Full Bobbin!

[jmtonkin]

My fiancee has really gotten into spinning her own yarn. Ergo, she has also gotten me interested. I filled up this bobbin tonight, and thought it would be fun to satisfy two art forms at once!

This was taken at f/2, 1/50s at ISO 400. My flash was on-camera (I didn't want to mess with all that at 11:30) bounced off the wall behind me. It was also taken at a slight downward angle.

 

[Sicboi]

Love the 400 ISO.

 

[waday]

I like it, but I think it needs more depth.

 

[pixmedic]

very cool pic.
i believe that's a spool though, not a bobbin.
unless the term is different when spinning your own yarn.

 

[jmtonkin]

very cool pic.
i believe that's a spool though, not a bobbin.
unless the term is different when spinning your own yarn.

It is indeed a different term for spinning yarns. I'm not sure why there's a difference, however.

 

[pixmedic]

very cool pic.
i believe that's a spool though, not a bobbin.
unless the term is different when spinning your own yarn.

It is indeed a different term for spinning yarns. I'm not sure why there's a difference, however.

interesting that there would be that distinction between spinning yarn bobbins and machine bobbins. obviously the yarn bobbins came first, but odd that when sewing machines came into existence they basically took a yarn bobbin, put thinner thread on it, and called it a spool.

 

[jmtonkin]

very cool pic.
i believe that's a spool though, not a bobbin.
unless the term is different when spinning your own yarn.

It is indeed a different term for spinning yarns. I'm not sure why there's a difference, however.

interesting that there would be that distinction between spinning yarn bobbins and machine bobbins. obviously the yarn bobbins came first, but odd that when sewing machines came into existence they basically took a yarn bobbin, put thinner thread on it, and called it a spool.

It is interesting! I'm inspired to do some research!

 

[Derrel]

I saw this yesterday, and the image was relatively small on-screen...seeing it again today and the image is displaying quite large--large enough that the shallow DOF is bugging me a bit. Overall, I think this shot looks okay, and I like the beautiful orange background. The thread (yarn?) is well-exposed, and has plenty of detail visible. It's okay as a quick, flash-illuminated shot. I think what makes it work as well as it does is the bright, light, airy feeling from the good, strong exposure. I wish it had two, maybe even three stops smaller an aperture, for more DOF, but it does have plenty of the main subject in focus, and it's very simple--not cluttered u with extra stuff, just the bobbin, its cargo, and the backdrop.

 

[jmtonkin]

I saw this yesterday, and the image was relatively small on-screen...seeing it again today and the image is displaying quite large--large enough that the shallow DOF is bugging me a bit. Overall, I think this shot looks okay, and I like the beautiful orange background. The thread (yarn?) is well-exposed, and has plenty of detail visible. It's okay as a quick, flash-illuminated shot. I think what makes it work as well as it does is the bright, light, airy feeling from the good, strong exposure. I wish it had two, maybe even three stops smaller an aperture, for more DOF, but it does have plenty of the main subject in focus, and it's very simple--not cluttered u with extra stuff, just the bobbin, its cargo, and the backdrop.

Thanks Derrel! After looking at it today, I agree the the super shallow DoF is less than ideal. I was so focused on getting correct exposure and making sure that my background went out of focus nicely, that I forgot to think about the foreground being slightly out of focus.

 

[Derrel]

The problem is a classic one that occurs any time an upright cylindrical object is photographed with a fixed-body camera that is angled downward...the plane of the DOF goes "through" the cylinder, producing clear out of focus areas above and below the small, in-focus area. It's one of the issues that front tilt (lens tilt) could help with, to tilt the depth of field plane so that it more closely matches the placement of the upright cylinder, so that the DOF plane does not "slice through" the cylinder at the angle of the camera's orientation. Without a view or technical camera with a lens that can be tilted, and without a tilt/shift lens, getting enough DOF to cover something of that size, at that magnification, is pretty challenging, and pretty much impossible at f/2. Still, it's not a total loss by any means; the picture's simplicity and strong subject matter make it interesting. It's still "a good picture". The exposure is a strength too--it has good, bright, strong light and vivid coloration. If this had been under-exposed, it would totally suck.

I have seen pictures that look a lot like this used as detail shots in many articles about all sorts of things...simple, close-up shots of "stuff". The light, airy feeling is what comes through the most on this. The shot still "works" for me, despite the DOF, not really because of the DOF.

 

[Didereaux]

This type of shot (to me anyways) should be done with stacked focus. You need 100% DoF to succeeb.

 

[jmtonkin]

This type of shot (to me anyways) should be done with stacked focus. You need 100% DoF to succeeb.

That was my next question! If I were to do it again, I would try focus stacking.