Thanks to Kevin's inspiration ... I got off my duff.

My entry for the WA.

I like the concept, but it feels a bit static, compositionally. The out of focus areas were distractors for me.

Kent,
I agree.
Excellent choice of subject for textures. I am no lighting expert, but I think it looks good and I like the background although I dont know what I am seeing in the LLC. Looks like OOF salt?
Bit too much OOF for me on the right bottom. The eye goes there to find a bit of blur and darkness. In contrast, the top pretzel looks just right.
Scott

Scott,

At first, I thought the lower half was a reflection. But it's actually a second pretzel that's propping up the 'sharp' pretzel. That, married with a wide-open aperture is what's causing the softness/distraction.

Again, just my opinion, Kent.

Thanks guys,

Yes, it is a second pretzel propping up the first. The "reflection" effect was serendipitous, but it caught my attention as to how others might perceive it as a second pretzel vs. a reflection.

The reason the pretzel blur is so strong is that it is shot with tilt to increase the DOF for one pretzel at the expense of the other as they are moving in opposing directions relative to the tilt orientation. As to the aperture, it was actually shot @ f16 to help with the DOF/exposure. I typically don't like stopping down that far as diffraction starts to reduce contrast (preferring to shoot in the "sweet spot" of a lens)... but given how directionally strong my lighting was, it offset those concerns/issues fairly well.

As to the LLC oof ... cool that you mentally thought oof salt (I was kinda hoping). It is actually my grid. I wanted it in the scene (odd I know) as part of the process for "directional" light being used to reveal texture. I could easily take it to black, but "went with it" to see how it would fare.

Just seems like a dirty surface

Skarkowtsky wrote:
Just seems like a dirty surface

Gotcha ... better as black?

yes

Yep : )

At first glance it looked like a brown Caterpillar on a mirror. The triangle of salt in front looked like eyes and mouth.

I may never eat a pretzel again...

Thanks guys ... I made the switch @ WA.

No worries Chuck ... that just means more for me.
BTW, my original idea was to shoot a self-port, chomping away ... but, it is such a pain to properly focus, light & compose when you are in front of the lens ...

See my comment about Kevin's photos in his thread, re: creating visually the same emotional reaction you get tactically by touching an object.

The salt on a pretzel has texture, but the texture is really not something you react to when eating one. That's more a reaction to the salty taste, crunchy outside / soft inside mouth feel texture, or the anticipation of those sensory inputs when looking at one. Ring the bell, the doggie salivates in anticipation

Perception of texture in a photo is a "connect the dots" linkage of the contrast pattern in the 2D photo with seeing textured objects in similar lighting in person, but your brain only knowns what they actually feel like from the experience of touching them.

One of the apparent contradictions in lighting objects is that hard smooth objects are more accurately rendered with "soft" diffuse lighting but soft fluffy objects like fur and feathers are more accurately rendered with "hard" collimated sources because the 3D shape clues to the fur / feature texture comes from sharp specular reflections on the top side nearest the source and dark hard shadows (on light fur). On a black cat nearly all the clues about the fur texture come from the specular highlights. Fur and feathers have micro-planes that reflect the light like a mirror. I've got a tutorial about this cause and effect "Shooting Critters" on my web site: http://photo.nova.org

No worries on eating all the pretzels.... I'm more partial to popcorn when snacking.

cgardner wrote:

The salt on a pretzel has texture, but the texture is really not something you react to when eating one.

Then you're eating the wrong pretzels.

I should have said "surface texture" ....

I eat them rarely because don't like the way they taste. So seeing a photo of one doesn't ring any bells for me.

I react the same way to beef liver. First time I saw liver as a kid I thought it was steak. Boy was I surprised, and as a result I've never liked it. But at the same time as a kid I loved Liverwurst sandwiches. I didn't associate it with anything else so was more open minded the first time I tried it.

That goes to what I said previously about reactions to photos on an emotional level being the result of first perceptually figuring out what the heck it is from the pattern the lighting creates (hard wired similarly in all brains) then making a subjective connection to the identified object to subjective personal memories creating the emotional reaction.

There a part of the temporal lobe, called the Fusiform Gyrus that make the perceptual / emotional connection. It has a "cache" for familiar faces and items. If damaged by accident a person gets "facial amnesia". They recognize it's a person but can't associate it emotionally with stored memories. It's suspected that mechanism is a factor in Autism. It was an autism study that revealed normal subjects track immediately to face and eyes. Autistics don't. Their eyes will track a photo aimlessly not making the association between the 2D patterns and real objects.

Babies don't develop the ability to connect 2D images with real objects until they are about a year old. Giving them geometric shapes in different colors to play with in natural downward lighting helps wire their brains to make those associations between pattern in the photo, appearance by eye with stereo vision and the tactile shape and texture experienced by holding it and putting it in their mouth.

When the brain can't recognize an object it will associate it with something else similar;. like liver to steak, or your somewhat perceptually confusing rendering of a stick pretzel to a caterpillar