PetaPixel

Liquid Rose Shot with Food Coloring

Photographer Anthony Chang created this amazing image of a liquid rose without any computer-generated trickery. He hung a glass rose upside down and snapped photos while pouring food coloring onto it.

This photo is a composite… If you couldn’t guess. The green stem and leaves are made up of 6 photos and the flower itself is made up of 11 different photos, so its a 17 shot composite. Another note to mention is the fact that this photo was taken upside down and I just rotated it so the water looks like its flying upwards. Well this was a fun and messy shoot, also an expensive one hahaha what with the $80 glass rose, I was pretty worried that it would fall and break on me during the shoot but luckily it didn’t.

Here’s a photo showing what his setup looked like.

(via Flickr via My Modern Metropolis)


Image credit: 317/365 A Splash of Rose [Explore] by Yugus and used with permission


 
 
  • Jeff Clay

    Clever idea, smart execution

  • Michael Delman

    So a 17-shot composite doesn’t constitute “computer-generated trickery”??

  • Denis Germain

    “a liquid rose without any computer-generated trickery” and thena 17 shot composite….
    Nothing against using computers or creating composite… but don’t claim it is not. 

  • Ryan B

    I don’t believe that the photographer claimed that it was “a liquid rose without any computer-generated trickery”. This website did. I also don’t think it is computer generated trickery. Nothing was created only using the computer, all the splashes were shot with a camera, just because it’s a composite I don’t think makes it trickery. I believe that would constitute as skill. This is an amazing photo and I think it’s a wonderful creative idea.

  • Osmosisstudios

    Trickery? Maybe not “tricks”, but certainly not without manipulation, which is what Petapixel was inferring.

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    I wrote “computer-generated trickery”, not “computer-aided trickery”. Everything in the image was generated by the camera and combined with the help of a computer, but the computer didn’t “generate” anything you see (i.e. it’s not CGI)

  • Dave

    While making composites, blending is nearly mandatory. I would say it is almost certain that some computer generated content made up this image (clone, heal, warp???), unless somehow, through a miracle, the random splashes and drips of water miraculously lined up perfectly in shape, shade, density in these 17 images. And if it did, then that is amazing. But if you are going to composite an image, in a computer no doubt, of 17 different images, what is the big aversion to also using some of these other tools? You are already in the realm of digital manipulation. No shame to that but odd that people are still skeptical of it.

  • Guest Who?

    Exactly what I was thinking.

  • Perryinpink

    Computer generated and computer manipulated are not the same thing.

  • http://twitter.com/Transhawn Tran-Shawn Yu

    I’m about as impressed with this photo as I am with the skin models have in magazine advertisements… both have been digitally manipulated to the point where the original image is pretty much obliterated in the final result.

  • Captain Pasty

    Stuff like this makes photography seem boring to me. I mainly shoot analogue, but I do also shoot digital. The only “digital manipulation” I ever do is altering the brightness/contrast and cropping – basically stuff which can be done in the darkroom.

    Maybe I just like photos of things that are real… :|

  • Unreal

    Captain Pasty, perhaps you like real and boring things.