Faster than a speeding bullet

You probably heard about, or seen, images were the sense of motion is captured by letting the moving object blur out against a stationary background.  I came across a really wonderful example of this today.  It is an image by David Munoz of Reuters that shows a runner stopping to photograph himself while everyone runs past him in exquisite blurs. This picture was taken on August 11 at the “City2surf” footrace in Sidney Australia.  There were 80,000 participants.

A number of associations come to mind: the comic book “The Flash” and a Star Trek episode called “Wink of an Eye,” where there is a parallel universe where everyone moves at incredible speed relative to “normal” life on the Enterprise.

The picture is brilliantly executed.  I love the way the image axis lies along the diagonal.  The pastels are marvelous.  And a really nice element is the way that the photographer has captured the runners’ shoes.  The contrast between the still runner and everyone else adds a perfect sense of contrast.  This is beautifully executed!

Toilet paper roll dioramas

Yes, you read that right.  I want to speak today about toilet paper roll dioramas.  A diorama is a small scene created in a small place, like a ship in a bottle.  Small is actually not a requirement of the genre.  When I was a little boy – sorry more tales from the cretaceous – I loved to go the the American Museum of Natural History and when I got home I would use little wooden cheese boxes and plastic animal figures to create my own natural history scenes, or I would invert small plastic strawberry or blueberry containers from our local Pioneer Market to create little zoos.  A more complex contrivance was to take a cereal box, cut a square hole at one end, and an eye hole at the opposite end, and to string a comic strip between two pencils that would stretch across the square hole.  Hold it up to the light and you slowly wind the comic strip in succession and create a kind of miniature movie.

Carrying all these memories, I was delighted this week to come across the simply magical worlds of French Artist Anastassia Elias.  These are magnificent and complex dioramas each contained within the telescopic universe of a toilet paper roll.  Click on one of the images and then click on the right arrow to see a slide show.  I’ve decided that the photos are just as wonderful as the dioramas themselves, which makes it all fair game for Hati and Skoll.  Enjoy these little marvels that ultimately take us back to childhood, when anything was possible and all possibilities were magical.

Twittering away your photo rights

Many of the readers of this blog access it through Facebook – no fuss, no muss.  There are two user groups on Facebook that I also enjoy: Large Format Photography, and Strictly Black and White.  You post your images there and people give you the I Like thumbs up or even comment on your work.  Again it’s no fuss, no muss.  Well maybe not so much.  I started worrying about who owns the rights to what I post on Facebook.  So I checked out the Facebook Terms of Service.

These clearly state the following: “For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it….We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).”

What all this means is that while you retain ownership of your photos, in fact of anything you post on Facebook (Pretty much the same applies on Twitter.), they can use it however they want and can transfer those rights to anyone else.  Psst, this means they can sell your images. If you post a cute picture of your baby, don’t be surprised to find it in an ad campaign somewhere.

But, you say, I can always delete it.  Good luck with that!

An important bottom line here is that you are granting a nonexclusive license.  You can still sell or allow a nonexclusive license to someone else.  That’s all fine and dandy, except that you might want to sell an exclusive license to someone (an exclusive license is one where you grant, hopefully for a huge fee, the rights to your picture and you promise not to sell or grant it to someone else). Not being able to do that diminishes the value of your property.

All of this may or may not seem threatening to you.  People are starting to recognize that privacy is an illusion.  It is however, important to understand your rights.  It’s all part of the democratization of the internet and social media that I keep talking about.

One solution that many people use is to only upload lower resolution images (lower than your best) and to write a big honking watermark on them that bears and proclaims your name or copyright.  It doesn’t change your rights, but it does make you feel better,

For more on this subject see this website by nyccounsel.com.

Marking the end of celluloid film

I recently posted about the early nitrocellulose-based film that really marked the beginning of the movie film industry – and what a ride it has been.  Well, we are now really on the other end of it all.  2013, perhaps 2014, are widely expected to usher in the end of what is generically referred to as celluloid based film.

In 2011, Fox announced that it would suspend production of film-based movies by 2013, and worldwide 90,000 theaters have converted to digital projection.  Fujichrome delivered its last film stock this past March, and this leaves only Kodak, which is pulling out of the film business as it emerges from bankruptcy.

Should we be sad?  The story is a lot like that of digital photography in general, and it’s all really a matter of what is referred to as Moore’s law.  The law is named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who in 1965 described the fact that the number of transistors we can put on a circuit board doubles every two years.  More often it is quoted in terms of a computer performance doubling every 18 months, this because performance depends both on the number of transistors and how fast they are.  As regards photography the point is that when digital photography was introduced images didn’t have the dynamic range or resolution of film.  But it was only a matter of time because of Moore’s law.

