<<< o >>>data driven #1 8 comments + add yours
chromasia.com

Earlier this week, as you'll know if you follow me on Facebook, one of the hard drives in my NAS device failed. Rather than chuck it away, I thought I'd see if I could dismantle it, which proved to be a difficult task as I don't have any star shaped screwdrivers. After struggling with it for twenty minutes, and breaking one of my small screwdrivers, I finally managed to get the cover off so thought I'd take a few shots.

This is the first of three, all toned in the same way, and is probably my least favourite of the set. That said, I sent them to my good friend Craig this afternoon and this one was his favourite. What does he know? ;-)

As always, let me know what you think.

captured
camera
lens
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
image editor
plugins (etc)
cropped?
11.38am on 6/9/11
Canon 5D Mark II
EF 100mm f/2.8 macro USM
f/4.0
1/8
aperture priority
0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
Camera Raw
Photoshop CS5
none
no
 
3x2 + macro + show the original
comment by Garry at 03:17 PM (GMT) on 6 September, 2011

At first glance I thought it was a new building in Dubai... :)

comment by djn1 at 03:26 PM (GMT) on 6 September, 2011

The Seagate Tower :)

comment by Chris Wray at 06:20 PM (GMT) on 6 September, 2011

... and there's me thinking you'd been inspired by the gallery I sent you last week :-)

comment by Carlos Garcia at 07:36 PM (GMT) on 6 September, 2011

Sweet! Looks like something Darth Vader would use.

comment by Debbie Hartmann at 09:04 PM (GMT) on 6 September, 2011

I have taken a lot of harddrives apart for fun and as u foundd out it is not easy! But once inside you are rewarded with very shiny stuff... I love how you captured it here and look forward to seeing the other two. By the way... there is a powerful earth magnet inside of the drive.... have u discovered it yet?

comment by Justin Photis at 08:01 AM (GMT) on 7 September, 2011

Looks like some future medical device. :) Nice toning on the shot. The original looks quite dark , was it under exposed ?

comment by Rick at 07:33 PM (GMT) on 7 September, 2011

Why did you flip it from what you originally posted?

comment by djn1 at 07:38 PM (GMT) on 7 September, 2011

Justin: yes, it was underexposed, but more by accident than design.

Rick: because I thought it worked better this way round, i.e. you see the sharp detail, before the blurred section. Would you prefer it the other way round?