Photographing parasites in the field

[MichaelChang]

<p>An interesting look at how a biologist photographs parasitic creatures: <br>

<a href="

- cued to the "how he does it" part. </p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>Fascinating story he tells; encourage starting from the beginning to get it all. Downside is possible nightmares?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Loved the video. Thanks Michael.</p>

<p>I smiled when he said he put the crickets in the fridge to slow them down. Years ago, when I wanted to take pictures of a copperhead on the couch with me, I put him (it?) in the freezer for a while. However, they do warm up pretty fast.<br>

.<br>

<img src="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/snake_uncoiledsmall.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="331" /></p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Hey, Julie; cool snake, but I'm too chicken to go anywhere near one. :) </p>

<p>The video reminded me that perseverance and resourcefulness is such a big part of successful photography - just keep trying until you succeed; a spirit I once had with a camera but seem to have lost somewhere along the way. </p>

<p>It inspired me to try, and keep trying. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Michael, when you write, "perseverance and resourcefulness is such a big part of successful photography" -- I don't entirely agree with you. I think photography is so easy that success is almost impossible <em>not</em> to achieve.</p>

<p>It only gets interesting when you try to fail -- that's hard with an activity that's so easy.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I think photography is so easy that success is almost impossible not to achieve."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose it depends on the type of photography and how picky you are. </p>

<p>Technical photography can present many challenges which I'd hesitate to characterize as easy. In the case of macro or micro photography of live specimens like in the video, or astrophotography, although many have achieved spectacular results, are not as easy as it appears. Things like photographing snowflakes can be even more difficult.</p>

<p>In many instances, even well established techniques can require expensive gear and lengthy setup times even if taking the shot only takes but a couple of minutes, providing one has the knowledge. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>:)</p>

<p>I was hoping to get the wheels turning ... I'm glad to see you posting, and toiled mightily to find some provocation for further ...</p>

<p>Mine is kind of a silly (fun?) paradox: if your goal is to fail, then if you succeed, you've failed and therefore succeeded; but therefore failed, etc.; but if you fail, then you've succeeded, and therefore failed, which means you've succeeded, etc. Pretty much what you'd expect from me?</p>

<p>Did I fail with that post? Then I succeeded in meeting your expectation of failure; which means I succeeded, etc. ...</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>Julie H. wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think photography is so easy that success is almost impossible <em>not</em> to achieve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Um, er, ah, Julie, please think again. Just now I'm writing up a small fish. Orienting a preserved specimen and getting the lighting right for photographing some of the fine details isn't trivial. I may have to learn how to use a camera obscura to make a drawing.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Dern, Dan. Do I have to go all serious on Michael? Okay, I <em>was</em> somewhat serious in that I think that, for old-timer photographers, who've past the first blush of discovery, and even the second and third blushes, the extent, the duration of failure(s) that precedes success are the most enjoyable. Those accidental, expansive digressions that give enticing hints of what's behind Bluebeard's door, or inside Pandora's box.</p>

<p>A goal achieved is a process ended. The door shuts.</p>

<p>If one can just start <em>in</em> failure, one can delay the goal-ending indefinitely.</p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>I'm sorry, Julie, but it seems that to get the shot or two I need I'm going to have to rent time in Wistar Institute's photo lab. Learning what to do is going to be painful and somewhat expensive. It was very different when I started out, but although modern equipment can give better results than the Wild M420 I used to be able to borrow time on it is harder to learn to use well.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Mine is kind of a silly (fun?) paradox"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose philosophy can play a significant role in photography in the way it might influence ones mindset. </p>

<p>As a personal hobby challenge, I've been wanting to photograph the <a href="https://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-6762-137922477212.jpg">Andromeda galaxy</a> for years; most of it was spent thinking about the process and planning, with a couple of half-hearted failed attempts. <br>

<br>

How hard can it be? All it takes is a camera capable of Bulb and a 300mm lens, right? It's even a large enough target that any reasonable kit lens should be adequate. <br>

