man & nature # 92 ~ the sub-zero beat goes on

-6˚F ~ Ice on trees • click to embiggenMuch to my surprise it was -8˚F this AM. So I couldn't resist getting out there and making some more really cold pictures.

After last week's sub-zero spell and picturing, it occurred to me that by adding a few more really cold pictures to the batch already on hand, there would be more than enough good pictures for a POD photo book. Today's batch brings the total of good pictures to the 12-14 number range which is more than enough to make a basic 20 page book. Although ... the forecast for the weekend is for more sub-zero temperatures ...

FYI, Mike Odonoghue asked for info regarding my cold weather kit: my kit is the same as it always is - 2 dslrs with camera straps, 3 lenses in a camera bag, and a tripod in tow.

For hand warmth, I use a 2 glove system - 1 light liner glove inside a heavier outer glove on my left hand (the hand that I hold the camera with) and just the liner glove on my right hand. When I'm not picturing, I keep my right hand tucked in my jacket pocket. On my recent picture making excursion, I was wearing just sweat pants and a turtle neck under a sweatshirt, so I tucked my hand into the pocket of the sweat pants.

That said, it should be understood that that clothing set up is for picturing in and around my village, not for trekking around in the mountains. Although, that said, it's worth noting that when I am trekking around in the mountains, even at -20˚F, after just a short time of walking through the snow with snowshoes and a pack, my body heats up like a furnace. At that point I start shedding my gloves, unzipping all of the vents on my lightweight one-piece winter suit, and even rolling up my sleeves.

As for my camera gear in such extended mountain conditions, one of the reasons that I went for the "pro" Olympus E-3 and "pro" lenses was the weather-sealed construction. However, extra batteries are a must and you absolutely must carry them on your person, preferably tucked inside a pocket close to your body for maximum warmth. I even sleep with them inside my sleeping bag.

In any event, as long as you are prepared to winter conditions, even extreme conditions, winter picturing can be fun and rewarding. And, in part, because all the fair-weather wimps are inside huddled near the fire, you can avail yourself of the opportunity to picture stuff that only a handful of others are attempting. Think of it this way:

The fewer imaginative people there are the better I say because it leaves more room for me to run around in. ~ Domonic Russo

civilized ku # 153 ~ good luck

Pizza remains • click to embiggenApropos of absolutely nothing on this day of a new beginning.

ku # 551 ~ shoot 'em all

Looking into the sun through an icy tree and a -23˚F mist • click to embiggenCAVEAT: It is rarely my intention to speak ill of the dead. In this entry I will speak of the dead but I will try my best to speak ill only of the living.

Just a few days ago Jean Keene, the much heralded (in most quarters) "Eagle Lady" of Homer, Alaska passed away. I am familiar with her works through a couple of online nature photo forum that feature Avian Photography. Her work has been a topic of controversy on these (and other) forums - is she doing a good thing or a a bad thing?

For those of you not familiar with her and her work, her "work" for a couple of decades has been the winter feeding of the eagles of Homer - 500 lbs of fish a day. Over the course of that time, the number of eagles that show up for feeding time has grown to over 200 - 300 or more each and every day. Over that same period of time the number of so-called avian photographers who show up for feeding time has grown into the thousands. So many, in fact, that they drive the winter economy of Homer.

The controversy surrounding her "work" (which, in fact, is really a "hobby", not a job) is the age old one of feeding wild creatures in the wild. For quite a while, this activity has been strenuously frowned upon by wildlife conservationists - it most often has the effect of tending to "domestic" wild creatures which causes them to lose many of their natural instincts for foraging for food. Not to mention that they then also tend to associate food with a human presence. That kind of habituation can lead to nasty encounters between humans and wildlife.

And, in the case of the Eagle Lady, irrespective of her intentions regarding the eagles, the effect of such a large concentration of eagles in one place was to wipe out / drive away the native populations of cranes, loons, and other avian species in that region.

Way to go, Eagle Lady.

And, as an added icing on the cake, now that she's gone the eagle feeding will come to an end - the Town Council of Homer banned feeding the eagles (with the single exception of the Eagle Lady) in Homer - and no one knows how many of the handout-dependent eagles will perish in the absence of a "free" meal.

Way to go, Eagle Lady.

Now, you can judge for yourself whether or not the aforementioned speaks ill of the dead but let there be no doubt about the following.

It is beyond my imagining why avian photographers would take any satisfaction from picturing what amounts to picturing birds feeding in a dump. But apparently quite a number of them do. So many, in fact, that there is a rising chorus of voices in Homer decrying the end of the eagle feeding because of its negative impact upon the local economy. So many, in fact, that it is estimated that over 80% of all of the published pictures of eagles were made in Homer at the Eagle Lady's fish dump.

With the exception of commercial photographers on assignment who need to get in and out quickly with the goods, I am at a complete loss to understand why someone would pay, on average $3,200, to book a "tour" to Homer, Alaska to visit a dump.

Now, I am not unaware of the fact that birders of both the observer and the picturing variety usually have a life-list of birds that they have actually seen and hope to see. They check them off like items on an automat food menu.

