The series is unified by the seasons gold/red colours. In three of the shots, the same colours are captured in the differing textures of the leaves and grasses. I feel that the second shot, and it's fine in its own right as an image, is somewhat different to the others and shouldn't be viewed in the same series. Or maybe, add more photos with similar trunk forms to round out the series?
I enjoyed the grasses in the shots as an interesting variation on Autumn leaves.
Nov. 5, 2025
27
-
-
Somehow Mike made sure that we can admire these golden grasses multifold.
That is not a problem : they deserve a second and a third and a fourth look: more and more the overall look becomes unified and harmonious. -
More flowers and wheat stalks (?) in extremely shallow DOF.
Showing three of them, gave me the opportunity to explore which one I liked best and to actively ask myself "why"?My favourite is the first one.
And (apart from a preference of that blue flower type over a red poppy) I really had to consider why, but suddenly it became clear to me.
I prefer the first one (blue flower) over the last one (poppy), because we see the stalk that sprouts the flower more clearly : it comes up out of the bokeh and is (almost) sharp at the bottom of the flower. By contrast, the poppy gives me much more a vibe of floating in thin air, detached from the surrounding. For some reason, that feels less natural.The second doesn't do much for me, because the subject lends itself less to shallow DOF photography -- at least from this angle : seen straight on, it is just one stalk sharp in the middle of its brethren, that are OOF, but there is too much closeness and overlap to get a good distinction.
The wheat stalk could work well in shallow DOF too : getting closer to the plume from an oblique angle could yield good results. -
Once again a image that allows the imagination to run free and wild: * castle ruins after the flood? * many-fingered monster rising from the deep?
Etc. Etc. -
I've never seen bokeh like these. It's certainly creamy plus. What does f/0.0 mean?
I like the last shot best as the red against soft grey leaps from the background. -
Hmm. I don't know how I did that either. Roel has given a very generous interpretation of whatever errror I made.
-
I'm fascinated. This is very similar to a favourite spot of most people who live in Adelaide. Our jetty piles are also disappearing one by one. I'm about to get on a boat but I'll try to return to this shot before Roel launches the new week.
-
I think the F:0.0 in EXIF means that the camera did not register aperture (because it was a fully manual lens without electronics communicating with the camera).
-
Yes, exactly! All of my lenses are like that (without electronic contacts) hence, the f/0
This one - a Zeiss Ikon Graphikon ~6cm - is a f/2.3 lens.
-
Here's a link to jetty remains in Adelaide (not a photo of mine. I can't access my old shots at the moment..) My shot was taken from a different angle with a blue sea/sky and looks more like yours.
I like the 'teeth" and defiance of the always eroding ocean.www.expedia.com/Port-Willunga-Beach-Port-Willunga.d553248635950227397.Vacation-Attraction?gallery-dialog=gallery-open
I have been told, but cant verify, that the Adelaie jetty was blown up in early WW2 by local defence militia because they argued it was a defence risk???