We now have the resolution of film, greater dynamic range than film, and unbelievable processing capability.  Compared to film cameras a few decades ago, which had simple light meters that controlled exposure and focusing, today’s DSLR’s are essentially computers onto themselves.  Distributing digital copies of movies is a tenth the cost of distributing film copies.  The special effects that we love so much are easier and cheaper to produce.  Indeed, as we’ve seen you don’t even necessarily need actors and actresses.  It can all be done by computer.  And as we’ve discussed previously all of this means that there is a growing democratization of film production, and film distribution via the internet.  The bottom line is that the technical, creative, and financial aspects of the art are all significantly enhanced.

So as regards the question of whether we should be sad, the answer is probably not.  My one caveat here is that as media succumb to financial pressures and necessity, whole genres of human creativity become lost.  I remain a great lover of silver gelatin photography, and platinum printing, and daguerreotypes.  A number of years ago I went to an exhibit of the work of Chuck Close, where side by side were shown portraits in hologram and daguerreotype and I was left with the realization of how wonderful it would be if daguerreotype printing were still more readily accessible to artists.

Most writers on the subject say that film will never die completely.  I am not so sure.  Roll films, celluloid movie films, are technically complex to produce.  As demand plummets, it seems very likely that financial pressures will drive them to extinction.

I can remember seeing movies as a child, when all of a sudden the image on the screen would melt before your eyes from the heat of the projector. There is a Mash episode that depicts this.  I definitely won’t miss that!

Aquarium photography

Figure 1 - Scuba diver at the National Aquarium, 2005, (c) DE Wolf, 2013

Figure 1 – Scuba diver at the National Aquarium, 2005, (c) DE Wolf, 2013

The day before yesterday I posted an image from the Wikimedia Commons showing a whale shark at the Georgia Aquarium.  I love this image and the way both the creature’s size and the enthusiasm of the crowd is portrayed by people against the glass in silhouette.  It reminded me of one of my first digital images that was taken on a family trip to the National Aquarium in Baltimore, MD.  I thought that I would share it here with you as Figure 1.

In the picture one of the divers sent in to feed the fish, presumably to stop them from feeding on each other, comes face to face with a crowd of onlookers.  A fish darts by and becomes an incoherent blur in the upper left. The picture is made by the really cool bathing cap that the diver is wearing and the stream of brightly lit air bubbles.

Wobbegong

Figure 1 - Tasseled wobbegong shark, from the Wikimedia Commons, original image by Jon Hanson and reproduciced under creative commons license.

Figure 1 – Tasseled wobbegong shark, from the Wikimedia Commons, original image by Jon Hanson and reproduced under creative commons license.

Well, it’s early August.  The great white sharks are following the seals to Cape Cod, and a day barely goes by without a reported sighting.  The official Shark Week is a tradition started in 1987 by the Discovery Channel.  Other TV stations seem to follow suit with all the great viscerally terrifying movies like: “Jaws”, “Jaws 2,” “Jaws 3,” “Deep Blue Sea (my personal favorite shark movie), and “Open Water.”   Just stay out of the water people!

Anyway, and following up on yesterday’s blog about the Whale Shark, I’d like to deviate just a tad from the purely photographic and talk about the Wobbegong (Orectolobae) (see Figure 1).  I am inspired in this by a reader who posted Figure 1 on her Facebook page. Wobbegongs are bottom-dwelling sharks, mostly to be found in the pacific just cruising around and resting on the sea floor. Most wobbegongs have a maximum length of 1.25 metres (4.1 ft) or less.  However, the spotted wobbegong (see Figure 2), Orectolobus maculatus, can grow to lengths approaching ten feet.

The fellow shown in Figure 1 is a tassled wobbegong (Eucrossorhinus dasypogon).  It is a species of carpet shark and kind of does look like a carpet.  It can be found in shallow coral reefs off northern Australia, New Guinea, and adjacent islands and can grow to about six feet.  It’s fringed dermal flaps and coloration provide camouflage that enables it to trap and ensare small fishes that take it for a pile of seaweed.

While tasseled wobbegongs will bite the foot that steps on them, the fate of wobbegongs is similar that of many other shark species.  They are eaten by humans.  Their flesh is called flake and consumed by humans in Australia, and their skin is prized as a source of leather.

And you thought that this post was going to be about a fictional lake in Minnesota.

