These Spider Fangs Aren't Going To Photograph Themselves

Here is a photograph of a Sydney funnel-web spider, Atrax robustus: I won’t explain the biology of this delightful animal here – you may read about it at Wikipedia in greater arachnological detail. Instead, I want to show the process by which I arrived at this composition.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Here is a photograph of a Sydney funnel-web spider, Atrax robustus:

I won't explain the biology of this delightful animal here - you may read about it at Wikipedia in greater arachnological detail. Instead, I want to show the process by which I arrived at this composition. Most photographs involve some combination of creativity and constraint, and this one was no different.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Last month I spent a couple hours in Dr. David Wilson's venom chemistry laboratory in Cairns, Queensland, with the opportunity to photograph a few of his study animals. With a tight schedule and several species to shoot, an elaborate session for any particular spider was out of the question. The goal, rather, was to create a dramatic, usable image in a few minutes' time with one spider still in his cage.

Dr. Wilson coaxed one of the animals, a male A. robustus, part-way from its burrow, poking it to induce a standard threat display. The spider would then sit motionless for several minutes thereafter, fangs bared and legs raised. As someone used to frenetic ants, a sedentary spider was magic! The animal just posed, still as marble.

I put Canon's 100mm macro lens on my camera, arranged two diffuse off-camera strobes for lighting, and started with a simple shot.

I thought the result was ok. In focus, at least. But not great. The extra silk at the bottom and in the background was distracting, and I wanted more spider. (How could you not want More Spider?!) So I moved closer:

Better!

But the background plastic remained distracting and ugly. I couldn't remove the spider and have him retain this winning pose, so I instead took advantage of the translucence of the container. I moved one of the strobes behind the enclosure to overexpose the plastic to a pleasing white, and we teased the spider an extra half inch higher to clear it of some other schmutz. The new backlit background was better still:

Almost there! But I still wasn't satisfied. The center of interest in this subject is the fearsome fangs, and in this capture their lines were not symmetrical, the one on the right didn't stick out as far as it's counterpart. So we rotated the container for the winning exposure:

Later, across the ocean and back at home, I applied a few digital tweaks to the levels for the final image:

I have no idea how I would have done this back in the film era.

 

Alex Wild is Curator of Entomology at the University of Texas at Austin, where he studies the evolutionary history of ants. In 2003 he founded a photography business as an aesthetic complement to his scientific work, and his natural history photographs appear in numerous museums, books and media outlets.

More by Alex Wild

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe