Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by Ron Evers, Apr 24, 2010.
Minolta 50/1.4 wide open + 20mm extension tube.
interesting. I like it. Not so sure about the bokeh though..
its pretty interesting
Pretty neat. I would like to see a little more depth of field, though -- just enough to see the texture on the ends more clearly.
Better than a regular picture of a pinecone.
I'd also like to see it with a bit more in focus, just the 4 tips.
Though I do like it as is.
Here is the same shot with the lens stopped down. I do have another shot between these two but I did not develop it.
What an interesting difference between the shallow depth of field shot and the deep depth of field shot. Huh...cones...when I was a kid back in the 1970's, we earned $5.00 for a gunnysack full of douglas fir cones, which we could gather and sell to the timber company, which would then process them and extract the seeds to make into seedlings for reforestation projects. We also had some hellacious "pine cone fights." Quite a lot of "pine cone fights". I don't know why we called them pine cones, since they were ALL fir cones, but we had a grand old time throwing them at one another. That does not look like a fir cone, due to the turned-down on the ends of each petal. Anyway...the first shot looks fairly abstract, while the second shot is clearly a cone from a deciduous tree. I think I prefer the abstract nature of the first photo over the sharper detail in the second shot. Ahh....cones...$5 used to be a princely sum....a candy bar was 10 cents back then...a gunnysack of cones was like fifty candy bars!!!
Careful Derrel your dating yourself here lol.
Yes he is - as a youngster. Five dollars would buy 50 candy bars when I was a youngster.
The cone is from a Red pine which is a Conifer. Here is what they looked like last spring.
And then when shaken.
Separate names with a comma.