Echinocereus sp. - A survivor of long term neglect

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:51 am

Hi folks,

In response to gentle pressure from Dave and Erwin (and a recent nudge in the form of Doug's Prickly Composition) I submit my first cactus posting:

I took these photos last June when a friend lent me his Panasonic FZ20 to try out.

I have the greatest respect for this plant as it survived more than 15 years of near TOTAL neglect . This translates into VERY occasional watering, NO repotting, NO feeding and NO winter heating. About 5 years ago I felt the first twinges of guilt and repotted this plant plus several other survivors from the disaster of winter 86/87 (described in earlier postings). It has since repaid me with many beautiful flowers such as this one.

The label reads Echinocereus rosei - but the flower colour suggests otherwise - so help much appreciated, Erwin or Dave please.

Bruce

Reworked in light of comments by Ken Ramos:

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:10 pm

Very nice Bruce.

I think it survived because of NOT and VERY occasional watering!!!

How about Echinocereus viridiflorus?

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:30 pm

Thanks Nikola - well I think it would have a lot more heads if I'd looked after it - but I know what you mean

Yes, I think E. viridiflorus is a strong contender as spination is right and flower colour does not exclude it. Actually I was rather hoping it was viridiflorus as it would give Doug an idea what to expect from his cactus this summer.

I had a look through my old boxes of cacti transparencies and found a photo of this plant in flower in 1978 (as it looked 29 years ago). I'm going to scan tonight it and put it up on the forum tomorrow (I'm at my 3 pic limit today). I'd hoped that the label would be visible - but it's not.

[Edit] Transparancy now scanned and posted here:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 0687#10687

Bruce

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:02 pm

That is such a beautiful flower Bruce....WOW. I hope it is the one I have. "I think your getting the bug again Bruce..nudge nudge" That is such a wonderful color

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:50 pm

You know these are some beautiful shots there Bruce

but I was really checking out the performance of the FZ20. The first image looks right on, sharp, great color, really beautiful. The second begins to show a little noise or as we old timers would say, "grain," and in the third it looks as though the grain/noise is really blown. Wha' happened, too much software manipulation?

cactuspic · Post by **cactuspic** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:46 pm

Wonderful shots, Bruce. I must admit that it took particular joy in seeing the Echinocereus triglochdiatus(?) lurking. Hope I am seeing the (nudge) bug (nudge, nudge) bite.

I will hit the books tonight when I have a little more time. In the meantime, smell th eflower if it is still open. I believe viridiflorus has a lemony scent.

I enjoyed the images and will harass you soon.

Irwin

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:44 pm

Ken,

You know you're dead right! I compared back to the originals and yes pic2 is maybe a tad over processed (just minimal levels and small amount of USM). However pic3 is way overcooked.

I think it happens when you do a little bit of this and a little bit of that then a bit more of something else - always very small changes - but they all mount up, BUT (a bigger but) your eyes/brain adjusts and it looks just fine. What you need to do and what I hadn't done (but thanks to you have now done) is compare the final processed image back to the original.

Ok I'm going to replace the original pic3 with a reworked pic3 (minimal levels and USM=45,0.6,0) and I'd very much appreciate your comments. I'll leave the original for you to compare and then delete. Oh yes USM was applied to stamens and stigma lobes only.

Thanks for pointing out the problem.

Bruce

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:01 pm

The reworked image indeed looks better

but there are still some artifacts, I guess that is what you would call them, that look as though they are caused by over sharpening

. Then again, it could be the ISO of the camera itself, that is too high and does not allow for much in the way of post processing without showing something up in the way of artifacts. I once had a Fuji FinePix S7000, the lowest ISO it had was at ISO 200 selectable but would go as low as 160 in the auto mode, however, it did things like this to me every now and then.

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:11 pm

NOTE: The image refered to below has now been removed to conform to forum's 3 image limit - Bruce

Ken,

EXIF data tells me that ISO was 80, in-camera sharpening was normal and contrast, saturation and gain all = 0.

...but I've had a thought.

I save from CS2 at JPG level 10 (file size = 242Kb).

To reduce the file size to JUST below the 200Kb forum limit I use a program called XAT Image Optimiser to (a) remove EXIF data and (b) apply (minimal) additional JPG compaction to non important areas of the image (ONLY the petals in this instance).

Now I'm wondering if the artifacting that you are seeing might be being created by XAT process (b). I have to say normally it's excellent but maybe this particular image is causing it a problem?

So, I'm replacing the original pic3 in this posting with a tighter crop from the unprocessed, out-of-camera image that is just small enough to produce a file from CS2 that is less than 200Kb.

So this is a crop from the original image- no levels - no sharpening - no XAT optimisation. Any artifacts must be either from the camera or from cropping and saving at CS2 Level 10.

Bruce

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:57 pm

There still seems to be some artifacts there Bruce, but I have looked at the images so much that I am not seeing them as much as I did originally. I suppose that it is because I am now becoming acoustomed to them

. Maybe, to keep the peace

, you had better take one of the images down, the fourth image has been up there for sometime now and we are only allowed three per post.

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:46 am

Bruce,

The flower colour looks a bit greenish rather than a proper yellow but the plant body would fit with Echinocereus stoloniferous or its variety tayopensis.

Does the plant offset from under the soil (stolons)?

http://www.echinocereus.de/habitat/42.htm

DaveW

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:00 pm

Irwin - Thanks for the encouraging comments. The E. triglochidiatus is another survivor from my early collecting days. I also have a nice plant of E. triglochidiatus v. inermis from the same period. None of the plants that survived are as large as you might expect for their age due to many years of neglect.

However....I have recently bought a very nice 4cm Astrophytum myriostigma cv Onzuka from eBay ($13 incl postage) so I guess that's a sign that I'm weakening

Dave - I did own both species so either could be possible.

Bruce

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:35 am

Nice !!!. The FZ20 huh, excellent camera IMO. My brother has the FZ20, slightly different to my FZ10, but darn nice to use Bruce.

That first shot I just love. It shows a bit of everything and habitat. Very nice. the second shot isolates it and we see the details. Excellent !!!

All the best Bruce.

Danny.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:08 am

These shots are beautiful! Lovely flowers. I agree with Ken that pic 3 looks "digitized" somehow to me, though I can't articulate what it is.

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:07 am

Going by the bright "white" halos around the stigma lobes number 3 may be slightly oversharpened in post processing?

DaveW