Water abstract

So enlighten me...proportional placement rather than balance?Is this not more of a semantical thing or is it really tangible?Earlier you used the word 'weight',IMO the sum of proportional placement and weight together = balance.Am I wrong in thinking this way?

This would not be much of a discussion forum if unsolicited improvements were not tolerated..Define the difference between 'unsolicited improvements'and verbal criticism of any image...and we are in agreement on one thing,Van Sant IS NO Hitchcock!!!

It is funny the way my comments are constantly misconstrued simply because I forget to include little smiley faces at the end of them. I must have mistakenly thought that the caption below the modified photo I uploaded would have conveyed my intentions.

 

It seems to me that by definition, a discussion forum is a solicitation for comments. This photograph does not seem to be so much of an abstraction except at first glance when seen at a smaller than normal viewing size. Since the photographer did not present it at that scale intentionally, it seems just as pointless to comment on its impact as a thumbnail as it does to offer other suggestions for modification.

 

The comments preceding mine discussed cropping and image rotation ideas and how those affect the balance or weight of image elements and composition. The example I posted represents what I feel is the next step in the progression of that discussion. The reason for the suggested rotation is to make the apparent movement read from left to right. At some point our brains seem convinced that things are supposed to flow in a particular direction. By inverting the image the water flows up instead of down which in my mind adds to the abstract nature of the photograph. As an alternate idea, I would consider a rectangular crop at the base of the copper tubes which becomes an abstract flag with pipes and stripes. If I went that route I would also adjust the hue of the blue background to achieve red and white stripes.

 

Some people may consider this to be a very serious conversation about photography but I think it is more about light entertainment (that was an unsolicited pun). In this instance I do not really care very much either way. It is somewhat entertaining to discuss the way that different photographers would approach the same subject from other perspectives.

 

I always make the assumption that the photographer knows best what he wants to convey in a photograph and why. At the same time, I think any competent photographer constantly asks themselves how they can improve their skills and presentation. The smart ones may even consider unsolicited feedback from time to time.

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant "unsolicited feedback that actually improves the image." The comments and alternate versions I saw did not. Then, it just becomes one-upsmanship ("If *I* had done this photo, it would have looked like *this*.) Now, if we are talking about Bernini's improvement on the theme of "David" over Donatello's, that is one thing....

Fico bastante satisfeito por ver uma foto tua, pelo facto de seres tuga, neste espa篮

Quanto ࠦoto acho-a muito boa e bastante reveladora de um excelente golpe de vista.

Relativamente ೠoutras apresenta絥s sugeridas prefiro a vers㯠original pois 頥ssa que revela o teu olhar.

Acho curioso o facto de nem todas as canas deixarem passar ᧵a!

Parab鮳 e um abra篮

Jose Pinto

Tom, my use of the term "proportional placement" in this type of image refers to a division of the picture space (horizon lines in landscape shots being the most common example.) What's going on on either side of that line could be thought of as balance, but I think the term "visual weight" is clearer, balance having more to do with a relationship between shapes on a field.

Thank you all for your constructive critics. Every point of view expressed here is valid and very interesting.

 

Just one thought regarding the abstract concept of this photo. In my understanding, an abstract may not be something you can't identify. In this case you can understand what it is if you look close enough. But that is really irrelevant for the nature of the image. This image clearly isn't a portrait of a some kind of water fall. If that was the purpose then the chosen composition would not be this one. The visual elements included (and specially the ones excluded) in this photograph lead the eye to an abstract pattern. That is, in my opinion, the nature of this image.

 

The question that photo.net asks is more relevant. What makes an abstract interesting? The colors? The composition? Etc...

 

My opinion on the cropped version above is that by using a (almost) square frame the movement of the water loses impact. It becomes somehow a more static image. This notion of movement was one of the objectives when I took the photo (that's why I used a relatively slow shutter speed).

 

Anyway, this was a very interesting thread to read. Thank you all very much for your ideas. They are all welcome!

Obrigado pelo coment�rio Jose! O detalhe que referes (dos tubos que apenas alternadamente deitam �gua) tamb�m me captivou o olhar. Acho que ajuda a tornar a fotografia um pouco mais interessante.

 

Um abraco!

Parab鮳 Tiago pelo merecido destaque de FOW. O teu portf�lio jᠦazia parte dos meus favoritos.

