Splash #8

This is absolute perfection...an absolute fabulous photo..Congratulations on POW...Bravo!

This image is very nice. I think it might be even better with more contrast.

Congrats on POW. Cheers!

Sorru, but it doesn't tell me anything.

I cannot add much positive to what has already been said. It is simply great photography. But just when I feel like that every photograph has been made, I am reminded that I am wrong. There is a universe of images that have yet to be captured, and this image proves it. In 1906 there existed perhaps a million photographs in the world. Now a million a month. So it may be harder to be creative, and more daunting to be unique. But Leigh Perry has shown us that the is still plenty that is fresh. 8-8

"Sorru (sic), but it doesn't tell me anything."

 

Sure it does. It's just that the only thing you're interested in knowing about photographically, if your portfolio is any indication, is life on a human scale. I would suggest buying a macro lens and a 300mm telephoto, except that you might not see anything around you at that scale or at that distance that you consider interesting.

 

So many photographers, it seems, have a range of subjects that they enjoy shooting and miss interesting physical phenomena that are worth examining and sharing with others. They're not predictable, they're not on the map, but that's why discovering them is so enjoyable.

 

There are few things that I find more interesting than warped reflections, but that's just me.

Quicksilver and cork...that's the first impression I had when I looked at it. Really an interesting, abstract and absorbing shot. Would make a good cover for an "Elements of Topology" textbook. Sepia-ish cast works well. Jolly good show!

An eye-catching image, with much to hold my interest!

Thanks to everyone for your comments and criticisms.

I should clarify the subject matter. This is a shot of some water on a carpark floor. Nearby was the carpark door, constructed with a honeycomb gauze pattern. I first tried a batch of shots with my 50mm lens. One remains from that set. I wanted to emphasise the fractal patterns that are just visible in that shot, and so borrowed a macro lens and tried again a week later.

I poured the water from a reasonable height to get an interesting edge, and close enough to the honeycomb door to show in the reflection. This shot explores an area of probably 1-2 cm. The floor was oily and dirty; this shows in the final image.

Regarding orientation of the image, the photograph was taken close to straight down. I had to angle the lens slightly to get the pattern to happen, but the composition and orientation are as taken. They reflect the convoluted and uncomfortable position that the camera and I ended up in. I considered rotating in PS back to a more natural orientation, but, well, didn't. I do have some sympathy, however, for the school of thought that the current orientation feels a bit gimmicky.

Photoshop work consisted of converting to monochome and then toning in pursuit of a metallic patina. The 4x5 crop is a large format affectation...

Your eye and technique are fabulous here...you've created an image which, at first blush, immediately reminded me of a SEM image. Very similar duotones and lighting. Considering this is an image of a water splash on the floor of a parking garage, I'd say you've done a very original, creative image of a natural fractal.

Amazing image. Techincally and aesthetically excellent.

When suddenly with a different light or angle subject reveals something we haven't noticed before we grab the camera and shoot a series and if not satisfied we come back to try again. With this image the photographer gives us a visual feast showing a nearly perfect fractal pattern yet easily recognizable subject matter.

A well deserved POTW image. My first thought was it is some sort of fractal image. Very well seen and executed.

 

Stefan

May I kindly request that congratulatory messages are e-mailed to the photographer and

that, when posting in this forum, you try to address specific aspects of the image that you

like or do not like.

 

Stating that "it's a beautiful picture" doesn't really help anybody in trying to understand it.

Please explain why you think this is the case. Equally so if you think the image is not that

great at all.

Leigh, I think that HP should forget the printer and give you an electron microscope. There's no telling what you would come up with. Viewing the other shot made with a 50mm lens raised the inevitable question: what macro lens did you use?

 

Congratulations on getting the Photo of the Week.

 

--Lannie

Lannie, the borrowed lens is a Canon 180mm. Combined with the 10D's multiplier, it becomes a 288mm. I think the lens was probably 15-20 cm from the puddle. DOF was pretty miniscule.

I competely agree with Mick, it needs to be rotated 90 degress CCW. Makes a huge difference to reading the image in a much more natural state. The composition screams for it with that little piece of broken off puddle balanced by the larger portion, and all being read left to right instead of top to bottom.

