Water-games

The sunbursts play on the trumbling stream of the water by-pass.

 

Thank you for your see-time, and any critique!

It's very pretty while stretching our knowledge of water's ways.

 

Max

c

"c" ????????

Ohhh... I like it! All the tones and the shading, and then the form. Very nice.

Spactacular! Great photo!

Great, tight composition, but maybe just a tad too light for my tastes, but not by much.

I think its amazing how well you kept the form of these water patterns and yet they are soft and flowing. Very interesting!

This has a nice balance of movement and form. I like the fine detail in the bottom right corner.

Beautifully done. The balance of dark and light are supurb and the flowing motions are captured perfectly. A fantastic water shot.

It feels very 'Zen",I like the subtleness and the toning !Congrats!

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. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

When including images, please make sure they are relevant to the discussion, not more than 511 pixels wide, sufficiently compressed and make sure to enter a caption when uploading.

Wonderful form and composition. It still leaves me trying to work out the flow though. It certainly grabs attention and stimulates thought. Excellent.

We read its water, we see silk and feel a feather. Its this particular blend which makes the picture.

Long water exposure= Kodak Intro To Photography, Basic Books Series. Pretty pic but nothing to chew on.

Pretty, but not enough by itself. I think it'd be great in combination with your "Fraternity" flower photos and your "Desert Still Life" and maybe something else...clouds, ocean..but staying very abstract.

 

I like the squiggly highlights...it might be fun to rephotograph that water various ways, adding more bright, squiggly highlights...mirror or intense flashlight.

Might be a bit more to chew on than you think. First off, the blown out right side of the image. Needs to have the highlights restored. Also the water looks like it's flowing left to right. How would it look flowing right to left? Maybe a bit of a Kodak moment here, but still it offers a view of nature that is natural and the cut isn't as normal as just a time ex of a waterfall.

Interesting- What diffraction can do to a photograph and would catch the attention of some people!

 

Does the 200mm Minolta lens actually stop down to f/64?!

Correction: Water IS flowing right to left. How about left to right? Someday I will get my left and right straight.

Actually, the original image, flipped left to right, would make a nice pair with something vertical, shot head-on.

Nice and tight composition makes it almost abstract. Good shutter speed for the water's motion. I like the small swirls at right

I'll second Ken's comments about the quality. It's a great abstract and holds my attention. The sun dancing on the water makes it; otherwise it would have died on the vine.

An image like this usually works best with SOME type of focal point from my experience. Whether a leaf, dead branch or most commonly seen, some type of rock formation. A well placed stationary subject acts as an anchor of sorts and gives the composition a foundation. Here, in this image, I find that element to be missing and somewhat needed. In addition, this is not a very colorful image, nor really very interesting from my standpoint. As mentioned above the highlights are a distraction on the right side of the scene as well. So then what does that leave you with here? There are some interesting textures in the water itself due to a rather slow (four seconds) shutter speed. But that's just not enough to make this one anything special to me. Though I must add, after looking through this photographer's folders, he has some truly outstanding work. Most notably his "Lakes" folder. Beautiful images there!

Nice photo, well taken...

 

Well, ok, this POW doesn't move me very much, and it doesn't teach me much about the world, nor I am greatly interested by what I see, as a matter of fact... but... I still enjoy looking at it.

 

I respect and like beautiful photos, when they are really well done, and this one is, in my view. Although I'm not falling in love here, I think it's more than a pretty shot. Why?

 

First, I'd say the shutter-speed is perfectly chosen, which is not a small thing for such a close-up. Secondly, the picture is as soft as a gentle melody: nothing screams, nothing detracts my attention from the main subject. Third, the main subject, the reason why this picture is really nice imo, is the rythm of the water, the curves it draws.

 

Based on the above, I'd like to answer directly a few critiques I have read in this thread.

 

Vincent K. T. wrote: "A well placed stationary subject acts as an anchor of sorts and gives the composition a foundation. Here, in this image, I find that element to be missing and somewhat needed."

 

A comment really worth commenting on, imo. I do agree that stationnary subjects such as a leaf etc are a normal thing in such photos, but precisely, why would we want to follow the norm here? The anchor of this picture is imo the main curve, and I'm fine with that. I find great that Zoltan did not follow the norm in this case: the picture is therefore quite a lot more original (to me) than a well applied "successful postcard receipe".

 

Vincent K.T.: "In addition, this is not a very colorful image, nor really very interesting from my standpoint."

 

Well, that's ok, from your standpoint. From my own standpoint, I'd say I like it more because it's not too colorful, and because the colors and light look at the same time very gentle, natural, and beautiful, which lets the great graphics play their part in my enjoyment of the photo. It's good to take a break away from over-saturated nature shots, if you ask me - although that's a subjective thing too.

 

Vincent K.T. and someone else before him also seemed to agree that "the highlights are a distraction on the right side", but I'm afraid that's misplaced criticism, too. Firstly I find the amended version feels un-natural, whereas the POW feels natural, which is better for a nature photo in my book. Secondly, what's so wrong with a highlight, folks?

 

A highlight is not always a sin. It rarely is, in fact. A highlight is a highlight. When, at lesson 1, you learn in an art school how to draw a snooker ball with its perfect volume, if you forget your highlight, or if you have it grey, you surely won't get high marks... White point there is, black point there is, nothing wrong with that, and that's how the volume of the wave ends up with a real 3D feel.

 

The above "restored highlights" have killed that natural 3D feel I found in the original POW.

 

Finally, how many shots would you think you'd need to shoot before you get curves as nice as these, and a nice composition like this? Could be hundreds, my friends...

 

Respect, Zoltan. Well done.

Hi Marc. If anyone on this site isn't going to have a problem with a blown highlight it will probably be me, but in this instance I think you are wrong. The highlight on the right side is very eye catching, at least to my eye, and takes away from the curve (that I enjoy very much also). It actually forces my eye out of frame. So while I might agree that my restored image takes a bit away from the 3D feel I think it helps contain the eye within the frame. I also think restoring the highlight with the originial and not a previously compressed image would give a more subtle highlight and a smoother look.