From the Archives of 2001 and 2002
March 15, 2010
Not having any new photographs to show, I went through my photographs of 2001 and 2002 today hoping to find something shareworthy. I found only one from 2001 (the turkey-tail fungus) and 14 from 2002. It was frustrating to see many photographs that might have been good if only I’d framed them better. Even more photographs were images of interesting things rather than interesting images of things. Ah, well, photograph and learn. These were all taken with a Sony Cybershot DSC-F707. You may have seen some of them in earlier blog posts.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Romancing Reality 
You’ve got a pleasant collection here.
Picture 1 made me think of a comet.
#8 and #9 seem quite orderly for things that are random.
So much is going on in #14.
Hard not to love the water-fragmented scene presented in #10.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 15, 2020 at 10:21 PM
Thank you, Steve. I think creating order from randomness is what framing does—or tries to do. Exceptions might be where the photographer wishes to portray chaos, but even chaos can be more apparent or better communicated when the framing is right. You’re right about so much going on in #14. If the sycamore leaf weren’t there to anchor things, I think the composition would fall apart. The kind of fragmentation you see in #10 depends so much on shutter speed. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn’t have the data for this photograph, or the camera didn’t send it. Probably it’s 1/80th to 1/100th of a second. That’s the speed range that works on this pond. I’ve learned, though, that that speed range does’t always work with other bodies of water.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 11:55 AM
Beautiful shots, Linda. Your eye for detail and framing is in top form. Also, I can see you have maintained your curiosity for certain subject matter is still the same today (#8 & #9). Nice work!
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 15, 2020 at 10:23 PM
Thanks, Ken. My “eye for detail and framing” seems to have been in the luck range back in 2001 and 2002. I had to wade through hundreds of images taken in those years to find these few shareworthy ones. But, yes, my interest in certain subjects seems to be holding steady from then—and probably longer. I can remember some photographs I took in the ’70s, grasses especially, that I would still take today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 1:33 PM
Beautiful!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 12:52 AM
Thank you, Hannah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 1:33 PM
You are most welcome, Linda.
LikeLike
March 18, 2020 at 3:17 AM
Wonderful set! all of them. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 3:33 AM
Thanks, Harrie.
LikeLike
March 16, 2020 at 1:34 PM
Good pictures, Linda! My favourites are 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15. And I especially identify with “Even more photographs were images of interesting things rather than interesting images of things”, which I think holds a universal truth relevant to all of us photographers – the subject alone does not always guarantee a “good” image – it may help us to get there, but much of the “good” may come from within our photographers’ minds. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
March 16, 2020 at 4:34 AM
Thanks, Adrian. It’s always good to know your favorites. I try to analyze them to see if they have anything in common, to no avail. Glad you agree with my interesting things vs. interesting images statement. Thanks for expanding it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 1:44 PM
Wonderful photos – can you tell me about No. 11 please – what are those tendrils?
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 5:25 AM
Thank you, Alastair. The tendrils in #11 are the tracks of nocturnal snails, left in the silt that covers rock along the riverbank. WRONG! See correction below.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 1:48 PM
Astonishing! I would never have guessed. Thank you 👍😊
LikeLike
March 16, 2020 at 1:55 PM
The snails’ being nocturnal is something I have only deduced. I see their trails all over the riverbanks but only occasional empty shells in the daytime. WRONG! See correction below.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 16, 2020 at 2:11 PM
I am so sorry, Alastair. I gave you the wrong answer! Somehow I gave an answer for the wavy lines in #14. Here’s what I told Lynn (Bluebrightly), below: “About the “eyelashes” [what you call tendrils, Alastair]: It’s some kind of foreign matter in the water, maybe something produced by another bacterium (other than my guys). The lines are like windrows only in water. The current is running perpendicular to them. I’ve seen that phenomenon a few times.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 20, 2020 at 8:22 PM
Thanks Linda, that makes more sense perhaps, but I like the idea of the snail trails – they would have had to be an organised bunch to create that pattern. What do you call a group of snails I wonder, not a “bunch”, I’m sure 😉
LikeLike
March 21, 2020 at 2:27 AM
A slithering of snails? A sneak of snails? A slide of snails?
