1/500

A nice eye, and a really good timing, i like the way the image is balanced and freezed...

Wonderful image in "Rockwell" style. Looks extremely contrived and I too would like to know more about the creative process that produced this image.

Thanks to all for your interest and comments (good or bad ones).This photo is not modified in any way, and was taken from sequence of only three shots taken without tripod.1/500 is time of a shutter (2 milisecconds).The quality of the scan is poor, but the original photo is much better. Thanks to all !

Moderator note: Due to some language difficulty -- I just fixed some spelling so post would be more understandable)

Incredible photo. Defects? Who cares, I could stare at this for hours.

Is it just me, but I find this photo incredibly flat...

Really a great capture of the moment with a parly surealistic mood...

 

Great shooting, carry on!

 

Chris

Beautiful shot. It looks like a perfectly planned collage. It is very balanced and has a superb "retro" look. Congratulations!

I love this photo and from memory, it's probably the best photo I've seen on the net. It is inspiring to find originality alive and well.

GREAT photo. Don't worry about the quibbling about technicalities, the human comedy/drama and the visual tableau is what makes it. I like the fact that the visual plane is narrow (nothing before and nothing after), like space has been sliced as well as time. The title is great too, says it all.

 

It is very reminiscent (in my mind) of some great modernist beach photos by Max Dupain where he similarly found some organisation in spontaneity...he was Australian and taking his pictures there, but it shows the universality of photography and of our humanity.

 

(I hope the 'diver' rights herself or it will be painful!)

OK, so it may not be the most technically correct photograph. To me, people who "quibble over the technicalities" are usually people with the best cameras, best film developing techniques, best paper... and only moderate compositional skills.

 

This picture could be interpreted as being a metaphor for life itself. Everyone seems to be at a different stage, from climbing out of the primordial goo of the water, to climbing the ladder, to jumping, with others only observing or taking alternate exits along the way. What an excellent photo. This, to me, is art. A photo does not have to be grainless with perfect contrast to be so.

OK, so it may not be the most technically correct photograph. To me, people who "quibble over the technicalities" are usually people with the best cameras, best film developing techniques, best paper... and only moderate compositional skills.

This is a pretty uncalled-for generalization, methinks. The best photographers are those who can combine the art and technique of photography into expressing a vision. For us to dismiss any discussion of technicalities in an image so easily, or to malign so quickly those who might discuss them, I think is a denial of part of what photography is about. For one thing, those "quibbles" play a significant role in creating the feel of this image, at least to me. It seems to me valid to discuss their role here.

I completely accept that discussions of presentation techniques without regard to the expression of images are also necessarily incomplete, and that may have been your point. It's just a little buried in suggesting that raising a technical point indicates a lack of personal vision.

I really wasn't too excited at first upon seeing this, but I find this photo grows nicer the more I look at it. I think that may be a testament to its success. There's a lot of socco-boffo images that I never want to see again. This you can read and find more and more to see.

 

The image quality actually adds a lot for me. I think certain values like sharpness are arbitrary and negotiable anyway. The photographer doesn't indicate the equipment or film, but it reminds me of what I'd expect from my Fed-2, and I like that.

 

I don't want to forget to mention Cartier-Bresson, and HCB, Bresson, Bresson...

 

Just kidding.

This photo really has done a nice job of bringing about a discussion about the balance between the technical aspects of photography and what I'd call the intangibles, those aspects of photography that really can't be trained into a person. Both are important no doubt, but if I had to choose, I'd hope to have the latter: an ability to see and to sense those moments that can't be defined satisfactorily by any of us Monday-morning quarterbacks who love to construct, deconstruct, chop, grind and julienne every image we see on here. Without that ability to see the moment, there ain't no amount of technical expertise that can overcome a fundamental lack of something compelling to view and experience in the photograph. For me, a perfect example of that is Robert Capa's famous photo taken in the surf of Omaha Beach on D-Day. Isolating its purely technical aspects, its arguably a horrible photo. But who can possibly contend that it isn't an extraordinarily compelling image that's worth re-visiting for as long as there are photographers who want to understand what makes a picture great. By the same token, on a far more humane level, Tony's example of HCB's Behind Gare saint-Lazare is another ideal example. I can think of another: Rue Mouffetard, 1954. When I view those images, I couldn't give a rat's ass about a possible tilt or a slightly overcluttered background. All I care about is the life and the emotion it portrays. Maybe that's taking it to the other extreme, but a technically well-captured dog turd is still a dog turd, while a less than technically-perfect shot of vibrant, exciting life is still vibrant, alive and an utterly transforming experience for those who have the eyes to see it. As for Dusan's image, I decidedly place it in the latter category and applaud him for his outstanding eye.

