144. Sturdy - March 13-19, 2016
Byron-
Monday morning as I was trying to come up with something sturdy, Moose walked by my gate. Moose is 70lbs of English Bulldog. I talked to the owner later that day and asked if I could photograph his dog. It was agreed that the next morning when they go for their walk I could shoot his picture. Moose is very friendly. In fact he wanted to start a romantic relationship with my leg. Its quite a job keeping an aggressive, short, 70lb dog off your leg. I'm happy with the result.
1/250sec, f5.6, 200mm, white balance set to shade.
Monday morning as I was trying to come up with something sturdy, Moose walked by my gate. Moose is 70lbs of English Bulldog. I talked to the owner later that day and asked if I could photograph his dog. It was agreed that the next morning when they go for their walk I could shoot his picture. Moose is very friendly. In fact he wanted to start a romantic relationship with my leg. Its quite a job keeping an aggressive, short, 70lb dog off your leg. I'm happy with the result.
1/250sec, f5.6, 200mm, white balance set to shade.
Deron-
This is the base of a powerline tower. Be sturdy or fall on a car.
This is the base of a powerline tower. Be sturdy or fall on a car.
Kevin-
This theme was a problem for me. Now the dictionary says that sturdy is simply “firmly built or constituted” or “sound in design or execution” or “marked by physical strength and vigor”. In that sense nearly everything seems study. That stool, that chair, or that ladder over there. But I think of sturdy over time. And then nothing is really sturdy. That bridge on Interstate 35W as it crossed the Mississippi River? A number of people found it wasn’t sturdy at all, just before they died. Well, what about that mountain you wonder? Go back in time. That mountain wasn’t there in the past, and it won’t be there in the future. Everything moves, everything shifts, everything deteriorates over time. Entropy continues, propelling everything towards ever greater degrees of disorder, until one day, far in the future, the entire universe will be cold, dark and distant with nothing sturdy at all.
Maybe I am wrestling with this as once again I had a problem with my mouth. Yes another tooth shattered. How many is that now? The answer is a number of times. It required me to fly back to Minnesota this week, to see my dentist and get a temporary crown installed, with instructions of care until next month when I depart California for the season and go back and get the permanent crown. So just before I took off for Minnesota, knowing that my week had changed in a way that would leave me little time, and knowing I would be leaving my photo gear in Palm Springs, I photographed my latest shattered tooth.
Is this sturdy? Now, it feels like all my teeth are remarkably un-STURDY. But they are simply getting a head start on the universe as a whole.
Nikon D4s, tripod mounted. 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor lens, plus a 20mm extension tube. Shot outdoors in the shade, no flash. ISO 1600, f/11 @ 1/250th of a second.
This theme was a problem for me. Now the dictionary says that sturdy is simply “firmly built or constituted” or “sound in design or execution” or “marked by physical strength and vigor”. In that sense nearly everything seems study. That stool, that chair, or that ladder over there. But I think of sturdy over time. And then nothing is really sturdy. That bridge on Interstate 35W as it crossed the Mississippi River? A number of people found it wasn’t sturdy at all, just before they died. Well, what about that mountain you wonder? Go back in time. That mountain wasn’t there in the past, and it won’t be there in the future. Everything moves, everything shifts, everything deteriorates over time. Entropy continues, propelling everything towards ever greater degrees of disorder, until one day, far in the future, the entire universe will be cold, dark and distant with nothing sturdy at all.
Maybe I am wrestling with this as once again I had a problem with my mouth. Yes another tooth shattered. How many is that now? The answer is a number of times. It required me to fly back to Minnesota this week, to see my dentist and get a temporary crown installed, with instructions of care until next month when I depart California for the season and go back and get the permanent crown. So just before I took off for Minnesota, knowing that my week had changed in a way that would leave me little time, and knowing I would be leaving my photo gear in Palm Springs, I photographed my latest shattered tooth.
