* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #855 / Revived #075 on 2024 09 04 *

I think you are right, it is an illusion.

Thanks.

The lens is 50mm at f/8 on full frame. At this distance there just isn't much depth of field.

Rich

Assuming a focus distance of 2m, the DOF on full frame at f/8, 50mm is ~77cm.

With 1m focus distance DOF is ~18cm.

I agree with Chris‘s comments, which apply to the photo and the arrangement, so full marks for seeing the potential and recognising where you wanted to photograph it, with those white walls giving a beautiful and appropriate soft light.
I like the transition of colour caused by seeing the reverse of the flowers, with more stem than petals as well as the front of the flowers themselves.
The corners of the wall, although faint, do not cross the subject. On the left, it just touches the flower, and the line, where the wall meets the shelf, is exactly in line with the bottom of the stems - a nice touch, which may seem unimportant, but is another little detail towards the overall aesthetics of the image.
The only negative is the small unsharp area of the nearest part of the flower, as mentioned by Dan. I don’t see this as a huge issue, as the overall effect of the photo is still excellent, but still, the sharpness would be better placed there than at the rear.

One of your trade-mark fish-eye shots, this has made a really attractive image of an interesting building. Actually, the whole image looks like an eye itself.
The rich creams and pale blues go well together, and the high-key gives it an airy feel.
The lines lead straight to the centre, and, even though there is no real centre of attention, or maybe because of that, helps draw attention to the whole interior rather than any particular feature.
I can see why architects may not appreciate the image, but luckily I am not an architect!

The rays are the centre of attention in these two, and are more prominent in the second photo. However, you are right, I do prefer the first photo, thanks to the light reflecting on the ripples of the sea. I think they lead in nicely towards that impressive sky, and makes the sea a worthy subject in its own right, even if it remains secondary to the main subject of rays and sky.
It is very easy to over process shots like this, as I am noticing with some similar shots of my own at the moment, but resisting the temptation to outdo nature is usually the best, as these images prove.

Mike, I like these very much. I too am drawn to torn posters, but usually try to find juxtapositions between their remnants, so I enjoy your different, more macro and abstract treatments. In addition to the more obvious ingredients of shape and colour, this approach makes a feature of the differences in texture, which is something I never considered before when photographing them.
As to trying these as a refreshing break from your (excellent) wildlife photos, I think it injects enthusiasm back into the hobby and will even help your wildlife photography. Actually I am doing something similar, but in the other direction, and started photographing birds during lockdown, and have continued to do so.

This is simple, graphic and well spotted. The fine detail of the web and the hairs on the stems is very nice.
It has a bit of a green cast, which may be deliberate and even beneficial.
It is also thought provoking. The fence initially seems to be imprisoning the bindweed, but then webs do their own imprisoning. Finally, it dawns on me that bindweed imprisons other plants and objects too, thus proving the old wisdom that just because it is pretty, it is not necessarily innocent!

The photos we’re definitely worth the effort, especially the first. The second is mainly in shadow, so it’s lack of contrast compared to the first is disadvantageous. But it is not just that, the more extensive branches of rivulets in the first just make for a more attractive subject.

Thanks Pete,

I was focused slightly under 3 ft. Standard DOF calculations give about 6 inches as the DOF at that distance for f/8. But DOF scales and calculators are all over the place as far as the assumed "Circle of Confusion" for the calculation. They all assume numbers common from the film era and are much too generous. We all demand a much smaller number from digital images than is usually "built in" to the "math."

In any case, as can be seen, there was no way I could get all of the branches and blooms in focus well enough for the sharp eyes on this forum!

It's the form of the arrangement that caught my attention. It was just an instant of happenstance.

😉

Rich

The low angle you chose really makes this photo. It emphasises Pinocchio‘s outstretched arms, as he seems to embrace the sky.
I also like the possible interpretations, as pointed out by Roel, making the photo even more enjoyable.
The red tinge to the sky could by removed, as demonstrated by Dan, if you wished.

I read Minnie‘s reply and now I cannot unsee the lovers‘ embrace! But it doesn’t matter, as I also agree with her that ambiguity is a good thing.

Again, I have to agree with what Minnie wrote, except the cormorant. The sloping lines behind the bird, whether caused by rolling shutter or not, do not bother me. I accept them as indications of movement without too much analysis. That said, Dan‘s final attempt to remove all verticals from the background, leaving just speed-streaks, works very well and highlights the fine detail you have captured in the cormorant.

yes. The pictures I take on the farm are usually along this theme. The rise and fall and rebirth of life with time and seasons. I've had to settle for less dramatic subjects than I once required!

Thanks. Nature demands that everything strive, and that much of it fails. All my photos on the farm are pretty unexciting so I look for the small stuff.

I had to smile when I saw your idea and demo! Because that's kind of how the original looked. The fence is about 7 feet, so I had to point upwards, then spent time straightening it out to remove the perspective that you created in post. Maybe I should look again at the originals...

I've cropped it a lot already, so afraid to go more, but I agree with you. Will try a different lens to get closer ups.

Thank you Chris. Simple is what I do at the farm!

Thanks Pete. You figured out the puzzle! Bindweed binds stuff up, and gets bound in return. The ongoing battle of nature playing itself out. I do think bindweed is a pretty thing and I look forward to its blooming season. Probably there is a greenish cast, summers here are richly green, and I've let the forest grow up around the farm so everything seems to reflect green. It won't abate for another month. Then it'll be yellow a while before going gray. Sometimes I mitigate the casts and sometimes I don't.

I really like the first. Lots of sharp detail to explore and the exposure allows just enough of a sense of water movement. Waterfalls are mostly in valleys so will often be in shadow. In the second you have balanced sunlight and shadow very well - good shadow management of what would have been a quite dark area. The touch of blown highlights in the sunlit area is not overly apparent in full screen view so I don't mind it at all. Nice captures.

Nicely executed idea. I like the sharp eye and head colours of this cormorant. As you say difficult to do but achieving a high level of wing blur (like we see in humming bird pics) would be an absolute winner.