Can a image work with water running upside down ?

[biggerry]

all the guides and stuff that I have seen always talk about making sure your water runs into the frame and not out of it - however for kicks and giggles I am interested in knowing when this 'rule' can be broken?

Here is a example I am keen get thoughts on - also think if there was a blazing sun just in teh sky, rather than the mildly disfunctional and annoying misty grey/pinkness would that make it work? I guess the idea with this shot was to use the water to lead to the sky hence minimising the weirdness of water running up the frame.

Does any one have any samples of images that work like this as a concept?

[Remorhaz]

I think the thing with this frame is that whilst you were attempting to have the water run out of the frame as you say there's enough of the environment that it's obvious enough that the water is running down/across through the environment so it doesn't look wrong (you can see the ocean and water flowing away "below" your position).

If anything it was your image you posted in the 52 frames thread that felt more "wrong" - like the water was running uphill - but I kind of liked that it made me look again and again to resolve the inconsistency in my mind - others might not like that as much however.

[norwest]

As Remorhaz said above, as long as the destination can be seen or perceived the mind won't play tricks.

[ian.bertram]

Ah, the things you learn on this site- so, water runs downhill you say? Is this backed up by impirical evidence?

Actually, I haven't heard the "running into the frame" rule, but it's an interesting one.

[Mr Darcy]

Sorry Gerry,
I do not understand this "rule"
Surely water in any stream, which is what I assume you are talking about, MUST flow both into and out of the frame. Unless of course it is flowing into the ocean.

I think that both your photo where the water flows into the frame at bottom left, and out at top right works quite well. As does NorWest's photo.

[ATJ]

I think what Gerry means is that the water "should" flow down through the frame. i.e. it comes into the frame in the top area of the frame and leaves from the bottom area of the frame.

Both images include context so they don't look odd.

The only time I think it would be a problem is if there wasn't context showing that the water does not appear to flow uphill. For example, if the first image was cropped just above the bottom boulder on the right, it might look weird - or it would at least look like the water was flowing in the opposite direction.

[sirhc55]

Rules are there to be broken - you work it out Gerry

[norwest]

There's also a very big difference in the subject matter displayed from the upstream side. Small falls/descents and the water turbulance and faster flow that's part and parcel of of these can't be seen and if you think about it, what's the natural instinct when viewing a fall of water? To stand down stream and look back into the descending flow. If you don't much can be hidden from view as in my shot above where a drop off of about 6000mm at the top third of the frame can't be seen. If i'd had a choice i'd have composed the shot from down stream but access wasn't possible.

So, in a nutshell, i suppose there is rule of shooting of shooting from the down stream aspect and we just don't realise it. But i'd call it an instinctive, involuntary rule . I'm betting 99% of the shots of fast moving water posted here would reflect this.

[gstark]

Actually, I haven't heard the "running into the frame" rule, but it's an interesting one.

Ian,

That's just a variation of the basic rule whereby you generally try to objects within your images appearing to be moving into the frame, rather than out of it.

With a racecar, for instance, you might try to leave some space in front of the vehicle, as it appears in them image, so that it seems to have room to progress into the frame, as it were.

With people, let's say that you have a person walking from your left to your right as you're composing the image. Grab a few shots as they walk across the frame area, and compare the outcomes you've achieved where, in the first couple of images, they are entering the frame, with the last couple, as they're leaving the frame.

The conventional wisdom is that by having them appear to enter the frame, with further room to move into it, is good composition.

And there's millions of examples that disprove that wisdom.

[surenj]

And there's millions of examples that disprove that wisdom.

I'd like to see any good examples of this in action. Does anyone have any links handy?

[surenj]

OK found a coupla examples from my archive for further study. Thoughts?


Long reef sunrise Jul 2010-7709.jpg by http://www.flickr.com/people/surenj/, on Flickr


Long reef sunrise Jul 2010-7769.jpg by http://www.flickr.com/people/surenj/, on Flickr

[biggerry]

OK found a coupla examples from my archive for further study. Thoughts?

I guess i mean more water flowing from the bottom of the frame up to the top or side of the frame.

Thanks for the comments and time to respond, especially Chris thats the best advice I have had in years.