I like it, but I gotta say, I'm guessing it's a response to the other days deviation of almost identical material, save for being pepsi instead of coke, and I'm afraid I think it's a bit of fail in originality, it is again, almost identical, it's a cool enough concept to be like, hmm lemme try that, but not something I'd use. I think what would have been really cool, is make a response to it, but make it *your's* somehow, a different concept that relates, but doesn't copy, however that may be. An artist should not be found (in my opinion) replicating another's concept, they should take that other concept into consideration and then make their photo (or any work) better and different, and your's is different to an extent, but it just feels too much like a copycat. Just my thoughts, I'm a fan of your work but I think something different would've been appropriate. (photo by the way: [link])
Technically this assumption is incorrect. I've shot this before, and when I did it for the very first time, I did it with a Nikon L110. It's a very cheap camera, in comparison to the Canon EOS REBEL T3i.
Here was my first shot ever of the water splashing Pepsi can, and a few others that I've shot before this one you're commenting on. 1. [link] 2. [link] 3. [link]
Now if you have clicked and viewed the images than maybe- just maybe you will understand my actual reasons for re-shooting this. I wanted to see if a quality camera would make a difference, and I think it did, regardless of the views and favorites it received. Sugar Splash by *naked-in-the-rain this is the image and the photographer you are referring to. I am more than sure that this photographer wasn't the first ever to photograph water splashing all over a can or bottle of Coke, or any other soft drink. If you want to see examples from a different group of photographers that could argue that they were copied by *naked-in-the-rain, or that they were copied by each other, then click these links. >>>[link]<<< >>>[link]<<< >>>[link]<<< >>>[link]<<< >>>[link]<<< >>>[link]<<< >>>[link]<<< >>>[link]<<< Originality fail? I think we've all been there. There's nothing new under the sun. (This statement or quote is also unoriginal as well.)
Ok, and I sort of knew this may be the case but still wanted to mention it.
I understand why you did it, comparing the two, I've done similar tests as well, the drawback I see from doing that is now you have 4 fairly similar shots in your gallery, same subject matter as well (and yes I realize I have very similar shots of a few things, but I feel that as of recently I've kept it to a minimum), and again, I understand why you'd do that but where I feel it may not be the best is that you posted them (and to be fair, this is certainly the best of the lot).
What I also want to mention is actually you and *naked-in-the-rain were the first two I've seen do this, though I'm not surprised there's more. You are totally right that we've all fallen to that, but I feel that there is a bit to be discovered under the sun, there's a difference in varying subject matter and varying your subject's matter For example, there's hundreds of photos of animals/landscapes/etc, but I enjoy a wide variety of those, because despite the fact that each is a lion, or a wide view of the mountains, there's for the most part a very distinguishable factor to those I like! It's nothing new to take a photo of a riveting landscape, with an amazing sunset, but that sunset is likely different from any other captured by anyone else unless that someone is standing beside you.