Notes: I think I recognize this from a book called mushrooms of the pacific northwest. its solitary nature, its color, black fibrils and its white cap edge is making me think this id is correct. I am not 100 % sure though thats why i am posting this. It is quite rare and undocumented in B.C.
[admin – Thu Feb 10 03:26:40 +0000 2011]: Changed location name from ‘British Columbia , Canada’ to ‘British Columbia, Canada’
|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
i cant find it either.
I see that this was shot with a Kodak Easyshare C1013 and that a setting called “GainControl” is was set to “Low gain up.” This looks like it might be an in-camera development setting which attempts to correct for excess noise.
EDIT: In the camera manual there is mention of the option to apply “Kodak Perfect Touch” to any image on the camera. One of the augmentations made includes “automatic noise reduction.” Did you use this function?
i didnt photshop these btw i forgot to say. all i did was upload them to my computer and crop the image , thats it. they are just crappy pics. i have good new ones from a new observation last weekend but the specimens are going to UBC tommorow to go under the scope and into the herbarium. so i will make a new MO observation soon when i find out what it is for sure. :)
thanks for looking.
If you have access to Adobe Lightroom (free to try for 30 days), take any image and move the luminance noise slider around. At 0, any amount of pre-existing noise/grain is unchanged. At 100 your image looks like a smeared, detail-less, CG, pastelly mess; almost as if you had splashed water up into your eyes. There is no more noise, but there isn’t much image left either. Each image has a different sweet spot for how much noise removal it can withstand before beginning to look unnatural. I’ve simply come to recognize that effect when it’s overused, if only by a tiny bit.
how did you know some editing had been done on these? Like what tipped you off, or what did you see in it right away? I would not notice something like this off the bat. Thanks.
yes you remember me from the shroomery . :) but i used the name Psylosymon back in like 1999, then when i rejoined recently i wasnt able to use that name because i couldnt remember the old email address, so i had to use the name psylosymonreturns.
to MO! Good to see you, think I remember you from another forum?
well i am happy to say i found a cup fungus expert here in B.C. who will be looking at my new find of this species. it is the first record of it in our province! :)
Ya you know I tried taking a bunch of shots but it was just one of those darker spots with bad lighting . My camera was just not working properly . Its not the best camera in the world either . I honestly would never have posted these crappy pics if it wasnt for the fact that there isnt any other pictures of this species . It falls into the catagory of better than nothing! lol
But thanks, I was happy about the find . Being so early it is definetly my first real find of 2011 and a great start to the year. :)
it looks as though there’s been some noise removal done on these in photoshop or lightroom. alas, with noise removal always comes some degree of lost definition as pixels are made to blend with neighboring ones. That, coupled with being some distance away from the mushroom, mean your fibrils have the look of rounded black dots concentrated toward the margin.
Everything roughly checks out for P. quinaultiana, but getting good close-ups of the diagnostic features is, beyond being an all around good practice, especially helpful when your observation of a species is the only one on the site (and apparently the web at large).
Photography pedantism aside, nice find!
Created: 2011-02-05 21:17:20 PST (-0800)
Last modified: 2011-02-09 19:26:40 PST (-0800)
Viewed: 224 times, last viewed: 2016-10-27 03:14:20 PDT (-0700)