Photo by Floto+Warner
i did this on a workshop but we used 99% water and a few drops of food colorant - It does not have such a opaque result but it works well against a blue sky or a bit more blurred background - http://www.meetup.com/clicsboa/photos/all_photos/?photoAlbumId=1312727
My first reaction to these was, "Oh my God, the ink will pollute the landscape!". We were told at school to "Leave only footprints behind", seems these pictures shock those of us that practice that.I am not sure about the 95% water. Cucumbers are 95% water, Tomatoes 93 to 95%, etc. They sure look more solid that this water... Milk on the other hand is 88 to 90% water, the rest being fats and proteins, and is liquid, so go figure...Actually milk is very dangerous pollutant for small ponds and lakes, as it feeds other bacteria and ferments, killing the local ecosystem.Art sometimes shocks us, maybe these artists could explore this non intended "pollution" aspect of their work to raise awareness of environmental issues. Imagine throwing that color stuff (assuming it is indeed harmless) on top of white polar bears, for example, very shocking! (I would not do that myself, just saying for the argument's sake)
Ha choo! We know how germs are spread.
No photoshop was used...? Really? I don't think so.At a 3200th of a second you'd always see the source where the water came from, even if its fragments of a bursted balloon. So I'm pretty sure they edited the source out with a second photo of the background.
They look to me as if they have been thrown into view from outside the frame, rather than created within the frame. The ones that appear to be 'standing up' threw me for a bit, then I realised they have simply been poured down from above with the capture occurring synchronously with contact with the ground. I can't say whether or not PS was used, but I don't think it needed to be, other than perhaps for cropping.
A handful of them came out nicely, although some just look like "splashes" as opposed to taking on more spectral/interesting forms. I'm surprised they weren't edited out of the set.
And I don't love the juxtaposition of the subjects and backgrounds, but I get what they were going for, and I like that what they attempted was different than what we're used to seeing from this kind of photography.
But I'm really saying all that, so I don't come across as a crass hater when I say all in all I'm a little surprised to see these here (and really all over the internet) because they just don't seem that technically creative, or special.
There's so much better abstract stuff out there.
To me, this is a clever idea and the photos are interesting. I couldn't have done this kind of experimental photography "back in the day" (mid 1970s), given the skyrocketing cost of a roll of B&W film at the time. In the digital age, the cost of an afternoon and 1000 photos is insignificant. I won't be sploshing dyed water across the landscape, but it has made me open to some new possibilities.
Looks like great fun, and shows what cool shapes you can get out of a splash of liquid. Hmmm, makes me want to have a try...
P.S. Oh dear, all the self-righteous sour-grapists are out to play!
This is all very nice, groovy, neat and fantabulous but, for the record, I used to do this sort of stuff back in 1978 just for fun. And I'm sure there were other photographers that did this even before me.
Wow, can't remember the last time I saw so much bitching and negativity in a thread... I can think of a few improvements that could be made, but I think it's an interesting set of photos, generally well executed. If you don't like "wasting your time", just don't read the article, and go put your time to... better use, I guess?..... bickering over which gear is better in the forums. :P
Sounds like food coloring to me. The rusting cars that people abandon in the desert are a greater problem than a few small splashes of color in the millions of acres of desert in the U.S.
... the colors/liquids used in the photographs are 95% water .... “non toxic and water based.”
The concept is cool, but I feel these would be far more striking had they been shot against a solid color background, and with more diffuse lighting. With these, I find the backgrounds and shadows distracting.
Nothing to fuss about
just looks like damaged photos, not even art,small minds are easy amused
Narrow minds, apparently, never.
Your gallery seems to be empty....
Execution is quite boring and the concept is tired. Not much thought seems to have gone in to the way these images look.Of course I'm thinking of the wonderful creativity between Halsman and Dali when they shot water and other stuff flying about the place; and using that as a measuring stick.
Very nice, look at my splash:
I think these photos are fun and clever.
The choice of backgrounds is perfect: the flat, uniform landscape, existing unchanging in time for hundreds of thousand of years, lies in contrast to the colorful, irregular, splash of water lasting only milliseconds.
Very well done!
Ah yes, I recall the days as a photography student, when we used to mess around with all sorts of cool and fun concepts...
Did you stop doing that? If so, why?
Sometimes a fish called 'income' smacks people in the head. I don't know if this is why he stopped messing about with the fun stuff. It isn't always that a person is able to do what they would most like for a living :^|
Now, as an avocation...No reason to not.Other than some people don't live in places where it is feasible. This is an idea I will keep in mind, though. Does look fun.
Many of these photos appear to be taken in desert or semi-arid climates. I don't care how non-toxic or non-staining the photographers or DP Review staff claim these paints are. When you are in a place where it only rains 3 or 4 times a year, doing something like this is polluting the environment. How would you like it DP Review staff, if this was in your backyard, or in your local park and the mess stayed on the ground for 6-9 months or more? I am absolutely floored at the lack of critical thinking by DP Review.
Given a lack of disclosure of methods and specific environments (beyond northern Nevada and Iowa), fair concern for the environmal impact. But I can't help but think that this might be a bit of an exaggerated issue: benign substance (as stated); and a bit of diluting and foot-rustling would negate visual impact on these spaces.
"When you are in a place where it only rains 3 or 4 times a year, doing something like this is polluting the environment."
Do you drive a car, or fly on a jetliner?
"How would you like it DP Review staff, if this was in your backyard, or in your local park and the mess stayed on the ground for 6-9 months or more?"
I have asthma. How do I like vehicle exhaust, and coal fired power plants?
Say hello to Debbie Downer.
I was thinking that myself, especially the very thick green on the salt flat. Slat flats are not that common in Cali, most of them within federal lands. I would say it would be the same as graffitti. Now on the positive side I do like the pictures, very cool, just worried about stain on the environment.
The duo states: ..... We are also conscious of the environment, the color is non-toxic, non-staining, water based and composed of 95% water.”
Misha, What is your point? That other environmental damage is more important than the destruction done by these photographers? I see your lack of concern over this as just trying to be argumentative. Two bad things does not make a good thing. You should have learned that before age 5.
BTW, I do not fly and I drive very little. In the past week I have been transported by fuel less than 5 miles. My electricity comes from water moving through a turbine. Put up or shut up. I bet you drive or ride in a car everyday 40 or 50 miles. You sound like some Limousine Liberals I know.
Digimatt does have a point.
The liquid being non-staining and being 95% water does not equal 'leave no trace' standards.
Not in the desert area Digimatt is talking about where a practice to carry out urine is not unheard of...
Sounds odd, but where people regularly visit desert areas, it can be nice to not see urine stains along the way. Just the way it is... See climbers and blue bags for other interesting ideas :^)
Now, is all this trouble worth the debate ?
Who knows.My first thought seeing this was 'cool'. My next thought was remembering stains in the desert...
The two sides of conservation (whether visual or biological) don't have to meet in agreement.
I am trying to think where I could do this and not feel guilty (desert, not the fields). But I killed some moss with a hot bag of water for soup and felt guilty. Some for the moss itself and some realizing if I do this and then a few other people do as well, the nice place I stopped for lunch will be less nice...
I do not mind photographers using techniques to show us frozen slices of time that our eyes cannot catch. If not always artistic, I find it somewhat instructive and/or amazing.But, is there anybody out there...to sue these polluters ?
I like these thanks for posting them.
Nothing interesting for me except the technique.
Take nothing but pictures Leave nothing but footprintsWaste nothing but time.
These people have obviously never heard of this.
This photogrher has obviously no regard for preserving nature and must be extremely selfish in their outlook. One dreads to imagine the unsightly splashes of garish colours these thick liquids made when they fell to earth on the rocks, grass or whatever. Presumably there were several attempts at each shot creating even more mess and destruction of pristine and natural places.
I am surprised that DPR would lend credence to such obvious disregard of nature and our environment by publishing and thus tacitly endorsing this.
As someone has mentioned below. This is nothing else but vandalism of nature.
How do you know it wasn't just food coloring? Or for that matter, what do you know at all about how these were made? Far worse pollution going on in this world for you to bash a fellow photographer for something you may not know anything about.
On the third page they explain that 'the color is non-toxic, non-staining, water based and composed of 95% water.'
"composed of 95% water"
Debbie Downer says, "The other 5% is cancer causing."
Surprising and innovative. Impressive result. But ... I see it only as a proof of concept really. The images do not have any interesting content, except the liquid. So - you look - wonder how they made it and then look at something else.
Actually, it looks much better if you look here http://www.flotowarner.com/71654-projects. There the images are larger, which makes a difference. And there is also lots more, which makes an impact and also shows other projects. The pair likes it when it is messy I assume. :)
I see what you mean about the larger pictures.
I do sometimes wonder if the guys developing this site are using monitors bough in 1995 - 640 x 480 resolution. Or maybe they think I should only use a smart phone…
Yes, the image series the show almost always have too small images.
I agree; cool concepts and a few of the photos are dramatic. But really no lasting visual impression.
The wave photos (Clark Little) have a lot more artistic merit; I would love one of those photos on my wall in a huge size for the next 20 years.
