Knee deep in Copiapoa's

[DaveW]

A few Copiapoa's in Chile. The clumps are two feet across or more:-

copiapoaH.jpg (108.68 KiB) Viewed 1996 times

copiapoaH2.jpg (104.89 KiB) Viewed 1996 times

I can't see habitat strippers smuggling those through Customs in their suitcases, only danger would be legal destruction, road building, agriculture etc where CITES would be impotent as usual.

[cortez753]

Wow! That's awesome.

[george76904]

Cool!

[Aiko]

Is the entire hill covered too, or are those bushes?

[DaveW]

No they are bushes on the hill Aiko. Remember Chile is unusually green in usually dry places this year since it has been abnormally wet due to an El Nino event. We only caught the end of the "Flowering Desert", being there later in October/November:-

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015 ... m-el-nino/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164499/el-nino-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We stayed in one hotel that told us earlier in the year it had been flooded two feet deep. We asked if the river had overflowed and were told, "no it was just run off from the hills" since water does not initially penetrate the ground easily unlike in our wetter climates, but runs off normally dry ground as though it was asphalt or concrete covered without significantly sinking in and slowing down any run off.

This was the floods from the hills the abnormal rains caused at the beginning of the year in Copiapo:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s73N09syaTU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Months later we still were unable to get through some of the country roads the floods had swept away. The lighter coloured ground being the waters path:-

[Samee]

Wish the pics were higher quality and some close up shots.

[DaveW]

Don't know why this posted off it's own bat, and can't find a delete function to remove it?

[DaveW]

Hi Samee, I presume you are clicking on the images to enlarge them?

I use larger dimensions and file sizes for digital projection, but keep the size down for forum posting and emails. Otherwise some people have to scroll the image to see all the picture on their screens. In fact I took 1800 images on the trip, mostly close-up's, but have not got around to sorting them yet.

The Forums posting instructions say:-

"NOTE: The forum will resize images to 800 pixels when you upload. This will reduce the dimensions of larger images as well as the file size. However, if your camera takes really large images, (such as 4320 x 3240 14MB), these images will need to be reduced on you computer before you can upload them."

Though largest pixel dimensions are given I cannot find what the file size limit is for this Forum? However many people don't realise you are always limited for resolution by your computer screens which are usually about the equivalent of a 4 megapixel camera. Whatever higher resolution your camera can produce will be lost when posted on screen, as they say "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" and at the moment that is your computer screen. Therefore only printing out very large prints will use all the resolution modern cameras are able to produce and no web site would accept images as large as they come out of a modern camera. Most modern cameras are therefore overkill for web use and even smartphones are usually plenty good enough. You should also periodically calibrate your computer monitor for photographs as they are usually set for easy viewing of text straight out of the box and also drift off calibration in time:-

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-online-t ... e-monitor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Close-up image from that population

CopiapoaA1.jpg (163.29 KiB) Viewed 1901 times

Incidentally, you will never get all the theoretical resolution the makers claim for your camera and lenses if you hand hold them. Only using a very stout tripod and cable release can you even begin to approach them. And I am afraid in the field all I took were hand held, though I usually use a tripod at home. In habitat I also broke my golden rule of always using manual focus close up since autofocus is not precise enough when you are really close to obtain maximum depth of field.

[DaveW]

One of that population Samee saved at a larger size (1000 pixels wide by 221Kb) to see what the uploader would do. As you can see you still get the same sized 800 pixel wide image on the post:

CopiapoaX.jpg (144.63 KiB) Viewed 1870 times

This link is a little out of date, but even digital projectors have a low resolution, even lower than computer monitors, therefore no matter how many megapixels your camera may have you will only get the resolution of the projector, which is still usually under 2 megapixels even now.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital ... r-myth.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As said before, only poster sized prints can make full use of the megapixels your camera can produce. TV's, Computer screens and digital projection cannot, therefore you will not see any difference on screen between an image taken on an 8 or 40+ megapixel camera. If you do it is probably down to a better lens on the more expensive camera not the extra megapixels.

[DaveW]

Evidently you can link on forums to larger higher quality images Samee, but only if you use another photo hosting site that allows linking to them. I don't use one therefore keep them all on my computer since my images are intended for web use and digital projection, not printing out. I shoot all my images in RAW and the EXIF date gives them out of the camera as 3872 pixels wide x 2592 high and 15.9Mb file size, far too large to post here. All shrinking of photo's sheds pixels and hence detail. Many photo hosting sites will also charge a regular subscription for hosting your pictures and also have size limits, but uploading directly on most forums is free.

The problem with linking to photo hosting sites too is if somebody later pulls their image off that hosting site, or does not renew their subscription, it becomes a dead link for the forums it has been linked to, unlike directly uploaded images which remain on the forum (as in the now dead images with a X on them in the link below). Also some publish lower quality images on the web so they are less likely to be stolen and used commercially without their permission.

http://www.cactiguide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, though you may want to post larger pictures, often web sites will not allow you to do so since it uses up their storage capacity. We saw that recently here when temporarily people could not post any more pictures until storage was increased or old posts deleted:-

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/digita ... online.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apparent sharpness in digital photographs is really an illusion, unlike film photography the normal type of digital camera deliberately softens the image (makes it a little fuzzy) from the sensor to avoid moiré patterning and it is then "pseudosharpened" again in camera or post processing. You can never restore that original softened detail once removed by the camera, only simulate it by increasing the contrast on any edges in the picture. Also a less fussy background and how you light the picture helps, but though you can do this at home it is difficult to reproduce in habitat within the constraints of the equipment you wish to carry. A staged shot at home using clean background, diffusion, tripod and cable release etc,, but still posted at the forums size limits:-

violaciflora.jpg (91.4 KiB) Viewed 1829 times

Also with habitat shots you do not wish to make them looked staged but natural, unlike a plant in a pot which is obviously in an artificial setting.