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 21, 2020 at 10:42 AM
Slithering! I like slithering. Henceforth a group of snails shall be known as “a slithering”. 😊
LikeLike
March 21, 2020 at 2:10 PM
OK!
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 21, 2020 at 2:54 PM
and lucky me!I get to see #8 every single day!
LikeLike
March 16, 2020 at 10:19 AM
Ah, I had forgotten that you have that one, Kathie! We don’t have many leaves yet here in northern Ohio, but we are hearing the songs of the returning birds. Regarding Covid-19, I keep thinking “No one told the birds.”
LikeLike
March 16, 2020 at 1:51 PM
These are beautiful, as usual. No. 6, 8, and 9 especially appeal to me.
LikeLike
March 16, 2020 at 11:50 AM
Thank you, Clare. Number 6 being the only good photograph I took in 2001, it has a special place in my heart. I didn’t know it was called turkey-tail fungus until much more recently. The lovely depression in the shale that you see in #s 8 and 9 didn’t last long. It was probably made by an embedded stone, probably a granite glacial erratic. Rivers doing what they do, water has eroded that spot, and not a trace remains of that feature.
LikeLike
March 16, 2020 at 2:08 PM
This is a wonderful set, Linda. Together and individually. The caustics from the glass doorknob, #1, are amazing! All of the gulls on ice in #4 make a striking image…Lake Erie? #8 & #9 stand out with their luminosity and color. All very “shareworthy”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 18, 2020 at 9:29 PM
Thank you, Mic. At first I thought “caustic” was a typo or an automatic wrong correction your computer made, but I didn’t think you’d allow either one to happen. So now I know! Merriam-Webster told me that caustic in this case means “the envelope of rays emanating from a point and reflected or refracted by a curved surface.” Fun to learn a new word. Yes, the gulls are on the Lake Erie shore, on the public beach at Vermilion. Glad you like #s 8 and 9. Sure wish that depression hadn’t gone away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
March 19, 2020 at 9:37 AM
Believe me, I miss a lot of typos, etc. but I thought you might enjoy the word “caustic”, especially if you weren’t familiar with it. I ran across it the same way a few years ago.
I should also say that I was impressed that all of those gulls stood still for you! I think it’s a great picture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 19, 2020 at 11:51 AM
Thanks, Mic. I did enjoy your word. Maybe the gulls were too cold to fly; I took the photograph in early February.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 19, 2020 at 1:06 PM
What fun to see these, because that goes back quite a way in terms of one’s artistic and skill level evolution. Some things were already fascinating you, like the iron bacteria. And some photos, like the one of gulls, have that distinctive way of framing, even though you don’t tend to photograph birds now. The first shot, though it’s different from them, makes me think of your farmhouse series. It’s beautiful! The second is such an odd sight, all those branches surrounding the pipe – your eye at work, for sure. I was surprised that you broke down and included a sunset (sunrise?). 🙂
The palette and selective focus on the Turkey tails are lovely. There’s something really compelling, to me anyway, about #7. Just that dry tip sticking out… I like #8 & #9 very, very much and am curious about how much time separated those two images.
#10 is delicious, like a caramel, and the next photo fascinates me – was that grass? Wow! Amazing, all those fine lines, like an eyelash in the water. #12 is curious too, for the angular nature of those bacteria patches – interesting! I think you often photograph scenes that make one ask, “Why?” and I like that. The other iron bacteria shots are great and the last reflection is beautifully done as well. Let’s see, there are lots of years between 2002 and more recent years…I think this could keep you busy for a long time. But I really hope you can get out and enjoy the woods, too.
