Droplet

I am very honored to have my "Droplet" as POW and I would like to thanks to the PhotoNet editors for this choice and for the nice comment they made on my portfolio. Also I have to thank to all of you for the kindly comments on this photo. I really appreciate them! Nice to be part of this fine community.

Very, very clean and concise image. The fact that the line of the feather coming from the top right corner does not finish exactly in lower left adds an "imperfection in nature's perfection" touch.

 

I like the sunstar or flashstar in the water droplet as well.

 

The slight breakup of the pattern in the feather's upper left corner is a tad distracting but, CONGRATULATIONS FOR NOT LEANING ON PHOTOSHOP TO CLEAN IT UP...:-)

 

A pow image does not always have to be overly complex and full of computer mischief to win now does it.

 

Congrats and enjoy shooting the microworld.

 

db

Great composition and texture! Just wondering how it would combine with last week's frog. WJ

Technically perfect; however, still only a boring droplet. On the other hand, Face in the Dark is a jewel, captures the viewer and asks for deeper thoughts on women's role and the human societies... thanks for pointing us to Ilona's amazing work.

"sometimes less is more" .... and sometimes it is too little.

Excellent. I'm curious about the highlight on the droplet -- the one shaped like a 6-pointed star. Was that an effect caused by the light source or the lens itself? Way cool.

Great sharpness, excellent composition. The refraction of light makes the picture.

This looks really really nice. It reminds me of a photo sharpness comparison image .

Incredible composition, perfect exposure, and absolutely stunning!! You obviously have an eye for capturing simple images -- yet powerful.

 

ananth

The highlight on the droplet it`s the effect of the sun light through the window.

This is so simple and yet so fascinating.

I only would like to see it in colours. I suspect it could be even better.

Simple but excellent composition. Perfect contrast. Great B&W shot.

It has simplicity, clarity, crispness, just about everything that I aspire to with my own, but just don't make it. Thank you for sharing it with us all here.

I echo the earlier comments. It is SO nice once in a while to find a gem amidst the other offerings. Keep doing what you are doing. Your photo makes me wish I'd done it.

Ilona,

 

I just viewed your portfolio after seeing this POW, and I must say that your talent is beyond description. There are many POWs among your offerrings. You have given me new insights into the world of macro/closeup. Keep up the good work.

 

Bill

Yes, it's a great image. An example of Capa's famous rule: "if the picture's not good enough you're not close enough". And Ilona was close enough.

 

Sharpness (as for what we can appreciate in a 72 dpi resolution image) and tonal range, everything's perfect.

 

A well deserved PoW to an excellent photographer.

 

SO perfect, that makes this a ....YAWN...!! really boring thread!!! :-)))

Someone has to make at least one constructive criticism to this long list of praise. So I guess it will be me. This is a wonderful graphic image, there is no doubt about that. It is perfect in that respect. And I love graphics. But, to me it is somewhat removed from reality. A water drop placed on a feather by a photographer. Shot with a macro lens and a strobe (or sun). It screams of technique and the intentional design of the photographer. It doesn't pull me an any farther than that. I am more drawn in by graphic images that are naturally occurring and discovered by the artist and captured by technique in such a way so that the technique is more transparent, leaving me to be in awe of the subject, of the amazing images in this world. This is simply another perspective or criterion that can be applied. I mean no ill will, but just to add at least one constructive criticism for a gifted graphic artist. I do try to apply the same criterion to my own work.

Just to comment on the Star Shaped highlight, it is actually an artifact of the digital sensor. With film you would need to add a star filter to the lens to get this sort of effect but with digital it's there by default and there is no way to get rid of it apart from simply not shooting small, intensly bright lights.

 

As for the image, this is the type of work I aspire to, contrived or not. It is excellent in every respect as far as my eyes can see. I hope to one day produce work of this calibre.

While there is no doubt that naturally occurring subjects (accidental shapes, in design language) are generally far more interesting, we cannot always depend on serendipity. Sometimes we must, as photographic designers, create our own luck through imagination and technical ability.

 

Looking through Ilona's portfolio, this image doesn't stand out as the strongest (IMO), but the entire body of work as a whole is outstanding.

 

Congrats.....Jason

 

Jason, Your comment about serendipity is interesting. I agree that natural designs are more intersting, but I think getting out into the real world and learning how to see shapes and patterns rather than functional objects is more a matter of hard work, training, and maybe a little faith. The same is true for tracking light. Sometimes people give up too easily. I think it is reasonable to have a personal image preference hierarchy that places pure captured moments at the top.

Yep, this is really nice. I tried to come up with some sort of suggestion, but nothing really comes to me. As Nestor said, this is destined to be a boring thread!

 

I like the way the round drop relates to the square framing and the main diagonal. Whether intended or not, this shot nicely demonstrates the geometry and symmetry in nature. It seems to me that key lines generally shouldn't go from corner to corner, but it works fine here.

 

Interesting to read the comments from people who are thrilled that this week's POW is a unaltered "photograph", since it's via a digital camera! Still, I understand what they mean.

The sunstar is not a digital artifact but a natural star caused by diffraction at a small aperature. The smaller the aperature used, the the sharper the angle of the intersecting aperature blades resulting in longer diffraction spikes.

 

The late & great mountaineering photojournalist, Galen Rowell loved this affect as do I. A few my my images on this site have the phenomenon in them.

 

db

I like it very much! Well done! The black and white also makes me look more at the patterns without focussing so much on the texture, I like it!

I like this photo for it's symbolic message about conception and the creation of life. The center shaft appears to be piercing the droplet as though it is fertilizing an egg. The magnification of the water makes the contents of the droplet appear to be growing like a fetus in a womb. Of course, I often think the same thing about every other photo I see, so I am waiting for someone to tell me that sometimes a feather is only a feather. I also thought (for a moment) of computer ribbon cables and the way the vanes of the feather seem to converge at the shaft seeming to produce that little spark of light or electricity. In other words, simple subjects lead to metaphoric interpretations within the mind of the viewer. Photographs are in themselves metaphors for something else, as pointed out in this forum by others in the past. I pondered the star shaped highlight and later noticed the crescent moon formed by the droplet shadow. Then the veins in the feather reminded me of star trails from a long exposure. So, now we can visualize the whole universe in a feather and a droplet. I know what you are thinking; sometimes the universe in the palm of your hand is only a feather and a droplet.

 

Feather or "to feather" has many meanings including turning an oar or a paddle parallel to the water (represented by the droplet) to offer the least resistance through the air in preparation for the next stroke. So, what will happen next? The photo seems elemental, making the viewer ponder air and flight along with water and gravity. Will the feather blow away? Or will the droplet loose its surface tension and fall to the earth? The feather usually represents an adornment while the water speaks of purity and life. There is an effective balance here. I like the color version as well if not more.

 

The B&W version conjures the phrase, "To show the white feather," meaning to betray cowardice. That emotion did not seem to fit the bill so I tried thinking of other meanings. Some of the things that came to mind were featherbedding, featherbrained, and in this instance a feather in the cap.

 

The previous comments on "found" verses "created" photos were also very interesting. It is always exciting to see and recognize great photo opportunities when they present themselves in the real world but I have to admire the creative mind with the ability to produce compositions where the end result is a photo (and a portfolio) as well executed as this one.

 

This is definitely a slick photo and one that I'd certainly not toss in the "reject" pile. In fact, it almost manages to transcend the sterile and vapid imagery of most water-drop shots, but such an accomplishment would have placed Ilona right up there with Helmut Newton and HCB.

 

What's wrong with it? First of all, the photographer is obviously aiming at art, but the final result is the sort of throw-away image you'll find in a kitchenware shop at your local suburban mall, either as a decorative ad poster or on the cardboard tag hanging from a $150 stainless steel pot. In this sense, the picture is actually a "success" and if that sort of thing was the aim, I'll gladly revise a portion of my opinion. As it stands, I accuse the photographer, elf and most raters of being too easily impressed by all that glitters.

 

The second problem has to do with a mastery of equipment and photographic technique. Why is this picture square? Was it shot through a Hasselblad or Kiev 66? While I can forgive a bit of trimming here and there, chopping off a third of what one has framed initially is rather sloppy work. In much the same vein, has the photographer chosen the best medium on which to execute this capture? The digital camera, with it's over-sharpened emphasis on that which is blunt, fails completely in rendering the sort of nuance that could possibly elevate this picture beyond the frigidity implicit in the subject. Also, why make it black and white? Does that seem quaint for a digital capture? Why not a bit of Sepia toning? Why not actually shoot it on a proper B&W film and get some interesting tonality, texture and atmosphere out of the subject?

 

Finally, the so-called "sunstar" is the icing on a cake of kitsch. Like a cheesy smile on child beside a bubble-gum machine in a department-store portrait studio, or the glitter in the eye of a teary bridesmaid, the effect is as sincere/convincing as the sort of cheap Photoshop effect suggested in a prior posting.

 

Before signing off, I should perhaps note that, just the other day, someone on the Leica forum accused me of making "eye-candy" pictures. With that in mind, you can either dismiss my criticisms entirely or take them as the insightful expert testimony of a master criminal. If you feel I'm being rather hard on the photographer, please consider that it's with the aim of pushing her to the greater heights I suspect she's capable of. The uncomfortable--yet necessary--part of such an ambition involves dismissing most Photonet opinion as rubbish.