Untitled

Fantastic. And it's great you went to the trouble of creating this on film.

Are the largest "droplets" marbels of some kind?

Excellent conception and execution - neat mystery also

I just cant believe this is real however this is one of the coolest photo I have ever seen, what a magic.

Jim, I just wanna pay my respect for your skills and this work. It is not my 'direction' of photography so I find it fair to stay back with rating. I frankly have no Idea how to rate that, and I don't wanna follow the 'main-stream', nor wanna rate it down. It really deserves a place in the Top Rankings and I like very much too see different kind of Photo-Work mixed up there!

Nearly unbeleavable... no digital manipulation no PS, or 3D.

I have been working with the best and most inventive photographer in Europe and have no idea how you have done it.

Deserve to be at the top.

Congratlutions.

A very great shot.

Regards from Germany, Wilfried

The more I look at it, the cooler it gets.

thanks for the lesson

INCREIBLE BELLEZA!

Very creative work, Jim. Well done. Something bothers me here thou. You give too little info on details of your setup. You've mentioned only your camera body and some (!) Agfa film, but at the same time you made a bold statement that no digital manipulation has been done. I apologize if I repeated someone's words from the comments above. I just don't have time right now to read them all. My rating is purely based on the feelings I have looking at this image with no regard of your, Jim, comments, or others' ones.

Never really gave much thought to you trying to keep this quiet. I fully realize that your images are light years ahead of the process I linked to. It is removed. Sorry about that. I am so use to sharing knowledge that I sometimes forget that it can be a hurtful thing...

 

 

Again, my apologies...

 

 

 

 

I think that the method in the link is not the same as this. That doesn't explain the bubbles on the bubbles or water droplets. Those were water drops, and these are bubbles. These bubbles obviously aren't on the same depth. I have a couple of theories. I've seen some glass work where there's a 3d image inside a block of glass using tiny bubbles. Maybe this is a close up of some bubbles in glass. Or maybe, these bubbles were made using a syringe in a thick gel. That would explain some of the other shots where the bubble placement is very controlled.

Yes, the link is of the same concept but is still very, very different. I have been doing these for many years and have had a lot of practice. This wont happen the first few times you try it.

hahaha, oh well. Jim, you must love it that there are a bunch of people scratching their heads. Probably better not to say exactly how it's done, because then you'd get a bunch of copy cats, which I really woudn't want to see.

Keep your secrects - just keeping posting more like this for us to enjoy!

Reynold's wrap or Christmas foil? Either way it is an extremely effective image. Fun stuff.

Yes, truly fantastic.

A method?

First, I thought about hot metal or plastic balls dropped into boiling water.

See http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1253495

Close, but not true. After several hours sitting at my TFT and examining the rest of authors folder, let me make my final suggestion:

Glass box is filled with (hot in this picture, just below the boiling point of gel- to make water drops to look like rounded balls, cold in very first ones) clear transparent glycerin or organic gel. The bottom of box (in order to make all of us fool) is on the left upper corner of a shot. You can see a blue fire (Jim is cooking?- no, just heating the gel) on the reflections in that corner.

The author drops hot water (clearly above the temperature of boiling of gel) into box from top. Red and green stars on the walls of box add some fun. Maybe in some nice day Jim made a shot of his palm on the box and has seen a picture of a palm on each bubble anyway a very good idea.

Lens is probably macro. Flash with reflector is used aside from camera, or the box is standing just near window. Camera is on top-side of box. The (pretty dark) room has 3 small windows and one large window on one side, and at least one window on the opposite side (where the box is).

Great.

Am I right, Jim???

Tell me, please. I will not sleep tonight!!!!

Kiev. Ukraine.

 

you know, i'm one of those guys who sits in the auditorium and wonders why folks are smacking their hands together. applause seems more and more a chore that, to avoid the hurtful gaze of one's fellows and the sanction of one's spouse, one obliges. largely, it seems to me, our responses to art are carved out of this obligatory hooplah. consequently, we grow less and less capable of the aesthetic experience, even as we grow more and more starved for it; and as incongruous as it may seem, it is when we begin asking "how", how did he do that--which in turn means, how can i copy that, how can i appear to have that man's wherewithal--that art is most dangerously assaulted. the camera is the nail of choice for most folks trying to sacrifice art to technique; after all, the camera is little more than witness, which in turn means it is rare, and disappointingly accidental, that the medium and the expression transcend the technology, and represents the creativity that many of its users lack. in the old days an hoplite without courage was an oxymoron; in ours, the artist with a camera is--if by artist we mean transcendence of technique, uniqueness of vision, and consistency in commanding both. as for consistency, i can't say, but here truely technique tamed and the visually unique are in full bloom. thanks for this.

 

and in summation, let me categorically state, i firmly believe, had this photo been taken with a nikon, it would have been much better. ( :-] )

frankly, it doesn't matter if its digital or not. are we looking for some objective journalistic truth in these bubbles? i'm not, so it doesn't matter to me.

 

they're just pretty bubbles, nothing more, nothing less. doesn't really interest me

Great work.

 

One of the employees at the local camera shop did something similar with a Canon lens that goes 5:1 and a bunch of extension tubes. I'm guessing that you did something similar here?