this is not especially profound.

You’re not looking at a juvenile specimen, by the way, but a full-grown adult – this one is about average size, and roughly 60 cm (2 ft) in length. They have a distinctively slender profile, with very little change in girth throughout their length, which lets them blend in with vines and even the tall grasses. The only defense exhibited, aside from trying to dart away quickly, was the typical snakely trait of pooping on me; this is a memorable odor that’s very hard to get rid of, and I think I might have preferred that it tried biting instead.

Notable, to me at least, was that this is one of the few I’ve found who appeared to be free of battle scarring on its body. Many adult snakes display scars and wounds from encounters, either with predators or prey, and to my experience this holds especially true of rough green snakes, but this one showed only the slightest evidence of such, which was a tiny scar along its jaw. I’ll let you decide if this is talent, luck, or charm; it certainly was none the worse from its encounter with me, since I set it loose back where I had first found it when I was done. My last pics also netted something that is more difficult than you might imagine, which is catching the tongue out. This is a very brief display most times, often retracted by the time the shutter can be tripped, and snakes rarely do it when they feel threatened, so usually this has to be captured as they’re disappearing into cover, like it was here. The tiny hook-shaped scar can just be made out underneath the eye.

This may bode

Al Denelsbeck3 Comments

And so, another experiment. I am putting up a handful of introductory podcasts, to try and determine if there’s the faintest interest. This was based on a recommendation from, I believe, a blogger on Scientific American, and while I’m not entirely sold on the idea yet, I’m willing to give it a try. So I recorded a few previous posts and linked them below.

I can say that such ‘casts will almost always be on topics about critical thinking, because obviously I can’t illustrate anything I might talk about regarding nature photography, and even the other topics cannot have links attached. In most cases I’ll include a transcript, because I’m going to have to type it all up anyway – I won’t torture anyone (more than normally) by having them listen to my attempts to form a coherent sentence spontaneously. It’s bad enough that I’m using cheap equipment, but at least I have a halfway-decent editing program to remove the glitches and long pauses. The variations in recording level come from shifting how I was holding the microphone, which in future will be mounted someplace appropriate.

So at the very least, click on the introduction below:

If that wasn’t too painful, you can check out the other posts below. I’ve included links to the originals, so you can follow along and even use them to teach your children how to read – if you’re as cavalier about the use of language as I am, anyway. That does serve as a warning to anyone not using headphones, because the nasty words are preserved intact.

Feedback is welcome, most especially if you have any difficulty listening, and suggestions for improvements will be duly considered (including, “Dear god, stop, for the love of all that is holy!” Couching it in such religious terms will not help it be considered positively, however.) You can leave comments on this post, or reach me directly using the Contact page.
And so, my choice of first podcasts:

“To make magic – disappear!” from January 2012, kind of a skeptic’s manifesto.

* *

“Hooray! I scored a ‘Not Negative!'” from February 2011, about the weaknesses of a far-too-common argument.

* *

“Does science lead to atheism?” from September 2011, examining a rather suggestive question. This is the long one ;-)

What are you afraid of?

Al Denelsbeck

I’ve had this topic sitting in the background of any number of posts, and have been meaning to address it in detail for at least a year. In the wake of even more muslim-related violence and a long string of christian hand-wringing, now is as good a time as any.

While I’m going to concentrate on the big two which display this so readily, feel free to notice how often it comes up in any other religion. Let’s face reality: fear is an overriding facet of both christianity and islam. And I’m not talking about the fear of ultimate consequences, but exactly the opposite: the fear that there aren’t any at all, and that it’s all just utter bullshit. This is demonstrated so often that I think we’re used to it, and never realize just what it says, but think about it: if someone really believes they are on the side of ultimate good and an almighty creator, what could they possibly have to fear? Shouldn’t they be the most mellow and confident people to be found? Would they possess the slightest desire to force their will on anyone else, or even fret about the number of “bad” people in the world? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what those immortal consequences are supposed to be all about?

