...

"What part of the image makes this a success? If you were forced to crop 3/4 of the image, what part would you leave? There's no question; it's the distorted view of her legs. Period." Carl Root

 

 

"If we can't agree on what the purpose of the shot is, then the discussion comes to a screeching halt." Carl R.

 

Your opinions sound more like facts here Carl. Sorry but most disagree with you. Your (and Michael's) opinion that this NEEDS a crop to emphasize what you believe is the most important element in this photograph (distortion of the legs) is simply not being accepted by myself nor really anybody but you and Michael. Both myself, Lannie and many others have explained why we believe the crops take away rather than improve from the success of this image. It takes away the "human" element, sense of "movement", "dynamic interaction" "freshness" "visually interesting and that it invokes a feeling" "everything works together... good, bad and the ugly" etc etc.. Sure that part of the image is important, but in my opinion, it is not strong enough the carry this image by itself. You would be cropping away other relevant portions of what makes this succeed. Perhaps if you offered a better solution, we'd be more willing to accept your thoughts this time around.

I offered two other solutions. Both involve another visit to the site.

 

One was referred to in my first comment. It might be nice to have a broader view so we might see the source of the water.

 

Another was illustrated in the modified image I uploaded - to get a subject without distracting highlights that pull the eye away from the point of interest.

After looking at this photograph for a while and having the benefit of reading all the other comments, I have formed a few additional impressions about it.

 

I think the concept is a good one and it seems to be fairly original (based on my experience) but very difficult to successfully execute. I can not imagine burning up a vast quantity of film on this idea and if I had shot it on digital media, I wonder if this shot would have made it through the final cut and editing process. It is not a bad photograph but it does have some technical problems that seem to prevent it from being a solid winner. I think the suggested crops are a valid means for strengthening the photograph by removing several compositional flaws.

 

To me, the womans head and torso appear to be disproportional to the rest of the image, even though I know they are in fact, life-sized as opposed to the part of the image filtered by the water. If I had not seen the original and had only seen the cropped version, I am not sure I would have even realized that her head was chopped off. I would just assume it was obscured or hidden by the water because of distorted perspective. Close cropping removes a lot of distracting elements like the blown out highlights and the shadows along the top of the frame. The cropping also adds a certain element of mystery and or whimsy to the composition. I can still tell it is a person (if not a woman) by careful observation of the details.

 

The cropped part of the image is my favorite part of the image. It is the subject (for me at least) and everything else is context. I can get by with a little less context by presenting a stronger subject and that is achieved by the suggested cropping. As I said previously, I also like the possibilities of the metaphoric interpretation of the photograph. I love the way the trailing spray reflects or mimics the line of her leg in full stride. There is something mysterious about a substance such as water that can exist in several different states. In this photograph the water is effectively frozen but at the same time it is fluid and in motion.

Interesting Dennis, I just re-read you initial comment far above. Seems you've had a complete change of heart rather than just "a few additional impressions". Seems the very things you liked about the photograph initially, are now "compositional flaws".

 

You initially said this:" It seems that the image is open to several interpretations. Is the woman?s alter-ego represented by the entity represented by the frozen water or is she being stalked by its presence? She almost appears to be morphing into another shape." Dennis Dixon

 

Guess you will never know since you now propose cutting her out completely. Unless of course "blurred legs" exclusively work for you. I wonder why the very thing that makes this work before, now needs to be cut out entirely?? hmmm...

 

You also said this about the photo: "Pretty nice in-camera effect, it looks like your persistence paid off. For some reason I am now overcome by the urgent need to purchase a flavored performance enhancing sport drink." Dennis Dixson

 

and now you say: "I think the suggested crops are a valid means for strengthening the photograph by removing several compositional flaws." and "Close cropping removes a lot of distracting elements like the blown out highlights and the shadows along the top of the frame."

I guess I will take the bait and try to explain what must have been painfully obscure in my previous comments.

 

Initial impressions are often different from thoughts derived from careful observation of a subject along with the input of other individuals with specialized skills or knowledge. In my initial comments I complimented the photographer for his diligence in creating an original still photograph that appeared to be loosely based on a movie (motion picture) or television special effect. The appearance of the water on the womans legs is what impressed me originally (very neat effect from the water) and continues to be what I find the most distinctive thing about this photograph (the cropped part of the photograph) or what remains after cropping. I have also restated my interest in the metaphoric or symbolic aspect of the composition. I am not sure that constitutes a complete change of heart (or why anyone would care if I had changed my opinion).

 

After looking (and reading) for a while I offered some additional comments where I identified several things that I found to be distracting (compositional flaws) like blown highlights and shadows at the top of the frame. If I may add to that list, I also unhappy about the drainpipe (or pole) to the left of the womans head. The visual information on the left side of the pole is pretty much redundant as well. You could argue that the area on the left balances the shadows on the right side of the frame. Compositional flaws may have been the wrong terminology in this instance. What I meant to say was that there is nothing essential (for me) in that part of the photograph and nothing is lost by removing it. What is gained in my opinion is a simplification and refinement of the elements that interest me the most. I did not suggest cutting the woman out completely but rather described why cropping her head and shoulders did not affect my impression in any adverse way. I find the (perceived) scale of the womans head and shoulder to be distracting along with the lack of features and distracting highlights.

