I take slides (transparencies) rather than print film for a number of reasons. The positive image is viewable instantly, can be projected for viewing by large audiences, can still be used to produce prints, and in the wonderful world of club competitions and photographic exhibitions gives me the choice of entering either print or slide classes. I have tried a number of films but I have settled on Fujichrome Provia100 Professional film, a fine-grained 100 ASA slide film that gives me a good colour balance. I bulk-load my film cassettes from 30m rolls and I develop the exposed films myself using Photocolor Chrome 6 chemicals. I do this as soon as I can after taking the pictures, as I am usually impatient to see the results of my efforts - and if for some reason the results are disappointing, I may have a chance to try again.

I have to say that I prefer prints to slides as there is something very satisfying in holding a successfully printed and mounted photograph. Until recently I produced 16"x12" Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome) prints on low-contrast, high-gloss paper and mount them on 20"x16" mounting boards. Now I am progressing (darkroom purists may not agree with my choice of word!) to digital imaging and output using a PC. A section on the "digital darkroom" can be found below.

Taking the pictures

I take my photographs in two distinct environments. The first is in outdoors in the natural habitat, a photographic environment which is natural (not surprisingly) but difficult to control. The other is indoors in what could be considered a 'studio' environment, which is easier to control but more difficult to make appear natural.

Some technical explanation is needed here. Photography involves the recording of light (the image) on a photosensitive surface (in my case, slide film). Leaving aside such minor considerations as subject and composition, the key to a successful picture is therefore control of the light reaching the film. This is done by controlling a number of separate but related elements:

the size of the aperture (the hole through which light enters the camera) the shutter speed (the time that the aperture is open) the level, i.e. brightness, of the available light the speed of the film used. Slower films have finer grain, the particles that record the image, so provide sharper pictures. However, slower film needs more light. I have found 100 ASA film to be a good compromise as it is reasonably fast yet has fairly small grain.

The amount of light reaching the film will be the same using a large aperture and fast shutter speed as using a small aperture and slow shutter speed. The choice of which combination to use is based on a number of factors, which, in close-up photography in particular, can make life difficult. The slower the shutter speed the more chance there is of a blurred picture due to movement of either the subject or the camera, so faster is better. The wider the aperture the smaller the depth of field (the distance between the closest and furthest in-focus points) so a small aperture is best for a sharp picture. To achieve the ideal of a fast shutter speed with a small aperture we need plenty of available light, which means either bright natural daylight or artificial flash light.

The natural environment

There is not a great deal more to say, technically, about photographing subjects in their natural environment. It requires patience (lots of patience!) and a fair degree of luck. A photographic 'safari' is like any other - you must know where your subject is likely to be found, but when you get there you may be disappointed. I have to confess that I do not have the patience of the more successful nature photographers who may spend a day or more in hiding at their chosen spot while they wait for their subject to arrive. I prefer to pick an area and then move around it, photographing whatever of interest happens to cross my path. Sometimes I am lucky, at other times not. Flower photographs are reasonably easy to compose, the only real problems being the limited depth of field and any movement caused by air currents. When I see a likely insect subject however, I may have to 'stalk' it for some time before I can get in position to photograph it, and more often than not I do not get the picture I want. Observation is important, noting which grass stem a dragonfly keeps returning to, or which patch of flowers attracts the most bees and butterflies, so that I can position myself close by.

I am convinced that butterflies in particular have a warped sense of humour. They will sit nice and still on a flower while I set up my camera and tripod, carefully composing the shot, then they will change position just as I reach for the shutter release. They can keep this up for ages! However, this adds to the challenge, and to the satisfaction I feel when I do get a successful picture.

The 'studio' environment

'Studio' is rather a grand name for what I do, 'table-top' is probably more accurate, but my indoor photography shares several elements with a photographic studio. Lighting is controlled (to a degree at least); background and foreground elements are added; and the subject is posed (more or less) where the photographer wants him, her or it to be. Let me take each of these elements in order or importance.

- The subject -

Initially my subjects were insects that had been drawn in to the stairwell of my block of flats (US translation: apartments) at night by the bright hall lights. These tended to be mainly small brown moths, with the occasional lacewing or cricket for variety. This was obviously very limiting in that (a) I had no control of what would visit and when, and (b) my visitors tended to be fairly small and drab. As a result indoor photography remained a poor second to my outdoor work.

I was then fortunate enough to be introduced by a friend to the world of butterfly and moth breeding . I learned about the possibility of obtaining eggs or pupae from a breeder and hatching and rearing them myself, how to construct suitable breeding cages, and which food plants to have ready for the emerging caterpillars. This opened up a new world for me and has resulted in some of my favourite pictures.

Growing caterpillars through to their pupal stage can be quite demanding, as it is necessary to provide a constant supply of whatever it is they eat. That said, they provide plenty of opportunities to take pictures as they grow. Pupae only need to be kept in the correct conditions, usually warm and moist, to ensure that they hatch successfully. The newly-emerged butterflies and moths are photographed as soon as their wings have dried and before they are ready to fly. This is usually easier with moths, which would normally wait for the cover of night before flying . Butterflies, being daytime fliers, tend to warm up quickly in the light and must be photographed quickly. On the whole, moths are far more co-operative! After photographing, the adult insects are released or, if possible, if for some reason they would be unlikely to survive, passed back to a breeder.

