Just Playing...

AUTUMN HAIKU

MOUSE MYSTERY

"a snake’s hole

the foolish mouse has

gone right in"

Issa


translation © 2006 William J. Higginson


"Although no snake or snake hole is visible, our imaginations can easily supply the details of the story presented by footprints in Escalante River mud and scattered seeds. Perhaps the mouse did live another day after his hurried dinner. Or perhaps he in turn became dinner for our hypothetical snake, (or fox, owl, hawk, or some other predator). You supply the ending of the story."

"A DIFFERENT DRUMMER..."

"this way and that

this frog’s cousins

and second cousins"

Issa

translation © 2006 William J. Higginson


In the 1960s and 70s, the underside of every palmetto leaf in the Florida Everglades seemed to host its own resident family of green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea). Sadly, in many areas, this is no longer the case. If the frog is indeed our “canary in the coal mine”, we are in deep trouble.

The lighting here is a bit harsh, (see the shadows under the leaf rib, for instance), as this image was shot long before the days of TTL fill flash with a manual Sunpack 444 on 1/8 power. (In those days, I was using a 105mm Noflexar on the Novoflex Auto Bellows). The manual flash caused the “hot spot” on the hind leg of the larger frog, a common problem when shooting wet subjects. If I were to re-shoot this today, I would use either fill flash, polarized flash, a diffuser or some combination of the preceding techniques.

HAIKU PHOTOGRAPHS

The following is an excerpt from the electronic edition of a book that I published with William J. Higginson last year (my photographs, Bill's original translations of classical Japanese haiku).

“What are haiku and what do they have to do with photography?
Haiku are short “one-breath” poems, written in the present tense, that describe the writer's perception of some event taking place in the natural world. They are thus “in the moment”, a verbal snapshot, if you will, and may include all of nature (including humanity) as their frame of reference. The haiku poet tries to be objective and transparent, i.e. not allowing his or her ego to stand between the verse and the reader, although some say that simply the act of selecting a subject demonstrates a bias of sorts. Many haiku appear simply descriptive and straightforward on the surface, but may contain layers of deeper meanings. Reading haiku should not be a passive experience, but is like playing “fill in the blanks”. The poem should be suggestive and evocative as well as documentary, and should invite involvement. Rather than allowing you to sit back and admire the technique and artistry, it engages you in the process—Can you feel what the poet felt at the moment of inspiration and insight? Can you see the butterfly wings? Can you hear the cicada songs? And what else?
Now re-read the preceding paragraph again and substitute photography for haiku. Not a very difficult jump to make, is it?”

A "haiku photograph" also leaves the viewer with a part of the story to fill in.

Silhouettes

Field Theory and Perspective in the Context of Katydids: Part Two

Again, I began the process of "composition repair" by taking the camera off the tripod and moving around the subject. Fortunately, this event occurred in the evening and the slightly cool katydid was fairly calm and satisfied just to keep an eye on me as I worked. I had noticed in the background of the previous photograph a small blotch of yellow that turned out to be a patch of sunflowers in another part of the garden. I chose an angle that separated the katydid from the leaf, and a position that used the out-of-focus yellow sunflowers as my background. Much more pleasing, aesthetically, I think. A shallow depth-of-field (notice the repeating theme?) separates the katydid from its background, but I was not totally successful in paralleling the camera plane with the subject plane. (Did anyone notice the missing leg?)

ADDENDUM:
Although the second image is more dramatic and shows off the katydid more effectively, the first photo is not a "bad" shot. If, for instance, I were writing an article on camouflage, I could very well choose that first image as an illustration.

Field Theory and Perspective in the Context of Katydids: Part One

How's that for a convoluted title? Don't fret--all will become clear.

I have been photographing small critters for almost 40 years, and have shown, sold, and taught. One of the more common questions that I'm asked actually has nothing to do with equipment, technique, Photoshop, etc. It goes something like, "how on earth do you see those things?" Aside from the fact that I'm looking for them, there is another process at work below the conscious level that helps me in the field.