Eric makes an excellent point: form is definately the captivating force of this image. I would not, however, say it is entirely devoid of meaningful content. On the most obvious level the content is water, duh, but more than that it speaks to a particular use of water. It reflects how we have changed the role of water from one of pure necessity to one of pure ornamentation. This image would work well in a photo essay on such a topic.

 

cheers,

Aaron

To me, this really was an extraordinary photo, from the moment I

saw it a couple of weeks ago: one of those pictures for which I

know in a second that I'll never find anything to improve on.

 

And now I see the very interesting POW thread it generated...

 

Some people said they regretted not to have something to

ponder in this photo. In short, the legitimate question is: does it

have any meaning or is it just pretty ?

 

Imho, looking for a deep meaning in a photo like this makes as

much sense as asking an eagle to swim. :-) An eagle is not

meant to swim; it might not be meant for anything at all, by the

way, but if it is meant to do something, that's flying and not

swimming. :-) Your photo has no deep meaning for me, but

that's perfectly ok: it doesn't need one. In fact, just because it has

no clear meaning, it may become an invitation to dream away;

and because of its kinetic effect, it might keep my eyes searching

within the frame on and off for a long time. And these are the 2

reasons why I would personally love to have a print of this POW

on my walls some day: I imagine it would be a wonderful

addition to a very modern appartment...

 

To me, this is decorative art at its best. Now, what about the

crops: imo, they are all much weaker than the original - except

perhaps the one that was perfectly squared and reversed, with a

funny title. To me, "almost a square" is "almost always" a

decision by someone who can't decide. I see no "almosts" in

great art. I see extreme movements and strong decisions. Those

who want to stay "not here nor there" are in fact nowhere - as I

see it.

 

As a little nasty example... A square (and anything symetrical by

the way) suggests peace - yes, that's in all decent composition

books -; so, what would ever fit in an almost square format,

hummmm...? "Answer = an almost peace, Sir..." And there you

go: fired. :-)

 

Beyond these amusing quibbles, I found your reply - and Carl's

post before (I think) - really spot on: there is a progression here,

with the space between the water strokes getting larger and

larger. Therefore, cropping is basically, necessarily, changing

everything, and not "improving" anything. Your framing went for

the progression and an ample movement - there, be it, nothing

wrong with that.

 

Now what about this "imbalance" some people were talking

about...? Well, who said that EVERY work of art should be

balanced - and what kind of balance by the way ? The imbalance

in an artwork can very much be part of the message or, more

likely here, part of the "trick" that makes the image stand out

visually. In this case, the POW says very loud to me "IT'S ABOUT

THE WHITE STROKES". Why so ? Well, it is very clear that the

yellow pipes are what betrays the reality of what was

photographed... If this picture was first shown to us without any

yellow pipe at all, I think we might need a while more before

finding out WHAT THE WHITE STROKES ARE - water...

 

The trick or quizz behind this photo is the following : many of us

were fooled as we tried to guess what we were looking at. A few

seconds later, we found out, and that's what's great about

thephoto imo - the fact that so many people could not see at first,

and then SAW ! We all shared an optical illusion, and the

photographer takes full credit for recognizing the illusion in the

pattern he saw. Full credit for fooling us all for a couple of

seconds, while giving us something really beautiful to look at.

 

In this context, why have more yellow...? More yellow pipes, and

I'm affraid the picture might not fool us so well anymore; more

pipes would also mean that the water would be less important,

whereas it is clearly the main subject.

 

Finally, in terms of "visual weight", I've read here quite a bit of

what I feel was nonsense.

 

HOW DO WE DETERMINE THE WEIGHT OF A YELLOW

TRIANGLE IN AN OTHERWISE MOSTLY WHITE AND BLUE

FRAME, PLEASE ? Nobody explained that, and folks wanted

more yellow pipes...

 

Whereas I personally feel the yellow triangle is already incredibly

strong here... Why strong ? Well, because of its color first; and

secondly, because the upper-left edge of this triangle is the only

diagonal in the frame leading elsewhere than the raw of circles

does. If this yellow triangle would get any bigger or any stronger

in the frame, it would be TOO strong imo, as it would easily

overpower the water.

 

As a conclusion: I think this picture is truly a perfect example of a

purely decorative yet absolutely wonderful abstraction which is

simply based on a little optical illusion. We are fooled for a

moment and then we realize "hey, it's water !" I personally think

it's fun, and quite an achievement.

 

Major congratulations to the photographer ! :-)