I take care to ensure that none of my subjects are harmed while I photograph them. Despite the occasional frustration when a carefully set-up shot does not materialise, I would prefer to miss the photograph than to over-stress the insect. One of the benefits of using commercially-bred livestock is that I can always try again the following year.

- Lighting -

My table top is just that - a table positioned by a window in my front room. I shoot across the window so that the window provides the main (natural) light source from one side. I then use fixed or hand-held mirrors to reflect light back onto the subject from the other side to provide extra illumination and to fill in any deep shadows. I can see the result through the camera viewfinder so I can judge when to take the picture.

- Foreground -

The butterfly or moth subject needs something to rest on, and this is the foreground element. As this will be in sharp focus it needs to look natural. Fortunately there are a number of alternatives available, such as fallen twigs and bark, dried floral display grasses, house and bedding plants still in their pots, tree leaves, and cultivated and wild flowers. Any entomologists among you will notice that some of my pictures are not true to life, in that they may show insects on the wrong food plants. Here I must claim artistic license, as I am more interested in selecting a foreground plant that that is pictorially pleasing to my eye than I am in entomological correctness.

An important word about the latter. I find that wild flowers often produce the most 'natural' and satisfying pictures, but I set myself some strict guidelines about picking them. Firstly, I would never pick a species that I know to be rare or endangered. Apart from the fact that it is often illegal to do so, a photograph is not worth the loss of such a plant. Second, I will only pick a flower where its loss will not be noticed, i.e. where it is one of many such blooms in an area. I see no reason to spoil other people's enjoyment just to get my picture; there are always alternatives. End of sermon.

Whatever it is, the foreground object is placed in a jar of water or secured in a modelling clamp and positioned ready to receive the subject.

- Background -

The background must look natural, or at least not too unnatural. It needs to be subdued so as not to detract from the subject, which is best done using a limited range of colours seen out of focus. Probably my most natural results are achieved using a sheet of hardboard on which I have stuck a layer of crumpled green and black tissue paper, with pieces of a plastic ivy plant stuck on top of that. Surprising as it may seem, when placed sufficiently far behind the subject to throw it out of focus and side-lit from the window, it can look realistically like background vegetation.

More recently I have been trying an alternative method. Rather than have a 'real' background positioned far enough away to be out of focus, I realised that I could achieve a similar result with a closer background that is already out of focus. I scanned some of my more muted pictures into my computer and used some graphics software to 'blur' them sufficiently to leave only irregular patches of colour. I then printed out the results on an A3 colour inkjet printer and, hey presto, instant assorted backgrounds. The colours do not photograph exactly as printed (something in the inks, I assume) but it the results are still reasonable.

The Digital Darkroom

As I have said elsewhere, along with many of my contemporaries I am now forsaking my photographic darkroom (OK, blacked-out kitchen) in favour of the computer. Today's generation of powerful personal computers are ideal tools for quickly processing photographic images. The tools that they provide enable the user to do things that take a great deal of skill, time and effort in a photographic darkroom, and their widespread use brings these abilities to a much wider range of people that ever before.

Any type of photograph can be converted into a form that can be read by a computer. A digital camera image is already in electronic form that, given the necessary connections, can easily be copied into the computer. Prints can be scanned in using an inexpensive flatbed scanner, and even slides can be scanned using more expensive film scanners. Alternatively, many copying bureaux will scan prints or slides onto a floppy disc or CD.

High-resolution flatbed scanners have been around for a while, as have film scanners (albeit at a price) but until recently I had not considered output devices (i.e. printers) to be of a high enough quality. With the new generation of photo-realistic printers, however, the difference is now small enough to ignore for most purposes. I scan my transparencies using a Nikon Coolscan III slide scanner and print from either Photoshop or Paintshop Pro. I use an Epson Stylus Photo 1270 printer, which prints up to A3+ (equivalent to a 17"x14" print) and the output really is "photorealistic" when the right paper is used.

Early inkjet prints, especially from photo-realistic printers using 5 colours cartridges, faded very quickly because the additional intermediate colours were necessarily weak. However, the papers and inks recommended for the 1270 are "guaranteed" by Epson to have a 10-year archival quality. What that means in real terms I have yet to discover, but hopefully they will last several years if kept on display out of direct sunlight.

There is now a new Epson printer, the Stylus Photo 2000P, which has a quoted 100 year archival life (! - how do they know?) but at nearly £800 it is a bit out of my price range. However, technology will continue to improve and prices will continue to come down, so it won't be long before the last advantages of darkroom prints have truly been matched.

So that's how it's done. Now that you know most of my secrets, have another look at the pictures and see if you can spot which are which.

 

 

Sorry, no prizes.