Is this sturdy? Now, it feels like all my teeth are remarkably un-STURDY. But they are simply getting a head start on the universe as a whole.
Nikon D4s, tripod mounted. 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor lens, plus a 20mm extension tube. Shot outdoors in the shade, no flash. ISO 1600, f/11 @ 1/250th of a second.
Paul-
Caveat lector: Unless the reader is a science geek, or shares the author’s irksome penchant for numbing detail, unavoidable circumlocution, and obvious pedanticalness, he or she is strongly encouraged to avoid reading everything that follows (save for the last paragraph).
“Sturdy,” huh? That’s easy enough. It doesn’t make it a poor theme by any measure, but the moment I saw it I wanted to come up with something that met the theme but wasn’t patently obvious or expected
My first thought was Aesop’s fable of “The Bundle of Sticks.” You probably know this story: You’ll see examples of it hidden somewhere in all junior high school curricula; near the beginning of low-budget martial arts films; or in some young-aboriginal-child-coming-of-age-story. But on the off-chance it’s slipped your mind, click on this link for one variation the story: https://www.umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=4&i=1
It would have worked. And best of all, I could dangle the moral in front of the reader making this all the more an exercise in purposeless pontificating prose. But I didn’t. Lucky, lucky you.
But I still loved the idea of taking something seemingly fragile or flimsy—much like my writing skills—and seeing if I could transform it into a sturdy object. What I’ve submitted is by no means original and, who knows, maybe one of you went with a similar idea…which would not piss me off. (I’m lying.)
Kevin (and possibly Byron) who have stoically borne the burden of knowing me longer than the rest of you combined may recall that I have dabbled in Origami since fifth grade. Decorative paper folding is 1,000-year-old craft form. And a world-wide origami renaissance blossomed started in the latter third of the 20th century. Traditionallyfolded models became…well, traditional. In the meantime, numerous bright (and possible anti-social) people started producing folded objects of breathtaking beauty and extraordinary complexity. The folding and tessellation potential revealed in a single square (or sometimes rectangle) of paper spawned largish conventions, numerous new books, origami celebrities (!), and gallery showings. Mathematicians, structural engineers, and NASA whiz kids took notice and started churning out treatises (usually in glossy journals) that discussed esoteric scientific principles and new topological ideas revealed in the marriage of different types of folds, creases, crimps, and interlocking components, etc. Eventually the entrepreneurs found their niche, too.
Want an example? You can now buy five different functional kayaks that are assembled/unassembled through a series of clever folds. Take a look: http://www.orukayak.com/ Spoiling for more? See: http://www.origami-resource-center.com/origami-science.html
The point I am taking too much time to make—and if you’ve read this far to see what the point is it’s your fault—is that under the right conditions any number of materials we don’t usually associated with sturdiness can be repurposed to demonstrate that very quality.
So, here’s what I did
I took your garden-variety manila file folder can cut in two equal pieces; each 11.5”(w) and 8.5”(h). I took one and rolled it into a cylindrical shape and ran a length of tape inside to join the two long edges together. And here’s where things get pretty annoying if you’d rather be drinking a cool beverage and watching Netflix. To wit: The math
The paper cylinder (based on its dimensions) has:
· A volume of 81.8125” π r² h
· A base of 9.625” π r²
· A lateral surface area of 93.5” 2π r h
· A total surface area of 112.75” 2π r (h + r)
Establishing the weight was the tricky part. Even the Internet isn’t exactly rife with places where you can find how precisely how much a piece of a manila file folder of a specific size and thickness weighs. So I did what comes naturally: guesstimated.
I was able to find that your standard 3x5 index card weighs .048 ounces. (This was handy because the folder was close to the same thickness.) According, I incrementally scaled up the ratio of the sides of the index card until I had an area very close to that of the paper I was using. Then it was just a matter of multiplication. The paper cylinder weighs approximately .13 ounces. (And yes, I rounded up a bit to factor in the tape.)
