notocactus

salden · Post by **salden** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:53 am

I think this is a notocactus, but I could be wrong. I have been busy lately and just returned from Yuma, AZ. Nice 80 degree weather and now I am sitting here in a snow/ice storm.

Canon 1D Mark II N
Canon 100mm Macro 2.8
Ambient light
full frame

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:15 am

Very nice Sue!

I'm a little bit confused by the flower shape.

Is it real?
Eager what will Dave and Irwin say.
Beautiful ambient light. How much exposure lasted long?

salden · Post by **salden** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:34 am

Yes, this is real...

I have not killed it yet, but with my luck keeping things alive, it is sure to happen.

Exposure was set to 1/8 sec at f4. Tripod of course.

cactuspic · Post by **cactuspic** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:44 am

Beautiful lighting emphasises the structure of the opening bloom.

If you have another shot that has the spination pattern or the open flower, it would help identify the plant. There are several Notos with a purpleish bloom, including herteri, roseiflorus, roscoluteus, rutlilans, and uebelmannianus.

Last I checked, the doyens of taxonomy have eliminated the Notocactus genus and clumped them into Parodias.

I guess I'm a holdout for the old Notocactus designation, as I suspect Dave is.

Best regards,

Irwin

salden · Post by **salden** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:50 am

Yes, I noticed they lumped it into Parodias, but well what can I say

I will get a few more images. I have two left to post for today so I will see what I can get.

salden · Post by **salden** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:24 am

here are two more. Hopefully they will help with the id.

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:34 am

Wow! Gymnocalycium hossei or some hybrid? I suspect flower doesn't match. They have protrudent flowers I think and almost always more then one bud.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:52 am

Sue,

Oddly enough, I don't care about the ID on this one.

I'm still intrigued by the lighting on that first picture. It's very, um, "romantic" maybe. Reminds me of a fancy wax candle -- very attractive, very companionable. But these last two are quite literal. Was the first one shot at a different time and place, did you manage to find one that the light was hitting different, is there some artificial shading going on, or something else I haven't even thought of?

--Rik

salden · Post by **salden** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:55 am

rjlittlefield wrote:Sue,

Oddly enough, I don't care about the ID on this one.

I'm still intrigued by the lighting on that first picture. It's very, um, "romantic" maybe. Reminds me of a fancy wax candle -- very attractive, very companionable. But these last two are quite literal. Was the first one shot at a different time and place, did you manage to find one that the light was hitting different, is there some artificial shading going on, or something else I haven't even thought of?

--Rik

The first image was taken with more of an "artsy" feel to it. The other two are more for id purposes. Ambient light was used on the first, but a white light bulb was use to illuminate the last two.

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:48 am

There is a lot of "depth" in the first picture Sue, and the lighting in and on the flower is fantastic.

cactuspic · Post by **cactuspic** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:46 pm

One further question, Sue,, Is the stigma in the center of the flower a red or purple or similar color?

Irwin

salden · Post by **salden** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:01 pm

cactuspic wrote:One further question, Sue,, Is the stigma in the center of the flower a red or purple or similar color?

Irwin

It is actually more of a purple, but does have a tint of pink.

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:14 pm

Geez...would ya just look at all the posts in here, I had to wade down just to get to the bottom. What did ya do Sue...leave the gate open?

I like the first one but the DOF is pretty shallow, just a tad bit more would have been better I think. But I do agree, with which ever it was, it does look like a candle, well just a bit.

The other two, well I don't know. I like the DOF in the last one but the flower would look nicer to me if it were a bit sharper or maybe more defined would be a better term. As for the second, well looks okay but you have dust on your sensor

and I would have liked the flower a little more to the right of the frame.

I know, I know, they are for id purposes but what do ya have to do to know that its a cactus...sit on it!

Okay, so how did I do, huh, huh? Critical enough? See what you get when you don't post often.

salden · Post by **salden** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:50 pm

Ken Ramos wrote:Geez...would ya just look at all the posts in here, I had to wade down just to get to the bottom. What did ya do Sue...leave the gate open? I like the first one but the DOF is pretty shallow, just a tad bit more would have been better I think. But I do agree, with which ever it was, it does look like a candle, well just a bit.

The other two, well I don't know. I like the DOF in the last one but the flower would look nicer to me if it were a bit sharper or maybe more defined would be a better term. As for the second, well looks okay but you have dust on your sensor and I would have liked the flower a little more to the right of the frame. I know, I know, they are for id purposes but what do ya have to do to know that its a cactus...sit on it!

Okay, so how did I do, huh, huh? Critical enough? See what you get when you don't post often.

Don't make me hurt you Ken

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:37 pm