h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

From FWR:

Nice light play on this closeup of another everyday object. Silver wrapper gives the impression of jewellery facets. Nice shot indeed.

The not for individual resale warning adds a sense of fun, and the question, just how many candy bars were in there?

From bobstafford:

If the addition of a title is baffling look carefully at the photograph. This grows on you simply most of us would throw the subject in the bin.

I like this because like any good abstract image it creates images in your mind. Do give it time just look at and let your mind run wild.
Do try and find the hidden text. Not for individual resale!

Feel free to leave your own comments.

I see teeth (Venus Flytrap, anyone?), and a couple of skunks peering at me upper center. There's a sense of plastic melting in the sun. Am I coming to this photo with a horror story frame of mind?

The lack of candy in this wrapper is a horror story in itself Especially for the candy bar itself. I ate that.

I love the range of my camera. In this case the edge of my objective was actually in contact with the wrapper (focal length of approximately 2 cm). From there it can zoom all the way up to 1200 mm equivalent (who needs binoculars?) and that, given enough light, without a tripod.

Last weeks coin picture inspired me to try and see what I could do close up.

The reflections and the sense of warping paper/plastic are very effective .

Maybe the ghoulish things I saw in it were an intimation of the sad end that came to the candy bar. In a gentler universe, it would be possible to get counseling for the candy to help it see that its divine purpose (being eaten) was, in fact, reached (or was about to be reached).

The candy was, in fact, created in order to be food for higher-level beings.

This is a fascinating image I like the play of light and shadows

I need to study the user manual for my camera some more - I *think* I've found the focal length setting, but my experiments with it so far didn't seem to have made much difference...

Aha - I just did another experiment now. Taking a picture of my keyboard, and putting my objective in contact with the space bar, I can tell the difference between the 'depth of field' settings - thank you

How's this for a story idea: a universe made entirely of candy -- except the main character, who has to rebuff people who want to eat him. So, he eventually wraps a candy bar wrapper around himself to blend in.

The size of your diaphragm/aperture defines the depth of field. A smaller opening leads to more depth of field (less competing rays of light to cause blurring). A smaller opening also means less light entering the camera, so exposure times will increase (risk of motion blur if you don't use a tripod). You could also increase the amount of ambient light to counter that. Please take into consideation that smaller openings mean higher numbers

In sports photography (or other moving objects), you need a larger aperture in order to reduce the required exposure time (reducing motion blur) and get as much light in as possible, this also means that you have to have your focus right, due to the lower depth of field. (or else you will end up with a nice background with a blurred subject in front of it)

Thank you all for your for your comments and the hints and advice.
Perhaps DG could gather them and put them there in a "hints and tips" page

Perhaps a kind volunteer would do this and send it to the Post Editor for GuideMLing.

Well done Chairman Raptor Elk

Thanks.

On:" less competing rays of light to cause blurring"

There is a bit more to it. Basically, a point in the exact focal plane will yield a point on your film / sensor, anything else will yield a dispersion circle. Dispersion circles of 0.03mm and less are considered as "sharp" (although sensor size is a factor here). The aperture size controls the size of these dispersion circles.

The depth of field in front of the focal plane is always shorter than behind it. Behind can go up to infinity. I sometimes use this "trick" to screw up perspective. For example: Take a low viewpoint close-up picture of a small mountain stream with a mountain range behind it (smallest aperture), and the small mountain stream looks like a huge waterfall compared to the mountain range. Just don't drop your camera in said mountain stream.

I believe you have just signed yourself up as an 'expert' my friend!

This seems to be the case. Luckily, my employer believes that as well and pays me for it.

Still, it is nice hearing it. Thanks.

Does anyone need an expert on the subtle art of unwrapping candy wrappers and tasting the candy inside?

If there is a vacancy, please put me on the list.

Actually, I think you are well qualified int he event.