<br>

It turns out that, similar to the parasite video, you'll really need to know enough basics about astronomy in order to succeed at astrophotography, and be resourceful enough if you don't have access to the required gear like an expensive tracking mount, or live in the city with polluted skies, have a free night when the weather conditions and seeing is just right, and the software know-how for post processing.<br>

<br>

It's a common target beautifully photographed by many committed amateurs, but I haven't done it successfully yet, and I will, one day. <br>

<br>

</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It turns out that, similar to the parasite video, you'll really need to know enough basics about astronomy in order to succeed at astrophotography, and be resourceful enough if you don't have access to the required gear like an expensive tracking mount, or live in the city with polluted skies, have a free night when the weather conditions and seeing is just right, and the software know-how for post processing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is certainly true, Michael--and one especially will have to learn the software techniques associated with stacking. Howard Cox got<a href="/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00K0kq"><em><strong> this shot</strong></em></a> using the same small refractor I have--but he also has a better mount in addition to knowing how to stack the images.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Michael, I'm going to have to stop reading this thread. I find myself already noting that I have the <em>perfect</em> location (I'm miles away from anything lit) and I <em>love</em> astronomy (from a purely amateur perspective) and, of course, I've got cameras ... Trouble is, I'm already interested too much in everything else. [for some reason, "you'll really need to know" is like cat nip for me ... YES, I do!]</p>

<p>I wish you joy in your pursuit, if the word "joy" is properly astronomical.</p>

<p>Now, I have to go look up the "Wistar Institute" to find out what secrets Dan is hiding there.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"and then what..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If photography is a journey, then every step regardless of the degree of difficulty will facilitate ones development in tangible or intangible ways. <br>

<br>

However, sometimes it's for no other reason than to have the satisfaction of having done it oneself. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>for no other reason than to have the satisfaction of having done it oneself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="/no-words-forum/00dtRh"><em><strong>Julie's latest "No Words" thread</strong></em></a> comes to mind.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>What exactly would be the purpose to photograph a subject ( like a whole galaxy ) of which there already are perfect photographs of?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The fact that someone has already shot something better than I need not take away from my enjoyment in shooting it. As for M31 in Andromeda, the amazing thing to me has always been that that tiny smudge in the autumn sky would be quite clearly visible (with great detail) to the naked eye--if it were only brighter. If one wants to "see" many galaxies and nebulae at all with one's own camera or telescope, one is going to have a take time exposure of them. Even those "perfect" shots with the really big scopes have been taken with time exposures.</p>

<p>To me it is somehow wondrous that a telescope with an 80mm objective can show that much detail--if the images are stacked. It is not merely about mastering technical skills. It is about seeing that which would be virtually invisible without some such techniques.</p>

<p>I would be shooting almost nothing if I had to worry about the fact that someone has probably already done almost all of it better. To me it is about capturing the majesty and specialness of the moment, whether the subject is unique or not. To me every moment is special and unique, even if the view is not.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>To me every moment is special and unique</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some of my moments are actually rather mundane and boring. I hope to get a few special and unique ones a day. <br /> <br /> The irony is every photo I derive from a special and unique moment is not always so special and unique. And occasionally, ones that I derive from a kind of hum-drum moment turn out special and unique.<br /> <br /> Moments and photos sometimes have a strange and unpredictable relationship, for me.<br /> <br /> Regardless, though, I'm with Lannie and I say if you want to shoot it, go ahead and do so . . . and enjoy, no matter who's done it before and no matter how well.<br /> <br /> Often, I'm not really shooting this or that. I'm making something that may not yet have been.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Funny how this "casual" photo conversation became so philosophic. When I was travelling with small-to-medium children and a harried wife, I found that there was little time or opportunity to find and set up for the really wonderful shots I wanted. Instead, I bought coffee table books with the best images I could afford. Now, I find I have much more time and opportunity, so I can make the effort and spend the time to capture the images I want. It would be easier, and certainly cheaper, to buy images made by the Muenches of the world and decorate my home therewith, but I experience great joy in asserting, if even to myself, that I captured and developed the images I display. This validates a creative itch for me, and is worth the effort and expense, even if the final results are something less than David Muench might provide.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Some of my moments are actually rather mundane and boring. I hope to get a few special and unique ones a day. <br /><br /> The irony is every photo I derive from a special and unique moment is not always so special and unique. And occasionally, ones that I derive from a kind of hum-drum moment turn out special and unique.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I can't say that I find any correlation whatsoever between my emotional state when I take the photo and the quality that I wind up with.</p>

