diving session ( http://fabiangrunwald.blogspot.com )

Shake it up, baby!

Wow, some people do ride on high horses around here...then again I am just a beginner. I only have a couple P&S's that I carry everywhere ...just in case...

 

This Photo makes me want to look at it more... to me that is a great picture.

It doesnt matter if is creative, technically difficult, caught in 1 or 1000 attempts, taken with a $5000 or $5 camera.

I only have one P&S.... and I wish I had more opportunity to use it, but I'm getting older now, and the opportunities are becomming more and more infrequent. Still, I'm generally satisfied with the quality of performance of my P&S, although it has its ups and downs. One of those laws of nature, you know. Today's newer P&S's have so much more ability than the older ones. I think if I were presented with a ripe tomato like this, I would have shot it off at least a couple hundred times myself.

For some reason, this reminds me of the large food shots that adorned one wall in my college dining hall (which we affectionately called "Ralph"), only this one is a little more interesting. Those shots were technically perfect "product shots" of food that enlarged well to 4x4 feet - they didn't make me hungry, and after a few notices, they just got ignored, but this action capture of food is more interesting because of the added motion element. This shot might not enlarge that far only because of resolution limitations, but it would be arresting eye-candy at that size. The water texture feels like CGI in its smoothness, the tomato is in-your-face real, and the frozen water (like last week's POW, in a way) gives us a chance to study a moment in time which we'd never otherwise be able to perceive like this.

 

This shot does, of course, feel "technical" more than "artistic" in some ways. It doesn't have moody evocativeness or deep emotional content (unless you have feelings about tomatoes that I'd frankly rather not know about). That just makes it a different style of photography, and one which doesn't reach some viewers. One of my personal favorite pet peeves is the suggestion that anyone who doesn't like a POW image is just jealous. While that might be true for some, to cast that as a general statement is, at best, unfounded.

 

Onward.

I feel strange that my statement of "soullessness" echoed in some other comments. To put a few things straight, I don't think this is a bad image. It would make a pretty good postcard or as someone else said a nice picture for a tomato commercial. So it is in some sense a successful picture and if I would still rate, I would probably give it a 6 for aesthetics and a 4 or 5 for originality.

 

But it's one of soooo many eye candies here on photo.net, that uses strong color contrast and the crispness of digital capture as a somewhat supernatural stimulus for what I called a subconcious "WOW" center in the brain, just like exaggerated bodily features (aka boobjobs) are used by certain industries to appeal to the sexually responsive aspects of our brains. This is neither good nor bad.

 

The reason why this picture doesn't get my appreciation is that it lacks something or everything under the pretty surface (that's why I think the comparison to the fernando valley industry is appropriate). This is also not good or bad, it's just my preference of what it takes for me to like a picture.

I didn't pay much attention to who said what when, but someone here is confusing "luck" with "chance"

 

As soon as Fabian let go of the tomato his shot was influenced by chance, which is to say that the bubbles would not be the same on each shot, the turn of the tomato would be different, etc.

 

Luck is would have been if Fabian had knocked a tomato off of the counter and it happened to fall into his water bowl just as the shutter was tripped.

 

The skill and all that the elves are crowing about was in Fabian's vision and set up, in his design that enabled the camera to catch the tomato.

 

Shooting 100 shots addresses the element of chance and natural variation. Luck is when you get one thing while you were trying for something else.

Most people disparaged Pollock's work as well at the time. Now it sells for millions. And so the story goes with so many of our great artists. Hopefully, you won't have to die before folks realize how great your work is. I too agree that 7/7 across the board is well deserved. Congratulations on a wonderful capture!

My first thought when I seen this iamge was that it reminded me of an Escher style print. By that I mean that the background of the image apears to also be top of the image as their is no clear horizon line. The tomato and the water column give it a three dimensional aspect that complete the effect.

 

From a technical nature I belive that it deserves much praise and recgonition, as it is not easy to do this with such perfection.

 

From an artistic nature, I belive that we all have our favorite forms of shape and color that appeal to our eyes and senses. This apeals to mine , it may not appeal to yours. But that does not make it any less of an image or any less worthy of acknowledgement of what was required to create the image.

 

Open minds allow for more creative expressions to plant and take root thereby allowing greater expression to come out of YOU.

 

Is your mind open or does your mind have a pre-conceived idea about what makes a good and acceptable image?

This image really sparked my imagination. I liked it much more once I knew it was one exposure and not an elaborate digital creation (it definitely has a heightened look). The leaves on the tomato also made me think of a starfish plunging into the ocean.

I am curious to know if your tub is white or colored? Did the color cast in the water come from the flash or the tub itself?

Why might one use only the light source of the camera's flash? As Fabian did in this case.

 

Thanks

=)

... about photography and sex: the opportunities are becoming more and more infrequent with age... and still, there is a general satisfaction in both...

Oh, yes, on the subject matter... Admirable idea, excellent capture!

i'm using only the camera-flash because i only have this one for underwater-shots :-)

I see we have, once again, the same discussion about how many attempts it took to get this shot that we had with last week's POW.

 

I'm not sure what logic compels people to dismiss this as a "lucky shot" because he tried it over and over until he got it right, but it is completely irrelevant if it took one attempt or one thousand attempts to get this shot. In fact, it is probably more admirable a result becuase of the one hundred or so tries than if it had been done in one try. There is an inherent degree of luck involved in getting this. The fact that he stuck with it until he got the perfect shot is a credit to the photographer. Few have the perseverence necessary to do this. For those that doubt that, he's described the technique in all necessary detail - see if you can replicate it or if you give up before getting one this good.

