Light bulb

Thanks for looking.

7 Brilliant image. Regards John

Paal, very well executed. I'd be interested to know how you lit the smoke. Again, nice work.

The way you've managed to freeze the smoke and still leaving a bit of flame at the bottom metal is amazing and impressive. A real outstanding piece of photography! Just curious, how many lamps did you waste do get a shot like this??...

Amazing shot, well positioned and with very good balance. A small yellow-orange flame is really well-chosen.

I don't know how you did it...but it is really an amazing shot!

 

Eli

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.

Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum. We have this forum because future visitors might be interested in learning more about the pictures. They browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved?

So, when contributing to this thread, please keep the above in mind. Address the strengths, the shortcomings of the image. It's not good enough to like it, you should spend some time trying to put into words why that is the case. Equally so if you don't like it, or if you can't quite make up your mind.

Let's make sure this forum is a wonderful learning resource for future photographers!

Thank you and enjoy!

Very creative idea brilliantly executed. I particularly like how you've lit this, producing the eye-catching pattern of shadows on the bulb and in the smoke.

 

Since the image has been selected as POW, please do give us a detailed description of how you shot it. Everyone will be curious.

Super nice, I like it for both the technical aspects and its aesthetics. Looks like a little mushroom cloud at top. -Greg-

Brilliant, I always admire these kinds of pics, I don't have any idea of how to do this.

It is really interesting to know how to.

 

Congratulations to an extraordinary shot.

I think the shutter was triggered at the same time when the power switched on (customized?) and the light bulb was broken before that.

Yes, I agree with Chris. I would love some details about this shot including the camera, lens and lighting used. The idea is original and brilliant. The execution and the results are even more so appealing. Congrats on a well deserved POW.

Just curious about the background lighting--did you use a graduated ND? I think it's a really creative shot but I would like it a slight bit more if it was against a uniformly white background.

I spent ten years at factories in Ohio, USA making those things. The details are very well depicted. I assume that the lamp was first broken and then energized. The filament would burn up quite quickly.

 

Getting the perfect little "mushroom cloud" might have taken a few lamps?

Spectacular image Paal! The lighting is very nice and please do share your technique! I would like to try this sometimes.

 

The image itself however, doesn't move me. It might be because of the cold tones and the skeletal subject spanned over a great empty space. I'm not really sure. Others might put the finger on it better than I.

 

I enjoy much more your other version of this, with a black background. The smoke trail is wider making for a more symmetrical image and is more appealing for this type of subject. It also complements the subject better...a light in the dark goes out...

 

But this high key version on second thought might be more original and thus would nicely sit in a contemporary art museum IMO. But I feel it would benefit from a nice wide smoke trail like your other shot.

 

Your capture of the smoke is simply one of the best I've seen and 'Disturb the Satus Quo' intrigues me and would've been another good POW IMO. But my favorite shot out of your portfolio remains 'Father and Son' which is just a fantastic and strong image. For me, it is your best.

Keith has it. Even pure elemental tungsten oxidizes rapidly at high temperatures in the presence of ordinary air, which is why light bulbs encapsulate little vacuums. Tungsten itself has high resistance to electrical currents, which is why heat and light are produced in the first place. The amazing thing is how long the filament lasts in the absence of air.

 

The beauty of this goes beyond the technical facts. I've actually thought about shattering the bulb without damaging the filament to see how long it would take the tungsten to ignite in the presence of air, but I never once thought about taking a picture of it.

 

Congratulations on being awarded Photo of the Week.

 

--Lannie

So, obviously, by the comments here, an interesting subject and technique to many. There

are some nice things going on in the image, the smoke ball is nice and there are some

interesting masks or faces that seem to be in there. The way the light travels through the

glass stem is nice.

 

But, all together, I find the photo not very interesting-sorry, I am doing it again. I really

don�t find the overall image particularly well designed, it does not seem to be telling any

story-just feels like a broken bulb that was set up and ignited- and I certainly don�t feel

any emotional impact or any immediacy in the image-like in others of this nature I have

seen. The glass at the bottom gives no sense of motion and almost looks like it has been

set and held there and is an odd, uninteresting shape at that.

 

So, for me, it ends up feeling like an exercise in how to do this and possibly in lighting a

subject like this. The lighting is nice and it did burn and make smoke.

