structnro, alive or (load, is too luinnto or too active^ to bo posed for a 

 pictiiro. Tested by both artistic and scientilic standards, some of the 

 results now ai)pearin<jj in our entomological literature liave never been 

 surpassctl in insect illustration. IJut there is a lot of j^ood printer's 

 ink beinir wasted on very poor insect pliotoj^raphs. Sonielinies a good 

 photograph is not well brought out in making the half-tone plate, and 

 often it is so pt)orly printed as to reseml)le a blotch of printer's ink 

 rather than an insect. While we can not always i-emedy defects in 

 making and printing half-tones from photographs, we can make better 

 negatives oftentimes. Onl}' a year or two ago a bulletin appeared 

 with over 40 photographic illustrations, covering 20 full-page plates, 

 and full}' three-fourths of the "cuts" had little excuse for existence, 

 so poor were they. The climax was reached in th(> final picture, just 

 recognizable as a squash, which the author labeled " Eaten l)y milli- 

 pedes, centipedes, and slugs, all of which were alive upon this at the 

 time it was photograjjlied, but as most of them were moving they are 

 not plainly shown." 



The best of i)hotographers quite often get poor and worthless nega- 

 tives, and anj'oue who attempts "hunting insects with a camera" 

 will find this especially true. But my iwint is that such failures .should 

 go into the rubbish heap of experience rather than encumber our lit- 

 erature and degrade the standard of insect illustration. American 

 economic entomologists lead the world in all that pertains to their 

 subject; in our e(iuipments and m(»thods foi- investigation and experi- 

 mentation; in our practical results; and let us maintain this standard 

 in the illustrating of our literature. 



A little more than ton years ago I was forced into insect photogra- 

 phy by my inability to otherwi.sc pro[)erly illustrate my graduating 

 thesis. I have learned to appreciate a good insect photograi)h, but. 

 have yet to learn man}- of the "tricks" by which they are made. I 

 find it is much easier to learn what not to do in photography than to 

 discover just what t()<lo. I have cotne to believe that "the man l>eliiinl 

 the camera" is largely resi)onsil)le for many of the poor photographic 

 illustrations of insects that get into print. 



Sonu> of the <|ualitios of a good insect photograph are much detail; 

 good backgiounds; eveidy lightod and not too "cont rasty ;" taken 

 from life is usually preferable, l)ut not always possible; symmetrical 

 or lifelike an-angement. if fi'om dead specimens; and, lastly, artistic 

 surroundings if i)ract icable. Let me discuss the attainment of some 

 of these ([ualities from my experience. 



NECESSARY EQUIPMENT. 



It is especially line in insect photography thai first-class tools are 

 noeessaiT. My workshoi), the Cornell insectary, is e(iuippe(l with 

 several cameras. For outdooi- or field woi-k the latest model of a 

 5 by 7 camera has recently been purchased. The photo-micro camera, 