Yet, this is far too frequently not what we see at all. When muslims leap into apeshit riots over cartoons and propaganda films and some redneck sheepfucker burning qur’ans, what exactly is driving this behavior? When millions of neurotic christians chew their nails over gay marriage and teaching evolution in school, what are they worrying about? Isn’t christianity a strong enough argument on its own? But no, we deal with these on a constant basis because, very bluntly, they’re scared out of their minds. It’s far too easy to see their religion as just another ancient myth in a world that was once full of them, but has no need of them any longer. While one might logically think that supreme beings would be exceptionally easy to prove to someone, the very fact that they’re not is not only rather damning, it is precisely why any devout radical feels the drive to protest, to bully, to force, and to outright kill. They have no other means at their disposal. These are nothing but temper tantrums of insecurity.

To be sure, there have been countless attempts to build a Potemkin’s Village to disguise this fear, from the incessant whining that anyone’s choice of religion should be respected to the mountains of sophistry that excuse the lack of proof or evidence or even reason. All of this says, very distinctly, “I don’t have anything to convince you, so I need to find a way to dodge this failure.”

None of this really works. Sophistry is unconvincing to everyone except those that already want to be convinced, but much worse, radicalism is the worst recruiting tool and the worst argument to which mankind has ever resorted. Nearly everyone knows about the existence of the book, Satanic Verses, and they know only because the Ayatollah Khomeini had a hissy fit over it, which did more for promoting it than anything the author or publisher could have. Burning a qur’an only demonstrates that you’re scared of it – if it really wasn’t of any concern, why bother? It would be like burning a book of Greek mythology. And of course, all of those who wail about “Hollywood agendas” and conspiracies to take away their faith aren’t attracting a lot of people who idolize such views. Not to mention how little it says about their ability to recognize agendas…

The potential of the self-fulfilling prophecy is quite large, as well. While muslims are being overreactive and paranoid whenever they voice the fear that christians are forcing their will on others, violent demonstrations and attacks of US embassies become increasingly more likely to merit armed response – which simply confirms their fears, especially when such a vocal percentage here insists that this is a christian country. And christians in the US who continue to try and push through legislation granting them special privilege, in recognition of their magnificent accomplishment in donning a cross, will see more and more court cases denying this. To small minds, anything that denies christian dominance is denying christianity, donchaknow. It is rather astounding how being among the majority in this country still leads to martyr complexes. Curiously, this works very well for the religious leaders throughout the world who need righteous indignation to propel their flock towards radical actions. Who better to manipulate than a class of people who are taught that they are being oppressed, and that answers should be mysterious, and that blind faith is a virtue? Even the preferred use of “flock” doesn’t seem to register…

Censorship, of any kind, is a response solely of fear, open admission that knowledge is dangerous to someone’s ideology. Banning books and promoting religious persecution and even having ‘special’ schools and colleges is evidence that people know they cannot win the debate of free ideas. Every time these have appeared throughout history, it has never been to promote better behavior or standards; it has been an attempt to control the populace, and to mask the failures of the current regimes.

Also notably, it has never succeeded. While free expression might be reduced, usually with the application of force, thought cannot be. One of the very reasons that freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, is incorporated into the governing documents of this country is that it was established long before that repression would not work – and that repression was extremely likely in any kind of religiously-backed government. The only way to create a strong society (and I have to grin at this) is by natural selection: in the competition among countless ideologies and approaches, only the most beneficial can survive. There will always be those who wish to tip the scales in their favor by finding ways to push away the better competitors, and by this shall we know them.

Now, to play devil’s advocate. Could the exact same motivations be applied to my post here? Could it be said that atheists and humanists fear religion, and therefore want to suppress it? Wouldn’t atheism survive the competition of ideologies if it were better, and therefore need no argument or support? And I admit, these are good questions. I feel obligated to point out that blog posts, and public speaking and publishing books, are not really comparable to violence, suppression, censorship, or legislative pressuring, much less special schools or selecting the information that people can access – free speech does not mean shutting up, curiously enough. Promoting a viewpoint is exactly what that ‘natural selection of beneficial ideologies’ requires.

So, won’t atheism and/or humanism thrive on their own without the need of leverage? Admittedly, this remains to be seen, and while I can point out that the numbers of non-religious people are rising, they’re still a far cry from demonstrating popular acceptance. Yet much of what I draw attention to herein is not just the social structure that has been built up around religion over the centuries, causing people to believe that age and tradition are meaningful (and recall ‘faith’ and ‘virtue’ above,) but also the subconscious appeals of religion, or at least certain aspects. To all indications that I have seen, religion is structured (subconsciously for the most part) to take advantage of various traits and desires that we gained over the millennia. This doesn’t make it beneficial, any more than eating rich foods is, despite our desire to do so; succumbing to desires, and acting in a beneficial manner, are two (often wildly opposed) things. If this can merely be pointed out and result in a better approach, that’s the selection process at work again.

It also bears noting that ‘religion’ is only prominent when we use such an overreaching term – the vast number of competing sects and denominations throughout human experience demonstrates that only broad generalizations can be credited with the appeal of religion in the first place. Just like how sports tribalism is very common, but this doesn’t mean everyone supports the Red Sox. There is an automatic association of the word ‘religion’ to someone’s own devotion, deliberately ignoring the countless other practices worldwide that are the wrong religions. While most people can look at other devotions, sects, and observances and enumerate all of the bad behaviors within, from a standpoint of what’s beneficial and what isn’t, somehow they rarely ever apply this to their own…

Finally, is the effort (by atheist/humanists/etc.) to demote religious influence a sign of fear? And to that I can only respond personally, but I will say: yes, it is. I have seen enough of human nature to know that we do not always act in our own best interests, and most especially not always from reasoned and rational choices. It is remarkably easy to find a method of appealing to someone’s base emotions, and thus manipulate them through this. I am constantly scared of such things – as well as annoyed, disgusted, and outright angry over them. But again, this is not the fear that a humanist standpoint cannot compete against any particular religion, and therefore those religions must be suppressed, but the fear that far too many people will not even allow themselves to contemplate such a standpoint, and ignore critical thinking in favor of emotional supplication. And so at the very least, my own efforts are towards presenting the case as distinctly as possible, so that the free exchange of ideas can actually take place. This is a far cry from attempting to silence others, or block competing information – it is, in fact, the exact opposite.

Luck is a matter of perspective

Al Denelsbeck


Most likely a white-banded crab spider (Misumenoides formosipes) with an unidentified hymenoptera. Good luck for the spider, bad luck for the bee. Taken on a shamrock plant that The Girlfriend’s Younger Sprog had obtained this past March. And since she doesn’t like spiders, probably better that she’s at college now…

Off track

Al Denelsbeck

A few years back, I rode with a friend who had a speaking GPS. As we exited the interstate to get gas, the functional female voice said, “Off trail.” But then we turned left onto the overpass and crossed the interstate, provoking the voice to update us with, “On trail… off trail,” with barely a pause in between. Credit for picking up on our brief position above the interstate, but negative points for failing to realize we were traveling sideways. And now I have to wonder how high we could go directly above the interstate, lifted by a helicopter perhaps, before the GPS informed us we were off trail again. There’s a cute movie scene in there somewhere.

Anyway, we’re going off trail here.

I have no clue how apparent this might be to anyone familiar with this blog (if such a person exists,) but many years ago, I was a role-playing gamer. Yes, I had my bulky collection of AD&D books and gaming dice, dog-eared character sheets and Dorito-stained fingers (and thus Dorito-stained character sheets, though to be honest, Doritos were a lot less powdery then, one of the few ways in which us old folk had it better.)

So, I can thoroughly enjoy DM of the Rings, a brilliant mixture of stills from the Lord of the Rings movies and captions from a fictional attempt to role-play the storyline. I’ve had this link for years, probably before I started the blog, but just revisited it and decided it needed more sharing.

For anyone unfamiliar with such sessions, Shamus Young nailed it. Nobody that I ever met was entirely focused and locked into role-playing, but nearly everyone had their ability to sidetrack, disrupt, and outright destroy whatever campaign had been meticulously planned by the DM (dungeon master,) the one person who knew all the secrets. And Shamus expresses the other traits, too: forget the satisfaction of completing a campaign or successfully figuring out the mystery – the players are motivated by treasure, increased character levels, and yes, the pathetic idea of implied sex. People in real life would be delighted to spend a few days in the woods and never encounter anything even remotely dangerous, but that is irritating beyond all measure in the role-playing realm. “Give me something to kill!” is a cry that I’ve heard more than a few times.

Yet, the primary skill of a good DM is being able to cope with the inventive ways that the players will thwart your plans – sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. Also important is an extreme tolerance of going off track.

