single photos I wanted to do an abstract portrait of my wife. I wanted it to be creative and memorable. I was fascinated by water drop reflections. So used a window screen over her portrait. This was on the cover of CAMERA CANADA in 1999

I've seen this done quite a few times. I like how they look so much I was going to do one but, I thought it was too played out. I guess not. If you want to see how a shot like this is REALLY done check out PETER KEETMAN's "A Thousand and One Faces". It's in Black and White Magazine's Feb. 2002 issue #17 on page 137.

Not another originality debate.. it seems nothing is ever original enough for some people, but I can't help but feel if we were presented with something totally original, were that possible, we either wouldn't see it or would freak and reject it. This picture uses some phrases from the photographic language to say what the photographer wants, so what? It attempts something different for a portrait and it works. In the POW context it IS original. It also beats using historical precedents as excuses not to explore alternatives, and that seems implicit in detracting from this photo because so and so did it before. The been-there-done-that attitude is really boring. This shot provokes some thought about what a photograph can be, and is a nice refreshing choice for POW, IMO.

 

Someone above had asked about what it would look like if the photograph were taken with a greater DOF. Well I looked up at the technical details to see it was recorded with an F-stop of 22. So how the out of focus background with such a deep focus? That part irks me, other than that I find it's a creative photograph. It is "creative and memorable," though it would be a portrait better suited for a Sci-Fi novelest or fortune teller. I dunno, that's just my opinion. Good job nonetheless!

Original or not, I like this photo a lot. Damn...wish I'd thought of it...of course I'll have to rip it off now :-)

 

One question: was Photoshop involved here?

Your second POW....

 

I saw this photo when I went to your portfolio during your first stint as POW. This one caught my attention then as it does now.

 

This one is top notch. It has a very sci-fi'sh look about it. I love the morphing faces in the different drops. Very creative portrait and fun to look at.

 

I defy anyone to show me a truly original piece of work. Short of the first picture of the Earth rising over the moon's landscape, I haven't seen an original piece since.

 

But.....

 

This does have some originality to it, in that I haven't seen too many like it on this site, and there's what - 300K+ images here?

 

You have a portfolio full of fantastic images Glen. Wouldn't be surprised to see you grace this POW again for the hat trick. Very well done!

Yes it has been done before. So has writing like a group of sour grapers. Miles Davis once was quoted as saying "You spend a 100 years mastering your instrument, and by then your obsolete". In case your wondering what that means lemme clue you in - NOTHING IS ORIGINAL ANYMORE. Everything ever written, painted, photographed or film is simply an interpertation of what we have seen before. Every portrait we take has been done in counless other mediums ad naseum, does that make it bad? Really all you folks that cry out "Unoriginal, I've seen it before" just seem to me to be saying "Man I wish I made POW at photo.net, but since I didn't I'll just trash this photo for being unoriginal". Hell I've seen paintings from the 16th century done with this subject matter.

 

Great shot BTW. As far as wondering why at F/22 there is no greater DOF, the lens was mounted in reverse. A great way to make a Macro shot without having to spend a fourtune on Macro Lenses.

i think it is creative.

original?...hmm yes,in a way. i've seem this same format in a picture of the american flag somewhere else. portrait? well, i can't hardly see the subject, much less tell anything about her caracter or personality. framing could be easily improved by just leveling the image, so you get straight vertical & horizontal lines (if that was the purpose). Glen probably shot this with his wife standing straight and then inverted the image when posting it so we could see clearly the face on the drops, but there are two water drops on the upper left corner that kept the inverted image, hhmmm...i guess because these water drops had a different curvature than the others. interesting.

To Glen: Inspiring. What a great effect Congrats on POW, it's well deserved.

 

Now then:

 

To Cristian: Let's see, it was an mage recorded on film and not altered in Photoshop. So, it's hard to see how it's not a photo.

 

To Dustin: This was taken with a reversed 50mm lens plus two extension tubes focused on a screen directly in front of the lens. It's called "macro," and with the extremely close focus, by definition it's going to be impossible to have a depth of field larger than an inch, or perhaps even a centimeter or shorter. I've done something similar with a 20mm reverse mounted on the front of a 135mm telephoto, and I couldn't get more than about a 3mm depth of field at f/22.

Some inflamatory bits have been edited out. Although well intentioned points were made, we are attempting to keep the debate on the image and not on site politics as these things tend to escalate

if this screening technique has been used before, so what? does someone have to invent an entirely new technique to make a worthy photograph?

it doesn't do a whole lot for me in terms of providing information or insight about the subject, so i'm not sure if it is the best use of the technique, but it has an aesthetic appeal, and is unusual, at least, i have yet to see such an image on photo.net. It also looks like it was set up and executed well.

I'm familiar with Macro photography, but have never heard of reversing lenses before. Something new for me to learn for today!

It's creative and technically very interesting, and not bad aesthetically, either.

I like it quite a bit, and am generally obsessed with images as true to reality. But for me I think it would work better if it were two exposures sandwiched together in photoshop; one with whatever aperture would provide just another depth of field to retain the screen, and another just-slightly-out-of-focus portrait of the subject from the same locale. Put 'em together so that the faces are pointing up in the same direction & you'd have a phenomenal image to me.

