This is for all you fungus-lovers out there. 
Well, the different sizes and shapes and textures of fungi never cease to fascinate ME. Surely you feel the same way. 
June 26, 2008
June 26, 2008
This is for all you fungus-lovers out there.
Well, the different sizes and shapes and textures of fungi never cease to fascinate ME. Surely you feel the same way.
June 26, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Well, other than floral reproductive bits, what could possibly be a bigger draw than fungus?
The sheer variety and strangeness of fungus is indeed fascinating, and this is (for me) totally unexpected. Looks like it could be a plush chew toy for a pet.
This is two pictures in a row you’ve published at 3:2. It’s easy to see why you’d pick this for the row of monitors. Any particular reason for this one? Something you wanted to crop out, maybe? (Don’t worry–I think it works well here; but I suspect lopping off a strip on the right to make it 4:3 would also work, assuming this isn’t already such a severe crop that you’re starting to run out of pixels.)
Personally, I virtually always use 3:2 simply because that is the native aspect ratio of my camera. (So if you see a 4:3 from me, it’s most likely because I’m trying to hide something that is difficult to hide otherwise.
Though my backup camera (analogous to your small Nikon) has a 4:3 frame.)
June 26, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I, too, used to subscribe ONLY to the 4:3 ratio. But 3:2 worked so well for certain shots that I (somewhat reluctantly) added it to my–how do you say–vocabulary.
Why 3:2 for this shot? Because I tried 4:3, tried 4:3, and tried 4:3. And decided to try 3:2. And liked it better.
I think there was a little shmutz on the top and bottom that I considered distracting, and this crop eliminated that distraction.
Plus, as you mention, this is a fairly severe crop. My original 3072 pixel-width was cut down to 1908. (1400 is–with rare exceptions–my absolute cutoff.)