Macro photography, part five

Al Denelsbeck

I got my timing down the other day, and caught a set of lady beetle eggs as they hatched. The eggs are 1.2mm in length – yes, I have a loupe with a micrometer scale – so the details you’re seeing here are pretty fine. As you can see, the larva are visible through the translucent shells.

Hatching isn’t quick by any stretch, but it can still happen entirely while you’re inside eating lunch – the timing between these two photos is 51 minutes. The different appearance of the background is from using both a different position and different settings for each. For the second, I opened up the aperture a stop to f16, dropped the shutter speed to 1/80 second, and got the (very bright) blue sky in the background dimly. Most of the lighting comes from the flash, but some of the ambient color of the sky came through with those changes. This is definitely pushing the envelope of useful settings for macro work, especially at this high a magnification. I was unable to get a tripod into a useful position, so this was handheld, and at 1/80 second it’s actually very easy to twitch the camera enough during the brief time the shutter is open to have blur show up in the image. The flash duration is extremely short and will produce a sharp image, but anything else bright enough to come through without the flash’s assistance, such as sunlight reflections, can streak in the image, producing a bizarre effect.

Now, for some pointers. Both of these images were obtained with non-standard means. I used a Mamiya 45mm f2.8 lens intended for the M645 series of medium-format cameras, mounted to my Canon EOS Digital Rebel (300D) camera by means of a reversing ring. This is a simple and very inexpensive metal ring that has the standard Canon lens mount on one side, and threads to fit the filter mount of the Mamiya lens on the other; this means the lens mounts backward onto the camera body. By using a wide-angle focal length like 45 or 35mm, you produce a very-high magnification macro lens with a surprisingly low amount of distortion. You can do this with any make of wider-angle lens, but the best results that I’ve achieved by far have been with the Mamiyas. In my cases here, I boosted the magnification even more by using them on a 20mm extension tube, between the adapter ring and camera.

Of course, there is no autofocus, and in fact no focus at all; since the lens in intended to produce a sharp image on the image plane (where the sensor or film sits,) by using it backwards you have one fixed distance where everything is in sharp focus. Even twisting the focus ring does almost nothing – I just keep it locked at infinity since that’s where the highest depth of field is achieved. There is also no aperture control from the camera; the lever that closes the aperture is pointing out the new front of the lens at your subject. And the EOS line has electronic aperture control anyway so it simply won’t do anything with any lens not intended for this. Trust me when I say that you do not want to shoot anything with the lens wide open at f2.8, the default of the lens, because depth-of-field is too short to see anything not perfectly flat to the camera. Even at f16, you can see from the second photo that DOF is somewhere around 2mm or less.


What to do, what to do? Well, with any lens intended for mechanically-controlled apertures, there’s a lever or pin on the body-side of the lens (now pointed towards your subject) that closes the aperture down. All you really need to do is push this lever over to close the aperture, right before you trip the shutter. Seen here, my left forefinger sits atop the pin ready to close it down when I get sharp focus. The M645 lenses have another option, which is a manual/auto switch on the side which will also close down the aperture – this is sometimes easier than putting your finger in front of the lens.

You can also see the flash rig I use. This is a Bogen/Manfrotto 330B Macro Bracket (also seen here) which allows a fairly wide range of flash positions with the swing arms and tilting camera platform, and it can even mount onto a tripod. Since the focusing point of a reversed lens is very close to the end of the lens, the flash must be positioned where it can illuminate the subject effectively – leaving it in a normal position on the hot shoe atop the camera will almost certainly result in blocking the light with the body of the lens. The flash is attached via an off-camera cord to the camera, allowing for TTL work, though there’s a good chance with the camera receiving no information about the aperture setting, TTL flash will not work at all. I’m simply shooting at manual output here; the Metz 40 MZ-3i strobe is manually adjustable over a wide light range. A few experiments told me what power I needed for any f-stop. For some subjects, a diffuser or small softbox may work a lot better.


I’ve also done no small amount of work with a Mamiya 80mm macro lens, again for the M645 line, this time mounted in the proper orientation. This lens requires an extension-tube specially made for Mamiya lenses to achieve the macro ‘standard’ of 1:1 ratio.

