Just Leaves

[mono]

Corn lillys.

In the style of Master Lee.

If anyone can tell me the species of this plant, I would appreciate it. I found them growing
in a swampy place along with skunk cabbages, but they are obviously a different plant. I
thought they were rather attractive.

[Ken Lee]

Oak Leaves and Fallen Birch, 2012
Tachihara Field Camera, 200mm Nikkor M
4x5 HP5+, Pyrocat-HDC

[Joe O'Hara]

They look a lot like corn lily. Are they from the same family as the false hellebore or one and the same?

According to the article in Wikipedia, they are in the same family as corn lilies (Veratrum). The article also tells us that they are one of the more poisonous plants in North America, and that the locals in the old days used to use them to poison their arrows with. Make of that what you will.

[Jess C]

Oak Leaves and Fallen Birch, 2012
Tachihara Field Camera, 200mm Nikkor M
4x5 HP5+, Pyrocat-HDC

Very nice delicate tones and texture. Excellent!

[Ed Bray]

Oak Leaves and Fallen Birch, 2012
Tachihara Field Camera, 200mm Nikkor M
4x5 HP5+, Pyrocat-HDC

Fantastic image, I can only dream to reach that level of excellence.

[Harley Goldman]

Oak Leaves and Fallen Birch, 2012
Tachihara Field Camera, 200mm Nikkor M
4x5 HP5+, Pyrocat-HDC

Real sweet scene, Ken, but I would not mind the whites a little whiter on the tree.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Harley... I thought that at first too but then all the subtle light gray tones would be compressed a bit. I think it could be printed either way. For a digital image the highlight contrast could be tweaked a bit (I would) but it really depends on personal opinion. I'm betting that Ken wrestled with that very decision. It's a beautiful image either way.

[Ken Lee]

Given how monitors drift and vary, it's hard to be sure what others are seeing.

Although the subject is autumnal, the photo was made in early Spring. The sun was partially obscured behind a cloud - so it doesn't have the kind of intensity we associate with cold clear autumnal days - but that made it possible to encompass the brightness range of the subject and render things softly. When printed large, the light areas have a trace of texture, which I prefer over a bolder rendition.

Although I like the softness, it may be a problem which I didn't anticipate, because I'm stuck with my own memories of the subject.

I should put the image away for a year or two, to better see it as others do.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hey Ken... I haven't shot a damned thing of any value (outside of work) in 30 years. Back when I was shooting for my personal pleasure and was too close to my own image and unsure of how I wanted a final print to look I started going through all my many photo books for similar images so I could critique those. After I tore apart other similar work then I was better able to disconnect from my own image and tear it apart too... and I did plenty of that.

The problem is there will always be doubt in our own minds. We ask ourselves if we could have done something better. Of course we could have because there's always better. Images can evolve over time if we so choose. But at some point we have to let go and be satisfied.

It's a fantastic image exactly as it is. I probably would have popped the highlights a bit and maybe just printed a tad lighter but I'm not the photographer and it doesn't mean I'm right. Hell... I'd sure like to see a high-key version of your birch and leaves... FWIW.

[Ed Bray]

Oak Leaves and Fallen Birch, 2012
Tachihara Field Camera, 200mm Nikkor M
4x5 HP5+, Pyrocat-HDC

Ken, may I ask how you arrived at the digital medium please? Did you scan straight from the negative, or have you made a wet print first and then scanned the print?

If the answer to the question above was 'scanned from the negative' can I enquire as to what make/model of scanner you use please? As the amount of detail really is fanastic.

TIA.