Lichens

Curious things lichens, composite organisms where green algae or cyanobacteria live among fungal threads in a mutualistic relationship.  Neither plant nor fungus, they're a complex symbiosis that can cover large areas of suitable substrate when conditions permit.  And the wet South West of England certainly does permit.  So I get plenty of opportunities to photograph them.  Though, I have to admit, I can't identify most of them.

Take these two images of an assortment of fruticose (bushy) and foliose (leaf like) lichens growing on the trunk of Styrax hemsleyana in the cool, damp environment of the edge of Dartmoor air at The Garden House:

They're almost a mini jungle in their own right, using the fissured bark of the tree for support but not sustenance, and supporting smaller organisms such as nematodes, mites and springtails which feed on the lichen growth.

At their most spectacular, some Usnea species even produce long, dangling strands hanging from tree branches in a similar way to Spanish moss in the Southern states of the USA.  

This growth habit requires constantly damp air and lack of pollution and the western edge of Dartmoor offers the ideal conditions.  Hardly surprising, the area was once covered in temperate rain forest, although only remnants still persist but still offer suitable conditions for this type of epiphytic growth.

The growth of all of these is definitely three dimensional and, because of their size, requires focus bracketing and stacking to really capture the full beauty of these lichens or lichen groups.  This image, of one of the lichens I can identify - it's Ramalina farinacea - shows the complexity of the fruticose branching form, set alongside the early spring flowers of the cherry Prunus campanulata 'Felix Jury'.

They do make lovely subjects - and are often at their best at a time when there's not much else to photograph in the winter landscape.  I've shown this one previously - but it's worth showing again just to illustrate the complexity of a shrubby form - even if I'm not sure which lichen it is.

Time to get the identification keys out yet again, methinks.

Al fresco focus stacking using flash

Macro and close focusing work is often limited by available light. The closer the camera gets to the subject the shallower the depth of field for any given aperture, Stopping down helps - with my 60mm macro I can use f9 or f10 without running into more than minor diffraction problems - but that does require adequate light. And in many cases that means the use of flash.  The alternative is to use more open apertures and focus stack multiple images.  But even then flash is often needed.

My Olympus Em1 mkii supports in camera focus stacking using flash - but only under certain parameters.  They are that'the shot limit in the in camera stack is 8 and manual mode (M on the top dial) must be used to set a speed of 1/50 sec to enable the camera to sync with the flash.  Additionally the charge time in the bracketing menu must be set to zero if you want to trigger a rapid sequence of shots.  Olympus flashes do this automatically but I use Godox so I have to set this up.

I would like to use my Olympus STF-8 twin flash for in camera focus stacking but it's not powerful enough to generate the rapid series of flash pulses needed to light eight images in quick succession, essential for handheld or non tripod supported shooting.  I use a Godox TT685o with an 11in softbox angled down to illuminate the subject from above. The flash is set to manual mode rather than TTL to ensure consistency between each flash. A preliminary shot or two allows me to set the flash intensity correctly and I can then switch the bracketing / stacking on.

I'm old, I shake a little, and I'm not as steady as I used to be so handholding can be a little hit and miss.  But the results, when they work, can be superb.

Fruticose lichen, possibly Usnea sp.

Chaenomeles x superba 'Crimson and Gold'

Crumpled leaves of curly kale

Lesser celadine flower

How well it will all work in the brighter light of spring and summer I don't yet know.  But I will find out.  And if it doesn't work - there's always the STF-8

Is Stock Photography worthwhile?

Photography can be an expensive hobby.  Not, perhaps, as expensive as in the film days, when every shot from a roll ate money in film and processing costs.  Nowadays I think nothing of coming home from a day's shooting with an SD card with 300, 400 or even more images captured where, pre-digital, it would be one or two rolls of film, 36 shots per roll.  And, I suspect, compared to some, I'm very economical in my shooting.

Of course there's the cost of equipment - but good quality cameras and lenses were never cheap in film days so the hardware side probably balances out.  And the second hand market is always there to reduce the cost.

But cost there is.  Which is surely why so many photographers try to make an income from their photography - and for many that means shooting for stock.

I still remember my first sale on Alamy.  Heuchera 'Chocolate Ruffles' (above) licensed on 27 June 2014 for the princely sum of $32.76, my share being $16.38.  The first of what I hoped would be a flood of sales.  I'd be rich!  I'd been published (though I never did find out where). I'd be a professional photographer!  Fame and Glory would soon be mine!

10 years later and 2757 images licensed (as of 18 February 2024) at least I can say I've been regularly published.  Rich? No - but currently $23,781.22 better off than if my images had just been sitting on my hard drive.  A professional photographer?  Far from it.  Just an ageing amateur with a bit of skill and the ability to curate and accurately keyword and caption my stock images.  Fame and Glory?  My camara probably gets more credit than I do.

So, is stock photography worthwhile?

For me, yes.  I'm old, Maria and I are both pensioners, and shooting for stock gives me the necessary impetus to get out throughout the year and keep myself occupied - though it does get physically harder as I grow older.  The money pays for my equipment and some travel without upsetting our limited household budget.  But, if I was 30 to 50 years younger, knowing what I know now, would I consider it worthwhile?

No.  It simply isn't profitable enough.  I would need to devote ten times the effort I'm currently expending to make even a paltry living.  I'd need to generate far more saleable images, distribute them among multiple agencies, explore other income streams such as print on demand, hyperactively promote myself on social media and become a slave to the work.  The fun would be gone - and all to make marginally more (possibly less) than minimum wage.

There is too much existing photography floating around the stock photo scene to make a good living solely as a stock photographer.  I'll caveat that to say 'except for the favoured few', because there are people who do make a living from their stock work.  But most don't.  And for them, stock photography isn't worthwhile except as a minor side hustle.  And even then, only if you treat it as a business and identify your market before uploading yet another image to whichever stock libraries you're enrolled with.  

Meanwhile I'll plod on with Alamy as my sole agency.  My latest sale dropped in this morning.  Taxus baccata 'Fastigiata' (above), for the grand sum of $7.40, my share being $2.96.  Doesn't sound encouraging?  It's the lowest of the month to date, my other 12 sales generating $178.99 collectively.

I'll take that - but I'll never rely on it continuing indefinitely.