Andy - You make a few good points. I do agree that there are intangibles in photography that can trump what would be othewise considered technical flaws. To put it in overly-poetic terms, a technically excellent image with no soul will ultimately fail while an expressive and meaningful image can surpass rule-bound technical flaws.

Robert Capa's image has suffered and enjoyed decades of evaluation and revisitation, and my own opinions surely won't add to the weight of intelligent discourse. My view, though, is that the image succeeds in part because of its chaos, which is strongly reinforced by its technical realities. It is also a historical record of unsurpassed significance. Though Dusan Grbac's 1/500 lacks that significance, if he has achieved even part of its ability to convey a story and compell attention, then he has succeeded indeed.

When I view those images, I couldn't give a rat's ass about a possible tilt or a slightly overcluttered background. All I care about is the life and the emotion it portrays.

In a way, this is a good measure of the success of an image like this. If you are not distracted by such elements in a photograph, then it succeeds. In 1/500, I find myself aware of some technical issues more than others (e.g., the "smudges", which seem easily correctable to me), but they do not detract overmuch from the feel of the image nor from the scene overall.

I'll try to avoid rambling on too much (as usual, too late, I know), but hopefully I've understood your point. Onward.

Congrats on this unique and perfect image that the PSig elves have made me aware of.

Maybe Dusan can tell us what happened to the girl. Many here seem to assume she will hit the water in the same position as she has in the picture. Perhaps they have forgotten that the same high speed shutter setting that can stop her fall in midair can also stop her rotation in mid spin. I believe she will enter the water feet first. How about it Dusan? Micheal F. Meacham

Michael - I don't think her rotation is stopped; it just looks like she's too open to get all the way around. But that's not what's really compelling about the picture...

Looks to me how she hits the water depends on which way she is rotating. I get the feeling she is rotating clockwise as we see her, and will go in head first, if not nearly so.

I have to say, I really enjoy this image. The overexposure doesn't bother me, and though I suppose we could zone system this thing out, it seems that exposing the sky and sea to a grey would have wiped out the skintone of the figures... which, isolated against the blank sky/water, is one of the bits I like the most.

 

Its freezing the figures in the range of poses, in a semi-abstract background, lends the image a surreal air which, reminds me, as it has others, of Bresson. There is also a interesting tension created by the posture of the diving (falling) female figure, which I enjoy.

 

(in composition and atmosphere, it also reminds me a bit of Gabriele Basilico, with the starkness of the image and the isolation of the people in the environment.)

 

One of the few POWs that has jumped out and grabbed me. Congrats.

Peter Apos:If anyone is interested in a similar subject see Peter Keetman's "Highboard" shot in 1957 and made as a silver gelatin print....(See: The Photo Book by Phaidon 1997 pg 238)

Is this the photo you are thinking of?

http://www.ms-collection.com/artists/large/b125.htm

i agree w/ evereyone. this is one of the best pictures i've ever seen on photo.net i clicked on the photo someone right above me suggested a look at, and it was wonderful too.

Great timing. I'd like to see more space on the left. It's not a square and it's not a proper 35mm rectangle. She's doing a back flip and will go in hands first, I think. Congrats.

Christi, I couldn't follow your link. However, I'm familiar with the Keetman first mentioned by Peter Apos and for comparison purposes, here's his "Highboard" . I think what Keetman gains in detail (by being closer) is overcome by Dursan Grbac in his display of rotational movement and "silent" background. For that reason I hold Grbac's the superior picture (which might have been better still had he had a tripod to hand).

Hey! This is Cartier Bresson stuff, SO ignore the criticism if not constructive, and consider that you have a wonderful photo. Thanks for sharing!!!

Daniel,

 

My reasoning for thinking she is going in feet first is that her hands are down by her sides. I believe that if she were doing a back dive, they would be straight out to the side, ready to come together just before her head reaches the water.

 

On another note, at first I thought she was nude, but now I'm not sure I don't see the possible outline of a bikini. However, several of the other women on the tower seen to not be wearing anything. Given that this is probably the Adriatic coast of Croatia, that is very possible. What do you think?

 

Mike Meacham