Explore

Now in its 10th year, the California Academy of Sciences’ renowned BigPicture Photography Competition celebrates some of the world’s best photographers and the year’s most striking images. Judged by an esteemed panel of nature and conservation photography experts, the competition’s winning images and finalists highlight Earth’s biodiversity and illustrate the many threats that our planet faces. Each photo, in its own way, inspires viewers to value and protect the remarkable diversity of life on Earth. Below, we present the grand prize winner and some of our personal favorites from this year’s competition.

With a wildlife corridor passing through their property, a retired couple living on the outskirts of Asheville, North Carolina frequently finds four-legged visitors at their back porch, including this beautiful American black bear (Ursus americanus). In fact, residents of Asheville are known for their close relationship with wild black bears in the area. Photographer Corey Arnold theorizes that through this coexistence, the bears may be growing more intelligent and increasingly bold—resulting in close contact like that featured here.

An Arctic moth perches on a leaf in the night, theoretically on the lookout for a mate. Thanks to the freezing temperatures, and flanked by the ethereal tendrils of the Northern Lights, it moved very slowly, allowing the photographer to capture it.

An image years in the making: Seemingly coy hippopotamuses (Hippopotamus amphibius) sit below the surface of the water, eyes fixed on the camera. After extensively researching this specific family, including taking underwater drone footage of their behavior, photographer Mike Korostelev eventually felt comfortable enough to jump in and take this image. Why all the preparation? These hefty creatures kill more people per year than sharks, making an underwater image of them as spectacular an endeavor as it is dangerous.

A mesmerizing, yet deadly, spore scene. This beautiful, mushroom-forming fungus (Armillaria novae-zelandiae) is a member of the Physalacriaceae family—one of three Armillaria species native to New Zealand. This highly invasive species is often found on decaying wood and capable of causing root rot in plants with which it comes into contact.

Exhibiting a behavior that’s all-too human, a proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) hugs another after preventing it from falling out of a tree. Endemic to the jungles of Borneo, these highly social animals are on the brink of extinction.

Impossible to see with the naked eye, this microscopic view of a lesser stag beetle (Dorcus parallelipipedus) shows what it looks like from head to chest. While these beautiful bugs look deceptively smooth on the surface, a closer look reveals a symphony of scales and textures.

When they coined the phrase “whale of a tale,” they must have been thinking of Hvaldimir—a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) with an incredible backstory. After surfacing off the coast of Norway in 2019 wearing a Russian harness and a camera mount, locals believed that Hvaldimir had been trained as a spy. Beyond this theory, not much else is known about him, but as this image suggests, he’s gotten into a fair amount of trouble with humans. As he’s no longer part of a pod due to his domestication, he seeks out human interaction, which can be quite dangerous.

These images originally appeared on bioGraphic, an online magazine about nature and regeneration and the official media sponsor for the California Academy of Sciences’ BigPicture Natural World Photography Competition.

Lead photo by Mike Korostelev

• Krista Langlois

  Posted on August 1, 2023

  Krista Langlois is a freelance journalist who writes about humans and the natural world for publications including The Atlantic, bioGraphic, Hakai, National Geographic, and Outside. Follow her on Twitter @cestmoiLanglois and see more of her work at www.kristaleelanglois.com.

Get the Nautilus newsletter

Cutting-edge science, unraveled by the very brightest living thinkers.

… another short one for tonight … the shot above is what typifies the beauty of Sedona … this truly is here and it is a wonderful place to be. The shot below is of a pair of Couse White Tail deer as they passed by our home early one evening … all this and more welcomes you to Sedona. There are so many other species of wildlife that live in the area and so many fabulous vistas for you to take in!

Busy day coming up and a little computer work to finish up … have a beautiful day and share your joy with others.

Cheers,

Ted

The book of day and the book of night burst with
wonder, testifying that there is more in the world than
we, and that we shall yet be other than we are.

excerpt from Lamentations by Max Ehrmann

###

The easiest way to reach Mr. Grussing is by email: ted@tedgrussing.com

In addition to sales of photographs already taken Ted does special shoots for patrons on request and also does air-to-air photography for those who want photographs of their airplanes in flight. All special photographic sessions are billed on an hourly basis.

Ted also does one-on-one workshops for those interested in learning the techniques he uses.  By special arrangement Ted will do one-on-one aerial photography workshops which will include actual photo sessions in the air.

