Communal flowers, trees, plants and fungi thread

[Harold Gough]

Originally Posted by David M

I was thinking Communal flora and Communal fauna.

It depends whether insects are to remain separate, as they as fauna. And where would molluscs go?

I suppose flora would include mushrooms and moulds but some guidance might be required for for the uninitiated.

Harold

[David M]

Originally Posted by Harold Gough

It depends whether insects are to remain separate, as they as fauna. And where would molluscs go?

I suppose flora would include mushrooms and moulds but some guidance might be required for for the uninitiated.

Harold

I realised there could be some confusion and overlap but was trying to come up with something short. Communal mammals, reptiles, amphibians and so on gets a bit of a mouthful.

[Ross the fiddler]

Originally Posted by David M

I realised there could be some confusion and overlap but was trying to come up with something short. Communal mammals, reptiles, amphibians and so on gets a bit of a mouthful.

We could make it even more interesting. Invertebrates & Vertebrates.

Vertebrates include the jawless fish and the jawed vertebrates, which include the cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays) and the bony fish. A bony fish clade known as the lobe-finned fishes is included with tetrapods, which are further divided into amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds. Extant vertebrates range in size from the frog species Paedophryne amauensis, at as little as 7.7 mm (0.30 in), to the blue whale, at up to 33 m (108 ft). Vertebrates make up about 4% of all described animal species; the rest are invertebrates, which lack vertebral columns.

[art frames]

Pyramidal Orchid by Peter Willmott, on Flickr

Pyramidal Orchid - Anacamptis Pyramidalis: picture taken at Ragpits Reserve in herts. A superb small site with good access to orchids.

[art frames]

Bee Orchid by Peter Willmott, on Flickr

Bee Orchid - Ophrys apifera, growing near Tring in herts.

[Harold Gough]

Peter,

Lovely groups of three.

A typo: Anacamptis pyramidalis

Harold

[brian1208]

Originally Posted by art frames

Bee Orchid by Peter Willmott, on Flickr

Bee Orchid - Ophrys apifera, growing near Tring in herts.

Lucky you, its one species of orchid I've yet to find, nice detailed and colourful pic too

[David M]

Cone flower, E-3 and a Vivitar 35mm f/1.9 from the late 70's.

[Harold Gough]

Originally Posted by Harold Gough

Abutilon vitifolia 'Flowering Maple'.

This is one of the mallow family, together with Hollyhocks. It makes a tallish (2-3m) spindly shrub, which whips around a lot in the wind. It was a windy day and I was standing on a stool to get this flower to fill and effective 210mm frame. I had to wait for calmer moments.

My regular software is out of action but I am happy to post this version, uncropped.

EM-1, Aperture priority, f11?, 1/500, ISO 500, hand-held.

Harold

For comparison, here are some shots from the same viewpoint but with the sun almost directly behind the flower. Movement of the flower in the wind varies the lighting.

Harold

[art frames]

Originally Posted by David M

Cone flower, E-3 and a Vivitar 35mm f/1.9 from the late 70's.

Lovely plants and flowers and good for butterflies, but I can't seem to get them to grow back in the second year. I believe I have brown fingers.

[art frames]

Seemed to be better in black and white...


Dandelion clock by Peter Willmott, on Flickr

[Harold Gough]

First stereos with Laowa 15mm 1:1 macro lens. A Tree Paeony 'Pink' (not that I can see!).

Yesterday morning was perfect for this exercise. There was bright overcast light, with enough diffusion to be shadowless for this subject.

A session on the previous day gave me problems with the camera and/or my head casting shadows over the flower. While it might have been OK for a singles frame, the sideways movement for the other view was not.

Yes, the background is far from picturesque but the likes of this hand-sized flower were not to be readily found elsewhere. In any case, it shows the scope of the lens. I believe that it is to be objects of this size which are likely to give the huge DOF characteristic of this lens.

I do not want to suggest that the lens is a go-to one for macro. For most subjects, a telephoto which separates the lens from the background is the best choice. But we must "think outside the box" at times.

Ideally, I would have used a tripod but I would not usually for stereo pairs, so they were hand-held (kneeling with firm grip on camera and elbows on knee).

I am showing the second session first. The stereograms are cross-eye so I also provide some single images for those who cannot make the former work. (They have had some micro contrast processing which the stereo versions have not).

Sony Alpha A7R (Full frame, Aperture priority), ISO 800, f22, 1/160, 1/200. etc..

Harold

[art frames]

An impressive flower, Harold. The lens is interesting. I am sure at the size you get to see it the sharpness and impact will be dramatic.

The only peonies I know are herbaceous and my one is very pink, very double and loved by earwigs. It also falls over when it gets wet. So I should begin to stake it now as it has flower buds forming.

Well yes you do get a good depth of field and I imagine you need to work very hard to avoid feet and shadows creeping into shot. But I like the wide angle shot for flowers. I don't have a macro one but I find the 4/3 7-14 works well on fuchsias and I have had some joy with clematis.

I started to look out some examples. It does give an interesting view. I tend to develop them with negative contrast, presence and sharpness to get effects, but they can be quite sharp.


Clematis montana by Peter Willmott, on Flickr


Clematis by Peter Willmott, on Flickr


Berry hedgerow by Peter Willmott, on Flickr

I think you have given me some challenges with flowers again.

[Harold Gough]

Thanks, Peter.

Nice examples.

Negative contrast and presence are unfamiliar to me.

Harold

[art frames]

Originally Posted by Harold Gough

Thanks, Peter.

Nice examples.

Negative contrast and presence are unfamiliar to me.

Harold

Probably wise as you will spend a lot of time fiddling with processing Raw.

You can process in ways which make things less contrasty which tends to flatten the tonal range and remove harsh edges. Similarly you can reduce the presence (clarity and colour vibrance) in a number of ways. If you do it in subtle ways and in selected areas you can chose the areas of focus by reducing the viewers interest in the non focus areas. Selective sharpening can also be helpful but only if well managed. I find most sharpening is used harshly.

The end result should not look processed. I am not looking to create unreality.

My training is as an artist / illustrator. And a painter I select exactly how I want you to view an image by composition, paint quality and edge treatment (amongst other techniques). I simply use the same thinking when I develop a photograph. Changing the content and composition at the taking stage, if possible and then developing in ways which help it later on. In the end all there is is the image. That is all you are exhibiting.

Interestingly I paint less now than I did - but still do both. But people viewing drawings and paintings are more impressed than with photographs. I think it is assumed that there is less skill, because the machine takes the image.