Donald 187 thought on 5/30/2006 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"Personally I think it is Sclerocactus cloveriae which until recently was a part of parviflorus and whipplei. Its description can be found in journals written by Heil. Not completely opening flowers similar to whipplei but magenta. Spine very similar to parviflorus but more corky. I think its Sclerocactus cloveriae." 7736

randy myers of old river ,texas thought on 11/20/2005 that this photo was superb and added the following:
"i have stood in the same place a dozen times and taken the same picture with less quality camera but you took a great shot" 6575

An anonymous visitor thought on 6/15/2005 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"Hi Bruce, the correct spelling of the plant is Lomatium junceum. As you may already know, it is the larval hostplant of the Papilio indra minori butterfly you shot. FYI. ~Todd" 3433

Bruce Wilson of Provo, Utah thought on 1/9/2005 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"It would sure be a good test of color. Note that this version has the typical blue/red intersection "mosquito noise" typical of .jpg's. Use it if you like, but I can get you a proper .bmp if you send me you email address (send it to [email protected], click on my name). If you use it, please put "(c)Bruce Wilson" on it in clear text. Bruce, KD7VEM " 6263

Bruce Wilson thought on 10/20/2004 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"Another one shot in overcast skylight. The 4x5 is great, but I've never managed to get the colors right in an R3 print." 5945

Dorde Woodruff of SLC thought on 5/30/2004 that this photo was good and added the following:
"This also appears to be S. parviflorus, but quite a young one. But the petals are narrow than in #8164. It is not S. whipplei, which has yellow flowers and grows in the Navajo reservation area in northern Arizona. The name S. whipplei got widely entrenched in the literature because S. parviflorus wasn't discovered and named until the '30s. " 7736

Dorde Woodruff of SLC thought on 5/30/2004 that this photo was good and added the following:
"This plant is commonly misidentified, even in floras. It isn't S. whipplei but rather S. parviflorus, first named in the 30s by Clover and Jotter on a river trip, in the Grand Canyon. S. whipplei grows on the Navajo reservation and thereabouts in Northern Arizona, is globular unless very old, smaller, and has yellow flowers. " 4430

Dorde Woodruff of SLC thought on 5/30/2004 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"this is not Opuntia polyacantha but rather O. basilaris, beavertail. Note that it doesn't have regular spines, just glochids, the fine barbed minature spines. The pads are bluer than O. polyacantha, and a different shape. The plant is more compact. Gorgeous photos! " 5069

Wayne thought on 5/14/2004 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"No. Not in the family Apiaceae. This again looks like Atriplex, but maybe it is a young Astragalus (locoweed)." 3140

Bruce Wilson of Provo, Utah thought on 2/23/2004 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"This is shot through a Cokin blue/yellow polarizer. I was just holding it in front of the lens as best I could, but wasn't aligned very well. In the end I liked the effect, so left it full-frame. Sort of an unintentional vignette, much like the very early field cameras that used lenses with small image circles. I've tried printing similar shots, but always come back to this one." 6341

spaceranger47 thought on 2/21/2004 that this photo was very cool and added the following:
"A wonderful picture, but it's off center. You would have to edit it way down if you ever wanted to do anything with it" 6341

Cemal Ekin of Rhode Island thought on 11/24/2002 that this photo was good and added the following:
"I think this is the barn I was thinking of but the angle looks different. My memory must be failing me. Cemal" 5631

Jonathan Bundick of Texas thought on 6/27/2002 that this photo was good and added the following:
"I like the subject, composition, and light. A little more exposure might help, but not too much could be improved on. Very nice warm feeling when viewed for several moments. " 3272

Bruce Wilson of Provo, Utah thought on 3/14/2002 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"Thanks, Theo. It's okay to use as your own desktop. I guess those trees really are out of focus, and I took another look at the big version, looks like th ebarn is in sharp focus, but the Teton mountains in the background were out of focus a bit." 6025

Matt Dwyer thought on 2/19/2002 that this photo was superb and added the following:
"Gorgeous shot. I might have cropped it more, but gorgeous. " 6031

An anonymous visitor thought on 2/10/2002 that this photo was superb and added the following:
"This is a really cool shot. It's nostalgic, but in a lonely way." 5482

Private photo not shown.

Rebecca of SDSU at the moment thought on 4/27/2001 that this photo was 'interesting' and added the following:
"I like it, but I don't like the quotation marks around 'interesting.' I like the pic b/c it reminds me of home, with all the different colors of dirt and the way it's piled up in mountains with the sky behind it. Looks like home, I miss that..." 3907

Bruce Wilson thought on 4/19/2001 that this photo was 'interesting' and added the following:
"It is a macro shot (using a 25mm extension tube), and using the angle finder. Angle finders are essential for getting shots that most people don't see, because you can get your camera in odd locations (on the gorund looking up) and using the finder still see what you're shooting. Were I to do this again I's stop down a little more and keep everything in focus. Most macro photography has a depth of field problem. I think it's usually done to keep the background fuzzy. It's much better to stop down then remove the background with black velvet . With an angle finder you get sky in the background, and fuzzy sky is still sky. This shot was done on a tripod (set very low), but I had to keep the shutter speed high because the wind was blowing and moving the subject." 3310

Bruce Wilson thought on 4/11/2001 that this photo was displayed properly and added the following:
"This tree, at Palisades State Park north of Sious Falls SD, has troubled me for years. I've shot it dozens of times, in varying lights, from all kinds of angles, but I've never gotten it right. This is one of the better color shots. The B&W shots are better, but still not there." 3312

Joe thought on 4/11/2001 that this photo was good and added the following:
"Framing is kind of wierd for a tree, but the colors and exposure are spot on!" 3069

Bruce Wilson thought on 4/7/2001 that this photo was okay and added the following:
"I guess by now you've seen I like the play of deep shadow on objects illuminated by the evening sun. This is an old road grader (used mostly for snow removal, I suspect). Some depth-of-field problems, but nice colors." 3471

Bruce Wilson thought on 4/7/2001 that this photo was good and added the following:
"South Dakota, due to the extremely flat land here, has the most wonderful evening light. Rich in color but still quite bright, the light just before sunset is the photographers 'majical 20 minutes'. Take a juned old tractor, wait for the light, and you get a pretty-good picture." 3418

Bruce Wilson of Brookings SD thought on 4/5/2001 that this photo was good and added the following:
"I have a real fondness for this picture. I got the reflections in the 'grill', but not me! Colors are nice, too." 3489