|Canon 30D, handheld
Mamiya 80mm at f22
1/250, ISO 200
While I can usually tell how most images that I take will turn out anymore, there are a few that I can't predict. Aiming directly into some the sun reflecting off of the rippling water, it was impossible to tell where, exactly, the reflections would fall, nor how badly they would affect the exposure. The camera was set for aperture priority, and even though I was using a Mamiya lens intended for medium-format cameras, since I closed the aperture down manually before tripping the shutter, the camera still got an exposure reading for that particular aperture (technically, it assumed no aperture at all, since it got no response from the lens, and simply accepted the reading from the light meter.) But the overwhelming amount of sunlight coming in caused the camera to try and cope, and darkened down the rest of the frame into near blackness, allowing just enough light for the leaf to be seen.
The starbursts of the reflections, however, were largely predicted, even though I had no idea where they'd be. Closing the aperture down so far will always produce them from the aperture blades, one spike for each blade...
... wait, that's not right. The EXIF info that I use to produce the stats had nothing for the aperture or focal length, which means a lens that doesn't communicate with the EOS system – I have several lenses that fit the bill, but the most common one in use is the Mamiya 80mm macro. Except, it has five aperture blades, while those starbursts up there indicate nine (at least, perhaps ten.) No other manual lens that I have has nine blades. I suspected the Sigma 24-60 2.8 EX DG, which does, except on a test just now it produces the aperture and focal length in the EXIF. So maybe I'm wrong about that "each blade produces a spike" thing, or maybe it's up for grabs with curved blades like the Mamiya has? Maybe trusting me is dangerous...
Anyway, I like the damn shot, regardless of the mystery.