More about Ted Grussing …

Camera technology has evolved dramatically since the advent of photography and as a result, being a professional photographer has significantly changed too. A vintage video created by Vocational Guidance Films, Inc. in 1946 shows what being a professional photographer used to be like.

As spotted by PopPhoto, the public domain video was upscaled using artificial intelligence by DIY Extravaganza on YouTube.

“Photography is often called the universal hobby. It is a means of creative expression within the reach of people in all walks of life, and it speaks a language that everyone can understand,” the narrator says in the video above.

Even though the video is nearly 80 years old, and the gear that photographers use is much more advanced now than it was then, it is interesting how many aspects of being a professional photographer remain true today.

The video expertly summarizes the timeless appeal of photography and its influence on the world. The vocational video touches on how photography can immortalize fleeting moments that will never occur again, making visible things that are impossible to see with the naked eye, and telling exciting stories in compelling ways.

“Photography as a hobby can lead to photography as a career, and often does, but professional work calls for a lot more than just snapping pictures here and there,” the video explains.

For example, to become a successful professional portrait photographer, the photographer must understand their subjects and be able to showcase their character and personality in a single moment.

Another type of photographer, a commercial photographer, must be versatile and skilled in many different situations and when taking a wide range of images.

This is also true of a photojournalist, although they must be able to work under tight deadlines in a way unrivaled by other photography careers. An interesting video from 1937 shows how photos were transmitted by wire in the early to mid-20th century.

No matter the type of photography, all photographers, amateur and professional alike, must be well-versed in compositional skills, as highlighted in this excellent video from 1949, which has stood the test of time.

The old-school vocational video may look and sound old, but the lessons contained within still hold primarily true and may even continue to do so for another 80 years.

Photographers have to go above and beyond to get the perfect shot and that sometimes means putting themselves in the line of fire — like one photographer did while shooting a soccer player for a magazine.

Wolfgang Zac was going for a dynamic shot of U.S. women’s star Trinity Rodman while shooting photos for a feature for The Red Bulletin magazine.

Zac wanted a shot of Rodman smashing a volley and told her to hit the ball as close to him as possible — but she got a little too close.

In the clip, Rodman takes her first shot which narrowly sails over the photographer’s head causing them both to react. But the second time, Rodman blasts the ball straight into Zac’s lens, seemingly snapping the lens hood in two.

However Zac is unfazed by the incident even shouting “Yes!” straight after the smack.

In the above video, we get to see the resulting shot which Zac must have been happy with as it captures Rodman in a powerful pose with the ball perfectly framed.

“I said the closer the better…and she did her best,” writes Zac on Instagram.

The fabulous photo was used as the first image in The Red Bulletin magazine’s feature on Rodman who is a 21-year-old star for Washington Spirit and is currently an active player at the Women’s World Cup held in Australia and New Zealand.

Rodman also happens to be the daughter of former NBA and Chicago Bulls player Dennis Rodman.

Risking it All

The extent of the damage to Zac’s camera equipment is not clear, if it is just a broken lens hood then he has gotten away lightly.

“That looked expensive af,” an Instagram user responded to the video. “Just destroys a camera that cost like 2k dollars,” another writes.

Red Bull USA called it “dedication to the craft” while Zac himself made light of it all writing: “Hahahahahahahaha! fuggin hell yezzz for capturing the ‘one shot, kill the camera’ moment!”

Image credits: Red Bull USA.

With the internet, we assume we have all of humanity’s knowledge at our fingertips, but surprisingly, a lot of it has been lost — including how people used to take photos.

That’s why Brian Scadden has single-handedly managed to resurrect the lost art of old-school photography. Seven Sharp paid a visit to the Carterton local last week.

Scadden has a collection of vintage cameras ranging from the 1840s to the 1970s.

For some of them, he uses cameras with glass plates coated in his own self-made chemicals. The collector said he taught himself the techniques from books because there were few other sources available.

“You’ve just got to be very careful you don’t get this into your eyes because it can actually blind you!” the photographer said.

He has also taught about 30 people over the years, running workshops and sharing his passion. The skilful and patient techniques required are more satisfying than digital photography, according to Scadden.

“In New Zealand, I was the only one for years and years and years,” he said.

“Some people call me the godfather of it.”

Scadden has even played the part of Jos Divis, a photographer who documented life in the mining town of Waiuta, in the recent documentary The Forgotten Photographer.

He has also been invited to America for Civil War re-enactments, where he uses his cameras to capture scenes from history.

Scadden said one of the challenges of old-school photography is that people have to hold still for a long time, which makes it hard to smile.

“It’s very, very difficult to hold a smile.

“You do see the odd ones where they hold a smile, but it’s pretty rare.”

The photographer said he enjoys preserving a piece of history and creating unique images that will last for generations.

I paid $3,000 dollars for the WORST wedding photos ever – and now my photographer is ghosting me because I asked for a refund

• Brooke is a Montana-based bride who received the ‘worst’ wedding photos
• She took to TikTok to share the ‘terrible’ snaps that she paid $3,000 for
• The newlywed noted that she hasn’t gotten her money back 

By Kelsi Karruli For Dailymail.Com

Updated: 14:54 EDT, 1 August 2023

A new bride has revealed she paid a whopping $3,000 for wedding photos that ended up being ‘terrible’. 

Brooke is a Montana-based content creator who frequently shows off her handmade crafts, however, she has now taken to TikTok to blast her wedding photographer for giving her the ‘worst pictures’. 

In a viral clip, which has so far amassed over  2.6 million views, she gave her followers a peek at the ‘out of focus’ snaps. 

She accused the photographer – whom she didn’t name – of poorly editing the images, not capturing her best angles, and then refusing to refund her when she complained. 

Brooke said: ‘Want to see some of the worst first dance wedding photos I’ve ever seen in my entire life? Well I have got you covered because they’re mine. 

‘If you are married and you’ve had issues with your wedding photographer, what did you do?’

She noted that when she and her husband got their photos back, she was ‘floored’ because the snaps were ‘out of focus, the other photographer was in them, [and] they were just bad all around.’ 

The newlywed explained that after she saw the flicks, she did what ‘any dissatisfied customer would do’ and contacted the photographer. 

However, according to Brooke, the woman who snapped them just became ‘pissed off.’ 

She then showed viewers two photos from her first dance that were ‘out of focus.’ 

‘She will not answer my husband’s phone calls, [or] my mother-in-law’s phone calls, she told me I’m not allowed to contact her other than email, which I have. 

‘We got married in October, and it’s now May and I’m still dissatisfied with the photos, they’re out of focus, I don’t have many photos of guests that attended actually almost everybody came from out of state – my maid of honor was from out of the country and I have one photo with her and it’s blurry. 

‘So, I just don’t even know what to do at this point, any help would be welcomed,’ she explained. 

In a series of follow-up videos, she showed many other snaps that she claimed were blurry and poorly edited. 

She said that in one photo she and her friend wanted to capture their matching foot tattoos and the photographer cropped out their feet. 

The photographer also cut off guest’s heads in other photos and even had the second photographer in frame. 

The new bride noted that she saw the photographer’s social media and liked that she photographed women with similar body types as her and booked her, adding that she did ask to see the photographer’s galleries but never got a chance to.   

Brooke explained that she attempted to contact the photographer many times, however, has yet to hear back. 

Her latest update revealed that she had sent the photographer a formal list of demands, adding that if they weren’t met she would be taking her to small claims court. 

Viewers flooded the comments section and agreed with Brooke, with many pushing her to get her money back.

One person wrote: ‘When I say my mouth dropped!!! Those are terrible!! Girl… I’m so awfully sorry! I’d sue!’

‘Oh my, I didn’t think it would be this bad, I feel so sorry,’ another user commented. 

Someone else wrote: ‘Girl, she did you so dirty. I’m so sorry.’ 

‘Sue!’ commented another person. 

The other day I found myself, as one is wont to do, wasting 10 minutes by playing around with an AI image generator. I was hungry at the time, and so eventually I began creating options for a hypothetical lunch: a shadowy charcuterie platter, rising up like the ruins of an ancient city with a sunset in the background; rings of rigid-looking calamari, seemingly made from lucite or glass, arranged in an artfully askew stack; and a circle of 12.5 cartoonish, smooth, translucent-red shrimp under a banner of cursive text that read, simply, “Shimp.” Some of the images looked like food; none of them looked edible.

As my lunchtime experiment showed, getting AI to generate a quality image requires knowing what you’re doing — starting with well-written prompts (beyond just “plate of shrimp”), a crucial step I had not taken. Sometimes, the results are amazing, like the AI-generated images Bon Appétit recently commissioned from artist Bobby Doherty, which accompanied a piece about an editor’s conversation with ChatGPT as it developed dishes for a hypothetical New American restaurant. Some of AI’s ideas for the menu were eye roll-inducing, as can be the case with New American restaurants, but Doherty’s vivid, otherworldly art still looks good enough to eat.

It would seem, however, that the average AI-generated food image is not quite there. In various corners of Reddit and Google Images, pizza slices and leaves overlap strangely or blend into each other, curries shimmer around the edges, , and other supposed foods . On Adobe Stock, users may monetize AI-generated art, provided they have the rights to do so, and label their uploads as illustrations. Most of the platform’s photorealistic still lifes and tablescapes are passable, though a few veer into the grotesque: , all body and no head, or . Images like these, and even ones that are less absurd, often reside somewhere in the uncanny valley — a much-debated locale that looms large in many conversations around AI.

Still, as tech companies tout AI’s applications for recipe development and even teaching cooking techniques, artificial neural networks are also making their entrance into the world of food photography. Some stock photo agencies, including Shutterstock, have partnered with AI platforms on their own image generation tools. Startups like Swipeby and Lunchbox intend to court restaurants and delivery operations in need of visuals for their online menus. Of course, a way to create visuals — paying food photographers to do their jobs — already exists. And beyond that ethical morass is a more immediate legal problem: Some AI models have been trained with creative works, often unlicensed, scraped from the internet, and can respond to requests to mimic specific artists. Understandably, the artists are starting to take things to court.

All moral concerns aside, for the time being, at least, food still looks most reliably delicious in the hands of food photographers, videographers, and food and prop stylists. So what is AI getting wrong? Karl F. MacDorman, a scholar of human-machine interaction and associate dean at Indiana University’s Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, says there are many theories as to what might cause certain representations to elicit feelings of eeriness or unease as they near full accuracy. “The uncanny valley is often associated with things that are liminal,” MacDorman says, as when we are not sure if something is alive or dead, animal or non-animal, real or computer-animated. This can be especially pronounced when an image mixes disparate categories, or assigns features to a subject that usually belong to very different things. It’s perhaps unsurprising that AI, at this relatively early juncture, might struggle with all of this.

While the original uncanny valley hypothesis, posited in 1970 by roboticist Masahiro Mori, was concerned only with humanoid figures, other uncanny valleys have since been demonstrated. There can be a similar effect with renderings of animals, and in a 2021 study, MacDorman and psychologist Alexander Diel found that houses can be uncanny, too. MacDorman suggests that food, likewise, has the capacity to be uncanny because of how intimately it’s connected with our lives.

John S. Allen, author of The Omnivorous Mind (published in 2012), has explored that connection from both a scientific and cultural perspective. An anthropologist who specializes in the evolution of human cognition and behavior, Allen speculated as to why some AI food can be so off-putting. “The familiar but slightly-off images are maybe the most disturbing,” he wrote in an email after I sent him some of my weirdest finds. “Maybe I interpret those in the same way I might look at something that I would usually eat, but which has spoiled or become moldy or is harboring a parasite or is in some other way not quite right.”

In The Omnivorous Mind, Allen argues that young children develop what he deems a theory of food (“sort of like a first language,” he says) that is shaped over time by varied experiences and cultural influences. “Our first visual impressions of what we eat set up expectations, based on experience and memory, about what something should taste like or whether we will like it or not,” Allen says. “When the food looks off, that sets up a negative expectation.”

MacDorman’s research supports a similar idea. When it comes to “configural processing” — simultaneously responding to many features at once, as with face perception — he says humans do rely on models we’ve developed of the food that we’re eating. “We have a model of what a shrimp should look like, what’s a good example or a bad example of shrimp,” he explains. If you see a shrimp that’s strangely long and thin, it’s not uncanny because it’s novel; it’s uncanny because it’s bringing to mind a familiar model, and when we try to fit them together, “there’s something definitely not meeting your expectations.”

Still, MacDorman thinks there can be feelings other than uncanniness at play in an adverse reaction to an AI-generated food image. “It could even be empathy,” he suggested. With a headless shrimp, for example, “you might feel bad because you wouldn’t want to be it.”

Some foods may provoke stronger reactions than others. “For me it’s the meat, all the way,” says San Francisco-based food photographer Nicola Parisi. “I do think meat in general is a very hard thing to photograph, even as a human, and I can see some of the same struggles with AI” She thinks it also has yet to master other things some humans have trouble grasping, like composition, styling, and staying on trend. A dated backdrop, or a plating technique that’s no longer en vogue might not trigger any deep psychological phenomena, but they can certainly contribute to an overall value judgment of an AI-generated image. “A photo can be taken with a nice camera, and you can light it well, but it can be boring, or the styling won’t be great,” Parisi says. “A high-quality image could still be bad, you know what I mean?”

Luckily, there are professionals out there who know how to make food look great every time, and unlike AI, they can actually eat.

Hannah Walhout is a writer and editor based in Brooklyn.

It can be difficult to isolate jewelry from the background. With this commercial photography technique, I’ll show you how to float a necklace named Pegasus. Bonus! It can be any color at all.

Reminder: I am a Fotopro Featured Photographer and a Platypod Pro.

The set

The set consists of a four-sided rectangular box. Bottom, two sides and back. The front is left open to allow LED lights to add color to the background. The stage has a 30-inch threaded rod which is mounted in a 2×4 for stability. This is the product platform. A piece of drafting vellum is painted with black watercolor. A hole is made to slide the vellum over the threaded rod.

Point the camera straight down. With this configuration the product — in this case, Pegasus — blocks view of the rod from the camera. A dab of tacky wax holds Pegasus in place. The vellum paper adds texture and gives a cloudlike appearance to the surface under the product. With no shadows possible from the main light the product ‘floats’ in the scene.

The gear

In addition to the set you’ll need a tripod. I’m using a Fotopro T-Roc Max. Make sure that your tripod adjustment collar is secure so you camera lens doesn’t crash into the rod. The camera is suspended over the set using a Platyball and Platypod Handle. With the camera suspended it’s wise to weight the tripod for stability. I’ve used a Neewer sandbag filled with pea gravel. You could use a weighted backpack as well. The Handle works well as it can be adjusted in many different configurations. At the end of the handle is a second ball-head. There are three Platypod Ultras. Two are holding Platypod Goosenecks. I’m using these to display the chain. The third Ultra is supporting a Falcon Eyes F7 fold LED light. With two LED panels completely controllable you can dial in ANY color and brightness desired.

Camera and lens

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III is my camera. A 60mm M. Zuiko f/2.8 Macro lens gets great detail. The wide aperture is important in whatever lens you choose to use. The wide aperture allows the background to fade to super softness. Closing down your aperture lets more of the black watercolor read in your image adding a bit more texture and more choices for the look for which you are going.

Main light is an COB LED from Zhiyun and is behind the scrim to keep the light from being too harsh on the subject. The larger the light source the softer the shadow edge transitions on your subject. Check out my review on the Zhiyun 100 watt LED light.

The shoot

With a super reflective subject such as jewelry you want to get light into spaces. Rather than spend a lot of time adding more confusion to the set I suggest using Photoshop as your lighting tool making a couple exposures holding a white card in place and moving it around the set. Ultimately I’ve found this to be a faster and cleaner way to work.

Photoshop

After capturing your images, it’s a quick trip to Adobe Camera RAW (or Lightroom if that’s your preferred software). Take the frames for blending and load them as layers in Photoshop. Take the photo that has the most information you want and place it on the bottom. Highlight all layers, and just to be safe, click Auto-Align Layers in the Edit menu. If there was a slight bump of the camera this will ensure you won’t end up with blurry fills. Add black masks to the upper layers. Paint with a soft white brush to allow the other areas to blend into the bottom layer working one layer at a time.

Even though we have complete control of the color of the background during capture, we can change the color in post as well. Adding a Hue Saturation layer while masking out Pegasus gives us even more control.

Finishing moves

I made a couple tweaks to complete the post-production. One side of the chain fell out of depth of field because I was trying to allow the background to go super smooth. Instead of going back to the set, I made a copy of the camera left chain, flipped it and masked it into the right side. There was a little dodging and burning on a Soft Light layer. Finally, I added a Levels layer with a mask to vignette just a bit to keep the viewer’s eye from escaping out of frame.

If you have any questions about this commercial photography technique please don’t hesitate to drop them in the comments below.

Yours in Creative Photography, Bob