<p>As for the other point you addressed, I do think that every moment is or ought to be special, but that is not to say that I always feel that specialness, much less the uniqueness.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't say that I find any correlation whatsoever between my emotional state when I take the photo and the quality that I wind up with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. That's amazing! I seem to operate so differently in so many of my endeavors. Writing academic papers, playing music, decorating my house, playing sports, . . . The results of my labors are very tied to my emotional states, especially in terms of motivation but also in terms of the results I produce. As I said, sometimes the correlations aren't terribly obvious and don't track in a 1:1 manner, but I do sense a great deal of connectedness for myself.<br>

<br>

Do you find the lack of correlation disconcerting at all or is it a positive thing or just kind of neutral?</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>I am also confused by Lannie's statement, that there is no correlation between the emotional state during shooting and the quality of the photo. There are exceptions, sometimes my reviewers have pointed out details or interpretations in my photos that I missed. That have changed the meaning of the photo sufficiently so that my original emotional state is irrelevant. However such cases are really exceptions.</p>

<p>Phil wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What exactly would be the purpose to photograph a subject ( like a whole galaxy ) of which there already are perfect photographs of?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> It is an important question, something that has crossed my mind before. While watching a spectacular sunset at a vista point, my wife has asked me why I am not taking out my camera. My thought would be, there are enough beautiful photos of sunsets from this particular location. However thats my reasoning. If someone else thinks it is important to record that particular sunset, I think it is entirely justified. My reason is this: My record of a noteworthy moment is personal to me. It doesn't matter if better pictures exist of that location, or someone else has taken the exact shot that I am about to take. It is about my personal connection with nature.<br /> <br /> Likewise, photographing the Andromeda galaxy is one's personal connection with the universe. I have photographed the Milky Way before, although I am not into astrophotography. The results are unpalatable by all standards, but I look at them every now and then. It is probably as close as I will ever get to an astronomical object, closer to than looking at a high resolution image taken by somebody else.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

I agree with Phil in my not having to actually make a photo in order to have a photographic connection with a thing, place,

or event. Some of my most important photographic connections are with photos I chose not to take (for a variety of

reasons from privacy to not wanting to make tangible a particular moment). But I still have a photo-connection to those

moments. A case where not taking a photo can be as significant as taking one. I think of all the photos I don't take that still

inform and inspire my photography. I couldn't possibly count them. Again, though, this is not to suggest to anyone what photos to take or not to take. Just some thoughts on the photo not taken.

[Supriyo]

<p>I agree with both of you, that you don't need to take a photo as a general rule to have a connection like that. I chose not to photograph the sunset, yet could feel my connection with nature. However in case someone does take a photo, I completely understand that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Surely, one doesn't have to literally take a picture of the universe in order to have a ( photographic ) connection with it...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't have to. You can establish connection in many other ways. However if someone feels a connection in that way (by taking a photo), it is then one of those many ways (may be it is not your way).</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I don't agree with Phil, in this case. To my mind (apologies to Michael if I'm wrong), what Michael does is more performance than thing-making. A pianist may aspire to play some esoteric piece alone in the privacy of his home for the sake of the performance, not the audience.</p>

<p>Geez, I hope you guys have looked at the video in the OP. How can one not be enticed by ten inch worms coming out of a cricket's ass?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

In addition to what Julie says about photographic performance related to piano performance, many pianists will practice

on a piano board, a piece of wood with no keys, especially before a performance, as a way to help them internalize the music without making it heard. Focuses on different senses that are less obvious but still important to playing music.