Light bulb

Now thats what I call a mushroom cloud. A fascinating display of pure physics in action.

 

Could this be a pooshop reouch?

 

Nice shot regardless. Perfect gig winning, commercial portfolio material.

Mona- I find your statement, "The lines Jayme describes are just the refraction of the dark studio around the image-well known to, and often loathed by, those who have shot glass much" curious & enlightening. I did not know this, learn something new everyday. I will have to keep this in mind.

 

Tell me then, when you look at the image, up close & personal in PS, the gradient background & the darkened edges I questioned, look exactly like a light to dark gradient & drawn lines? Interesting. I just find it hard to believe with the amount of light in the bottom half of the image that the glass edges would remain so black. I would think they would be reflecting the light not the dark studio. Amazing :)

 

I guess only Paal can answer these questions, maybe he used some kind of flag to redirect the light from the top of the image. I can think of several ways this could be done, but I still question the bright light & dark lines. Plus the darkness at the top. I would love to hear from Paal. I believe only he could enlighten us to his technique.

Aaah yes Mona, I understand you now.

Only photos of people or some personal metaphor are asthetically pleasing and have any sort of emotional connection. No wonder you find this photo uninteresting. You are trying to make it human. It is just a broken lightbulb burning out.

 

People who can't find anything interesting about the form of the smoke, the contrast with the broken glass and the sharpness of the image will likely see no value in a shot like this. I doubt the origional photographer was trying to reach such people.

 

It isn't a person, it doesn't look like a person therefore it is uninteresting. Not an attitude that I share.

 

Not trying to be too personal but some people need to look at an image like this for what it is not for what they want it to be. Might help in finding it interesting.

Jayme, as to the gradient, sure, that could have been added, but it certainly is a familiar

type gradient for shooting still life. I have no reason to believe it is photoshopped, but it

certainly could have been.

 

As to the lines, set up a wine glass in a dark room--doesn't have to be blacked out--and

put a piece of white board behind it, lit brightly--voila, black lines at the edges. Here,

there are many undulations in the glass causing wider and odd little things going on.

Essentially, as the glass turns on itself, it stops transmitting and becomes a refracting

mirror. You can even put white below the glass and light everything-Try it!--you would

probably have to tent it and light the tent to get rid of it--I have shot a lot of glass, but

have never used a tent myself-not my style-so results may vary.

 

Also, I am curious how to not have the image totally fall apart if I look at it much bigger

than as it appears on the screen--just kind of pixelates to death on me and then there are

the jpeg artifacts.

 

Finally, not to you Jayme, to those that didn't get the joke, and I have been accused of

being cryptic recently, what follows the word "seriously" to the end might be better to key

on if you want to criticize how I see the image. (thought "seriously" would be a good hint

tho)

" I just find it hard to believe with the amount of light in the bottom half of the image that the glass edges would remain so black. I would think they would be reflecting the light not the dark studio." - Jayme

 

I think you are not asking the right question here, and therefore won't find a logical answer. I've only asked myself as well why the glass was so dark without wondering what it could be reflecting. And the answer that immediately came to my mind was: either this glass was originally NOT transparent at all - which I doubt very much -, either the glass was simply darkened by the fire and smoke - nothing photographic there...

 

As for the background's gradient, it could indeed be PS, or just more light at the bottom of the background - no mystery here either imo. I would tend to think, it's probably a PS gradient due to the extreme regularity, but it's tough to be sure, since even this extreme regularity can be obtained in a studio. As a side-note, and since we are trying to guess what's PS and what's not, it isn't even impossible at all, to think that the photographer may have darkened both the bulb's glass and the electrical "arms" in the bulb at the post processing stage.

 

Bottom line, just switch on a softbox and a spot or two in a studio, and you could get exactly what you see here without using PS at all - and without working too hard on your lighting. If this picture had not been manipulated at all, I'd still not talk about lighting wizardry, because there's really a lot more to lighting mastery, than just brightening a subject properly and creating a gradient on a background. All this is a piece of cake for any semi-pro studio photographer. So I'd think, that the lighting and/or PS work on this piece is ok, i.e. "appropriate" and "neat". So are virtually all the studio pictures uploaded to this site by Dave Nietsche or G Steve for example, in the same category: except for the fact that these two photographers have at least shown quite a bit of real mastery and true originality at times. Yet for artistic and complex lighting, we'll have to turn elsewhere... The following still life by Emil Schildt is a good example of a difficult still life, one that really can't be achieved by just any studio photographer: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1171818

 

In short, as far as I am concerned I like to reserve words like "lighting mastery" or wizardry for images like Emil's. Let's not sell hard work and experience too cheap, basically.

