Light bulb

Mary is hoping to avoid a debate about "emotional impact", but I guess I don't understand why this particular genre of photography (whatever it is; let's say "still life") gets a pass on emotional impact. Shouldn't we expect the best studio "still life" shots to speak to the viewer on multiple levels? Shouldn't we expect this week's POW to stay with us far beyond our "gee-whiz, how'd he do that" initial reaction?

 

For me (once I get past "gee-whiz"), I do find the glowing filament and the trail of smoke, rolling back on itself, to be quite beautiful - but ..., there doesn't seem to be much beyond that. And the upper half of the photo fails to carry the lower, which to me seems rather static and uninteresting. Perhaps if there were, as I think Mona suggested, more of the broken bulb present - maybe enough to frame the light bulb filaments from behind - it might make a difference. I don't know.

 

But, as is, the shot for me just lacks a certain ...

I've seen quite a few of these freshly-popped-lit-bulb shots, this one however has to be one of the best done, thanks for sharing and it's one amazing shot!

For the most part I agree with what others have said thus far. Emotionally it isn't the most moving of images, but technically and conceptually it is quite well done and as a whole it is fun to study. There is however one tiny flaw that I would suggest fixing. Being a long-time fan of the acclaimed stills of Dave Nitsche, I have come to expect that still life photographers aim to create spotless, clean images with smooth backgrounds and sharp details. There are some very minute distractions - spots just above the smoke which could be carefully cloned or softened out. See attachment with altered tones making the spots a little more obvious. Best Regards,

"The technical wizardry and Wow! Factor" - Chris Fraser

 

I would agree about technical wizardry IF and only if this picture hadn't already been taken a couple of thousand times before - exactly the same way, and often a little better.

 

We could talk about wizardry if camera motor drives hadn't been invented yet - but they exist, and nobody can miss this shot with a motor drive. Some posters commented positively about the light too: well, it's ok, but there's really nothing fancy or special about the lighting either. So, where's the wizardry here ? I'm left guessing...

 

Same thing for the Wow! factor: I am sure I was very impressed the first time I saw a photograph of this very subject. But that's so long ago, that I don't even recall it...:-)

 

Please acknowledge the fact, that dozens of versions of such burning filaments pictures can be found in virtually every photo library around the world. So much for all those who thought that this picture was "creative", "imaginative" or "original". It's a known trick and an over-photographed subject matter, and to me, that's where the wow ends.

 

Talking about aesthetics, I think the photographer was lucky to get a wonderful cloud of smoke. I have no problem at all with the toning in the background. I find the very bottom of the bulb's glass very strange and not very appealing visually. As some have mentionned, the background could be a little "cleaner" too - spots and such. Finally, I'm not sure this odd format was the best format available: a 2 x 3 or 3 x 4 format ratio would seem to make more sense, as it would let the subject "breathe" a little more at left and right.

 

Finally, an interesting comment above reads: "The upper half of the photo fails to carry the lower, which to me seems rather static and uninteresting" ﾖ Charles Carlson

 

Besides the "imperfection" of the bulb's glass at the bottom, I think this "opposition" of a light top and a heavy (and sharp, and dangerous-looking) bottom is part of what makes such images graphically strong.

 

End of the day, and although I'm not necessarily looking for an emotion in a picture, I'd at least like the picture to surprise me somehow. This one simply doesn't.

 

So, I'm affraid I end up like Mona Chrome this week - a little bored, despite the obvious photographic know-how and patience involved in breaking the bulb's glass, getting the smoke right, etc...

 

Commandable effort, but here's my question: was it really worth it ? Wouldn't it seem to make more sense to invest time in producing something that would at the same time be very difficult, very nice, AND... very new...?

It is cliche - have seen similar images thousand times. But that said, I never can stop looking at photos like this. I think that the lighting and techniques were veri good here - almost perfect. Composition is ok - with no sense of motion in the glass, but the smoke formation presents a nice pattern. A scientific phenomenon frozen in time - good for science students. I do not see much photographic art in it - must be difficult to do, but does not move or inspire me like many people here.

An excellent technical accomplishment. As what some others have said - I've seen this before - but it's like chrome trim and art deco, no matter how many times you've seen it, if it's well done, it'll hold your eye.

