Provocations

Summer Solstice 2008

For Earth Day 2008

EARTH DAY: APRIL 22, 2008

A very simple, cheap camera tripod alternative

A digital camera has drawn me back into photography, a hobby I pretty much abandoned over 30 years ago. For about 18 months I've been enjoying using an entry-level Pentax, a brand which allows me to use my classic, original Pentax 1.4 50mm Takumar lens. While there are savings by not using film and the processing associated with it, the digital world is so full of continually improving technology that it's easy to get caught up in acquisition. Fortunately I am so impressed with my Pentax K100D, that I'm savouring every new feature I master and, in the process, have come up with some images I am really pleased with and proud of.

In the midst of this upward spiral of digital photography technology, there are a few simple, low cost ideas emerging. Here's one of them. Perhaps it will be part of a simplifying trend. Ladies and gentlemen, the Gorillapod:

This is the model recommended for my camera. There are many variations. Take a look.

For Earth Day 2007

As the birds come north . . .

. . . celebrating the day, the birds and the air we breathe.

Photo: April 21. Birds over central British Columbia.  Photo Jeffrey Newman.

More British Columbia birds

Gregory Colbert: Animal Copyright Foundation

Beyond Ashes and Snow - the exhibition, a beautiful presentation - and an important initiative:

See also: African Elephant

Wildlife Pictures of the Year Awards

Always something to stir the imagination in good wildlife photographs.

Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year award
BBC report with pictures

Digital manipulation of news photographs

I've been getting a bit more serious with my photography.  These days that means going digital. With the advent of digital SLR cameras, photography becomes way more versatile.

With this change has come increased digital editing and the thorny issue of distinguishing between cleaning up, enhancing, improving or manipulating an image. Any judgment of this depends on the purpose - and if deception is involved. Recently the Charlotte Observer sacked a photographer for digitally enhancing the background (sun in the sky) of a picture he took.   

Because I also create photographs intended to convey what I actually saw, my emerging rule of thumb is: any changes should not take the image way from what the eye saw. Because, generally speaking the camera takes a static image, the photo has a single exposure that has to suffice for the whole image.  However, I can sit at my desk and look out the window and it appears to my constantly adjusting eyes  that the darker room around me and the brighter scene outside are both clearly visible. In a photo, not so. If I want to reproduce what the eye sees, I will digitally lighten the interior so that it shows up in my picture. Apparently this is what the press photographer did for his picture and he got fired for it. If I had altered the picture at right so you could see the back of my chair as more than a silhouette, the Charlotte Observer would have found it unacceptable (as a news picture).

While I want my news "unmanipulated", I find the photographer's argument a strong one: recreate what the eye saw.  The problem is, not knowing what his eye saw, where do you draw the line? Perhaps the solution will come pretty soon, as cameras increasingly learn to compensate for lighting differences like this. It will probably be more acceptable if the digital "manipulation" happens in the camera.

White (Albino?) moose in British Columbia

Sent to me by a friend: a relatively rare sighting of white moose. The pictures were taken earlier this year in central British Columbia. I haven't been able to confirm the location or date of these pictures. Some Ontario hunters are working to have all white moose "removed from the hunting roster." If you know of any others working on this, add the information in the Comments section below.

British Columbia Wildlife