Rotted log & Fungi

[Didereaux]

Taken in far NE Washington state

albums: Picasa Web Albums - monte

 

[WesternGuy]

This is okay, but I think it would be a better composition if you concentrated on one part of the log and on one set of the fungi. This is the sort of thing that is great for close up or macro shots.

WesternGuy

 

[Didereaux]

This is okay, but I think it would be a better composition if you concentrated on one part of the log and on one set of the fungi. This is the sort of thing that is great for close up or macro shots.
WesternGuy

You mean something like this?

 

[WesternGuy]

More like that, yes, but this image is still a bit overwhelming with "detail". Actually, my eye went to the two or three smaller groups that are in the lower right part of the first image. There is one small group that has only 3 or 4 (±) "fungi" in it and another one to the left and just below it that seems to have about 10 (±) things in it. My curiosity is wondering how they would look as the sole subject of an image.

One thing I did notice in your second image is that the upper set of fungi are slightly out of focus, so even in this picture, I would crop them out and just show the lower ones. By way of explanation, a lot of my comments reflect my own personal bias which is to present an image that is relatively simple and composed in such a way that the viewer's eye is not wandering all over the image trying to decide what the subject is. That is what I found myself doing in the initial posted image and that is where my suggestions come from as I always think that a simple image is a better image, but then, as I said, that is just me and my personal bias.

I don't know what gear you have, but if these "tiny" subjects are of interest to you, then you might want to think in terms of macro work. You can start in this with a simple set of extensions tubes and, of course, ultimately a macro lens.

Hope this helps.

WesternGuy

 

[Didereaux]

More like that, yes, but this image is still a bit overwhelming with "detail". Actually, my eye went to the two or three smaller groups that are in the lower right part of the first image. There is one small group that has only 3 or 4 (±) "fungi" in it and another one to the left and just below it that seems to have about 10 (±) things in it. My curiosity is wondering how they would look as the sole subject of an image.

One thing I did notice in your second image is that the upper set of fungi are slightly out of focus, so even in this picture, I would crop them out and just show the lower ones. By way of explanation, a lot of my comments reflect my own personal bias which is to present an image that is relatively simple and composed in such a way that the viewer's eye is not wandering all over the image trying to decide what the subject is. That is what I found myself doing in the initial posted image and that is where my suggestions come from as I always think that a simple image is a better image, but then, as I said, that is just me and my personal bias.

I don't know what gear you have, but if these "tiny" subjects are of interest to you, then you might want to think in terms of macro work. You can start in this with a simple set of extensions tubes and, of course, ultimately a macro lens.

Hope this helps.

WesternGuy

Ideas duly noted. And thank you for taking the time to post them.

 

[Didereaux]

More like that, yes, but this image is still a bit overwhelming with "detail". Actually, my eye went to the two or three smaller groups that are in the lower right part of the first image. There is one small group that has only 3 or 4 (±) "fungi" in it and another one to the left and just below it that seems to have about 10 (±) things in it. My curiosity is wondering how they would look as the sole subject of an image.

One thing I did notice in your second image is that the upper set of fungi are slightly out of focus, so even in this picture, I would crop them out and just show the lower ones. By way of explanation, a lot of my comments reflect my own personal bias which is to present an image that is relatively simple and composed in such a way that the viewer's eye is not wandering all over the image trying to decide what the subject is. That is what I found myself doing in the initial posted image and that is where my suggestions come from as I always think that a simple image is a better image, but then, as I said, that is just me and my personal bias.

I don't know what gear you have, but if these "tiny" subjects are of interest to you, then you might want to think in terms of macro work. You can start in this with a simple set of extensions tubes and, of course, ultimately a macro lens.

Hope this helps.

WesternGuy

Setting aside the focus issues (this is HEAVILY cropped) and looking only at composition...how is this?

Canon EOS 6D 100-400mm L IS USM
ISO	100
Exposure	1/3 sec
Aperture	22.0
Focal Length	340mm

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Actinia]

As a biologist, I like the first one with the fungi in situ. I would agree that, aesthetically, the crop is better.

 

[Didereaux]

As a biologist, I like the first one with the fungi in situ. I would agree that, aesthetically, the crop is better.

Geologist myself. I completely agree. A mineral crystal may be a work of art by itself, but a lot of interesting stuff is lost if you don't know where it resided.