 

You might also consider granting some credit for having thought of the idea. As I surf photos around here, I don't see an unusually large number of shots of submerged tomatoes posted.

While I agree that the photo is technically excellent and even quite attractive and eye catching, I scratch my head at the originality rating. There are now 3 POWs featuring an object being dropped in water and 5 where a major component of the subject is a water droplet(s). I don't care how many times it took him to get it right, that doesn't distract from the asthetics of the frame, but it does detract from the elves assertion that it is 'a really difficult picture'. Great shot though.

Regards and congrats.

Maybe it's only a misunderstanding, but :

 

I've never stated that the number of attempts can lower the value of this photo.

I, like you , appreciate the perseverance to obtain a result.

 

But "perfect timing" doesn't mean 100 or more shot...

and " good saturation" ... is this attribute really controlled by the photographer ?

 

So, what I've said is that I cannot subscribe sentences like " technical masterpiece", because the only technical adjustment Fabian made was the pre-focusing (perfect indeed, but not so difficult to do or uncommon)

 

I also not completely agree with some comments like " with a point & shoot you can realize the same photos that you can obtain with a more professional camera" because this kind of sentences are false and not "educative" for someone beginning this hobby.

It's not correct to generate the idea that we can all obtain perfect (technically speaking) images despite of technical knowledge or equipment and despite the subject.

And , regarding money : do you know how many camera have a lower price than the digital S30 ?...A "more professional camera" could be, for ex., a Pentax k1000 widely available on the used markets, with price extremely lower than a S30...

 

The more control you have, the best technical solution you'll find. The limit is , obviously, you fantasy.

In this shot the admirable fantasy of Fabian had a result.

In other circumstances even if with a wonderful fantasy a point & shoot camera will be unable to produce such nice result.

In my opinion, this image can have high tributes for the originality and the vivid ideation, instead that for technical execution.

I hope that even with my bad english , I was able to clarify my opinion.

regards

Sorry, maybe the word 'lucky' was the wrong choice. Let's change it to 'eventual chance' ;-)

I like it. But then, I liked xXx, T2, Resident Evil and a whole bunch of similar movies. I also love Brazil, The Duelists, The Big Blue...

 

The point? Well, I don't care if it's Art - I just know what I like! And I like this. Well done.

the current national geographic has on page 66 a picture of a fat, furry, rabbity looking chinchilla kind of animal native to south america. The animal's fur is medium in tone and is in front of a dark background.

 

On one of the last pages of the magazine is another image of this same kind of animal and some text explaining that the photographer shot several rolls of film, as many as 10 to 20, if I'm not mistaken, to obtain the image pictured with the text. I can't remember, or it was unclear, whether the photo on page 66 was from the same series of shots as the one on this last page, but the photographer did state that he regularily shoots upwards to 30 rolls of film on one subject. Tomorrow I will post the facts as I just glanced over the issue inbetween my normal routine of settling minor domestic troubles and household squabbles

 

The irony of both images, in my opinion, is that neither of them were all that interesting, which is not beside the point: If you shoot 30 rolls of film and still get a borderline dud, what difference does it make?

You're right, Doug. (As usual you hit the tomato on the head.)

Everyone may already understand this, but the images chosen for a magazine like National Geographic aren't selected by the photographer, and are also unlikely to even be the "best" photos of the animal. They're chosen by a photo editor because they fit into the story in some way that makes sense to the editor. The photographer might not think they're that good either.

 

In any case, to me there's still no difference in the finished product if the photographer took one shot or 20 rolls to get the one they used in the story, other than the cost of film and processing, which is completely inconsequential in a publication like National Geographic. Either way, I only see one. While it's interesting to know and understand the process that went into getting that one shot, it doesn't change the assessment of the finished product.

 

We're not grading photographers here on efficiency - or at least I'm not.

I like it. It had immediate impact on me with its color and action. I felt there was a good touch of humor, too (until I started reading the responses).

 

Stop-action photography can show us things that we couldn't possibly see in real life, and this is a good example with plenty of detail.

 

What is the red ring at the edge of the air column? Some have complained about it, suspecting that it might be a Photoshop abberation, but no one seems to have given much thought that it might be a natural occurance.

 

The two circles on the water's surface at the tomato's two-o'clock position.....droplets from the photographer's hand? The air column has not yet collapsed....ahhh, the red ring is a reflection of the tomato off the surface of the water in the vertical calumn....or not.

 

Wonder what it would look like with a little liquid soap added? Or dropped from half or twice the height?

 

Isn't that horizonal line the edge of the bowl perfectly aligned with and to the right of the tomato's stem? Must be a coincidence...or Photoshop again...

 

I gotta come up for air......

As a former photographer and picture editor (I don't know which is worse), I always differentiated from "how I took the picture" and "this is a great picture." Great pictures often come from great ideas, and this is one of those cases. Fabulous! Re the Nat'l Geo approach, it doesn't matter one whit if the photographer stood on his head for ten days and shot 30 rolls of film -- is the image good and does it tell the story?

 

Great shot, Fabian, and congratulations. (I think I'll get an U/W case for my little Canon S330 :-)

 

Gary

How nice of you to capture how much tomatoes love to swim, and how very beautiful the aquatic tomato can be in it's natural environment. Anyone who says that this picture is soulless has never swum with these majestic creatures.