I have a friend who was a dedicated hunter. He didn't believe in ambushing from tree stands--he stalked his deer with a bow and arrow, and claims that all he needed was the twitch of an ear or flick of a tail, and the deer was his. He hunts now with a long telephoto lens, but the lessons he learned as a hunter have stood him in good stead in his new persona as a wildlife photographer. What he was doing was identifying field patterns.

When we become really familiar with an environment, we internalize the patterns that it contains. The patterns of branches, leaves, ripples, etc. all become associated in our minds with that environment. Although this is a subconscious process, we can call upon it and bring it into awareness. When I am in the field, my eyes/brain pick out anomalies or variations from the familiar patterns. Subconscious: "Hmmm, the lump on that leaf should not be there as part of the leaf; what is it?" And. there it is--a leaf-green katydid! Or the antenna of a praying mantis, peeking out from behind an identically-colored stalk of grass.

This photograph is an "accurate" one in that it portrays the animal camouflaged in its environment. It is, however, certainly not an aesthetic tour-de-force." How can we fix this? On to Part Two!

Monarch Butterfly Caterpillar (Daneus plexippus)

This monarch butterfly caterpillar is pretty well isolated against its background. It was photographed at f8 and I tried to parallel the sensor plane of the camera with the plane of the caterpillar's body. The choice of d-o-f is always a compromise in macrophotography--too much and backgrounds and foregrounds become distracting. Too little, and parts of the subject that you would like to be sharp are not.

Neither the monarch butterfly nor its caterpillar are subtle in their coloration. In fact, they advertise their identity. They are toxic and/or bad-tasting and are avoided by most birds. Like many caterpillars, the monarch has a set of "horns" both fore and aft, to confuse predators so they will not know which end is which. This gives the caterpillar better odds of surviving an attack.

Spider and Web 2

Spider and Web 1

Spiders and Spider Webs

Spiders and their webs become increasingly interesting subjects as we enter late summer. They are larger than the spiderlings we saw in spring and early summer, and their webs are larger and more intricate. In addition, cooler mornings give us more opportunity for dewy webs.

These two images demonstrate several issues so vital to effective macrophotography: perspective and depth-of-field (d-o-f). Both images were photographed at f5.6, for shallow depth-of-field. If I had not done this, the spider and web would have disappeared into background clutter. The shallow d-o-f isolated the subject nicely. (In this case the subject is both the spider and the web.

After choosing the aperture, I then took the camera OFF the tripod and moved around the subject as best I could (there were pretty dense bushes in front of the spider, so I could not approach from the front) to evaluate the view from different angles. The lateral angle isolates the spider well, but doesn't show much of the web detail. To show more of the web, I had to photography from slightly below the level of the web (with the camera back on the tripod, of course).

Yet Another Use for Layer Masks...

We know that depth-of-field decreases as magnification increases, that is, as you move closer to your subject. In this image, I could either have the edge of the flower in focus or the insides of the flower, but not both at the f-stop I had chosen. And I had chosen a shallow depth-of-field because I wanted the background to be just a soft green, with no distracting detail.

Once again, Photoshop to the rescue. I photographed the flower twice, once with the inside sharp and once with the edge sharp. No other settings were changed except for the point of focus. In Photoshop, I brought both images together with a Layer Mask. (I always make the top image the one from which I will be using the most information, in this case the outer flower). I then used the Brush tool to bring out the sharp detail in the center. Note that there will always be a slight change in size, since when you change focus, there will be a change in magnification.

Once again, is this cheating? Or are we simply bringing to the screen the image as our eyes saw it in the field? Your call, but perhaps another reason to learn to use Photoshop's Layer Mask. But remember, this is a technique that needs to be planned for while you are photographing. I have put together as many as four exposures of the same subject to create the image I wished to see.

Fill-flash with Early Morning Light

The sun rises here at about 6:15, and the light is sufficient for focusing at about 6:30 or thereabouts. This is my favorite time for photography. I love the soft, even light, relative lack of wind, and cooperative subjects. Insects are poikilothermic, or cold-blooded. Their activity level rises and falls with the temperature of their surroundings. In the chill of the early morning, they are torpid and slow--posing nicely, just like this beetle. I occasionally use fill-flash in situations like this. Sometimes the lighting can be too flat, and fill-flash can add just a bit of "pop" to the colors without destroying the soft feel of the image.