But, just like the nearly endless stream of pictures made at iconic locations - Half Dome, Horse Shoe Bend, Old Faithful, Rainbow Arch, et al - I don't understand the weird idea, to my way of thinking, of wanting to picture what has been pictured a zillions times before. I want to avoid like the plague putting my feet and my tripod feet in the same places that have seen a zillion feet and tripod feet before me.

To be completely frank, I am so sick and tired of images of all the iconic places that I don't even want to visit any of these places for any reason whatsoever.

An aside Here in our area, a just recently spotted owl of some kind or another (rarely seen south of the Canadian border) drew hundreds of birders hoping for a sighting and a picture or two. OK, that's fine - everybody needs to have a hobby. Hell, for number of years I collected autographs of famous blues musicians on my Gibson Les Paul guitar although, for what it's worth, I was really "collecting" the music-listening experience.

That said, I also find it totally incomprehensible why someone who claims to appreciate birds so much would partake in an activity that obviously does the species harm - and, as in the case of our Eagle Lady friend, other species as well. Are they so self-absorbed with their own picture making obsession that it's just a matter of damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead? Are they just take-the-easy-way-out assholes who are too f**king lazy to take the time and make the effort to actually picture an eagle in the wild? Something that I assume is a not an especially easy task.

IMO, all of these so-called wildlife/avian photographers are accomplishing little more than those so-called hunters who kill "trophy" game on a game farm - it's nothing more than shooting ducks in a barrel.

Wow. Big deal.

If that's all there were to it, I'd say let them have their "fun". But, unfortunately, in this case, shooting ducks in a barrel does real harm, not only to the "ducks", but also to other species as well. But, then again, maybe I am speaking ill of the dead, because, after all, it wasn't the photographers who were feeding the eagles .... they were just flocking like vultures around the stench of a rotting carcass - 50,000 lbs (a year) of rotting fish carcass to be exact.

man & nature # 91 ~ because it's fun

Birch Tree Lodge @ 0˚F in a light granular snowfall • click to embiggenOver the past few days since my -23˚F entry, there has been considerable speculation, here and elsewhere, that I am either insane or heroic for venturing out to picture in such weather.

The truth is that I just simply like cold weather and, up to a point, the colder the better. Unlike my aversion to really hot weather, the cold makes me feel invigorated and alive. That is assuming, of course, that one is properly dressed for such extremes as -23˚F and, by being so, one can actually feel anything and also remain alive.

My affection / some might say, "affliction" has its roots in my childhood during which I spent many a winter's day playing in the woods near my house. I was as dressed for the weather as one could be in those days which meant layers and layer of cotton clothing and the obligatory feet-in-plastic-bags-inside-of-boots. Needless to say, after an extended play in the woods, I returned home - water being heavier than air - weighing twice as much as I did before I left.

In any event, winter weather meant fun - building snow "forts", snowmen, snowball fights, skating in the backyard rink, "snow days" off from school, watching blizzards from inside a warm house, being kicked out of the house during a blizzard and being told to go play in the snow, sledding, and since we had little in the way of hills/slopes, being towed behind a car on a sled.

I can vividly remember one dazzling display of it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time when me and my chums spent a number of hours during a near whiteout blizzard on a snow day off from school building a snow wall (probably about 12 inches high) - made of blocks of packed snow (we always had a number of wooden crates/boxes on hand for making snow blocks for our various snow building enterprises) - spanning the street in front of my house. After which we retreated to our snow fort and waited for the sound of an unsuspecting motorist plowing into the snow barrier. Whereupon we would laugh ourselves senseless, wait for the car to depart and then spring from our fort, make the needed repairs to the wall and do it all over again.

Oh, what fun. At least it was until one extremely irate motorist exited his vehicle, assessed the situation - peals of muted laughter coming from the snow fort, a snow "quarry" of sorts in my front yard - and made a beeline to the front door of my house. So much for fun.

All of which may explain why, in addition to picturing in the cold weather, I spent 4 days during the recent deep-freeze making a backyard ice rink for Hugo.
The backyard rink • click to embiggenNow I won't try to sell you on the idea that 4 days of the combination of sub-zero temperatures, a sheet of plywood, a garden hose, and slow tedious ice-tending is my idea of fun, but, on the other hand, I can state that after all these years it was fun, in fact, a lot of fun and a bit satisfying to lace up the skates yesterday afternoon (a balmy 15˚F - felt like shirtsleeve weather) and spend an hour or two with the wife and Hugo on the ice.

The only downside, as you might be able to tell from the ice rink picture - fresh overnight snow on the surface, I am now consigned to a winter life of being a human zamboni. Ah, winter fun.

Update on Monday, January 19, 2009 at 01:03PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Mary Dennis wrote: "I heard a piece on NPR several days ago about how the canals and backwaters in Holland actually froze solid for a short period of time this winter (which they hardly ever do anymore I guess) and all the people bundled up, donned their skates, skipped work and school, built bonfires and made a holiday of it. Everyone came out of their houses, socialized and skated the day (or two) away. Then it melted....."

my response: Ah, Mary - interesting story but those wishing to remain in my good graces at this time are not uttering the word "melted" (or any derivation thereof) in my presence.

man & nature # 87 - 90 ~ welcome to Au Sable Forks at -23F

Welcome to Au Sable Forks • click to embiggen

Ice and mist on the Au Sable River • click to embiggenAs promised on yesterday's entry - "if it's-15F or below, I'll be out again tomorrow morning looking to make a really cold picture" - let it be said that I'm true to my word.