Sitting atop the tube are three construction bricks weighing a total of 172.8 ounces. You’ll notice I took the plastic top of a CD jewel case and used it to distribute the weight evenly across the top and bottom. (Is that cheating? I don’t know—take it up with my lawyer.) There was barely any deformation in the paper near the top, and no buckling at all.
Delving further into on the math:
· The weight of the paper cylinder is .075231% the weight of the three bricks.
· The percentage of weight increase between the cylinder and the bricks:132,823.076%.
And if this isn’t a cool example of sturdy, I don’t know what is. (Note: This same effect can be replicated if you take paper and fold it in a zig-zag fashion, set it upright, and place weight on top.)
Our story so far: 18-55mm lens set at 22mm; aperture priority; pattern-weighted metering; ISO 400; 1/2500 sec.; f/8.0; AE Bracketing was set to 3 (the highest setting on the D5200). The camera was handheld.
Caveat lector: Unless the reader is a science geek, or shares the author’s irksome penchant for numbing detail, unavoidable circumlocution, and obvious pedanticalness, he or she is strongly encouraged to avoid reading everything that follows (save for the last paragraph).
“Sturdy,” huh? That’s easy enough. It doesn’t make it a poor theme by any measure, but the moment I saw it I wanted to come up with something that met the theme but wasn’t patently obvious or expected
My first thought was Aesop’s fable of “The Bundle of Sticks.” You probably know this story: You’ll see examples of it hidden somewhere in all junior high school curricula; near the beginning of low-budget martial arts films; or in some young-aboriginal-child-coming-of-age-story. But on the off-chance it’s slipped your mind, click on this link for one variation the story: https://www.umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=4&i=1
It would have worked. And best of all, I could dangle the moral in front of the reader making this all the more an exercise in purposeless pontificating prose. But I didn’t. Lucky, lucky you.
But I still loved the idea of taking something seemingly fragile or flimsy—much like my writing skills—and seeing if I could transform it into a sturdy object. What I’ve submitted is by no means original and, who knows, maybe one of you went with a similar idea…which would not piss me off. (I’m lying.)
Kevin (and possibly Byron) who have stoically borne the burden of knowing me longer than the rest of you combined may recall that I have dabbled in Origami since fifth grade. Decorative paper folding is 1,000-year-old craft form. And a world-wide origami renaissance blossomed started in the latter third of the 20th century. Traditionallyfolded models became…well, traditional. In the meantime, numerous bright (and possible anti-social) people started producing folded objects of breathtaking beauty and extraordinary complexity. The folding and tessellation potential revealed in a single square (or sometimes rectangle) of paper spawned largish conventions, numerous new books, origami celebrities (!), and gallery showings. Mathematicians, structural engineers, and NASA whiz kids took notice and started churning out treatises (usually in glossy journals) that discussed esoteric scientific principles and new topological ideas revealed in the marriage of different types of folds, creases, crimps, and interlocking components, etc. Eventually the entrepreneurs found their niche, too.
Want an example? You can now buy five different functional kayaks that are assembled/unassembled through a series of clever folds. Take a look: http://www.orukayak.com/ Spoiling for more? See: http://www.origami-resource-center.com/origami-science.html
The point I am taking too much time to make—and if you’ve read this far to see what the point is it’s your fault—is that under the right conditions any number of materials we don’t usually associated with sturdiness can be repurposed to demonstrate that very quality.
So, here’s what I did
I took your garden-variety manila file folder can cut in two equal pieces; each 11.5”(w) and 8.5”(h). I took one and rolled it into a cylindrical shape and ran a length of tape inside to join the two long edges together. And here’s where things get pretty annoying if you’d rather be drinking a cool beverage and watching Netflix. To wit: The math
The paper cylinder (based on its dimensions) has:
· A volume of 81.8125” π r² h
· A base of 9.625” π r²
· A lateral surface area of 93.5” 2π r h
· A total surface area of 112.75” 2π r (h + r)
Establishing the weight was the tricky part. Even the Internet isn’t exactly rife with places where you can find how precisely how much a piece of a manila file folder of a specific size and thickness weighs. So I did what comes naturally: guesstimated.