I think the only discussion here has to be the photographers ability to see an image like this. I'm not sure if that can ever be learned. I would have just walked by that puddle on the carpark floor or maybe even stepped in it. To see this amazing shot and then capture it is the true mark of an artist mind IMO. I am totally blown away by this image.

Wow!That is an "first seen" image. Congratulations.

JaviPedriza visions

That is one of the best shots I have seen on photo.net. Awesome photography. Great composition. Great mysticism.

When I see images like this I always marvel at how simple and elegant nature actually is. While mathematicians spend lifetimes working out the mechanics that create such images, to nature it is just a splash of water and the application of some very simple rules; while raytracers spend hours of CPU time to obtain a visibly pixellated image, nature in a matter of a fraction of a second produces the image at a resolution finer than we can percieve (and you can throw as many secondary reflections in as you want).

 

This image opens our eyes to the fact that nature's beauty lies not only in panoramic landscapes, but actually at all scales (fractal fractals) and in all places (including a concrete floor!)

 

The picture is fantastic. I don't mind the orientation so much. When I first saw it I thought that it was water on a vertical window pane taken at even higher magnification. Then I thought of Terminator II...

Nice photo, no doubt about it. It is also interesting the point of view pointed out above by Luis Arguelles, who regrets the lack of content of the photo. There is not a rule about the need of content for an image and clearly this one is just a matter of beauty. However, as far as beauty and content are not mutually exclusive, having both of them is always (at least it is for me) a plus.

Hi Leigh, and congrats on your second POW. I'll side with those who wanted to see this the way it was photographed - i.e those who suggested a 90ﾰ CCW rotation -, because I feel the "abnormal" presentation you meant for is a bit of a gimmick and adds nothing to the image. The natural beauty of the reflection is what matters, and it doesn't depend on how you rotate the photo. So, there is a paradox in your vertical presentation, which renders this natural beauty unnatural.

 

That said, here's another small criticism: I don't see the scratches on the background as something positive. Perhaps that's a bit of a "commercial still life photographer"'s suggestion, but I feel a black formica or anything more simple as a background allow a stronger emphasis on the water parts and reflections - which are still the main subject after all.

 

In short, all my observations can be summerized as one general advice (opinion): when a still life/abstract photographer finds a great subject matter, I think he should identify what makes it a great subject, and then only work towards the single goal of emphasizing its essential beauty. Regards.

The first look definitely caught my eye, and my attention for more than several minutes. Then, I read through all the comments, as I do with those made on my own submissions, which, as with my own, gave me a new perspective on Leigh's glorious shot. Words like "jagged, cut, etched and scratched" come to my mind, then also, I see "order, method, silky-smooth surface, coldness". This is perfection.

To place these elements in the context of a studio shoot is to change its' purpose entirely. If you want black background to highlight the patterns in the water, that's fine if you're using it for an ad campaign, but if this is meant as stand alone art, don't take away contrasting line and textures that add interest.

 

May I suggest to those of you who want to rotate this image, you're too focused on what the elements are, rather than looking at it as subject-as-graphic-elements that generate an emotional appeal. Notice that Wayne uses words like "jagged, cut, etched and scratched" and "order, method, silky-smooth surface, coldness". The words "water", and "chain link fence" don't appear because they're irrelevant . . . except to photographers like us who like to dissect things.

Carl - it's true that there is more than a small element of over-familiarity with the medium here, causing us to nit-pick technicalities at the expense of what you might call a 'neutral view' - or viewing experience - of the image. At the same time it's difficult to propose the acceptance of the simple beauty of an image without foregoing a critical appraisal of flaws and methodological errors which might be present.

I would agree with your objection to the comparison with a commercial still-life shot. In many respects, the approach Marc alludes to always seems to me to be over-sterile, clinical and characterless. Leigh's shot is the opposite of this. On the other hand I would second every other comment Marc made, especially the single goal of emphasizing its essential beauty - very nicely put and pertinent to the 'shot orientation' issue. Why over-complicate what is essentially a fresh, immediate image with an old and hackneyed optical trick? I'm certain it wasn't intended as such, FWIW, but it's a gimmick which tends to demonstrate an immature eye, for want of a better expression.

Maybe this is becoming more an appraisal of photographer than photograph and I don't want to get personal.. enough to say the frame orientation isn't an element of the shot, it's a presentation choice. I would propose we post a rotated version, if Leigh agrees to it, and take it from there.