Would be nice to know what equipment was used here the photographer chose not to mention the camera choice,or anything for that matter.not good or really that acceptable at this level.photo of the wk.

Not trying to be too personal but some people need to look at an image like this for what it is not for what they want it to be. Might help in finding it interesting.

Hear, hear.

the smokey part doesn't look like normal smoke. even worse, it evokes a kitschy aesthetic of somewhat stiff cloth masquerading as fine silk.

 

what's really interesting, however, is the bottom part of the photo, which not only stands on its own but would have yielded a much better photograph if framed exclusively. best of all, it doesn't require the silliness of real-time gimmickry to achieve an effect.

I disagree with MONA. People are different, so emotional responses are. When I look at this image I feel, for example a) how fragile is everything in this world including life itself (and peace in PN discussions � LOL); b) that everything ends up some days; a moment ago it was a good bulb, but now it became just a recollection. And so on. So, I�m with Rick. Cliche? Than what about multiple landscape, nude, flower, or portrait cliches accepted enthusiastically? IMHO, technically the image is good enough not to detract attention from the major subject. We can argue about composing it in a different way, but it would be a different image. Cropping is up to author. Unusual picture format looks attractive in this certain case IMO. Nice work generated an interesting discussion, well deserved POW.

Brilliant! Without the smokey "fabric", I suddenly find this much more memorable, and no longer merely "interesting".

I really like the look, but I can't escape the feeling that the 'smoke' is actually Photoshop work. Chaoscope, specifically... a fractal flame generator that has been very popular for these kinds of effects. Or some 3D application with a very nice cloth and particle rendering engine.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm in no way trying to discredit the work. But having seen a lot of similar effects come from the tools I mentioned, I'm just a little skeptical about whether this is a single frame or not. Either way, I don't think it's less valid as an *image*, as I find it enjoyable and still difficult to pull off nicely.

Well, let's be fair Vlad. Nobody in this discussion is gladly accepting other types of cliches, and I'm sure that a standard sunset or sparrow-on-a-branch picture would come in for equally harsh criticism if, by some mischief, the elves made it a POW. We trust the elves to give us something that rises above the cliches of whatever genre when they pick a POW. I have no idea whether they did so in this instance, because I until I read this discussion I never realized this WAS a genre.

 

But you are right about emotional responses. Personally I find this picture very cold, detached, clinical. But those are properly understood as types of emotion, not the lack of emotion. (One of my communications professors said, "You cannot not communicate.") To me this picture is about the wanton and unnecessary destruction of a perfectly good device designed and made with care by the good folks at OSRAM. For those of us who respect machines, it's like pulling the legs off an ant and photographing the creature coldly and clinically while it dies. Actually a little chilling, and the resemblance of the smoke to a mushroom cloud is not out of place. But - and this is your point - that's just me.

but, finally... a POW that is worthy to be called POW. All the other selections are fine, but

this one is exceptional. Skillful technique and great artistic view. Well done.

After spending a couple of days seeing the magic of mother nature in all her power and

endless flow at Niagara, I am in Pittsburg reporting that this weeks POW is stuck. Its the

usual discussion that pits the usual opposing points of view . It seems that no matter what

the image is it comes down to an Artists perception versus a technician- scientist

perception. I believe that this basic split in contributors boils everything down to the 'how

it was done '(scientists) and the' why it was done '(artists). It is probably characteristic of

photography that these two sides are at odds, as in the work of each of us the Artistic

vision is dependent on the technical knowlege of the medium. However, technical aspects

should not overpower or even be conscious when creating . I like to think of technique as

like the air we breath that we can't remember breathing.Pre-concieved technical "magic"

will usually kill expressive intent and render most subject matter subservient to it. That is

what has happened here. Earlier I pointed out the lack of context and reason behind the

image. What I meant was that the lightbulb was not functioning as its purpose intends. To

give light. If we are showing the death of a light giving source then it would be interesting

to see the affects of the loss to whomever was using it. I say whomever because a

lightbulb is a human invention for human needs. There must be some human context for

this picture to be really meaningful. This does not mean it has to give up its abstract

qualities. Yes August, it is impossible to not communicate on some level. And if this was a

site for scientists or engineers or realestate agents to offer interpretations of visual

imagery, then I could understand the acceptance of what this image represents and the

type of communication expressed. But this is a site for photographers and Art thinkers

who by their nature must demand a different , perhaps creatively deeper expression form.

It is ,though, as it should be that we defend our interests. It would be nice if we could see

that as a community Art and Science represent two sides of a greater whole and that we

need eachother to put together the pieces of these weekly puzzles and present a more

wholistic view.