 

When I said that I felt the need to purchase a performance enhancing sport drink, I was making a joke in reference to what sometimes seems like a constant barrage of television commercials that employ special effects where athletes perspiration turns to colored sport drinks and while athletes in other commercials spring forth (morph) out of falling drops of water. It may be possible that those commercials are only targeted towards people living in the Midwestern United States where I reside. I am sorry for making the assumption that some things are universal throughout the entire country. I guess I should also apologize for my apparent lack of skill at humor.

 

I do often regret speaking (or writing) without thinking carefully about what I am trying to say. I am often disappointed that I failed to fully connect with people in an honest desire to exchange exciting ideas and concepts. I am fairly certain that few people know me well enough to know what I mean to say better than I do.

 

I have left frequent comments on many photographers portfolios. I am sure that in many cases they wish I would stop. Some people are occasionally kind enough to stop by my portfolio and point out the flaws in my thinking and my photography.

I think this photo is gimicky. For me the image is about a "special effect" with no other

context that make it interesting. For example, the woman isn't doing anything that contrasts

or mirrors the energy of the water. This is a clever technical shot. That's about it.

Dennis, you have very nice articulation skills. Thanks for taking the time.

Actually, Carl, I am surprised to find myself agreeing with you on this one. Once the head goes, the breast becomes a mere artifact showing above the water, not even readily identifiable as a breast. Instead, it raises the question, "What is that? Is that possibly a breast?" This detracts from the abstract version that you proposed, and so I can see why your suggested crop would go a bit further than the one that I offered above in an attempt to show what your suggestion might look like.

 

As for saying that you agree with Michael that the better crop will hold one's interest longer, I do not dispute that, either. I simply find the process of counting to be somewhat distracting. I personally can't concentrate on the photo and on counting at the same time. As a method, counting thus does not work for me, although I do not doubt your or Michael's underlying premiss that the length of time that one looks at a photo is a pretty good indicator of how good it is, unless one is looking at it in puzzlement because one cannot figure it out, or because it is confusing, as Vince pointed out.

 

I still prefer the original version without crops. I guess that we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

That said, your crop is indeed quite good if taken to that next step: radical photographic mastectomy.

 

I still prefer my women with heads (one per woman) and breasts (standard equipment is fine), but, hey, that's just me.

 

--Lannie

I've included yet another version, not to suggest that we should try to produce a new improved final result, but to use this as raw material to demonstrate a few principles of composition. Fabian suggested earlier that better light would likely produce better results, and I've done a quick and dirty clone job on the wall to demonstrate how better lighting in this instance might not produce the distracting contrasty shapes that we see in the original. I've also placed the subject in a less static position in the picture frame.

 

Despite everyone's obsession with various crops pro or con, I think there's a good chance that I might prefer a version that includes more, not less, in the picture frame compared to the original. Like last week's POW, this one straddles the boundary between record and abstract, and I think a commitment to one or the other would have been an improvement.

Carl, I had been wondering when someone would suggest cropping the left side. I do think that that one works.

 

--Lannie

Im abit surprise some want to dramatically change this photo.It's really quite complete as it is i think.
The blured head and shoulders/general background look great against the scattered (and suprisingly sometimes sharp) image through the water.There are aother factors but it's later here and i cant think too well ;)

Overall a great and interesting image that has the *major* attraction of not being thrown together in photoslut

Neither crop works for me. Not even close. Even as an abstract.

 

The free flowing movement that the cropped out portion brings is essential to this image having any success in my opinion. It completes or in my mind, or makes the image work. It was never a great image to begin with, but something alive, and somewhat original. You have taken away that portion so the image subsequently dies with the crop in my mind. Along with Lannie, we will just have to agree to disagree. Probably not the last time either, but not always the case. Aloha.

That is a good summary. I wish Tomasz had logged on and given us some feedback this week as well.

 

I think that taking photos of people behind a curtain of water is essentially about abstraction. To me photography is an abstraction in general (insert audible murmur from audience). I think a lot of people embrace photography because they perceive it as being a completely literal medium. The whole idea that something is abstract (not what we think it is) can be confusing and unsettling. Many abstract images do lack a human element that gives them life. If you remove the human figure the photograph does become dead in a way or literally without life. There are exceptions, qualifications and other holes in that line of thinking such as the anthropomorphic quality of the water (the water looks like a person or an animal) or the general concept of water giving or representing life (as in religious metaphors).

 

We could skirt the issue of abstraction entirely by reclassifying this photograph as Impressionistic. If abstraction does not fit the bill perhaps Impressionism, or the capture of what we perceive to be a fleeting moment of light and movement, can better express the idea. Impressionism gives the idea of movement or changing conditions where abstraction better describes a stationary or non animated subject.

 

What I do not know (in addition to many other things) is exactly what the photographer may have been thinking at the time he made this series of images. I want to think that he was working instinctively but it sounds as though he made a plan and then employed a shotgun technique until he had something he liked.

 

Why are all these big words important? Because I get really tired of seeing macro photos in the Street Photography critique forum, along with the lame excuse that the photo was taken when the photographer was standing on the street and he/she could not figure out a better category to put it in. In case you have not guessed, that was another attempt at humor, which is apparently an occupation that I am not well suited for.

as posted, seems original and visually a treat.....makes me wish I had seen the place and the potential and had the patience to try very hard to get the shot. congratulations, Tomasz.

The whole series is quite interesting and original. The single picture looks like somebody who just bought a very long lens and is playing with it :)

 

Simone

Nice effect with the water & its contrast with the background. Talking about precious moments... I wish I have my camera with me when such moments happen!