I think it's very interesting what you've done here and it has a lot of potential to be a great image! It has good color and I like all the different images of your wife. It's very distracting that I can see your wife's image upside-down and blurred in the background. What could make this better (I think) would be to have all the squares filled with water or maybe have them filled in a checkerboard pattern. Possibly the same idea only instead of using a screen, us a bubble blower loop filled with soap or even the bubble itself. I think you've done very well creatively and it's a good idea to start with! Keep working on it!

Well, i like the concept but i saw it some time ago in Petersen's Photographic magazine. Instead of a face, that picture has an American Flag on it. Let's be serious about originality. I could copy any POW with the hope to be the next one.

Its a 10 for me

While the execution isn't perfect in my opinion, (and I don't have the time at the moment to go in to why) I love this image! It's amazingly creative, and I commend you for it. Very interesting, and very unique, it's very fun and I definitely think this is a wonderful idea.

I'll tell you what's not original: calling people who have the guts to critic the image "sour grapers". Thank God they exist instead of a bunch of sickly sweet "ooo, this is so wonderful!" comments. There's photosig.com for that.

Yes, although not altogether original an idea in and of itself it is a nice twist on the "beads of water drops on glass with a flower behind" image. I've always liked the overall concept and while this one perhaps could have been more carefully executed to create a more "enduring" and perhaps more professional look it's not bad at all. Congrats.

Crtiqueing a photo for being just "Unoriginal" is no real critique at all. It's just as bad as gushing needlessly.

 

There is nothing wrong with strong critism, when it actually has something to say. Simply writing it off as "unoriginal" is total poppy-cock.

 

May as well write off Ansel Adams, since other folks had already done landscapes, or Eddie Adams since others had already shot battlefields.

 

I stand by the sour grapes statement.

 

One thing that this particular photo brings to mind is the old Zen concept of the universe really being made of an infinite number of waterdrops haning from a web. We see them from afar, and thereby only see the universe in reflection.

If I am ever taking a photo of a fly screen manufacturer, I might just try this technique. Love the photo.

First of all I like the photo, and it is a nice example of photo of the week. have I seen this technique before, oh yeah, in the pages of darkroom photography, popular photo etc, etc, it is breifly covered in John Hedgecoe's guide to color photography,

the idea is not new but then again very few techniques we use are new only the idea is new. The techniques are mearly tools to get to the final image (as an aside note photoshop is just another tool sorry personal opinion) the only things that bother me are that this is a set up shot like in a studio why aren't the mesh wires parellel to the outside edges of the image, also I would have manicured the droplettes a little diffrently and I would have tried to do it live or with a tinted B&W. But that is only my vision and we each have a unique vision otherwise all we would ever do is place our tripods in the Ansel Adams memorial tripod sockets and shoot half dome over and over again.

PS aren't these dropletts refracting the light not reflecting it?

I agree with comments above evaluating people's need of bashing a POW (or any other picture on this site) because of its "lack of originality". The problem has been talked about a million times, but apparently, it can't be stressed enough. That is why I agree with comments Ive read about changing the "originality"rating to "cleverness". There are practically no "original" ways of executing a photograph, but there are countless "clever" ways of doing it.

 

I don't agree with the comments of having the background face more in focus. While experimenting never hurts, there is something called "hierarchy which must almost always be respected, and the out of focus background helps this. The most important elements are the droplet-faces, not the background face. One of the most perfectly squared droplets is well placed near the intersection of thirds, so I think the composition is quite well.

 

Cheers, buena foto.

I'll tell you what's not original: calling people who have the guts to critic the image "sour grapers".

Very true. Some genius who can't stand the thought that other people don't agree with him does it every week.

Nobody was critiquing it as unoriginal anyway. We were simply trying to put an end to the initial stream of tyros wetting themselves over a trick we've seen a thousand times.

You're free to think it's original or it isn't. You're free to think people who criticize it as original or unoriginal are right or wrong, or that originality is important or it isn't. (Personally I think there are original bodies of work, but original individual photos are pretty rare).

But when someone attributes, without a shred of evidence, nefarious motives to people he knows absolutely nothing about, that obviously says a lot more about him than anyone else. Assuming that people who disagree with you in subjective matters are objectively wrong is one level of self-delusion. Concluding that their opinion must be the result of some character defect, which you then advertise widely, gets into the realm of zealotry.

That's very very cool a photo!

I ever tried reversed 24mm and 50mm but never came out with such great idea! Great shot!

Very cool. very creative. Not sure what it is that is keeping mr from the 10 on the aesthetics, yet. Original? YES. Sure everything has been done. I haven't seen this in any photos I have looked at, yet. Even if I had, it took thought, technical knowledge, setup, and creativity to capture this image. If there was some manipulation in photoshop, who cares? It is a great image. KUDOS!

I find the image gimmicky. Simply, the distortion doesn't relate to the subject. Its a clever visual trick that doesn't communicate anything. Ultimately, this is the point that frustrates me the most about photo.net - there isn't enoguh discussion about the relationship between image and idea - this usually becomes an issue over the POW.

 

As far as originality is concerned, the image is certainly a creative use of materials. However, I don't see an original message here - and I do think originality is best measured in the message.