Untitled

This picture is just fine, but I'm afraid I have seen it and its brethren a million times in a million different configurations, so it does nothing for me. It is at least well exposed. I am not quite sure why the photographer took it and selected it over any of the other, many, alternatives that were available on that particular shrub or tree, as the composition or lighting do not strike me as particularly interesting.

I agree with Robin. 25, 50 years ago this is a fine piece of art. Today it's just another digital snapshot turned into "art" by making it B&W. That said, it's a really nice image and I like it.

Seems to me it's a rich and well-executed rendering of a popular type of photographic image, one that has a long history. There are some photos that practically everyone is going to try their hand at, partly because of the universal appeal of it, partly as experimentation, partly as a homage to what's been done before that works. The originality won't come in the form of the idea or even the execution. It will simply come in the fact that it's "mine." Photographers often aren't trying for originality as much as they are wanting something of their own. This feels accomplished to me. No, it doesn't tell me anything new or show me anything in a brand new light. It's just a good photo and one I can somehow tell pleases the photographer. The photographer, IMO, owns this photo and has shown confidence in taking it and presenting it. That's good enough for me in this case.

As I look through Esteve's portfolio, I am impressed by the photographer's willingness to experiment and try different takes on some tried and true ways of photographing. It is not all to my taste, especially some of the mechanical blur impositions, but I do see an attempt at creating a visually stimulating world and many of the base shots, even before the post work, have enough going for them to make them usable raw materials for a further quest. The portfolio concentrates on geometry, shapes, patterns, while it's also varied enough to show openness to different genres. The folders are well organized and each has its own rhythm and harmony while together there's a sense of orchestration to the whole.

I, for one, like this image a great deal. I find the photographer did a great job with the composition and perspective; the 2 dark branches lead the viewer's eye toward the center. I think the tonality and detail are spot on in this instance, the result being our being introduced to an illogical world of water droplets. And, no, it isn't necessarily the same world as presented in other similar images; it is the world Esteve created for us.

It's just fine, but if "novelty" is a necessary criterion for selection, well,
people who live in glass houses, and all.

I like the image. While I've seen similar images in this vein done more cleverly, there is something exciting about exploring the world through the lens and seeing something interesting and clicking the shutter. The spirit of exploration and discovery is there and though simply seen and executed, it still has that sense. The B&W rendering works here to help abstract and enhance the graphic power.

I feel this would be a stronger composition if the "subject", the sharply focused area, weren't place so bulls-eye dead center and bit of edge burn would help focus the eye into the frame.

These are pictures one has to make in order to stay curious and delighted in capturing the essence of the natural world. Cleverness can come later.

It's a good example of a familiar theme many of us have explored. But it isn't easy to do well. I like this example because it creates a sort of resonance and reverberation - rather than obvious echoes or mirror images - in a repeated pattern of triangles throughout. It's like a jazzy version of a favorite pop song deftly done by a playful master of improvisation. And overall the composition has a pleasing arrangement of segments that compliment rather than clash, without too-obvious symmetry.

Novelty is just one of the criteria one can use to critique an image. After all there are millions of pics of Yosemite's Half Dome. One could reproduce Adam's legendary photo and the new one could be just as good a photo, but it clearly would not have the same value as the original. It's not necessarily the most important criterion of course, but it ranks up there.

I like the composition, the way the is "cut" with the water drops decoraiting the tree
branches. Even though we have seen many of this kind of photos, it is well executed .

Very beautiful!

http://s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/ http://2.s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/

This image gives me the feeling of fresh air in late winter/early spring, when the first rainfall starts melting the snow (this would have been in my country of course).
The tones are nice. The placement and depth of focus, as well as placing the focus of interest in the center of the image balances the main motive with the (presumably) quite messy background so the motive stands out.
I am not sure if it would stand completely on its "own feet" (maybe it would), but I believe this image would fit very well into a series about nature in late winter/early spring. Yes, I like this image.

Regards,
Frode
(and excuse my English, It is not my native language)

It's nice.