LikeLike
March 20, 2020 at 4:40 PM
And what fun to read your comments. I would take that photo of the gulls if I saw them today, and my camera would do a better job. Still it’s amazing what a good job that little 5-megapixel Sony did. It was better at close-ups than at long-view shots, though. I like your drawing a line from the first photo to the farmhouse series. I can see that, too. Maybe the reason I included the sunset photo was that there were so few other photos that were decent. And, secretly, I like that photograph. My using a short depth of field on the sixth one was way before I saw any of your photos! Imagine that. I took #8 August 10 and #9 October 12. I sold one print of #9 but five of #8—the most I’ve ever sold of one print. About the “eyelashes”: It’s some kind of foreign matter in the water, maybe something produced by another bacterium (other than my guys). The lines are like windrows only in water. The current is running perpendicular to them. I’ve seen that phenomenon a few times. Aren’t those rectangles of Leptothrix discophora in #12 strange? I have never seen that before. I’m thinking of going to the river Sunday. It may be very cold, though; I’ll see. Thanks for all you comments, Lynn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 20, 2020 at 8:14 PM
“Secretly, I like that photograph” – so funny…well, the secret’s out. Re: depth of field, I may have mentioned before that my biggest desire in getting a camera that wasn’t just a point and shoot was to be able to take photos with really selective focus and to be able to let the background go out of focus if and when I wanted to. I saw that technique and so wanted to try it. Lately, I realized that my infatuation with shallow DOF has led me to leave the aperture too far open too often. I’m trying to remind myself to go fo f8, f9 f10 and f11 more often, especially with some of the little flowers, believe it or not.
That’s really interesting about #8 selling more than other photos. I think there’s something steadying about the composition. It’s obviously a random act of nature but there’s also an almost architectural concreteness there. Maybe I’m over-analyzing.
The “eyelashes” are even more amazing now that you explained what you could. Wow, so interesting. (Telling me the current runs perpendicular to them helps).
So did you get to the river and stay warm somehow? Yesterday I found a trail with almost no one on it in one of the more popular parks here, what a pleasure. But it’s near water and when I was out of the sun it was SO cold. 🙂
LikeLike
March 23, 2020 at 3:23 PM
Alexander Kunz’s (yesterday?) photos of the desert flowers all (but one) have such scrumptiously shallow depths of field. The two of you really have me wanting to do that more. But I understand if you want to use more DOF now. I usually have my aperture set to ƒ13. It gives me a greater range with equal clarity to ƒ8, even though theoretically it’s not supposed to. At least that’s true for the relatively close-up shots that I seem mostly to take. Don’t worry about over-analyzing #8. It was in a local photo competition, and the juror gave a gallery talk. What he said about that photo was maybe more analytical than you would ever have done in either of your careers. “It has the maie and the female and . . .” I don’t remember anything else he said, but I remember thinking that he was seeing things I’d never have seen in a million years. I did not get to the river, opting instead to conserve gasoline in case it should be needed during this crisis. I hope we will both (the river and I) still be here when it’s over. Glad you’re still getting out. Stay warm, though.
LikeLike
March 23, 2020 at 3:45 PM
p.s. I just read a comment that told me about the mysterious “eyelashes.” 🙂
LikeLike
March 20, 2020 at 4:43 PM
Oh, shoot! I answered Alastair wrong!!! I mistook his question as being about #14. What a mistake! Will have to let him know.
+
LikeLike
March 20, 2020 at 8:18 PM
Wow. A class reunion in a reformatory. That must have been quite the class. 🙂 Hmmm…that image doesn’t seem to be here, but when I clicked the comment tab it brought me to this post. And all the comments are recent but the post says 2010. To quote Barbarino… I’m so confused. 🙂
As always, I really enjoy your abstract eye, Linda. Not to take way from the nature shots, but you really do create some enjoyable and unique images.
LikeLike
May 27, 2020 at 2:46 PM
Thank you, Steve. I’ve been enjoying your nature photographs. I have no idea how you were sent to this old post. I join you in confusion. I thought having the reunion in a reformatory was pretty weird, but I have to say the building was pretty interesting. I think it’s more jazzed up now. Wonder if Stalin and Lenin (his portrait was there, too) still gaze down on the room.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM