1/500

Well, it's all about capturing a moment in time and that certainly is very true of this image

Supurbly awesome :) A great caputure of THE moment - wonderfully done. I'm not a huge fan of the expansive whiteness, but can't suggest an easy fix. great work!

Excellent job. Perhaps 1/500 refers to how many pictures of this platform were taken to get this?

This is a great shot, and I love that it tells so many stories. The only point that I holding me back saying ooohh, aaaahh is that there is not enough contrast between the sky and the water. If the water was darker to give a distinct horizon, I would really love it.

 

One last point....she's history.

Excellent photograph, I appreciate that there are no technical details provided, as something as high quality as this should be kept as far as possible from technical discussions. Smacks of Cartier-Bresson's perfection of timing in composition, something I'm ever falling short of.

 

Bill, above, mentioned that perhaps 1/500 refers to the number of photos taken. My interpretation was 1/500 as the exposure time, which is what conventional wisdom suggests for freezing motion. I don't really expect that 1/500 was the actual exposure, but it is a fantastic title which emphasizes photography's defining feature.

So the picture is timeless? It smacks of C.B in all of his glory? Bah - The guy got lucky.

It is overexposed with very little defining contrast between the water and the shoreline. Other then the gal who is about to have a real bad day when she hits the water - there is no defining element about this picture that reaches out and grabs me. It evoks no emotion ( other thant reading everybody else's posts on this picture)

It is a BW shot that captures a moment in time with the help of a good motor drive. Nothing more. Since these people have been there awhile and more people will probably come, time is probably not an issue, so why couldnt the photographer spend a little more time to take contrast/exposure and filter factors into account when creating this image? He obviously has the ability to compose, however composition and the "defing moment" are just a few of the factors that make up a memorable image. This one is not.

Somebody said early on that the people look like lifeless. Its not just the people that look lifeless-> the image is lifeless.

Moderator note: I made an edit of the last line that was a nasty as well as a completely unnecessary slur toward other posters. Please keep the comments civil~!

It looks like an illustration to me. It's not that I don't believe it's a photo and maybe my monitor sucks, but there just isn't any sharpness or clarity in the image sufficient to convince me it is a photo.

All the action on all the levels indeed makes for a fun shot. Unfortunately, this girl falling back-first reminds me of the famous shot of the man falling from the World Trade Center. Part of the horror of that event is that its shadow can fall onto an innocent image such as this.

Children in Wales is still my preferred photo of this site but this one is maybe the second

Wow - talk about "decisive moments"! This shot is sublime, and one of the finest I've ever seen on photo.net. BRAVO.

He did end up with a image that at first glance looks kind of cool. I like the composition and the compressed viewpoint. It's an interesting capture for sure.

But I cannot ignore the defects, so well delineated above by Loren. It lacks a clarity and sharpness (which could be somewhat from the JPEG artifacts and compression) but the poor tonal range and overexposure is pretty bad. Some will say the overexposure is a quality, and overexposure can be, and I would agree that not every image should be "perfectly" exposed. But IMO it detracts here, at least in the way the overexposure was achieved and how this overexposure is portrayed in the final result. It appears that the shutter was clicked based on the AE of the camera, which with the bright background of the scene deeply underexposed the main subject of the diving tower and the people. A "straight print" of the negative, I suspect, would have given us a slightly underexposed background and an even more underexposed subject matter----the AE, doing it's job, exposing the bright background to middle grey in the exposure of the film. The grainy, too tight tonality of the main subjects seen here seems the result found when one compensates for an underexposed negative by cranking up the white levels in PS and in doing so severely spiking the histogram of the image file giving us the blotchy, grainy tonality of the subjects. I think it may have been better if properly exposed in camera by closing down for better exposure of the main subjects rather than underexposing the whole scene and trying to bring it back later.

It's not so much that I do not want to see a bright, almost white high-key background here. I think that works well here in and of itself. It's just that this same effect could have been achieved while preserving better tonality if the film was exposed better.

Also, I see little evidence in the "once in a lifetime shutter clicks" character claimed by the elf who wrote his/her description of this image. It appears the 12 people in the image are in no hurry to go anywhere and probably kept climbing, swimming and diving for at least a roll or two of film--all in blissful ignorance of the cameraman who it seems used a long tele. In this particular frame was caught some nice poses though and properly exposed, developed and "printed" this could have been even better.

Lastly, just as a comment to the discussion of this image in general, I find it disturbing that some people in praise of this image feel the need to try to cut off critique from others by implying in their comments that to do so would be foolish. It's a haughty attitude, and demeaning to others, that I think this forum could do without.

I hate to make a fool of myself (as I am prone to do) but there is something weird about the perspective on this. Looking at the railing on the top platform, I cant understand the spacing on the vertical posts in relation to the ones directly below. On the bottom platform the farthest rail and post seem to disappear from the right side. The way the people are arranged in the scene make it appear a bit too much like a Norman Rockwell (Rockwellovich?) painting to me. It looks like it was taken nearly twenty years ago

 

This really looks more like a photo of a faded lithograph or print, making me wonder if 1/500 means one in a series of five hundred prints or 1/500 of a second. I also wonder where the photographer was standing when this was taken since the viewpoint appears to be parallel to the center of the platform. It is interesting that the background is completely washed out and yet there are strong shadows and modeling on the platform. In other words, the perceived perspective appears more painterly than photographic. My observation is that this image does not appear consistent with the other images in the photographers portfolio. I would also like to know what kind of hardware was used for this capture and if the image was cropped which may explain some of my questions about the perspective vanishing point.

 

I would really like to hear what Dusan has to say prior to forming an opinion. This is a well constructed composition but Im not sure what to think about it beyond that.

From the photographer's website:

Camera - Practica VLC2

Lens - Sonnar 135mm

Film - Orwo 22

I got the feeling this was actually over-exposed. I'm also having trouble working out whether the splotches in the "sky" are aretfacts from scanning a print with finger marks on it, defects in the negative or discoloration in the background. The last surmise means that there was a big white wall behind them (extending from water line to out-of-frame), and I have trouble with that.

Back to over-exposure. The picture doesn't look too dark in the greys to me at all, rather the opposite. There seems to be adequate shadow detail and little evidence of grain. Grain would "give away" underexposure, and to me it's not grainy. It may be a little soft in focus, but it's hard to tell from here. Maybe it was taken with a crappy camera? Or a lens with scratches on it?

Another indication of over-exposure to me is the very greyness of the whole print, as if it had been taken out of the developer too early (this is another factor that leads me to suspect it was scanned from a print).

O.K., so it's not the greatest print around, but I don't think it's as awful as Rich makes it out to be. Actually, I quite like the effect.

What effect? A sort of haziness, a summery feeling. The especially still water reminds me of a sea in the middle of the doldrums. Flat. Calm. Hot. A good day for a swim.

I agreed with the "elf" about the last sentence. There are various swimmers (Rich tells us 12) in various different stages of diving off the tower, or getting ready to do it again. Let me be the first to issue a non-photographic comparison: it reminds me of one of those Escher drawings, showing a bunch of people in a process that (to me) is reminiscent of an endless cycle, except that it's more cheerful than Escher's drones, continuously walking up the down staircase. The compression of perspective also adds to the "cyclical" nature of the shot as presented. To me, it's the content that's "astonishing". You don't see very many action grabs with such a continum of action, and no obvious flaws, fluffs or half-gestures in any of the positions depicted - every movement is in its place and wholly realised. Capturing them all at once, with such precision, is the "astonishing" bit (no doubt with a good dollop of luck thrown in, as this wasn't a posed, set-up shot, I assume). I suspect the "money shot" was of the diver (not too surprising), and the rest just came along for the ride.

Lastly, to the number of shots in the lead-up to this picture. I see no evidence at all that a couple of rolls of film were necessarily used to get this keeper. I have to say I don't see any evidence to the contrary either, but still, I think Rich's comment sounded a little, well... mean. Why not suspend disbelief (and in my case, jealousy) and grant the photographer a good eye for a decisive moment? If my suspicion about the real subject of the photograph (the diver) is correct, then it's quite on the cards that this could have been a one-off exposure, or a single out of but a small series. The truth is the photographer was there, with a camera, with film in it, and he was pointing it in the right direction... it's easy to discount these most basic of photographic instincts and to comment them away as trivial.

And if the photographer did see it all as it crystallized in the viewfinder... it's even more praiseworthy an effort.

The photograph I've linked to this comment, Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, is a famous one by Cartier-Bresson. I saw him discuss its creation in a recent TV documentary. He said that he couldn't see out onto the flooded terrace; that he just poked his camera through a hole in the fence, but there was no room for his eye. The interviewer was astonished (that word again). He said to the old man, "But you couldn't see what was happening!". HC-B, smiling, agreed and replied, "But I was there, wasn't I?". Parenthetically, I've seen the original of Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, and it wasn't a very good print either: murky, obviously dodged and burned to within an inch of its life. But to have been there all those years ago, in the rain, with a camera, with some film...it's an ikonic shot whose technical qualities (somewhat lacking) are completely secondary to its content. It showed that a certain young photographer had a certain je ne sais quoi (forgive me, it's the only French phrase I know) and was going places.

I think this POW is a fine photograph (and have done since I first saw it, many months ago), lacking a bit in presentation (that can be fixed), but making up for it with great content... and it sure astonished me.

What Tony said, plus I'll add that I don't think it matters if the photographer shot one negative or 1000 - he selected this one to post, and if he did need 1000 frames to get to this one, he should be credited for having the sense to keep at it until he got the perfect shot. How many photos did Ansel Adams shoot from Inspiration Point to get Clearing Winter Storm?