Let me digress here a moment. 1:1 ratio is often considered “true” macro, and what it means is it produces an exact-size replica on the film/sensor. Take a photo on slide film of a coin and lay it alongside the coin itself, and they will be the same size. While this is much better than 1:2 or 1:4 ratios, basically, it’s almost meaningless. You’re going to reproduce the image in a print or digital usage in some other size anyway, so what’s adequate for your subject is enough. For the egg photos above, I’m achieving a lot more than 1:1, and it’s necessary to see something that small.

The 80mm macro, while not producing as high a magnification as the reversed 45mm, allows a better working distance, which can help with spooky subjects. Looming over insects with the camera and flash rig can often scare them off, or even to the opposite side of the leaf, so sometimes the greater working distance is necessary. I can also leave the flash mounted to the hot shoe with this lens because of that (granted, the flash head does angle downwards slightly if needed, and it is.) Because the aperture lever is now buried behind the adapter, I have to use the manual/auto switch to close the aperture, but it can be easily reached with my left thumb.

It is possible to buy adapters specifically for mounting M645 lenses to EOS bodies, but they’re more expensive than they really need to be, unless you have a camera that requires focus confirmation through the lens (every camera that I’ve seen allows this to be shut off in the custom functions, but my knowledge is by no means exhaustive.) I took the cheap route, however. I drilled out a Mamiya lens-base cap so it was more of a ring, and mounted it with epoxy to a reversing ring of a matching size – total cost about six dollars. The reversing ring is easily distinguished in The Girlfriend’s photo here, being darker than the base cap, while the base cap is reflecting my arm faintly right at image center; everything else is the Mamiya lens itself (actually, the Mamiya extension tube is sits between the base cap and the silver ring, and the manual/auto switch is visible right alongside my thumb.) If you do this, it helps to make a few reference points before gluing the bits together, so the lens is oriented the way you want it when it mounts to the camera.

Mamiya lenses are surprisingly affordable on the used market, well under half of what a dedicated macro lens for current digital cameras cost, and even more versatile. They’re remarkably sharp, and sturdy – that also means heavy, so bear this in mind when constructing your mount. While I’m used to it, The Girlfriend actually finds my rigs here too heavy to wield effectively.

There’s something else that you may have noticed in the two photos showing the full camera rigs: a little white doodad on a gooseneck. This is a device of my own manufacture, a three-LCD flashlight that can get strapped to the flash. Many of my photo subjects are active at night, so being able to see them is important, and no headlamp will throw light past the camera onto a close subject. The gooseneck light can be aimed right at the sweet spot of focus, making sharp images a whole lot easier; it’s even bright enough to work in shadowy areas in the daylight. Believe me, this is soooo handy for macro work, and it will increase your sex appeal and bring harmonious concord to the universe. Or am I overselling it?

Stay true

Al Denelsbeck


I came across this image in my stock yesterday and liked the abstract that could be created from a tight crop, especially since I missed prime focus.

Of course you recognized this as the fingers of a ring-tailed lemur, taken while visiting the Duke Lemur Center in Durham, NC. It just goes to show you that even with appropriate subjects, I just can’t do “cute.”

A related story: While trying to do a close portrait of another lemur up against the fence, it refused (in a very ADHD way) to maintain eye contact. After the third time that it looked away and couldn’t be entreated to look back by the squeaks and chirps I was emitting, I reached up and touched its toes where they protruded through the fence. It spun and looked at me in apparent shock, and I managed a quick photo before it turned away again. When I performed this same perfidious act again, it fixed me with another look for a mere moment, then spun rapidly and pressed its back firmly against the fence. I was feeling undeniably snubbed (and having flashbacks of my dating years,) when our guide started laughing. “Now you have to follow through,” he told us.

“What?” I asked.

“He wants his back scratched,” our guide said, and I complied, producing the most appreciative look I’ve ever received from a lemur as he wriggled and grooved against the fence separating us. Granted, the number of looks I’ve received from lemurs is a particularly short list.

A curious thought. As can be seen from the photo, lemurs have evolved away from using their nails for either digging or defense, and human fingernails are heading in the same direction, already weak and receded. In a few thousand years, we’re liable to be needing our own backs scratched, so let’s hope dogs and cats will be developing some manual dexterity in that time…

1 … 295 296 297 298 299 … 338