P3_Kim

=Kim Huett=

// Praying Mantis //


__Tags__: praying mantis, insect, antennae, grate, brick, patio, McDonald's, Georgia, close-up

Application in the Curriculum
In Texas, I am certified to teach Technology Applications, grades P-12. Looking at the standards for Technology Applications, Grades 3-5, I would use the concept of the //close-up shot// to teach the following standard (which is condensed from the original):

//7B. The student uses appropriate computer-based productivity tools to create and modify solutions to problems. The student is expected to __use appropriate software to express ideas__ and solve problems including the use of word processing, graphics, databases, spreadsheets, simulations, and multimedia...//

As a warm up activity, I would display this praying mantis shot through my display device for students to look at and wonder at as they enter class. Students would write in their warm-up journal about the photograph, describing what they see in and what they think about it. Then, as a class, we'd share some of our ideas together.

I would segue into the type of shot it is (close-up) and begin discussing with them the qualities of a close-up. After a demonstration of how to take a close-up (using the close-up setting), in pairs, students would practice taking close-ups using objects in the classroom. At the end of the class, they would upload their photos to their computers and save.

The next day, students would select their favorites from the in-class shooting from the day before. Each student would upload her best shot to the class folder on the network. Then, as a class, we would go through the photos and discuss. We'd follow this activity up in later sessions with taking close-up shots outside of the school building, and use a similar process for uploading, sharing, and discussing. Students would select their favorite close-up shot to be superimposed on another photo, similar to my //Houston, We Have a Problem// (below), where I've superimposed the praying mantis on a shot of clouds over Houston. Finally, students would choose their favorite close-up shot to be displayed on their electronic portfolios.

Self Evaluation
(45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || __Critique Comments__: //Preface to my Critique// On page 504 of the //Photography and Digital Imaging// textbook, it says that in order to get close to a small subject such as an insect, that it is usually necessary to be within one foot of the subject and that not all cameras are capable of this type of shot. Also, with this type of close-up, depth of field is very sensitive, and it can vary within a fraction of an inch (for example, while an insect's head might be in focus, one of his legs could be out of focus). Extreme control is needed in framing and focusing. It is easier to take such a photo using a single-lens reflex camera, which mine is, because you don't have the added potential issue of parallax.
 * ** Category ** || ** Strong ** || ** Adequate ** || ** Weak ** ||
 * ** Concept ** || Does an outstanding job of communicating the concept. || Does an adequate job communicating the concept. || Does a poor job communicating the concept. ||
 * ** Composition ** || Photograph uses composition principles very effectively. || Photograph does a good job using composition principles. || Photograph does a poor job using composition principles. ||
 * ** Focus ** || Focus is a perfect match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is an adequate match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is a poor match with the concept of the shot. ||
 * ** Technical Aspects ** || Shutter speed and aperture were perfectly chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were adequately chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were poorly chosen and do not match the concept. ||
 * ** Depth of Field ** || Excellent use of depth-of-field. || Adequate use of depth-of-field. || Poor use of depth-of-field. ||
 * ** Title/tags ** || Title and tags were perfectly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are excellent with no mistakes. || Title and tags were adequately chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are good with only minor errors. || Title and tags were poorly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Contains multiple spelling errors or wrong word choices. ||
 * ** Instructor evaluates this section ** ||
 * ** Self Critique ** || Excellent self-assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate self-assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor self-assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * ** Peer Critique ** || Excellent peer assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate peer assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor peer assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * ** Peer Comments ** || Peer comments exceed expectations. || Peer comments meet expectations. One or two comments might be missing. || Three or more peer comments were missing, incomplete or poorly written. ||
 * ** Total Points ** || >89%
 * ** Total Points ** || >89%

//Critique// In terms of the concept of //praying mantis on the patio//, I believe that I conveyed this adequately. The insect is pretty clearly shown in terms of focus and color, as brought about through the diffuse light of the pre-storm evening sky. The holey grate and the background bricks receding at an angle adequately convey //patio//. This shot also exemplifies the concept of //close-up shot//. It qualifies as the sub-category of //photomacrography//, since the shot is larger than life (although not too much so as to push it into the //photomicrography// sub-category).