Like Marc, I sometimes wonder why people go to the trouble of doing certain types of photographs. For instance; I can�t imaging why people keep making photographs of tilted wine glasses against poorly lighted white backgrounds, unless it is simply an exercise in lighting. I guess having a lot of existing examples of a certain type of photograph to compare your own work with could be seen as a learning aid.

 

I am as guilty as the next guy of making clich頰hotographs that have been done a thousand times before. They have not been done by me though, and since I am doing them for my own enjoyment I guess it doesn�t matter that someone else has done them ahead of me. I think sometimes that imitation gives us the feeling of being able to better understanding the people whose work we admire and want to emulate.

 

You may not be able to master the master�s craft but the act of doing something, even if it is done rather poorly, does make you appreciate the genius of the original.

It's technically nice, but since we're given no camera/lens/exposure data, the technical aspects beg the question...at least to me...how much is real and how much of it is software enhanced.

 

I think most photographers would agree (but then again, it's hard to get photographers to agree on much of anything at times) that a photograph should generate some emotional response from the viewer. In that respect, this one doesn't succeed for me. It's a light bulb that's had things done to it to make it do certain things. Basically the only thing it says to me is, "This is what happens when I did so-and-so, and I made a photograph of it." The end result is a "hot" reaction that leaves me cold.

The discussion about meaning or emotional impact is really not going anywhere because

the Artist was not concerned with communication on any level other than technical. And

that will also lead nowhere because its all to obvious and relies too much on luck. Paals

best upload, so far, I think is the one of the two hands. But even there he is letting

obvious, sentimental values drive the content value. So far I can't come up with a hook to

make this image interesting for more than 1 minute, let alone 1 week. The whole

'lightbulb series' is empty emotionally. There is no context, no setting, no reason behind

the 'inspiration'. The only emotional connection that is important is the one between

subject and photographer. It is from there that as viewers we can feel that connection

ourselves. Paal imparts nothing of himself and so we feel nothing. Another great POW

choice I suppose, right?

I guess people take pictures first to please themselves and then to please others. Not necessarily just other photographers. I'll bet there are many technically minded people who would get great satisfaction out of having this picture hanging in their office or cubicle.

 

So you've seen the picture a thousand times before. So what. If we discouraged every photographer from taking every picture we've seen before Canon would sell far fewer L lenses. One can learn a great deal by trying something like this and offering it up for critique.

 

I like this picture a lot. I guess I haven't read enough books to have seen it a thousand times. I don't think there's anything too impressive about the timing but I also don't think that's the photographer's intent. I do find impressive the smoke form and how it has been lit. I also wonder what is causing the smoke trail from below the filament.

Without being sexist or frivolous, I wonder if this picture appeals to men more than women? I've haven't thought through why this may be so, but I have a hunch it is...FWIW and IMHO of course. I'd welcome corroborating or dissenting thoughts, of course.

 

As for the concept and execution and aesthetic appeal, its near perfect. Well done, Paal. I admire this picture.

This is Awesome! I too would like to know the technical details of this just for my own inspiration as a photgrapher to put more into my work. This is exactly the kind of photo that gets published every where because of its thought provoking aspects. I say Nicely Done.

Excellent Work.

 

Sue.

If there is a blackout, I know what happened. The light bulbs just sold out in NY. Scott got the last two in Oklahoma. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4312706

From a distance the image appears as an "Electronic Flower". I like the curling smoke which seems to be "blooming". The broken edge of the light glass reminiscent of a leaf. However, the background, dark to light gradient, looks added to accentuate the smoke. It forces my eyes to move down toward the light area, causing a backward flow of the image from top to bottom, instead of a natural eye flow from bottom to top, following the upward direction of the smoke.

 

The bottom section of the light filaments & glass edge also appear to have been accentuated with a black pen. Realistically, this accentuation seems unnatural & a little distracting. It looks to be outlined in PS or even re-drawn, with yet another gradient added to the remaining glass of the bulb.

 

While I do like the idea of the image, I would find it hard to believe that it was created without extensive use of PS or similar software. Interesting capture but only because of the curling smoke. Sorry, but it does little for me :)

I read the discussion and keep going back to the image in an attempt to rationalise why the technophiles can't or won't find any emotion in this image. Death of a lightbulb. How like life this lightbulb is. The shattered remnants of the no longer functioning body. The dying inner self with arms outstretched in appeasement. The final flickering moments of the essence of life as its driving force is transformed into an ethereal puff of smoke. I find it a very surreal image. The technical skill of the artist is evident. Its beauty is in its simplicity. Cliched or not, I doubt that the "moaners" and "knockers" would be able to produce an image of this quality. There IS more to it than meets the eye. Perhaps the artist has imparted more of "himself" than we care to acknowledge. Certainly one I'd like to hang on my wall. Congrats on POW, Paal.

Rick- I might agree with you about not being able to recreate the image if it had not been done so many times. I always thought it must have been an specific assignment for a photography class. This subject matter has been done over & over. What I think makes this particular image interesting is the shape & definition of the "smoke", not necessarily the broken light bulb :) Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong :)

I agree with Rick.

I can easily keep looking at this shot many times over. Yes it may be overdone (as are all the bird/flower/nude girl/insect/sunrise pictures around here) but I think this version is very well executed.

The glass and filament are razor sharp (the image quality and the item) and the capture of the smoke is nothing short of beautiful. I can't understand how someone can look at this and say it is static/uninteresting. This is one of very few photos which manages to capture a bit of movement in it. The softness and flow of the smoke balanced with the jagged violence of the glass is great. The lighting is wonderful. I think a pure white or black background would be a bit bland. This gradient is much more appealing.

I may be a nerd, but I'd gladly have this on my wall.

Very well structured and executed. Awesome shot.

Apart from the question of the aesthetic value of this shot, I am still impressed by the fact that metal can burn, not merely melt. The smoke is a tungsten oxide, and possibly some other things. I am fascinated by that fact, but I concede that I am a nerd. I wonder if any nitrogen compounds are also found as a byproduct of this reaction.

 

I see landscapes, portraits, and nudes here all the time. I don't see too much pure science, and this is really not all that common an occurrence, regardless of how many times it might have been done in photography classes. The typical art student has no clue as to what he or she is witnessing.

 

I would be equally fascinated if someone were to cut off a piece of elemental sodium as if it were cold butter, throw it into a glass of water and snap the photo as it fizzes around and forms sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas, and then bursts into flame. I have seen that perhaps twice in my life. I could have seen it many more times, but pure active metals are very expensive--and dangerous. The mere fact that elemental sodium cuts like butter fascinates me. The fact that the element that combines with elemental chlorine to form the salt that fills our veins and every cell, and that we sprinkle on our fries, can also cause an explosion when simply thrown into a glass of water fascinates me.

 

I like the fact that silver halide crystals, when exposed to light, can be used to produce images. I like that as much as, or more than, most images.

 

People like different things. I don't expect to make PN over into a science site, but there is a lot going on out there that we have come to take for granted, and it is fascinating.

 

I want someone to capture the flash-boom (from a distance) when molar quantities (2:1) of hydrogen and water spontaneously combine from time to time (no one can predict when) at room temperature (!) in the presence of water as a catalyst--to make even more water. I wonder if that has been photographed yet. I doubt it. It is a very fickle reaction. No spark is required (!), just a tiny bit of water (!), the reaction product, to serve as a catalyst.

 

I am even fascinated by the fact that ice floats rather than sinks. Let's have a good shot of a glass of ice water. Hell, yeah, let's hear it for water and air. We tend to take them for granted.

 

--Lannie

Pardon my ignorance but does the photographer know when his or her pictures becomes POW? If so, Paal, it would be very nice for you to chime in at this point to address what you did to create this picture. Specifically, I am interested in how you captured the smoke. What lighting did you use? Is the smoke emphasized using PhotoShop? Absent that, can anyone else suggest how the smoke is captured? Thanks.

Landrum, I enjoyed your post -- a very worthwhile contribution to this discussion. It's interesting how much one's personal experience factors into the appreciation of a given image. I'm sure my background in biology had something to do with my enjoyment of last week's shark. If only I'd taken more chemistry while in college.

I like the piece, great movement and monochromatic look, with that little bit of life still hanging on with a beauty of color. And and I like the series he has done on this subject too- quite a few excellent images. If they we not done to perfection, then I could see the lack of appreciation from folks, but they are each and every one well done.

 

I too can see where there would be a run on bulbs at the stores- even if I wouldn't be in that crowd. Keep up the excellent work; I especially like your self portrait.

My guess (on the lighting issue) is that no fill/front flash was used. The background (a wall?) was lit from below to create the gradient and provided all of the light in the shot (except for the burning filament). The smoke/filament/bulb are all essentially sillouettes.

Probaly alot harder than it looks. Never been able to pull off something like that myself (haven't really tried I suppose).

So, after reading all that has transpired since yesterday, I thought gee, maybe I am missing

something, so I started thinking how can I connect with this image?

 

First, I thought ﾓtouchdownﾔ, a referee gleefully throwing up his hands as the home team

scores, but I couldnﾒt really get too far with that.

 

Then, maybe ﾓstick ﾑem upﾔ, a connection with a bank robber and crime, couldnﾒt make

that work either.

 

But then it hit me, Burningman! Takes me back to Nevadaﾒs Black Rock Desert and the

annual Labor Day ritual or anarchy and art! So I pulled out my cd with my archive of proof

sheets and relived the experience-a poor proof snap of the ﾓmanﾔ with arms down and

burning, arms up, attached. So, maybe this image did do me some good after all!

 

Seriously, tho, to those that have questioned the technical here, there really is nothing

here that screams photoshop or digital correction. 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. A flash or highspeed shutter catches the smoke with no

problem. A fallen piece of the burning filament creates the smoke trail from the bottom.

Nothing here that would need to be created post.

 

Mark was right when he talked about crowding on the sides, which probably makes the

image feel more loose to me by elongating it and distancing the action(smoke) from the

rest of the shot.

 

Chris, even a commercial shot needs to have more impact to it and the design should

definitely be strong and have some dynamics to it. But there are probably elements that

could be sold as stock-like the smoke, to someone. I just think I have seen less dynamic

subjects shot with more impact that this.

 

Lannie, I think hits it on the head, this shot lives on the curiosity we have with such

scientific things, whether we are male or female, and that is certainly a valid level of

enjoyment. But I still think there are other examples of this shot, as Mark and Jayme

pointed out, that tell tis story and are more dynamic and interesting as photographs. I

actually find the series in Paalﾒs folder of the smoke inside the light bulb much more

fascinating on several levels.

 

By the way Lannie, your word smithing on Paul Simonﾒs song on the last POW really upset

Kote', my son, but my daughter, Vera, thought it hilarious!

I respect fully all those that up till now have put questions related to how Paal made this photo, what chemical reaction we are observing etc. I must say that I personally do not care, I have no intention of trying to repeat his trick. It is not my type of photo.

 

That does not mean that I cannot admire the scene. I could in fact see the photo in oversize format in the entrance hall of a hightech multinational so for me it has a public and maybe even a market. But in my eyes it is not what I look for when I work on, or look at photos.

 

It was mentioned by someone that the scene has been made hundred of times before. That might be right for the event maybe, but the particular scene we see here is truly unique as far as I can see (the form of the cloud for example), but again that does not, in my eyes, make it into a photo that I would remember or go back to many times to contemplate.

 

This being said, the problem I have with this photo is that it reminds me of a long series of photos that I deeply admirer and that are part of my personal imaginative museum of photography which I�m sure I share with many. I�m referring hare to photos like the photo of Edgerton of the bullet passing a balloon (1940); or the photo of Feiningers of a helicopter taking off also from the 40�s or some of the photos of Moholy-Nagy � in short, Paal might find himself in a very fine company of great photographers. And yet his photo is lacking the complementarities of textures in the photo of Edgerton, or the reporter style of the photo of Feininger. In short I think the problem with this photo of Paal is that he has gone too far in ensuring a perfect technical shot and has killed any emotion.

 

Anders

Nice shot, kind of cool, and I learned a little something about photography and science from reading the comments.

 

But, like Marc, I doubt I'll be able to remember my first time.