Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/clailee4/public_html/jronaldlee.com/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

Chatter Teeth

chatter teeth

A little character study I did for the scavenger hunt for the clue “jaws.” I really like this photo…

From a technical perspective, it’s a 20 second exposure like the Twizzler piece from earlier in the week. The camera was less than a foot away from the subject, so it’s another Quantaray close-up filter piece. Here, the depth of focus is easier to see from front to back, so I really wanted that tiny aperture (at f22 on a 50mm lens, that’s what… 0.227 cm? Less than 1/8 of an inch.

What was fun for me was trying to get the gearbox tack sharp without everything else being blown so soft you couldn’t tell what I was shooting.

Would it be interesting to see this same image, but with the aperture wide open? To compare how much the aperture impacts the DOF?


  1. It is a nice photo but I don’t know when that device would be useful.

  2. TJ McDowell says:

    Do you find that long exposures give your pictures a different look even when there’s no motion in the picture? I’ve noticed that on the other end, I can usually tell when a picture is taken at a high shutter speed because it tends to look crisp, but I wasn’t sure how a really slow shutter would change the look of an image.

  3. Hard to say – but here’s what the same subject looks like with the aperture wide open, thereby allowing a much shorter exposure:

    The shutter in the original image is open 1,200 times longer than the second image. The second image has a shutter that opens more than 150x larger than the first… I think it makes for interesting comparisons between the two extremes, but really the big difference is how fast the focus drops off. In the second image, only a small portion of the image is in focus.

    Normally, I shoot with the shutter as far open as I can get it… but in the first image, it was as small as I could get it. The only way this works is because I had a tripod. With the tripod being set on a wooden floor, I hardly breathed while the shutter was open!

    I think this lens shoots sharpest a little bit more wide open. Considering the less-than-ideal light I had, I could have shot the second image around f/5 and had a VERY sharp image, but only somewhat less shallow depth of field.

    These shots are still life shots. I tried to get some of carbonation in a glass recently, and it didn’t work at all. It really only works with inanimate objects.

  4. There’s a really big difference between the photo in the article and the one in the comment. Amazing the difference that a few seconds make.

  5. I agree with Cookie- they look like two different sets of teeth. I like both, but the first photo is very up close and personal. I see all the detail and I like it. Nice!

  6. SeanDawson says:

    I love the picture. It is so cute. I am a little intrigue about the design. However, it is really nice.

Comment Policy: Unless you've received special dispensation (you know who you are), you must use your real name. We're all friends here, so if you want to be "Ron the plumber," that's cool, but you can't be "Best Plumber." See the comment policy for more.

Leave a Comment