Faucet macro

[JayJay65]

"Collision from the past"



The mood I wanted to create was somewhat like "mysterious" and open your viewing on a simple sink faucet in a new, unique way.. What do you guys think?

 

[Sideburns]

The only thing in focus is the water...which is kinda neat...but then again..I would have no idea what this is if you didn't tell me...

 

[JayJay65]

Its the exact feeling I was going for.. Only in focus water part that is.. its something I want to have the viewer look at and be hard to figure out..

 

[lordson]

to me its a bit uninteresting. the position of the faucet framing the edge is very nice, but theres too much out of focus.

could you try again and have the faucet in focus perhaps

 

[New England Moments]

The whole point is as said above, its impossible to understand what this is without you telling the story first.. Mystery is fine, but you just don't show enough clues in the image to tie it together.. perhaps a longer line of the dripping water..

as they say, " every picture tells a story " but here it is the photographer telling the story, and not the picture.. Even an Artsy type shot as this, has got to have enough clues.. if the viewer looks and has to ponder what the image is , or trying to say, it seldom works.. other then leaving the viewer frustrated..

 

[LaFoto]

My thoughts are that the blurred faucet (tap!) framing the pic with only the droplets in focus are ok, but ... large parts of the photo are TOO DARK. Don't mind the out-of-focus-ness. But I do mind the dark!

 

[BWallace]

i like this it is a really good out of context style picture, it makes the viewer have to think of what it is at first.

 

[nealjpage]

I tend to side with New England. I'm not sure that if you have to explain what you wanted to do that you have succeeded in achieving it. I understand the Intentional Fallacy and all that crap and think that the shot is of interest, but maybe that's it. I'm not sure that it's mysterious--I could understand that it's a faucet without you telling me.

Maybe the title is my tripping point. What is the collision from the past?

 

[Trenton Romulox]

The whole point is as said above, its impossible to understand what this is without you telling the story first.. Mystery is fine, but you just don't show enough clues in the image to tie it together.. perhaps a longer line of the dripping water..

as they say, " every picture tells a story " but here it is the photographer telling the story, and not the picture.. Even an Artsy type shot as this, has got to have enough clues.. if the viewer looks and has to ponder what the image is , or trying to say, it seldom works.. other then leaving the viewer frustrated..

But can't a shot be abstract? Should the picture give the meaning to the viewer all the time, or should a viewer construct their own meaning for the shot based on what is there, or maybe even what is not there? I like this shot because it's sort of abstract, it's mysterious, it lets me be the one to give purpose.