Chuckle! That's hilarious. The picture isn't upside down, I took the picture just a few weeks ago. It was taken on a tripod. Its not even physically possible for the tripod to tilt the camera upside-down. -- Ram-Man22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well I suppose so. This cone was no longer physically attached (in a lifegiving sort of way) to the parent anyway. I suppose you could flip it upside-down if you wanted to. -- Ram-Man20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't quite understand the explanation: was the cone deliberately inverted or is it the result of some branch that colapsed? In my opinion the fact that the cone is not in its natural position takes away much value from the picture. Images in Commons are supposed not (only) to be beautiful but to be useful as encyclopedic illustrations. By the way, I like this picture a lot. Alvesgaspar16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither? Both? I did deliberately pose this picture, but I was not trying to be deceptive. The cone was attached to the piece of twig that wasn't attached to the tree. I posed it to make the picture easier to take: I wanted the parent tree as the background. I've rotated this picture 90 and 180 degrees, and in either case the cone isn't pointing straight up and I don't know what the natural configuration might look like, not being an expert. It wouldn't be hard to rotate it though. My intention was to be descriptive of the cone itself through the detail provided by a macro shot. Since it was no longer part of the tree, I didn't pay it's orientation any consideration. Maybe MPF can tell me how many degrees to rotate the source image and I can replace this one with another one. Or perhaps this one is good enough for its purpose. -- Ram-Man16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About 150°CW; unfortunately doing so makes the direction of the illumination (from below right) look rather odd. Would it be easy to take a new photo? - MPF18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's theoretically possible, but it wouldn't be for at least a week at the bare minimum and probably more than that. I don't have immediate access to the site at the moment. Of course it would be different lighting, a different cone, etc. etc. -- Ram-Man21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]