In answer to your question, Joe: more than one.

I bought what I thought was a print of Clearing Winter storm from the AA shop in Yosemite, only to discover it wasn't the shot of the same name. My pic should have been titled, Sunny Day After Winter Storm.

When I had a Praktika (my first SLR), all my shots came out like Dusan's too.

The overexposure works well for me. If anything, I think that it aids the image, because it focuses on the actions of the individuals, and not their overall setting.

 

 

It reminds me of one of those child's toys with the plastic penguins going up the stairs...and when they reach the top of the stairs, they slide to the bottom and start climbing back up again. This is what I immediately thought of when seeing this image thumbnail.

 

I think this image is also most effective in black and white; otherwise the emphasis upon the motion would be removed. Instead, if color was brought into play, you'd see more emphasis on skin tone, bathing suit color, water color, sky color. Then people might really complain. ;)

Tony, your answer is very elfin. ;-)

Thanks Rich. That's two French words I know now.

I dont want to get bogged down with technique but I cant help thinking a tripod was used here. The composition is so carefully arranged. The verticals / horizontals so square. The diving tower so flat on. So flat on that the ladder to the top diving board is produced as a thin line. All the better then to ensure our eyes rise and fall in time with the cyclical route of the divers. Of course the picture could have been rotated but that wouldnt have put the tower flat on. And with software to rotate, wouldnt the same software have been used to mop up the stains? To be able to post this picture suggests the possession of some software. Certainly a facility to crop (or may be the print was literally knifed).

 

I dont find the stains unsightly. In a book on my coffee table the stains would be fine (not that I'm in the habit of slopping beverages over my glossy photo books). Put it in a frame and may be Id want to clean them up if the picture was going on my wall. After all, the stains do not block my way in to this. They are few and far between. Rather, they are there working on my impression of the picture. It assists me to regard the picture as a memory of yesteryear. Though not yet 20 years old, the picture might be regarded as a throw back to pre-war carefree ways. A very enjoyable POW.

When I first saw this picture yestersday, I thought: Wow, great timing!!!. Then on my big PC/monitor I began to doubt if it is a picture or a drawing. Then I just read that I am not alone with this thought

Even at the smallest video resolution on my biggest monitor, people, water, waves, shadows, all look really like pencil drawing. I know that small jpeg cannot render justice to the original scan but

 

So, I really like the IMAGE (not important if photo or not). BW works very well with lots of negative (or positive white) space. It is simple, geometrically pleasing and the scene tell tons of stories.

 

Well deserving of POW (or Image Of the Week).

I'd echo Jean's comments, and I'm glad he made them. The fact that it looks so much like a pencil drawing has been making me wonder all week. Might just be the scan, though, or the exposure.

 

And the way all the figures look so stylised, the way they comport themselves... It reminds me of some 1920s lithographer whose name I can't recall. Wow, that sounds pretentious.

 

But in any event, a fine composition.

This is a great photograph. One of the best POW's in a while, with great subject matter, composition, timing. Lucky for Grbac, while timing the diver, other subjects also took positions at that moment which give the photo great balance. The exposure is excellent. It just captures the eye, and won't let go. I don't understand the need to compare it with the work of someone else. To me, that's just meaningless dribble. I grow tired of reading the name "Bresson" every time a black and white photo makes POW. Let's grow a little, please.

I find much to enjoy in this shot, and some things to criticize, yes. The image (print?) loses a little in my estimation because of what appear to be smudges at the top edge and in some other parts of the image. The exposure and contrast control give the image the feel of a faded, old print, which is a legitimate complaint, but perhaps also part of the image's charm. Do we really need greater detail in the water, the people, or the sky to find the action and experience the sense of the picture? Perhaps not, though here at photo.net it seems reasonable also to ask whether the image could be improved if we had that greater amount of detail. I think it would be different, though I really cannot say whether it would be better. I shall continue to think on it. [Which means, for me, that the POW succeeded: I have something to think about.]

 

The photographically frozen diver, with her impending (possibly bad) landing, makes me think (ready for a strange connection?) of something Gary Larson once said about complaints he received. I wish I could quote it exactly, but he said that he got more complaints than some "action" cartoons because his animals would be frozen in place in perpetuity. For examle, in his comic panel "Tethercat," the cat would be forever swinging on the rope awaiting the strike from the dog, while in the Roadrunner, you see the anvil fall, but then you see the Roadrunner walk away. Long explanation, but perhaps that explains the sense I get of this diver, held in eternal anticipation of her landing, and we do not get to see her complete her flip or see her laugh about her slightly-off-perfect landing.

 

The other folks in the image help give it a strong sense of place, and a way to explore the image for longer, but I keep coming back to that diver as a main subject.

 

Onward.

Super fotka... Odlicna kompozicija... snimljeno u pravom momentu... svaka cast!