How is this possible?

[myphotography]

I noticed this guy on FLICKR, who has some stunning water photography, but I am really struggling on how this was done.

It actually annoys the hell out of me for several reasons.

1. I dont understand how its possible.

2. Is he a cheat?

3. When he says "no photoshop manipulation" I dont believe him.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8525006...n/photostream/

Please...... If ANYONE knows how the hell this is possible WITHOUT using a machine, I would like to know!!!!!!

[DanK]

I have never done this but have seen explanations. One woman who does lots posted detailed instructions, but I no longer recall her name. Perhaps you can find it by googling.

[John Morton]

Try this:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...re-photographs

[RustBeltRaw]

Some of those shots are definitely mirrored, so he's using some Photoshop. I assume he means the images aren't composites. Whatever he's up to, the results are really something!

[myphotography]

Yes they are great shots, but using a machine is cheating, in my opinion.

He is using something called arduino control which is an automatic dropping machine. Whats the point of that? Surely you would get far more satisfaction by doing it manually. Perhaps the reason for using a machine is he is too lazy to even try manual dropping? Or..... it cant be done manually.

Fake photographs grip my ****, along with people who lavish people like this with praise without knowing its not actually done by the skills of a photographer.

Sorry..... just saying. Something that has bugged me for months now reading and watching on Flickr as the sheep mentality of people who rave about these types of photos without realising just how bloody easy it is with a machine. See, I'm still angry about it !!!!

[John Morton]

Sorry..... just saying. Something that has bugged me for months now reading and watching on Flickr as the sheep mentality of people who rave about these types of photos without realizing just how bloody easy it is with a machine. See, I'm still angry about it !!!!

Pretty good chance that there were those who said the same about photography at first, in relation to sketching and painting.

[myphotography]

Its a good point John which I will mull over for a day or two. Perhaps I am being too harsh?!

[Dave Humphries]

without realising just how bloody easy it is with a machine

I have tried this, decades ago with film - and I can attest that having repeatable drops and/or a trigger for the flashes is but a small part of the variables at play here - consider also; viscosity of liquids, height of fall, depth of liquid it falls into, colour of liquids, lighting, background, focus, DoF, etc.

The "machine" may just give him the ability to concentrate on all the those other aspects before insanity sets in - caused by the randomness of the "manual dropping" you suggest he try.

However, if they are 'fake', which to me would be lit/coloured in PP by gradients, in addition to the mirroring, then yes, that would reduce my appreciation of them, but he seems to have been honest, on a shot by shot basis, regarding mirroring.

"myphotography" - Could you do me a favour please?
Could you Edit your Profile and put your first name in the Real Name field? - thanks.

UPDATE:

Perhaps I am being too harsh?!

I think you know my answer to this one

Welcome to the CiC forums from ... Dave

[dan marchant]

I certainly don't agree that it is cheating. He is trying to capture images of drops of liquid released at precise times and that is exactly what he is doing. Nothing dishonest about it. I seriously doubt anyone could hold a dropper steady enough and release the drops accurately enough to do this manually. I think there is way more creativity in capturing images where you have calculated and controlled the timing over just photographing whatever occurs when your untimed drops are released.

What I do consider "cheating" are the liquid dress images that some photographers produce, but only in that they used photoshop to composite several images into one. Even that requires considerably more skill an patience than I have to capture the desired shapes necessary to build their vision.

[MilT0s]

Yes they are great shots, but using a machine is cheating, in my opinion.

I also cheat when taking photographs since I use a machine too. It's called camera and it uses electricity (battery) and electronics..


PS. Arduino is not a dropping machine, it's a controller to precisely control it.

PS2. You can not do that manually.

PS3. bloody easy it is... not

PS4. Creativity could never be cheating. If the term photograph doesn't fit for you just use another word!

PS5. Sheep mentality?? Yep, you are being too harsh...

[arslanturegun]

I also strongly disagree about this "cheating" issue. It is definitely not cheating.
The image(s) most probably taken in a transparent tank (a fish tank is a good option) with various lighting equipment, and with the help of an assistant or a machine (for dropping water). After taking the photo it is inverted upside down. At least theoretically.
I have tried some flower photos as I have described above.

[Dukatum]

This image is in his flickr, and he clearly states it's a mirrored image, meaning software was involved. Is that cheating? depends on your view.
In my opinion it's art, in this case, precise art and appeals to the wider market. One of the biggest reasons Apple became so successful is because they don't aim at the techno-geeks which is a small market, but they aim at "people" (the ones techno-geeks call newbies or clueless) because thats where the bigger market is. Photography like this appeals more to the untrained eye than some technically perfect photographs, and there are more untrained eyes in this world, then there are photographic purists. By business sense, thats successful, cheating or otherwise.

006 / 2013 by andy_1605, on Flickr

[RustBeltRaw]

Even if he's using a drop machine, that's no more a guarantee of a good photo than a good camera. It's just another tool, easy to use, and hard to use well.

I can't figure out how he's pulling off those colors. Obviously PP colorization is possible, but I'm hoping it's done in the real world.

[MilT0s]

Not sure if it's the same artist (probably not) but here is an interesting "how it's made" video:

[aponi]

I don't know if its cheating but somehow claiming that this is all SOOC seems a bit dishonest.

[BJ Denning]

Corrie White has some excellant drop shots. HERE is her set with her equipment. She started manual and then got the machine. HERE is a blog post on how here setup.

[GrahamS]

He probably uses this:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sp...i-review-20686

[orlcam88]

Yes they are great shots, but using a machine is cheating, in my opinion

I spent many years complaining about how "unnatural" photography is today. Photo's should not be manipulated etc etc. It should be how it comes out of the camera, blah, blah, blah. That you're fooling people and so on. Then I started learning how the camera works and how it has changed form from when it first was "invented" that I realized it's just a machine to represent a vision. The first being the paint brush and the canvas, the machine being people. So, people make the photo and for me it's Art.

Now if a person manipulate a photo and then passes it off as the "real thing", then the person is called a liar. Like Iran's fake flying fighter plane: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...otted-air.html

[nimitzbenedicto]

I spent many years complaining about how "unnatural" photography is today. Photo's should not be manipulated etc etc. It should be how it comes out of the camera, blah, blah, blah. That you're fooling people and so on. Then I started learning how the camera works and how it has changed form from when it first was "invented" that I realized it's just a machine to represent a vision. The first being the paint brush and the canvas, the machine being people. So, people make the photo and for me it's Art.

Now if a person manipulate a photo and then passes it off as the "real thing", then the person is called a liar. Like Iran's fake flying fighter plane: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...otted-air.html

Yes.