Figure 2 - The spotted wobbegong, image from the Wikimedia Commons, original image (c) 2005 Richard Ling and reproduced under creative commons license.

Figure 2 – The spotted wobbegong, image from the Wikimedia Commons, original image (c) 2005 Richard Ling and reproduced under creative commons license.

 

Whale shark fashion shoot – or dancing with sharks

Figure 1 Male whale shark at the Georgia Aquarium, photo by Zack Wolf, from the Wikimedia Commons and in the public domain under creative commons license.

Figure 1 Male whale shark at the Georgia Aquarium, photo by Zac Wolf, from the Wikimedia Commons and in the public domain under creative commons license.

I was intrigued yesterday to come across this photoshoot project by Kristian Schmidt and Shawn Heinrichs showing fashion models swimming with whale sharks.  I am actually a bit ambiguous about these images.  So I thought that I would post it to see how readers feel.

So, first the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), it is the largest living non-mammalian vertebrate by a long shot.  Living about seventy years these a slow-moving filter feeders can reach lengths of ~13 meters or 42 feet and can weigh as much as 66,000 pounds. As filter feeders they dine mostly on plankton, but also will suck in schools of small fish.

The images in the photo-essay were shot off the village of Oslob, a remote corner of the Philippines. Fishermen there have developed a touching interspecies relationship with these giants by feeding them handfuls of shrimp.

Unfortunately, the whale shark is targeted by commercial fishermen in several locations, where they seasonally aggregate.  The species is considered to be vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, although their population size is unknown. In the Philippines, itself, harvesting whale sharks was banned in 1998.

Arguably, these images fall to the criticism that we have discussed before, in respect to Sports Illustrated’s use of indigenous peoples as props for a fashion shoot.  Here the whale sharks become props, in as sense.  What’s more significant to me is that it just doesn’t quite work!  The whale sharks are just so awesome and beautiful that they utterly eclipse the bathing beauties, sorry ladies.  Who’s the prop here?  Or as the sharks would probably put it: who are these people and what are they doing here?

When we discussed dancers caught in midair, I commented how they seemed to be defying gravity and floating in midair.  Well the sharks and the models do seem to be floating.  But in fact they really are floating.  The bottom line is that whale sharks are truly magnificent, but I don’t really need the models.  These images just aren’t speaking to me.

 

 

Dragonfly on a rectilinear grid

Dragonfly on a rectilinear grid, (c) DE Wolf 2013

Figure 1 – “Dragonfly on a rectilinear grid,” (c) DE Wolf 2013

Here is a picture that I did last weekend just for fun.  We have had quite the crop of dragonflies this summer.  I love the intricacy of their wings and the wonderful shiny colors they present. In a recent post I put up an image of one from my friend Eleanor’s garden.  Still, I’ve been too lazy to set up my tripod and stalk them among the wildflowers.  A good picture is going to take a lot of patience and invested time.

So, I was quite delighted to find a large dragonfly hanging on a screen in one of my family room windows on Saturday.  He was, I think, just hanging out and waiting for the sun to wake him from poikilothermic dormancy.  I loved the delicate veins in his wing contrasting against the perfectly rectilinear grid of the screen  How to capture this?

I decided upon my EF70-200mm f/4L USM.  I shot at ISO 3200, since I didn’t want any shake.  I was about 2 feet away, just resting my elbow on the top of a television set for support.  I used a zoom of 113mm, and took the shot AV priority at f5.6 at 1/160 seconds.  To get what I wanted I had to use manual focus.  It took quite a bit of work in Photoshop to get the contrast that I wanted.  I’m certain  that it could have been done better.  But I am reasonably happy with the results.

One hundred percent Hati and Skoll approved

Well I came upon this image today on the Huffington Post by Ohio photographer Debbie DiCarlo that shows a mother coyote teaching her pubs to howl. Can it get any better than this?  This image is right on theme, coyotes being kissin’ cousins of wolves, and well, 100% Hati and Skoll approved.  As is so often the case, it is well worth going beyond the Huffington Post’s page and visiting DiCarlo’s website, where she has a pretty extensive portfolio of photographs.

Nature photography takes a lot of patience, skill, and luck.  It’s not just about big lenses.  It has to begin with a real sensitivity to the subject!  When this photograph was posted last week, it went viral on the web, and also was highly criticized by many skeptics for being “set up” in a museum diorama.  Well, nothing of the sort.  The image was taken at a workshop in Hinckley, Minnesota, and DiCarlo takes the “too perfect” criticism as a compliment.