A corn husk in Texico, IL.
I liked this picture of a corn husk because it seemed to pick up a lot of good texture. I noticed all the individual pieces of corn could be seen as well as the husk peeling back. I was in Texico, IL where my girlfriend’s grandparents live taking pictures on a Sunday afternoon. I decided to squat down just a bit and see if I could get a good picture of this corn husk with the other stalks in the background. I liked that it focused on the one main husk but I would have liked more depth of field. Or should I keep the depth of field out of it? Because that might actually take the focus off the main husk of corn. If I were able to shoot this again I would try to have a smaller aperture and get more depth of field just to see what it looks like in comparison to the current photo. Then I would decide which one I would like more. (I really hope that is correct, small aperture=more depth of field? Which means it’s a larger F stop) T Anyways, I like taking pictures of natural things especially landscape type photos so this was as natural as I could get that day.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Good call, plus let’s not forget the subtle color palette and effective rule-of-thirds in this photograph. Here’s a little inspiration for you as well — check out the mature corn photo in NGM’s last issue. it’s in the visions of earth section.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/visions-of-earth/visions-earth-2011
Wow, that picture is awesome. I need to work on getting my sky to look like that in the background.
I like your photo. More depth of field would have detracted, in my opinion. The National Geographic photo is more striking, but also looks to me like someone stripped back the husks on each ear of corn in the row, just to pose them for the photo. In a field, I’d expect to find the husks of one ear partially or totally stripped back, as in your photo, but not a whole row of them perfectly posed.