It was -23F this morning, so it was out the door for picture making.

That said, pursuant to the shedding some light on the subject entry of a few days ago, I must say that the light this AM was quite nice. Thank goodness, I'm happy to report, that I was embracing the light that I found rather than chasing it. You see, that way I can live with myself and rationalize the fact that I made such pretty pictures.

And, oh yeh, baby, it's really cold outside.

ku # 550 ~ baby it's cold outside

-5F on the East Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenWe're having a bit of a cold snap as they say. Tonight's low could be as low as -30F.

That why for the past 48 hours I have been working like a madman on a backyard ice rink. 2 more coats of water and it should be ready for use. Maybe we'll have a skating party with a bonfire in the outdoor fireplace.

Today I went out at -5F to make a few "cold" pictures of which the above is one. If it is -15F or colder, I'll be out again tomorrow morning looking to make a really cold picture.

ku # 549 ~ shedding some light on the subject

Birch • click to embiggenThere are picture makers who think that photography is "all about the light" which, to my way of thinking, is about the same as thinking that writing is all about the ink. IMO, that's about as dumb as it gets.

Those who make pictures that are "all about the light" tend for the most part to use that phrase as a code which translated actually means the "right" light and the "right" light is almost exclusively limited to dramatic, hyper-saturated, end-of-the-day, golden light. On occasion they'll sneak in a little beginning-of-the-day drama and a smidgen of stormy-sky impending-doom one act play but those are mere diversions from their true fetish.

I, on the other hand, tend to agree with these 2 notions from Brooks Jensen:

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light.There is just light.

A good photograph is never "about light". Good photographs are about feelings.

And then there's this from Philippe Halsman

The word “photography” can be interpreted as “writing with light” or “drawing with light.” Some photographers are producing beautiful photographs by drawing with light. Some other photographers are trying to tell something with their photographs. They are writing with light.

That said, consider today's pictures (made about 25 minutes apart). IMO, neither picture is "better" than the other. Neither quality of light is better or worse. If, for example, someone requested that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like, either picture would serve the purpose quite well without, I might add, any caveats or reservations.

Each picture is equally "true".

Now, without a doubt some might prefer one picture over the other because of the feeling(s) imparted by the differing quality of the light found in each picture. It is on this note that I can start to think of light as "good" or "bad" in as much as light that has one specific quality or another - soft, hard, warm, cool, etc. - is better suited to conveying some feelings than others.

IMO, a picture maker who wants to "write" with light as opposed to "draw" with light understands that light has a rich and diverse "vocabulary" that can impart rich and diverse meaning(s) and feeling(s) in a picture. Instead of chasing / following / pursuing "the light", they tend to embrace the light that is present at any given moment / location and use it to tell us something other than "about the light".

That said, tonight I am going to chase the light - I am going to picture the bark on the tree in my front yard after dark just in case someone requests that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like after dark.

BTW, I'm curious - which picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like do you like (and why)?

man & nature # 86 ~ the shallow end of the gene pool

2 views of a dead flower • click to embiggenOne of the things, photography wise that has changed with the advent of digital picture making is the photography characteristic of DOF (depth of field).

Actually, to be more more precise, the laws of optics hasn't changed at all, it's the "normal" / "statement" magnification factor of dslrs relative to slrs that has changed. Given the same aperture, lets say f8, the amount of DOF that is rendered by that aperture is entirely dependent upon the magnification factor of your subject. DOF is entirely independent of lens or camera format used.

In other words, if you are picturing an object (at f8) with both a 35mm film camera and an 8×10 film camera and that object measures the same size (lets say 1/2 inch across) in the view finder and on the ground glass, the DOF for both camera formats will be be identical. The same is true for a dslr - if the the same object measures 1/2 inch across in the viewfinder, at f8 the DOF will be identical to the other camera formats.

But, if you change the subject magnification factor by, say, having the object occupy the same amount of space within the frame of each different format, the DOF (at that same f8) will be different on each camera format. As the magnification factor shrinks with each progressively smaller camera format (keeping the same view/crop factor) the DOF increases.

That said, and considering that the sensor size of a dslr is smaller than the frame size of an slr, not to mention that the sensor size of a digicam is smaller than both, given the same crop factor digital cameras do, in fact, render more DOF than a 35mm slr.

All of that said, one of the things that I miss with digital picturing is shallow DOF. Not so much at the tele end of things, but most certainly at the wide-angle and "normal" end of the lens spectrum.

Full frame dslr sensors, of course, have exactly the same DOF characteristics as a full frame 35mm film camera, but until the price of those things drop more inline with "consumer grade" dslrs, shallow w-a / normal lens DOF will be a thing of the past or, at least limited to those using the big guns.