Adder's meat - maybe not quite what you expect

Earlier images, not yet re-categorized. All subject types. Not for new images.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Bruce Williams
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Northamptonshire, England

Adder's meat - maybe not quite what you expect

Post by Bruce Williams »

Hi folks,

Yep it's a flower and I've no idea where the name "adder's meat" comes from?

So here's another recent pic from Salsey Forest. Again it's not a rare flower, just a pretty one. The pic is of a single flowerhead of the Greater Stitchwort Stellaria holostea . Other old regional names include "Adder's Spit" and "Satin Flower".
The specific name "stitchwort" possibly comes from "wort" which was the Saxon word for plant (wyrt) - generally found in the name of plants that had/have a medicinal use. In this instance it was drunk in a potion to cure (amongst other things) a stitch in the side :) .

An interesting website on this and related plants is: ... looker.pdf

Minolta A2, ISO 64, 1/125s at f/7.1


The head is ~25mm in diameter.

Ken Ramos
Posts: 7208
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:12 pm
Location: lat=35.4005&lon=-81.9841

Post by Ken Ramos »

This is pretty nice. :D I like the flower rising up from the bottom corner and filling the frame above and then leading ones view down towards the center of the frame to where the flower resides with what I would call a "matter of fact" attitude and then bringing ones attention to rest on the center or on the anthers of the flower. The balance between the background and the space that the flower occupies, seem to be in pretty good proportion and of course the background seems to be complimentary, though here of late I have been noticing backgrounds more and more, to be quite honest, some of them have not been, well...quite to my liking I guess :( . However, please note that I said some, not all and my comments and opinions are in realtion to how I percive the image or images, others may really like the background in this shot and the backgrounds in some other images posted here on the forum but we are all different in our views and it is that diversity that we can constructively build upon to improve our techniques. A point that has been made and commented upon at various times and certainly does apply quite often is..."you cannot please everyone." :lol: Overall I think you did a very fine job with this Bruce :D

Posts: 3578
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:19 am
Location: Southern New Hampshire USA

Post by beetleman »

I like the symmetry of the flower. The flowing vertical lines and the overall shape of the flower petals. The extra green parts of the plants in the lower area balance the picture but are dark enough not to distract from the flower. The background looks more studio like because it is almost black. There seems to be a need for different types of photos I believe and each one has a place and a purpose. Studio shots are nice and artistic for flowers and other types of specimens, like Bruce’s skull photos. I think they (the skulls) would look quite different in a bed of grass or leaves. Insect photos are the same way, Dorsal and ventral photos are great for ID but an angle shot is more artistic and I probably would not like insects on a straight black background IMO.
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda

Erland R.N.
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Kolding, Denmark

Post by Erland R.N. »

Just a short comment: Lovely photo, no "hard colours" and a good composition (IMO).


Bruce Williams
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: Northamptonshire, England

Post by Bruce Williams »

Thanks Ken - Prior to joining this forum I was pretty much the sole judge on the technical and artistic merits and/or deficiencies of my own work. So I greatly appreciate and respect your evaluative input. Indeed, I have slightly modified my CS2 processing on the basis of some of your earlier comments.

Doug - I agree with you (and Ken) that the "right" background can make all the difference between a good or an average photo. By and large (IMO) a good background should feel "right" and be appropriate to the subject. Further, it should not detract from the subject or overpower it - of course in field conditions it's not always possible to meet that ideal :cry:.

Erland - I was really pleased to get your comment re "hard colour" as the posted image was my second attempt at CS2 post processing it. I rejected the first attempt because the result looked too harsh and contrasty.


Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by cactuspic »

Hi Bruce. I was going back to see some of the images I missed and thought that this one was particularly noteworthy. Simplicity and grace are two of the hardest qualies to capture. Well done.


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic