Getting Wet!

[FrankMi]

There were several kids playing in the water feature at Independence Square in uptown Charlotte. This young gal was was content with just going for a walk in the water.

Still playing with trying to get water to look real.

[arith]

It is good big size Frank.

[Donald]

Still playing with trying to get water to look real.

It is sort of stating the obvious, but I'll state it anyway.

This image provides an excellent illustration of the fact that whilst it's all about the skill of the photographer, part of that skill is in understanding different 'types' of water flow.

The stuff at the back looks like a natural waterfall - the fall of water is irregular and broken. The 'sheet' of water is so obviously 'artificial', in that the water is flowing over a man-made smooth edge and has a different texture to it altogether.

Maybe you can't get both 'types' looking 'real' in the same image.

[MrB]

There were several kids playing in the water feature at Independence Square in uptown Charlotte. This young gal was was content with just going for a walk in the water.

Great to read this, Frank. In the UK, the Health & Safety Police would have probably fenced this off from all public access. Children aren't allowed to enjoy themselves by taking any risks here - in a similar place they would be required to wear hard-hats, life-jackets, high-visibility vests, and be accompanied by a CRB checked and certified adult trained as a lifeguard.

Philip

[Daisy Mae]

Mmm..the girl is lost in this.

[FrankMi]

Thanks for viewing, Steve!

[FrankMi]

It is sort of stating the obvious, but I'll state it anyway.

This image provides an excellent illustration of the fact that whilst it's all about the skill of the photographer, part of that skill is in understanding different 'types' of water flow.

The stuff at the back looks like a natural waterfall - the fall of water is irregular and broken. The 'sheet' of water is so obviously 'artificial', in that the water is flowing over a man-made smooth edge and has a different texture to it altogether.

Maybe you can't get both 'types' looking 'real' in the same image.

I find that it is an interesting juxtaposition of water types. The more I work at this water thing, the luckier I get - er, sometimes!

[FrankMi]

Great to read this, Frank. In the UK, the Health & Safety Police would have probably fenced this off from all public access. Children aren't allowed to enjoy themselves by taking any risks here - in a similar place they would be required to wear hard-hats, life-jackets, high-visibility vests, and be accompanied by a CRB checked and certified adult trained as a lifeguard.

Philip

LOL! ...and I thought we had cornered the world market for rules and lawyers to make money off of them!

Oh well, they say that the two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. I'm not so sure about the hydrogen part...

[FrankMi]

Mmm..the girl is lost in this.

Yes she is Sharon but then, she's not really the subject despite the title of the thread. I just couldn't think of a better title at the time but I felt that the human element would help make the image interesting so I left her there.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with Frank that the two types of waterflow in the same image is an interesting juxtaposition. I would prefer the girl to be either more prominent or eliminated.

[MilT0s]

For me the hidden girl is a nice surpise in the image as my eyes are scanning the frame the first time. It is the element of surpise which give extra interest in this nice composition.

[Dave Humphries]

I'm confused Frank,

Maybe you can't get both 'types' looking 'real' in the same image.

If anyone can, you can

Still playing with trying to get water to look real.

The confusion is because I am wondering if you have already combined two images taken with different shutter speeds to display the water to best effect?

I find that it is an interesting juxtaposition of water types. The more I work at this water thing, the luckier I get - er, sometimes!

But it seems not(?)

Still playing with trying to get water to look real.

Or maybe you did(?)

Moving on to the picture, it is a very busy image with a lot of background architectural details that could, by cloning, be simplified 'away' if the subject is the water feature, however, that still leaves a lot of leaves (sorry!) and trees.

The girl adds yet another aspect, being the only obvious human in shot, but quite well hidden.

Cheers,

[FrankMi]

I'm confused Frank,

1. If anyone can, you can

2. The confusion is because I am wondering if you have already combined two images taken with different shutter speeds to display the water to best effect?

3. But it seems not(?)

4. Or maybe you did(?)

5. Moving on to the picture, it is a very busy image with a lot of background architectural details that could, by cloning, be simplified 'away' if the subject is the water feature, however, that still leaves a lot of leaves (sorry!) and trees.

The girl adds yet another aspect, being the only obvious human in shot, but quite well hidden.

Cheers,

Great feedback and neat observations, Dave.

1.LOL! I'm still playing with trying to get the same experience I feel when I see the scenes. I have found that water is really difficult (and maybe impossible) to portray in a two-dimensional image. That may be because the details are in constant movement and the sun sparkles so fleeting that anything short of a 3-D video may not be able to capture the moment.

Water can dress itself in so many fashions that it may be possible to capture some, like the serene surface of a still pond at sunset, but not others, like a reflecting surface where the focal point for the object being reflected is significantly different from what can be seen through the water's surface reflections. If so, it wouldn't be the first photography project that I've had to temporarily shelve until a new revelation comes along.

2. Yes, the previous experiments in week one of the P52 thread with the water falls shows that this can be done. However, what we have here is two different types of water flow in the same image. The difference in the looks of these two falls are based on, as Donald point out, the structures that the water is flowing over and not the post processing of two images of the same scene with different shutter speeds as in the previous experiment. My feeling is that it would take a lot more work, particularly on the smooth flow of the closer waterfall to get it to look natural. Then it returns back to the original of getting the combination to look real, as a whole.

3. Yea, I still have a ways to go to achieve the results I'm hoping for, but if it is possible, it will be in no small part due to the support and feedback of the folks here at CiC.

4. I think in a number of small ways we have success, but I feel that there is more that can be achieved.

5. The image is busy indeed and may be beter off trashing and working on one of the simpler shots that I took of the water feature. When I look at most of the other images, composition wise, they looked 'correct' but oh so boring.

I find it really difficult to get an image that someone else hasn't done a thousand times before (and better to boot)! Perhaps that is why I was drawn to this one as it is not all that common and has a number of facets to explore. Hopefully I'm continuing to expand my 'vision' of what makes an interesting image and that's where the CiC feedback really helps!

Thanks Dave, and thanks to all the others that took the time to view and respond as well.