This is some type of fern (Peter, I'm sure you know). This was taken in Florida. Equipment details: N70, tripod, 100mm macro (1:1) plus a 2x teleconverter. Kodak Elite 200. Exposure ~1.5 secs. F22. Any and all critiques are welcome. Thanks!

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), March 22, 1999

Answers

Hey, Joe -

What did you do to piss these people off? You can't buy a comment around here... Anyway, here are my thoughts. This is a very interesting shot, and I keep coming back to it trying to decide what it is I like and don't like about it. Its certainly not what I envisioned when I read your title. My first thought was that it was a flash shot, and maybe slightly overflashed, but in fact its natural light. The detail and color in the shriveled fronds look great, and they are well separated from the background, though there is plenty of DOF in the primary subject. The diagonal composition works for me as well. A kind of grotesque take on what is typically a delicate and pleasing subject. Very nicely done. I think its a resurrection fern, by the way, waiting for some rain.

Peter

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), March 23, 1999.

As Peter has noted, not what one would expect from the title. Nevertheless, an interesting specimen and view. Almost like something out of the sea.

-- Garry Schaefer (schaefer@pangea.ca), March 23, 1999.

I don't know about anyone else, Peter, but I was holding off my comment because the image took me by surprise and I didn't know quite what to say. Now, after repeated looks over a few days I am still disoriented by it.

The view appears to be looking down on the plant, since I can't see any stem supporting it, but there are spots of blue in the overly busy background that imply sky to me and so, might be looking up. Maybe the plant is standing in water, reflecting the sky. At any rate it is confusing and it is the background that is causing it.

Totally eliminating the background in a blur would be nice, separating the subject even more and giving it an abstract look. Also, showing the stem and some of the environment would be OK with me and it would anchor the subject in life. This is in-between and kind of slippery in my mind.

There was another photo that caused me this kind of discomfort before, you may remember it as I commented on it at length like here. So, take this with a grain of salt as it may just be a defect of an aging mind.

Frank

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), March 23, 1999.

Frank,

I was wondering about the blue specks as well, and I think you're right. Resurrection ferns are epiphytic, and frequently grow from the larger branches of live oaks in Florida, so quite likely this shot was taken looking upwards. What you're probably seeing in the background are other epiphytes closer to the trunk, as well as some of the oak canopy with a couple of patches of blue sky peeking through. How about it, Joe?

Peter

-- Peter May (peter.may@stetson.edu), March 23, 1999.

I see that I should give some more background information here to clear up any confusion:

This fern was growing at a 90 degree angle off the side of an oak tree. I took the photo looking straight at it, not up or down. The background that you see is the bark of the tree. The blue-green spots were some other very small lichenous plants that were growing on the surface of the bark. Peter, you are correct: this is all natural light. I didn't use a flash of any kind. The sun was just getting up good (~9:30am) and was throwing light at a 90 degree angle to the lens, thus the lighting.

I hope this explanation clears up any confusion that anyone might have. Thanks for asking the questions and thanks for the critiques! I didn't think that I'd be able to get as much as I did in focus with the 1:1 adapter and the teleconverter, but I guess I got lucky.

Any other questions, comments (or changes to previous comments now that I have explained what's going on here), compliments, or outright lambasting would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), March 23, 1999.

Joe,

In your tech info you gave f/22 as the aperture. Is this the corrected aperture, taking into account the magnification? Or is it set aperture? The difference may be why you got so much more dof than you expected.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), March 23, 1999.

Frank,
You are very right. I forgot to account for the efective f-stop. That explains the depth. Thanks for reminding me!

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), March 23, 1999.

This looks like an underwater shot. Very interesting but disorientating.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), March 24, 1999.