I was able to find that your standard 3x5 index card weighs .048 ounces. (This was handy because the folder was close to the same thickness.) According, I incrementally scaled up the ratio of the sides of the index card until I had an area very close to that of the paper I was using. Then it was just a matter of multiplication. The paper cylinder weighs approximately .13 ounces. (And yes, I rounded up a bit to factor in the tape.)
Sitting atop the tube are three construction bricks weighing a total of 172.8 ounces. You’ll notice I took the plastic top of a CD jewel case and used it to distribute the weight evenly across the top and bottom. (Is that cheating? I don’t know—take it up with my lawyer.) There was barely any deformation in the paper near the top, and no buckling at all.
Delving further into on the math:
· The weight of the paper cylinder is .075231% the weight of the three bricks.
· The percentage of weight increase between the cylinder and the bricks:132,823.076%.
And if this isn’t a cool example of sturdy, I don’t know what is. (Note: This same effect can be replicated if you take paper and fold it in a zig-zag fashion, set it upright, and place weight on top.)
Our story so far: 18-55mm lens set at 22mm; aperture priority; pattern-weighted metering; ISO 400; 1/2500 sec.; f/8.0; AE Bracketing was set to 3 (the highest setting on the D5200). The camera was handheld.
Jerry-
When Byron came up with the sturdy theme I thought of one of my favorite tools, an Estwing hatchet. I had always wanted one of these as a kid but they were kind of expensive. Now $25 is not such a big deal. So I took a photo of my hatchet, it was ok but kind of looked too commercial. So I remembered this old wrench I found at an antique mall, the "VANBRUNT". I took the wrench and sat it on our deck while it rained - and took the photo there. I also researched it on Google and found out Van Brunt was a company that made "seed drills", a farm implement that dug a furrow, planted a seed, and then neatly covered it with soil in one operation. They were eventually owned by John Deere. I've attached a photo of a seed drill also.
Camera was the D750, 105 Micro, 1/40 @ f11, ISO 1600.
When Byron came up with the sturdy theme I thought of one of my favorite tools, an Estwing hatchet. I had always wanted one of these as a kid but they were kind of expensive. Now $25 is not such a big deal. So I took a photo of my hatchet, it was ok but kind of looked too commercial. So I remembered this old wrench I found at an antique mall, the "VANBRUNT". I took the wrench and sat it on our deck while it rained - and took the photo there. I also researched it on Google and found out Van Brunt was a company that made "seed drills", a farm implement that dug a furrow, planted a seed, and then neatly covered it with soil in one operation. They were eventually owned by John Deere. I've attached a photo of a seed drill also.
Camera was the D750, 105 Micro, 1/40 @ f11, ISO 1600.
Don-
I went out taking pictures and shot this one for "Sturdy." I liked it
and my dog liked it. Though every couple thousand years a boulder
the size of a pick-up truck falls off I consider these cliffs pretty sturdy.
I occasionally walk along the edges picking up petrified wood. I look
at the cracks and consider if something falls off I will be squished. I
never see any rocks fall.....so....sturdy.
Focal Length is 98mm. Exposure is 1/200sec; f/5.6; ISO100;
aperture Priority and pattern metering.
I went out taking pictures and shot this one for "Sturdy." I liked it
and my dog liked it. Though every couple thousand years a boulder
the size of a pick-up truck falls off I consider these cliffs pretty sturdy.
I occasionally walk along the edges picking up petrified wood. I look
at the cracks and consider if something falls off I will be squished. I
never see any rocks fall.....so....sturdy.
Focal Length is 98mm. Exposure is 1/200sec; f/5.6; ISO100;
aperture Priority and pattern metering.