I find the image very dynamic with tension created by the fireball, the broken glass, and the above all (pun intended) the mushroom cloud of smoke. I can imagine all kinds of things to go along with those word images. I can equate this to our over heating our atmosphere, with very little trouble at all.

 

Someone mentioned that they could see this in a technical office setting. Absolutely. I would love to see this large, perhaps in the entry way above the stairwell of a building that houses, ohhh, maybe engineering firms.

 

I took this to my photo editor ( I don't often take photos to play, but I hope I may be forgiven for this one). I could not find any of the artifacts or other things mentioned. I put it through a noise cleaning, and then played. In my final adding of the border to my version, I discovered, I believe, that it is a scan, with the right side cropped inconsistently.

 

I wonder what you think of this?

 

Mani, I think there is an even distribution of interest in the photo in gender, dispite the ratio of PN being heavily weighted to the male side.

 

In conclusion, I like it! and Congratulations on a very intriguing photo. I could see a thousand more and not tire of them.

CR - You make an interesting point. It's the age old "concrete" thinker ("just the facts ma'am, just the facts") versus the "abstract" thinker (what does it all really mean?) or right brain versus left brain, science versus art, etc way of thinking. I agree, this image has the capacity to convey "many" different conceptual ideas. Laurie even mentioned a new one, "global warming". But, I wholeheartedly agree with you that "There must be some human context for this picture to be really meaningful". While I do not think every image has to have meaning, I do think that in order for an image to be successful it needs to convey "feeling" (which I happen to think, is one of the most important components of photography) Of course, I am predominantly an abstract thinker. Concrete thinkers seem to me, to get all tangled up in the technical end of photography. One would think the solution to be "moderation", not to be extremely concrete or extremely abstract in one's thinking. However, one risks that moderation might end up being "mediocre".

 

The other thought would be to possess the ability to shift, at will, from being extremely concrete to extremely abstract in one's thinking. Leonardo da Vinci might be an example of someone with this capacity for transitional thinking. I believe it is this combination of both creative & technical skills that results in the best. But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

As for this image, the "abstract thinker" in me is searching for meaning, while the "concrete thinker" is asking how it was accomplished. I tend to want feeling & meaning over the how's. This image does not create a lot of feeling for me, go figure. I've had to be a "concrete thinker" dealing with technical stuff this week. Maybe the abstract portion of my brain is on the frits :) Experiencing a little

"burn out" :) Awe... a new meaning to the image, "Mental Burn Out" :)

CR, I like a lot of what you say here. There are two sides to things and as we share from

our own biases, hopefully we each grow more as we digest each perspective.

 

One comment you made was re: human context. I would say that even just context is

important. As I said earlier, this photo came across to me as an exercise in just doing it.

The kind of thing you do in the studio to see how things work before you make the real

image with the client standing over your shoulder. Here, there just is no context or reason

for the image-except as I mentioned

above. Why is the bulb broken, why is it burning up--you are right, it is not doing what it

was intended to do. I believe it was Anders who talked about Edgerton's photos-things

were being destroyed, but you saw why. Here, I thought what was missing was the why or

context of the action-spontaneous explosion, something breaking it etc. Of course, that

would be much more difficult and time consuming and may not yeild a satisfactory result

without some expensive equipment to assist in the process. Or maybe there is just some

other

context in which this might have been put to give it some relevance to something.

Without that, it just ends up being, at best, an experiment.

Better not let Donald Rumsfeld see this picture. He might want to start R&D on a new weapon system. Forget shock and awe. Let's have more flash and boom. Now, if someone can come up with the right radio-isotope of Tungsten, we can have the world's dirtiest nuclear bomb. Its primary deterrent value will come from its ugly appearance. Nuclear war is bad enough, but who would want to get nuked with a truly dirty-looking mushroom cloud? The problem with our current nuclear deterrent is that nuclear explosions are too beautiful, as the last scenes of _Dr. Strangelove_ clearly show, and as the fashion legacy of Bikini Atoll even more clearly shows. The world needs a truly ugly nuclear bomb. Who would want to wear a Tungsten-kini to the beach? It would not only look ugly, but it might go "Poof!" (No more boom-boom for that baby-san.)

 

I think that this would make a fine cover photo for a novel. It would have to be about something really vicious, something absolutely poisonous.

 

Hmmm. . . . Divorce. Yes, that's it. If anyone ever writes the ultimate Bad Divorce novel, this has got to be the cover for it. Aesthetics? It's ugly as hell, and that's the key to its beauty.

 

Sell it to compensate yourself for all the horrors of getting PoW. Maybe if we granted PoW to Osama bin Hidin' for his latest self-portrait qua television appearance, then we could stop this terrorist nonsense. PoW as deterrent.

 

POOF!

 

--Lannie

It's a great picture indeed (Wow! What more do you need than "wow" :P). But I can't help wondering how real it is ...

It's real, Alexandra. Read way up the page and find out how to do this in the comfort and convenience of your own home.

 

--Lannie

I thought I would add to the chorus of praise for CR's comment. And I am a scientist! The image is obviously beautifully done yet extremely clinical and I couldn't connect with it at all. He put into words what I think is missing - one or more folded over layers of complexity. The image is what it is and no more. It never shifts to an alternative state. There is both too much information and too little. It is unambiguously a broken light bulb generating a gorgeous puff of smoke but it never raises the question of why or what it meant. It lacks mystery and implied context. In that regard I find it a perfect example of why we should avoid generating perfect images. Gives me hope for my own photography!

"And if this was a site for scientists or engineers or realestate agents to offer interpretations of visual imagery, then I could understand the acceptance of what this image represents and the type of communication expressed. But this is a site for photographers and Art thinkers who by their nature must demand a different, perhaps creatively deeper expression form."

 

Who says? I see this as a multi-faceted site that appeals to persons of varying (and changing!) backgrounds and tastes. This dictum as to what the site is about seems arbitrary and capricious to me--and a bit imperial.

 

How much "art," for example, is there in documentary coverage of war? Where is astrophotography if the site is so narrowly defined?

 

Fortunately, there is diversity here, and plenty of room for it. More important, we can enjoy the site on a number of levels. One picture might be interesting as the documentation of event, and another might stimulate either artistic or scientific commentary.

 

I don't see myself as either one or another type of viewer and commentator. It all depends on the picture. This one has little artistic interest for me, and so I find the scientific and technical questions primary. Post a picture of a beautiful woman and I will respond with the primary focus on art--but still with a concern for technique.

 

Yes, Photo.net is an art gallery, but it is also many other things to many different persons.

 

Vive la difference.

 

--Lannie

Lannie, first I have to agree with you that there should be some kind of compensation for

being chosen for the POW and having to put up with all of this dissecting and such. You

have to stop and wonder if it is an honor or a curse!

 

As to your last comment, and what do you expect from me anyway, can you really think of

a documentary photo, that was memorable, of war or anything else that wasn't also a well

designed photo? How about one without a sense of context, without emotion or that

didn't tell a story?

 

There are purely scientific photography-I have seen electron microscope photos of cancer

cells that were pretty boring to me a non clinician-and that has a purpose,but I don't think

it would make it to a site like this.

 

I have been hard on this photo, not because it is awful-it isn't- or not well done

technically, but more just as to how it falls short of what it might be. i don't see it as a

large print at an engineering firm as I don't really see any meaning in it-I think there are

shots of things technical that would be more meaningful to scientists and engineers.

 

So maybe CR overstated or limited what this site might be, but I don't think it was totally

off the mark--I just think that no matter what we shoot, we should try to do it as well as it

can be done, and if our talent is not there yet, work to get it there while having fun along

the way.

Lannie, I also think you make a good point. A question that this image does invite is why does the smoke suddenly stop going up and curl back down and around itself. In the context of a study into that phenomenon it would be extremely memorable. But I think that would be because it made the effort to go beyond the strict technical requirements for such a study. Other images that come to mind are Hubble telescope images in false colour that are informative for astronomers but also beautiful to look at and memorable because of it. Definitely in communicating our work as scientists we can learn from this. I guess the take home is that to properly critique an image we need to know its intended purpose.

Smoke doesn't actually stop going up... the hydrodynamics involved are a bit tricky, but the short answer is turbulence (I know, I know...). If this is indeed an actual smoke plume, the crown is typically formed *when* the spark happens, and so produces a ring of sorts. That rises, the outside air is cooler so resists the flow, while the center column is slightly warmer and tries to push up through the middle. The edges of the crown get closer and begin to follow the flow upward in the center.

 

Anyway, the more I look at this image, the more I find it to be somewhat disquieting. But the discussion is really what intrigues me, now... For lots of people, it seems that it's not enough to simply like or dislike something. The image has to have some fault or praiseworthy element; I haven't seen many people offer plain opinion as such - it is always followed by some justification within the image. One thing I've found in my very limited experience in photography is that definables and emotions are best left separate. Many people are blending the two and hammering out some rationale for what may ultimately be ineffable.

 

Just a thought...