Edit: This is in response to Simple Joy's threesome submission. (my tablet is playing tricks on me with the quote feature)
Caught that fallen star, didn't you?
Picked it out of a whole truckload of them. I've tried to create several scenes similar to this one, though not with water. I met with very little success.
You've made me smile at the story you've created. The colors are complementary, the light is warm and inviting, the circular effect is visually appealing. Nicely done.
What a stunning spot. It's the repetition of the shapes that makes the shot(s). This is strongest in the first shot so this shot is the most striking. There's more. The top cloud and the patch of blue below it are also being picked up by the foreground. Put it on a chocolate box and it would boost sales.
Clearly a very nice object in which one can discover ever more and ever new depths and nuances.
The choice for an all dark background is good here, with the subtle bokeh effect above the vase/urn, almost like stardust is snowing down or an ephemeral essence is escaping from the object.
The only thing I would change here, is the crop: it is now landscape while there is no horizontality to show off, and the object is dead-centered.
That looks very static.
If you were to crop this square and get the object off-center (by cropping ONLY left or right, or at least MORE left than right or vice versa), you would retain all the essence that is here, but show it with a lot more tension.
I agree that the first two benefit from the elegant curve.
Zooming in on action is not always beneficial, sometimes action is served well by being shown in an elegant setting and that is most obvious in the first two images.
Still, all in all it is a very enjoyable action sequence that shows us beautiful creatures in elegant motion.
Maybe there are actually TWO series to be mined here:
- a first sequence of wider shots, showing birds in location
- a second sequence (cropped from the same images), in which the birds are always roughly equal in size, and all of the images in square format, resulting in a movie-like sequence.
An interesting structure against a nice sky: what is not to like?
Still I am not totally convinced, and I think I can pinpoint two reasons for why the image kinda jars me:
First: the fact that the cubist structures seem to grow from a void. I miss a bit of ground or a baseline to connect them.
(Confession: I also routinely shoot buildings and structures only from the first or even second floor up, most often to avoid the clutter of traffic, traffic signs, pedestrians, cycles and shop awnings that are linked with modern urban life. But that lack of connection to the earth does not bother me if the image shows only ONE structure, or if the viewer can "fill in the blanks", because it is clear how the structures shown are connected. In this case, however, the divergent angles of the structures pull our eyes outwards not inwards so the "fill in the blanks" connection is lost.)
Second: the fact that the image is symmetrical but not quite. I understand the vantage position you had chosen here (to avoid overlap between the tall upright flagpole (or whatever it is) with the structure behind it, instead making them line up nicely). But this vantage point to the right of the flagpole results in the two large blocks (Dancia & Realia) not being symmetrical in the frame. Cropping won't help here. There is a perceived height difference and also the verticals of the structures edges end up in different spots on the bottom and edges of the frame. Cropping would result in to o much loss of building on one of the sides (probably on the left side). This is an instance where perspective distortion correction might help (not in the vertical plane as you would normally consider for shots looking up towards towers, but in the horizontal plane).
Three nice images of lilies that each have their merit, the third for showing us the flower in its natural surroundings, the second for showing a shape that is not very ordinary for the flower, but I particularly like the first, because it manages to convey the almost translucent quality of the petals.
minniev has covered it and also drawn my attention to the bokeh balls that I hadn't thought about. The photo has all the elegant simplicity of the vase it celebrates
Low key with whipped cream richness. It's an unusual colour combination that immediately creates interest and exploration.
Of the three, and I like them all, it's the last I like best. The gradation from dark to the bright tips moves a little further on the lily. I also like the stronger dark lines behind that are a foil to the softness of the flower. The large green leaf across the bottom has me somewhat undecided. Maybe, maybe not crop a bit off the bottom?
I took this photo years ago and last week Pete reminded me of it. I only vaguely remember the details when I took it. I think there was stuff down lower that I wanted to avoid to restrict the image to only the straight lines. The tower is a sort of commemorative shaft for something or other. You are correct in your deductions as to why I hadn't taken the shot from a bit more to the right to even the towers up.
It's an entertaining series. Your commentary is fun and I especially liked the "only up to my knees" line that draws the whole interpretation of the story together with a nice little twist. My favourite is the last. The feather pattern in the outspread wings is spectaculour and all the water droplets imply lots of movement and the touchdown. It's a grand display that adds completely fitting bathos to your storyline.
That's a fabulous idea for a series of shots. It's a concept with appeal for photographers who are more likely to understand what's going on.
I think it's worth trying again because the handshape could be better. In the first photo the hand looks closed and static. Perhaps some outstretched fingers towards the light to begin? Shot 2 gets it as does 3. Perhaps the focus could be more on the hand rather than the cuff?
While I agree with the small points raised for possible improvement, my main takeaway here is that the concept is really interesting.
The combination of (a) three image sequencing with (b) the succession of hand position and with (c) the wonderful swirly bokeh, creates a wonderful sensation and illusion: like we are watching a hand conjuring up something from another dimension to be pulled out of the vortex. Harry Potter magic comes to mind..
Thanks a lot for the input! I wonder though, are you reading the images from below to above? The series is intended in the other direction (from above to below). In the first image (at least to me) the fingers are slightly stretching, still hesitant in their motion though. In the second you can see the action of grasping the light and in the third the hand is closed. But perhaps it's just my perception that's different.
To your second point: I couldn't focus on the hand because that would mean I'd loose the bokeh highlights, which is the main draw for me. I'd need an f/1.2 lens (and a strong ND filter) to get the front of the hand in focus (and there would be even less of it sharp) + the bokeh bubbles. There's always a compromise to be made with experimental shots like this not intended to just represent reality, and so this was the only thing that worked for me in that situation.
BTW. the thing wasn't staged i.e. there were no instructions or anything. I was just taking shots of my kid playing with the a water surface of a small pond up in the mountains that day, so no easy way to repeat it. I have lots of different shots from the trip though. Very nice place on the way between Austria and Italy.
I was reading them from top to bottom and I interpreted the last image as the hand closed on the bokeh highlights surrounded in the middle photo.
Ta for the explanation of the focus point, That makes sense.