Light March snowfall, pt. 2

A continuation of this post from earlier today.

1. The day's bizarreness: sunshine and snow all at once.

2. I've never noticed this plant in our woods before but I just the love it -- I think the translucent seedpods are so neat.

3. Same plant as the above.

4. Snowflakes looking down the lane to the campsite.

5. The edge of the lane -- dig those raspberry canes.

6. Just some of the riot o' branches on the hillside between the lane and the ravine.

7. More hillside plantage.

(8) Oak bark and (9) cottonwood (or some kind of poplar?) leaf.

10. Hey there, delicate raspberry cane.



14. I love the color and pattern of this stem and these leaves.

15. Nicely arched shrub on hillside.

16. Awesome ice/snow-fringed hole in tree.

17. Pin oak leaf.


(19) old, decaying vinage and (20) Eastern redcedar on the hillside at the tip of campsite.

21. Possibly buckthorn.

22. Grass at campsite.

(23) Coiled, snowy leaves and (24) View from campsite down to the river.

25. Skinny trees including eastern redcedar to the left.

26. The view down the lane looking back towards the house.

27. Sun through the pines.

(28) Undersides of the pines and (29) More intertwined trees.

30. The front lawn maple, complete with sunshine and some snowflakes.


33 thoughts on “Light March snowfall, pt. 2

  1. #13 . . . the jumping spider


    #19 . . . the running vine man (should have photographed all of him, not just the knee, calf, and part of the hand . . . must have been tall)

    • Like tea leaves, isn’t it? Or maybe a Rorschach. I do enjoy hearing what you’re seeing in these. Thanks!

      (I can’t keep up, though — first my portraits should be isolated details and now I should go back to shooting them — even those of vine men — in their entirety? WHICH IS IT?!)

  2. Hey, Sarah. I think you should make your pictures slightly smaller so that the whole picture fits on a screen without scrolling. I use a maximum of 550 pixels wide or 550 pixels high, whichever side is the longest side.

    • Hi Russell — do you have to scroll through all of them? The ends of my vertical pictures get cut off slightly with my resolution — too lazy to do the side-by-side thing that I did with those images. 550 pixels is smaller than the max width I had in my previous layout, and I chose this one specifically to be able to do larger pictures, but now you’ve got me curious.

      • Hey, Sarah. I think the whole purpose is to let people see your pictures. When they have to scroll, research shows people get tired and move on, including me. I think most people like to see the whole picture because there is a story to be told in that whole picture. Scrolling causes part of the picture to be missing.

        • No, I completely understand that, and obviously it’s a problem if most of my visitors have to scroll to see a whole photo. As I mentioned, I got a little lazy with the taller verticals — the ones I assume you’re talking about — forgoing the two-up, collage format I’ve been doing lately and leaving them a bigger size. I also thought I’d sacrifice one aspect of viewability for the detail of a slightly larger size, but it is tiresome to scroll so I’ve resized the taller verticals.

          This post was an exception among my most recent — although I’ve been putting up bigger pictures, a single picture is still small enough to view without scrolling using my resolution (1366 x 768), and as far as I know the same should follow for anyone using 1024 x 768 and above. My hope is that the size I’ve chosen for these pictures allows as many of my visitors as possible to be able to view the whole version as well as provide a very detailed view without having to click for a larger size (something that drives me a little crazy). Hope that helps!

          • My screen is 1600×900 and I was having to scroll.

            I visited someone today who had a picture about the size of a postage stamp. I clicked on it and the picture was absolutely gorgeous, something I really could not determine with the postage stamp. I thought “how awful” but still liked it and commented.

          • They look fine (and all at once) on the iMac. Maybe it’s a laptop issue?

            I must say, this post was, in all seriousness, a spiritual experience. All of your pictures are beautiful, but these here transcended visual beauty… Amazing. Thank you

            • Thank you so much, Steve! That is wonderful to hear.

              (I was thinking it could be a browser thing — depending on the kinds of toolbars and whatnot you’ve got installed, I can kind of see it curbing how much space you have to look at. But I wouldn’t think most resolutions, regardless of whether we’re talking desktop or laptop, would have problems with my pictures (800 or 600px max, depending on orientation). But who knows. Thanks for letting me know about that.)

  3. Thought I let you know that I can see each photo completely on screen as I scroll through the blog. Could it be the size of monitor that is making a difference or resolution setting on monitor ? I get lost with some of the techno number stuff .

    • Thanks for letting me know! I’m not versed in these things either — all I know is I previewed my blog in a few different sizes from 800×600 (not great, as I expected) to 1024×768 (fine) and bigger (better) and am pleased with that.

  4. Very nice views and presentations on highest variety in relatively small area! Textureness – one of nature`s features. – Unfortunately, most of those being called homo sapiens seem to have lost their recipients for those things. – It`s good to have lively “transporters” like you, Sarah!

    • Thank you so much! It’s amazing the variety you can find in an area as small as this — even smaller, I think, if I’d wanted. So glad to be a medium of sorts for the textureness. 😀

    • Thanks, Shannon. I see you’re not alone there. I certainly agree on the mysterious aspect, possibly verging on dangerous — something about those holes says, don’t come too close or something will emerge which may or may not bite your hand off.

    • Not that I’m aware of, although I think there is some dogwood in our woods. It’s funny, when you get up close to the raspberry canes, they are quite clearly purplish, but they look redder from a distance.

      • Interesting. I suspect that you have a different raspberry species than ours around here – I have never seen them look that red in the bark.

        • Do you have “regular” red raspberries or black raspberries or another kind? We always thought these were black raspberries (most of the fruits are blackish-purple), although some casual googling last night made me question a lot of that. For one thing, I couldn’t find out whether black raspberries in general tend to have purple canes, or if it’s just a particular cultivar. Then when I was doing searches for “purple canes” I came across scanned copies of these 100+ year old horticultural texts that make references to something called “purple cane varieties,” which are apparently a cross between red and black raspberries. I can’t find much more modern information about them — but to make a long story short, the berries are delicious and the plants are nice to look at during the off-season!

          • I suspect there is a lot of variation among wild raspberries. I have experience of picking blackberries (maybe the same as black raspberries?) in eastern Canada and Europe, and they all have very thorny, woody canes which as I recall are brown in colour. We grew raspberries when I was a kid and they also had brown canes, so the red ones are not familiar to me! But I am assuming that the red canes are wild there? Are they thorny?

          • Checking your last photos has answered my question, but they certainly look much less nasty/thorny than the wild raspberries we picked in eastern Canada when I was a kid. Interesting; now I am going to have to do some research!

  5. # 4 (looking down the lane) almost takes my breath away, it is so beautiful.
    I could just sit and stare at it forever and ever, and then some more.
    Also gotta love how you captured # 16 (ice/snow fringed hole in tree),
    and adore # 21 (snow on tree branch … possible buckthorn)

    is it just me, or are they getting better and better every day? Gorgeous!

    • While I would like to think that my pictures would just get better and better in a totally linear fashion now until the end of time, I know that’s not the case. 🙂 HOWEVER, I will admit that I really, really liked this set of pictures and I’m very glad you did too! Thank you so much!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s