Compositionally speaking, the shot may be better-framed in another way. I am partial to this composition, even if it doesn't conform to the rule of thirds. What this shot does offer that I find interesting (and unintentional) is the lines. If you look at the lines, you see lots of V-shapes, and the environment even conforms to this. The angle at which the patio bricks are depicted is complementary to the V theme, and it creates an energy that I find appealing. In terms of focus, the subject is mostly in focus, although his abdomen and rear legs fall out of the field. It is apparent that the depth of field is shallow in this shot, allowing little in the way of wiggle room. I am not sure I could have done much better in terms of focusing, since I would rather have the praying mantis's head and forelegs more in focus than his abdomen. The sharp focus on the subject and the metal grating on which he rests stands out against the fading background of the patio bricks.

The shutter speed for this shot was 1/200, and I chose to crank the ISO up to 1600 and use no flash. This ISO may've been too high. My manual recommends 400-800 for overcast skies or evening shooting, and I regret not adjusting to conform with this recommendation, just so I could have seen the result. However, I am pleased with this shot, and it could be that I needed a higher ISO after all, because the light was actually overcast evening light, which may've qualified it for the "night or dark indoors" ISO setting of 1600.

I believe that the tags I have selected are appropriate for anyone searching the internet using those terms.

Peer Critique
__Name__: Stephanie Jackson

This is a great close-up shot of the praying mantis. I could think of many lessons in which I could use this photo. Kim, you do an outstanding job communicating the concept. It almost seems like you could have a conversation with it. Besides the blur of the hind leg and a small part of the abdomen, the image of the insect was in sharp focus. I liked the composition although I would have tried several angles to have some choices. I am not sure if you took multiple shots as you experimented with the settings, however, I think the setting you chose was fine. I would have liked if there was a comparison photo with the ISO setting at 400 as the manual suggested for overcast. I really don't know if that would have made a huge difference. I would not have really detected the brick if you had not mentioned it because the color sequence is monotone and the bricks are quite a blur as they should be. It has a shallow depth of field. After all, the subject of focus is the praying mantis. The title and tags were appropriate and correct. Great Job!

(45-50 pts.) || 80 – 89% (40 - 44 pts.) || <80% (<40 pts.) || __Critique Comments__:
 * ** Category ** || ** Strong ** || ** Adequate ** || ** Weak ** ||
 * ** Concept ** || Does an outstanding job of communicating the concept. || Does an adequate job communicating the concept. || Does a poor job communicating the concept. ||
 * ** Composition ** || Photograph uses composition principles very effectively. || Photograph does a good job using composition principles. || Photograph does a poor job using composition principles. ||
 * ** Focus ** || Focus is a perfect match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is an adequate match with the concept of the shot. || Focus is a poor match with the concept of the shot. ||
 * ** Technical Aspects ** || Shutter speed and aperture were perfectly chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were adequately chosen to match concept. || Shutter speed and aperture were poorly chosen and do not match the concept. ||
 * ** Depth of Field ** || Excellent use of depth-of-field. || Adequate use of depth-of-field. || Poor use of depth-of-field. ||
 * ** Title/tags ** || Title and tags were perfectly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are excellent with no mistakes. || Title and tags were adequately chosen and written to express the content and concept. Spelling and word choice are good with only minor errors. || Title and tags were poorly chosen and written to express the content and concept. Contains multiple spelling errors or wrong word choices. ||
 * ** Instructor evaluates this section ** ||
 * ** Self Critique ** || Excellent self-assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate self-assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor self-assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * ** Peer Critique ** || Excellent peer assessment. Written comments meet or exceed requirements. || Adequate peer assessment. Written comments meet requirements. || Poor peer assessment. Written comments do not meet requirements. ||
 * ** Peer Comments ** || Peer comments exceed expectations. || Peer comments meet expectations. One or two comments might be missing. || Three or more peer comments were missing, incomplete or poorly written. ||
 * ** Total Points ** || >89%
 * ** Total Points ** || >89%