Oregon Oxalis; Quinault RF mushroom

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:31 am

Visited the Quinault Rain Forest here in Washington last week and decided to try a few close-up/landscape shots.
Now... these are "stacks"

, but they are "undisturbed subjects in their natural environment" so I suppose they can be posted here

The upper image is of Oregon Oxalis (Oxalis oregana) growing along the top length of an old blown down tree. I believe the moss that covers the log is Stair-step moss (Hylocomium splendens).

The lower image is a mushroom (no ID) growing at the base of a tree.

These are an attempt to show these subjects while simultaneously showing the dense vegetation of the rain forest environment where they are found.

acerola · Post by **acerola** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:03 pm

These pictures has a special a atmosphere. They are like an illustration from a book. I especially like the second one. The foreground and background are well selected. There is some feeling thought that something is not normal. And it is not just the focus. The colors and exposure are also odd.
Let me guess you used Tufuse for focus and exposure blending also.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:26 pm

What is get is an impression of a time lost, a primordial world where dinosaurs still walk the earth and man has not yet come to be, well with the exception of Charlie. By the way there is a very large comet or meteor on the way, so wouldn't hang around too long in there if I were you there Ally Oop.

These are very beautiful by the way, love the perspective these photographs give of the forest.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:57 pm

Beautiful work with surreal perspective, Charlie!

These definitely satisfy my detail-junkie urges.

And yep, this sure seems like the right forum to me. I can't imagine any scene much less disturbed or more natural!

--Rik

gpmatthews · Post by **gpmatthews** » Tue May 06, 2008 1:21 pm

Hmmm, no sooner do I make a comment about stacking being used for landscapes (elsewhere in the thread about forum re-arrangements), and Charlie goes one better with these incredible images - great stuff!

I also know what they remind me of: Salvador Dali used to stay occasionally in a house at West Dean (now West Dean College) just north of Chichester here in West Sussex, and on the wall of a landing on a spiral staircase in the house he painted a desert landscape viewed across a wall in the foreground. The detail on the wall shows small insects, millipedes etc., right up close, and the rest of the landscape is also fully in focus right out to the horizon. Obviously a stacking pioneer! - certainly stacks of strange stuff in his head.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Wed May 07, 2008 3:09 pm

Péter,
These were done with Helicon Focus.
The light was poor... extremely flat and "heavy". I think that is what you are seeing. The colors are actually pretty accurate. Many of the "greens" found here can have significant amounts of yellow and red in them. I've seen postcards taken of these Pacific rain forests where everything was made to look a "pure" bright green, but that's not the reality.

acerola · Post by **acerola** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:19 am

This was my other tip. The trees at the background are so differently colored. And they might also cause big exposure differences when the lights are bright. It seems, that you need the flat light to create this kind of picture without further post processing.
How much pictures do you take, just out of interest?

Leif · Post by **Leif** » Thu May 08, 2008 2:20 am

Charles Krebs wrote:Péter,
These were done with Helicon Focus.
The light was poor... extremely flat and "heavy". I think that is what you are seeing. The colors are actually pretty accurate. Many of the "greens" found here can have significant amounts of yellow and red in them. I've seen postcards taken of these Pacific rain forests where everything was made to look a "pure" bright green, but that's not the reality.

Excellent pictures, especially the second one. Actually 'poor' light is IMO the best for such pictures, as it means the contrast range is not excessive.

What was the equipment? I'm assuming a DSLR.

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:43 am

Superb images. I love the wideangle close-ups, taking in middle distance and the backdrop of trees.

The mushroom could be a Cortinarius.

Harold

Michigan Michael · Post by **Michigan Michael** » Thu May 08, 2008 6:43 am

Excellent photographs--especially the 2nd one.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Thu May 08, 2008 11:06 am

Péter,
Yes, it is extremely difficult to an take an overall photo here unless the light is overcast. But it is absolutely amazing how much variation there is in "overcast" light, and how different this place can look. Normally I prefer a more "lively" overcast than I had here, but this is what I had to work with at the times when the air was very calm (essential!). It took at least 13 or 14 shots (at f16) to get this to look the way I wanted.

Leif,
I used a Canon 5D DSLR (24x36mm sensor). The "lens" was a rather special piece that I put together. It was made up of the optics from an Olympus 28/3.5 lens that were mounted into the rear standard of a modified Minolta bellows. A male Canon EOS mount was added to the other end of the Minolta bellows in order to attach the camera. This enables me to focus continuously from "infinity" to over 1:1 (fractions of an inch from the front element). I have dubbed it my "OlyMinCan 28mm lens". The reason for this odd arrangement is because the lens needs to stay at the exact same position as the focus is changed. So with this piece, the optics stay fixed while the camera body is moved forward or back to focus at different distances. In both these images, the nearest subject is only about an inch away from the lens (and probably at about 1:1 or slightly greater).

acerola · Post by **acerola** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:28 pm

Oh, it is more complicated than I thought. I did not really think about the difficulties. I must try it one time, without focusing this close.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:29 pm

Charlie,

This sounds like an evolution of the rig that you and I discussed by email some time ago. Keeping that lens position perfectly fixed works wonders, doesn't it?

But I'm having trouble envisioning exactly how the lens, bellows, etc went together. Any chance of getting you to post a picture of the rig, over in the Technique forum?

Thanks!
--Rik

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Thu May 08, 2008 9:16 pm

I've posted a few pictures of the lens used for this here:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9118#29118

cactuspic · Post by **cactuspic** » Sun May 18, 2008 8:30 am

Great shots that capture the wonderful mood, Charles. I had several questions about the bellows. First, putting aside the question of infinity focus for a second, would it possible to use a set of bellows that has a movable back standard and focus by moving the back standard, thus keeping your lens position identical.

I assume that the lens used has to have a registration distance greater than the registration distance of the camera. (More of a concern when you are using gear other than Canon.)

Lastly, do you have a stop or some mechanism where the back of the lens won't crash into the mirror if you collapse the bellows too much. Or did you remove only so much bellows folds so that the bellows can't bring the lens to the mirrors edge?

Thanks.

Irwin