Moving waters

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

You say its water, but to me its black & white abstract brilliance. I loved it from the moment I laid eyes on it.

All I can say is, sorry i do not like it. It does not speak to me as to others. I just see some flowing water and ice in a very dark B&W.
It is a matter of taste.

First, congrats Bebe, you deserve , is the second POW you win , wright ?!
For me is an abstract very well done , composition, rithm, textures, everithyng work together.
And look like an oustanding , ireal, flowing dreamy landscape.

First, congrats Bebe, you deserve , is the second POW you win , wright ?!
For me is an abstract very well done , composition, rithm, textures, everithyng work together.
And look like an oustanding , ireal, flowing dreamy landscape.

I have to agree with Francesco, it doesn't do it for me either. Additionally, I find the strong vertical & horizontal elements competing against each other

I think the photo takes on an almost charcoal drawing type of feel, at least the waterfall portion. And the bottom has a very different feel to me stylewise. It's interesting to divide up the frame in this way, with such different treatments and types of subject matter. What's lacking for me is a sense of depth. Everything feels flat and I don't get the sense that's intentional here. I wonder about having achieved depth in the foreground that would set the background up differently. I think the water, though not necessarily to my taste, is handled in an interesting manner but the foreground keeps seeming to prevent me from getting there. There's little gradation of tone in the foreground, no real shadowing, and it lays a little too restlessly for me to want to penetrate it. For that matter, even in the waterful, there's little sense of movement even with all the treatment. I think with a stronger foreground and more work to give the water itself a feeling of dimension and fluidity this is a great photographic idea and endeavor. I looked through your portfolio and am impressed by the consistent tone and mood of a lot of your stuff.

Yes it is the second POW, and this one I do like VERY much...it is powerfull, it is in contrast and rythm exceptional dynamic, and I like just the strong vertical & horizontal elements competing against each other, it makes it even more interesting. Congratulations Photo Fun
Els, Netherlands

I must agree with Francesco and Ken, sorry. My eyes are just not drawn to any specific part of the photo, so I find it difficult to look at.

Some will see the horizontal foreground and vertical background, each with their distinct textures, as contradictory, while others will see them as complimentary. Such is the diversity of art appreciation. Knowing that there is an essential, causal connection between the two components (i.e., the flowing water in the background likely gave rise to the ice in the foreground) has me seeing this as an abstract of two complimentary sections. Besides, I enjoy contrast within a given photograph. Thumbs up to Photo Fun for an interesting photograph.

Congratulations!
It is not a bad image. I feel a little disturbed by the perpendicular lines of it. Like my mind is not comfortable with it in that way. It is more of an abstract than a picture of anything real, so I may have tried various filters, blurring, etc. to try for even more abstractness. Than it would have been more of a photo of just light and shadow, with some motion and emotion.

I like it because of the contrasting wave forms - one moving and the other is frozen; one is vertical and the other is horizontal. Good work.

It is a beautiful image with wonderful lines and textures. Nicely done. Dan

Technically, there are some nice things here in the way the image was exposed. The snow and ice have kept nice detail without feeling muddy and the water, while moving, has retained some nice detail and almost has become almost hair-like.

But the moment I saw this posted I had a sense that the image is just very awkward. There is almost a sense that two unrelated items were thrown together here and although I am sure they weren't, it just feels like a photoshop trick. This is enhanced by the seemingly fuzzy dark line where the foreground and background meet--almost like a too loose masking of a layer darkening the foreground or lightening the background.

I should be clear that regardless of those photoshop looking artifacts, I just don't think the two elements in the photograph are complementary. In fact, I don't find the foreground attractive at all. The almost mechanistic lines in the lower left just don't seem to relate to anything else and the closest items in the lower left corner are just distracting. The foreground "chunk" of ice (right-side) again just doesn't seem to relate even to the rest of the foreground and over all the foreground has no elegance or sense of form or flow to it.

As I said, the water in the background sort of looks like hair, which is fine in itself but I don't think this area is all that strong either and without some support elsewhere, I am just left a bit cold...

its nat an extraordinary shot i think , there is two component in this photograph that relate to each other , the foreground is moving at all and is stoping , the background is moving behind and there is no interesting subject in it . i dont know why this pic has received POW !!!!!!!!!!!

An image with a definite call to opinion; you either like it or not. I admit to not having the eye to see this type composition, but looking at it find it's an excellent example of abstract realism. A very well deserved POW to spark discussion... Mike

I am drawn to the somewhat contradictory motion of the image. There is also a strong separation here (on the verge of being too strong - but not quite there) between the foreground and background. The photo definitely screams to me.

I find good mixtures of elements in this photo. There is tension in the composition, tones and textures and this may be what some find distracting. To me they create drama and its mainly why this works for me. I see a lot going on with out a main point of focus which kept me interested and really looking around within the frame. Oh...and I like this a lot! I have a feeling this pick by the elves will generate much feedback and that good too.

I have reviewed most comments and I feel the image is not to my taste but I must comment regarding technique which I think is a nice blend of managment of shutter speed, post process maybe a bit dark. In general I guess the selection of images is to spur discussion not a matter of beauty contest. So the slection has hit the mark as I do not often take time to wade into comments on POW, unless it stirs an emotion. MJ

Well, well... An interesting discussion, for sure... I'll basically agree with Stephen Penland. There are two ways to look at this picture, I think. And both ways have been expressed in this thread. So, "complementary", or "contradictory"...? In my view, when a contradiction is shown so boldly, in such an organized way, then it is obviously meant to be that way. Then, if on top of that, we are looking at ice and water - as it seems -, it is obvious to me, that the contradiction is pointing at the fact that both ice and water are the same thing at a different stage - i.e. at a different temperature, ice being hard and water being liquid... And so I'd conclude that the photographer intended to oppose these 2 different stages of one same thing : water. That's clearly - it seems - what this picture is all about : an opposition. How can this opposition then be criticized at all ? We can surely criticize the manner in which this opposition was staged - organized - within the frame, but can we really have any doubt about the photographer's intent ?!
The way this frame is organized is bold and cold : direct to the point. The two stages - solid and liquid - are simply juxtaposed, one being darker than the other one, and water being apparently further back, and the ice "in front". One may like this approach or not. One may appreciate the graphical value of the lines within the frame - as I do -, or not. But in every case, we will all either like, either dislike, the same things about this picture. That's for me the sure sign of a photographer with a precise and matured eye making a real statement about something as simple as water and ice. Be it just for the fact that the photographer made a strong statement in a minimalist way about 2 graphically strong elements, all I have to say is "respect".
Now do I like it ? Yes. I like it a lot, first because I find this way of making this statement clever, and secondly, because I find the image aesthetically very pleasing. In most of this photographer's pictures, I'd say the same thing : clever and beautiful. Keep going and have fun, Mister Photo ! :-)

I like the way the foreground ice appears to illustrate frozen motion of water, while the water fall in the background accentuates water movement in a perpendicular direction. The background has a dark overall tone while the foreground delivers the icy highlights. This image has a real yin-yang balance. Well done!