1024x768 would be a better guess for a monitor bought in 1996
Still using a VGA in 1996.. perhaps.
Did I strike a nerve, Simon? If you look at other comments here you'll see I'm certainly not alone in finding this article was a waste of space.
I think patcam7122 is a Waste of Space.
I didn't even say I didn't agree with you. I simply questioned your ability to make definitive statements on behalf of 'the majority of viewers on this site' (which is millions of people)
@patcam7122 - you realise that it's almost impossible to 'waste space' on the Internet, right? But seriously, if you really don't like lightweight picture-lead weekend stories, come back Monday morning.
"I'm certainly not alone in finding this article was a waste of space."
Debbie Downer says, "People should be volunteering at a homeless shelter instead of reading this article."
How about reading this article at night after volunteering at a children's home for 12 hours? Would that be ok?
I like it! I also love reading the armchair photographers out there.
Just as long we're home in time for dinner.
Armchair photographers with proper priorites.
An interesting study in shape, form and colour. For all of the stupid, negative comments on this thread, these images are whimsical and I'm sure anyone who looks at them can see other creative possibilities using this technique. Look, think and learn.
My God, is DPReview so desperate for material to fill space that it searches the globe for dull, boring nonsense like this? Instead of displaying mediocrity like this why not spend more time and space on something actually useful to the majority of viewers on this site?
I'm not sure why this work would illicit such a response. Plenty of diverse content on this site. And, I feel less than confident in trusting your judgment as to what is useful to a majority of members.
I assume patcam7122 was elected to speak for everyone who visits this site when I was out of the office yesterday.
I for one will happily see more such photographs and fewer brand-bashing wars here.
Like pictures of someone's cat or dog?
There are good pictures of cats or dogs. Besides, half the time that is about all the people trashing other photographers here, and brand bashing most vociferously, even take.
That, birds, and pretty flowers.
Waiting for the artsy road-kill thread.
mcshan:"artsy" - your whole comment is a cheap dog whistle. Uglier than the subject matter you describe.
A few manners would help. And a lot less EGO ! And MATT K gets the 'Star'." ... if yu'all so dam smart, why ain't yu'all rich ? ..."
This is an fun study of figure/ground relationships through texture, color, and time. The element of random chance in the form of the liquid against the fixed texture in the bachground is a limiting factor in the success of a clear relationship between the two, but that is also where the fun is - the lucky shot at the right moment. Ultimately the relationship is one of dominance and subordination within the context of formal composition. Some things to consider in future shots: horizon placement, your own shadow, the contour of the landscape vs. that of the liquid (static vs. dynamic), and percieved scale through camera placement/angle.
The concept has potential, but needs a lot of work. Honestly, it would be a lot more interesting if you just shot it on a white background with a flash. Flash may be limited to 1/250s, but that's only how long the shutter is open. The flash of light only lasts a few thousandths of a second, which would produce non-blurry results.
If you're going to shoot outdoors, maybe try to work with colors that complement each other. (Visiting Adobe Kuler for guidance).
Also, the background is distracting. Go for a shallow DOF which would turn your background into more of a watercolor canvas rather than a background full of attention-stealing objects in the background.
Also, learn to work in RAW and enhance colors by using the sliders for HSL. The colors in the paint are unnecessarily flat.
I think the objective (whether fully successful or not) is the physical interaction in the landscape as contextualized within photographic process. In that regard, the authenticity of the space is important. And I don't agree that the desert and grass textures are distracting; rather, to my eye, an interesting formal balance.
Agreed. I don't mind the concept, but the grassy area is a real turn off.
I guess these locations were used as I'm sure there would have been ZERO clean up after the shoot lol
white background and flash, comp. colors, shallow dof, sounds like something for boring baby portraits. These Pictures work because the colors, subject and setting are so alien to one another.
You couldn't be more right on in your critique of this working. It's terribly boring, not well thought out at all. The backgrounds are terrible. Doesn't say much for DPreview that this is the most interesting portfolio they could dig up.
I haven't formed a definitely opinion of the project at this point, but I tend to disagree with a few who have criticized "boring" backgrounds. To my eye the backgrounds create a nice visual contrast to the vibrant liquid forms, in neutral tones and comprised of few competing textures. And the landscapes do seem parched as a conceptual contrast as well. Not sure if I buy the larger conceptual gesture of interaction with landscape, as explained by the artists. Such work is not particularly novel, but I do find the overall feel of the project to bring something different, perhaps more sophicated photographic consideration(s). Quite certain about one thing, photographing in a studio to maximize dimension in the liquid forms then placing them in predictably picturesque settings would make them less interesting to me, not more.
