Three Droplets

[chauncey]

Technically, taking these images was a bear and now that's it's finished...I'm not sure if I like it.



What say you guys???

[Shadowman]

I say it was worth the effort perhaps one spectacular drop (the others less so) per image would be enough.

[Stagecoach]

William, my thoughts here are that the drop at the top does not exhibit the normal characteristics of water adhesion and meniscus on a surface that it is forming on.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

For me, the issue is that the two lower drops appear to be floating. That's because we can't see where they are attached to the flower even though we know from viewing the drops what they are attached to.

Keep making more photos like this. The background works so well that we won't let you stop now.

[Stagecoach]

For me, the issue is that the two lower drops appear to be floating. That's because we can't see where they are attached to the flower even though we know from viewing the drops what they are attached to.

Now I assumed the two lower drops were falling and not supposed to be attached to anything

Edit : William, purely by coincidence I came across this http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...id=54270&page= today on another site I visit.

[Brownbear]

Hi Chauncey,

Well worth the time.. I love the droplets whether they are floating or whatever... I think if the flower in the background was more blurred artistically that the droplets and the image would steal the show! Loving these!

[FootLoose]

As a piece of artwork, it looks ok. It could possibly be found in some kind of magazine advertisement.

But when I study it a little, I wonder how those first two drops fell in such quick succession. There doesn't seem to be enough fluid on stamen (is it?) to have formed them so quickly.

[TonyW]

This is a most attractive image. But when you think about the physics of the situation and the photographic techniques needed it becomes absolutely fascinating.

The timing of the addition of water to make the drops and the taking of the photograph must have been difficult. The focus had to be on the drops, which are not stationary (assuming that the one on the stem is in the process of forming and then falling of), which must have been difficult, although I suppose you could have focused on the stem at the beginning.

It is interesting that the drops themselves are in focus, as show by their boundaries, as well as the refracted image of the background behind them, even though the background itself is not in focus. I don't understand the physics there.

[Mike Buckley]

It is interesting that the drops themselves are in focus, as show by their boundaries, as well as the refracted image of the background behind them, even though the background itself is not in focus. I don't understand the physics there.

Each bubble is a lens and each image displayed in the bubble is displayed in the lens. So, the depth of field required to display the image within the lens is the same as the depth of field required to display the bubble itself, which is relatively small.

If you want to keep the image displayed in a mirror's reflective surface and the mirror's frame in focus, a substantially larger depth of field is required than when keeping only the reflected image in focus. That's because the focusing distance of the reflected image is the distance from the camera to the mirror plus the distance from the mirror to the source object.

I'm not sure I explained that succinctly, so I hope I explained it well enough.

[Stagecoach]

But when you think about the physics of the situation and the photographic techniques needed it becomes absolutely fascinating.

It's also interesting that the laws of refraction do not appear to have reversed the image shown in the drop

[bnnrcn]

I like the image IMO the droplet on the top doesn't go well with the other two. If they were all similar shaped the image might look better.

[teokf]

my thought are; are they composites? They look like to me especially the first drop.

[DanK]

Nicely done. Brian Valentine has a few tutorials on line somewhere, and I have been planning to try to learn how to do this this summer.

I think the top droplet is the most interesting. I think the one negative thing is that the background is busy and distracting. I would consider trying to blur and darken it. I'd also play around with cropping to see if you can get rid of some of the background while still keeping the droplets framed as you like.

[TonyW]

It's also interesting that the laws of refraction do not appear to have reversed the image shown in the drop

Grahame, That is a more interesting question than mine. I have been trying to find some good description of the optics in this context but have not found anything. I have tried to work out myself what is happening but have not succeeded yet. There are some amazing images out there. Do you know the answers?

[Stagecoach]

Grahame, That is a more interesting question than mine. I have been trying to find some good description of the optics in this context but have not found anything. I have tried to work out myself what is happening but have not succeeded yet. There are some amazing images out there. Do you know the answers?

Tony, I see that William has not responded to any of the comments here so there is no confirmation as to exactly how the picture was contrived.

Not sure quite what you mean by 'do I have the answers' but there are some basics with this image that do not make sense to me and suggest it is a composite. Whilst there is nothing wrong with composites if there is an intention to make them look natural in my view it would be advantageous to be aware of the 'basics' and incorporate them.

Many of the amazing images out there are 'set-ups' I'm sure but this does not detract from the skill that has been used in achieving them. From my own limited experience with water drops and refractions or reflection of subjects behind I simply noted the following with this image;

a) For the continual drops, spaced as in the image it would have been necessary for a water flow along the stamen filament and that does not show.

b) The top drop appears to be defying gravity in that it would have formed lower on the filament.

c) A drop forming on a surface does not show such an acute sharp angle but a curve defined by the water adhesion and meniscus and a wet surface behind it.

d) Anything reflected in a drop is mirrored so it would be expected in these drops to see the anthers at the top rather than the bottom and also reversed left/right. Good examples here

http://www.twistedsifter.com/2012/07...arkus-reugels/

The reason for these defying rule could be that the reflected image is not the same as the background flower but looking at the centre drop this does not suggest that.

Not answers but clues that raise questions But, I'm certainly not implying that this image is poor because of these questions it raises.

Grahame

[chauncey]

Grahame, you and the others have raised salient points...the image as shown is a composite as I lack the high speed gear shown in your link to Markus Reugels (stellar stuff) but my set-up is remarkably similar to his, regarding shooting thru the droplet to a backdrop.

The top drop was from dipping a stamen into glycerin and posing it in front of the backdrop. The falling droplets were captured independently, one at a time, selected and moved into the base image.

Aside from being an implausible image and being a learning experience...I screwed up multiple times. The selections had insufficient feathering...the droplet posing's were too close to the backdrop. But, the major screw-up was...at some point, some of the droplets were flipped.

All the optics stuff that you guys pointed out was something that didn't sit well with me, but I couldn't discern the problem. Your eyes are amazing, as well as your taking the time to analyze the problem.

I would hope that I learned my lessons thanks to you guys.