Excellent shoot indeed. Great technical sense and timing too. Would have tried several times to bring the perfection. No doubt, its well deserved shot to be selected in POW. But, one thing is slightly peeping in my mind about the smoke. Is there any sort of PS applied? Because, when switched on in the open air the smoke should come from the filamet. Here it is coming from the base too..... I may be wrong, and if it is so I must apologies.....Nonetheless always a 7/7. Rgds.

Maybe we should have a cautionary message to children: DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME. The shards of the burst light bulb and a momentarily live tungsten filament really could be dangerous.

 

This photo is analogous to the shark photo in one way: if you are a science nerd, you are likely going to love it. If not, you will be evaluating it on aesthetic grounds alone, and I will have to concede to Mona that the aesthetics of the smoke is offset by the broken bulb below. If one has no interest in what is happening here and with the fish as natural phenomena, both photos fall far short of the ideal.

 

Being a chem major from long ago, I love this kind of thing.

 

--Lannie

There is a certain amount of WOW factor here, but I don't think there is enough to comment on with just the photograph. Nice as it is, it does require the written word -- lots of them to explain just what it is we are seeing and how exactly it was achieved. Certainly, it is not what I would call art. It is a technical - high speed(I assume)photograph which would probably be interesting if we knew about the work that went into it. (Now watch, we'll have more comments than last week's POW.)

Mona says: But, all together, I find the photo not very interesting-sorry, I am doing it again. I really don?t find the overall image particularly well designed, it does not seem to be telling any story-just feels like a broken bulb that was set up and ignited- and I certainly don?t feel any emotional impact or any immediacy in the image-like in others of this nature I have seen. The glass at the bottom gives no sense of motion and almost looks like it has been set and held there and is an odd, uninteresting shape at that.

Fair enough. This image doesn't move some people.

Personally, though, I don't always need to be "moved" to appreciate an image.

I could and will continue to look at this shot for a while and be impressed with the vision and excution and probably a bit of work ending in this final image.

I think it is fair to say that "still" photography has value to some viewers. I hope we don't have an argument about the lack of emotional impact here ;-) I don't think it is supposed to have any emotinal impact or meaning.

I would like to see the upper portion a bit lighter in the background but overall I am enjoying this shot for the texture and detail and the smoke starting with a little orange burst at the bottom. I find it to be visually exciting!

Sorry Mary, but for a moment there I really thought I was in trouble again!!??!!

 

Anyway, I really was not saying that it has to tell a story, or have emotional impact or

whatever. What I was trying to point out is that I can't find a level, for me, on which I can

find this image all that interesting. I feel it lacks any sense of good design-very loose

feeling, static-just no dynamics to me. So I was just trying to find a hook somewhere and

came up empty. I don't even think that here it has anything to do with is it art or not. I

just think there are so many other shots of this subject out there that do have substance,

including some

wonderful studies in Paul's own folder, and yet this has none for me. But, as always, it is

just my opinion.

If it's possible, I agree with Bill AND Mona AND Mary. It's an exciting shot. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it. But the technical wizardry and Wow! factor pretty much exhaust its appeal. It's not the sort of image I'd revisit again and again, soaking in the detail and the depth of meaning. Indeed, it reminds me of very good commercial photography, and I connect with it about as much as I do with commerical photography. But, as Mary as, an image doesn't need to be deep or to connect with us as individual viewers in order to be good or enjoyable.

 

Partly this is a question of genre. The point of an image such as this week's is not to convey aspects of the human condition (or whatever "deep" theme you choose). So of course it'd be out of place to criticize it for not doing so.

 

I think that by and large, in the POW choices a high Wow! factor tends to outweigh emotional or intellectual depth. This is an observation, not a criticism. We need to keep in mind the purpose of the POW, which is to present a broad range of images and stimulate discussion of any and all aspects of photography, and not necessarily to present the "best" photograph.

Really fantastic work, Paal!

 

I, too, would be very interested in knowing the details of how you did this.

 

Oh, and while I'm here, I may as well weigh in on the conversation re: "being moved".

 

I think perhaps the final ingredient to make a photo like this truly "moving" would be to

accompany it with just the right written message. IMO an image like this one would have a

great deal of commercial value for advertising and other stock use. I hope to learn to

produce such creative stuff myself!

 

And just for the record, it certainly "moves" me to at least say "wow!"

First impression...What is it? Great immagination. I appreciate the image for it's uniqueness.

No doubt it took some effort and skill to compose properly.

Upon seeing the image for the first time I wondered what it was and for me that's where my interest wanes.