As a constructive suggestion, you might want to give a bit more thought into the backgrounds. Very nice effort though!
edit: I am ok with the background on 8 and 9.
I see we have many visits from Debbie Downer and her family.
Indeed ! funny link too.
This is a very interesting site with many viewers leaving interesting comments. In my professional life I have to offer critiques daily in an instructional environment and have learned that there is a simple format that works best. Begin with a review of the positive aspects of the overall performance. Then lead into the areas that require improvement. It is seldom that we find an area needing improvement that is not common among others too. Let the person know that he/she is not the first to need work here, so they don’t take it as a personal affront. Your critique will have a much greater effect on the learning curve when your words don’t cause the student to become defensive.Finally, end with a positive review of at least one particular aspect of their work. You’ll find this makes the student want to correct any errors and makes you look cordial and interested in helping them achieve their desired goals.
I fear decorum is a bridge too far (as often is responsibly considerated criticism).
Sadly, I agree.
I just saw these images in a sidebar article on CNN.com. Personally, this seems like the kind of stuff a young person who is new to photography might do while they are exploring the world of photography. It certainly isn't new and innovative as I've seen this kind of thing a lot in TV and photo ads. As many others have pointed out, the backgrounds are extremely boring. While this kind of stuff might look cool on someone's personal Facebook page where Uncle George and Aunt Sally are easily impressed, not so much here....
I must admit, I find these slightly more innovative than photos of the moon or camera equipment. If this is the type of work a student might do, perhaps more experienced photographers should hold on to that appetite for experimentation.
I can appreciate the effort, but the location?? The backgrounds are distracting and have a negative influence on the viewing experience. It's okay to test them out where they won't make a mess, but really these need to be done in a studio against a white b/g and then composited with more suitable picture elements.
I like the idea, BUT to be honest the potential is not harwested at all. Lighting seems harsh and most backgrounds are truly boring. I also think the lighting does really not harvest the potential in the reflective surfaces that are bound to be there in the splashes.
Nice! Some of them look like animals frozen in motion!
At least one resembles a sneeze.
Gimmicky and ultimately uninteresting.
These photos are a fantastic example of how photography can be used to create magical moments from mundane materials. #4 would fit right at home in a Harry Potter movie and photos like #8 & #9 would make great foregrounds for fashion shoots.
I really like those pictures and the idea behind them.
My first thought: this colored mess must be murder on the environment! I can find nothing on their webpage to explain how toxic (or not) the substance is that they use in the photos. I hope I am wrong about this . . . but it seems rather callous and careless of them if the environment is in any way being ruined by their efforts to promote their "art".
It probably does kill it quite a bit.
A photographer did a simular thing in Iceland where he wrote in locations for example on a crater he simply wrote "crater" with paint, GIAAAAANT letters that covered big area & then called it art.
I don't know how much of a fine he faced but probably in hundreds of thousands of dollars because Iceland takes vandalism of nature VERY seriously because of the VERY unique nature that is here.
He damaged some of the most visited tourist spots
Hence everytime I see photographs that are damaging to the enviroment like these, I consider them more vandalism than photography.
They use some kind of non toxic water based color. They mention that under the third picture.
Non the less however it will leave the color for who knows how long a time, leaving a mess behind.
How come you equate color with toxin ? I know thats how bugs use it but really ?
Jagge maybe because so many things have got toxins in it today? especially paint & toxic or non toxic someone has to clean the color up and I highly doubt the photographer did that.
I'm sure making these images pollutes the environment far less than the extraction, processing, manufacture, and transportation of the materials needed to make the 5D.
Well yes Monkeybrain but that does not make it okay, "he did it so I can do it"
ThatCamFan, you are right that it will leave the mess. The question is how long does it take to dissapear (rain, etc.).
And is rain enough to make it disappear or are chemicals needed for removal?
It's so rare that one has an innovative idea.
I like it!
...and you don't see the mess left around the place due to the many attempts to get it right ! The best spots are all dirty so these are only second, at best, choice :-)
That is really quite amazing. Is there a way to do this easily? I can image trying to do this and I just can't imagine getting the timing right. ..... Amazing!
As much as interresting and captivating the colors are, as boring and dull are the backrounds. Change the location to the edge of a lake/sea or forest/mountains and capture the same forground with colorfull backround and the result should be spectacular. The harsh sun would ruin that, too.
Agree. There is still missing something, because this now is really as stoopid as splash, but I believe there is some potential in it.
It looks to me to be only milk with food coloring. Nothing damaging at all to the environment.