Nikon Digital Learning Center / Discuss
Current Discussion
Latest: 7 hours ago
Latest: 10 hours ago
Latest: 18 hours ago
Latest: 24 hours ago
Latest: 31 hours ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 2 days ago
Latest: 3 days ago
Latest: 3 days ago
Latest: 7 days ago
Abstractions
Get Closer! 
says:
To my mind, all photographs are "Abstracts" in the sense that they are not the original photographed subject, but merely a representation of that subject.
Non-objective, or non-representational art is that which may be about line, form or color, but includes no readily identifiable original subject. I think this type of shooting has a purity in compositions that must satisfy without the context of knowable content. Shooting this type of image is a great way to strengthen one's compositional skills.
So, and with a nod to Rosanne for starting the notion of themed posts, I'm calling for some examples of Non-Objective Abstract Photography, but there are THREE RULES for this discussion:
1) Larger images take up too much space and make the list unnecessarily long, so I will not respond to any image larger than "Small," and if the list gets too long, the largest photos will be the first ones deleted. I would like the image to be in your photos where I can find it and go look at a larger version if you really tweak my interest.
2) Also in the interest of keeping the list manageable, and as a challenge to you to be better editors, no more than two photos per person. I will not comment on anything after the first two and the additional ones will also be prioritized for deletion if necessary to manage the length of the list.
3) When I started the "Art and Craft" discussion, Fujiboy ask me if it was a test. In that case I said no, but for this discussion the answer is yes, this is a test. If I can figure out what you shot, you get an F.
So, I've thrown down the glove. Any takers?
Posted at 11:10PM, 26 August 2007 PDT ( permalink )
blogrodent says:
I'm not very experienced at the non-objective / non-representational stuff. I do shoot a lot of macros and textures, which are non-representational in their way, but the texture is clearly identifiable, so that would seem to rule of lot of that out, given your definition and rules.
However, when I showed this one to my friends, to a person, they all scratched their heads and said, "Huh, what is it?" I liked the end result for the lines, the contrast, and the way it pleased my eye. They disliked it because it didn't have a subject. So, I'm hoping this one fills your bill:
Your comments are welcome. I have a feeling this is an area I need to explore more in my growth as a photographer.
Rich
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
YOU PASS! This very much illustrates the kind of thing I was looking for. Texture is a perfectly acceptable topic for abstraction and macro work is the most prevalent way to actually remove identity of the real world subject and create the mystery your friends are having trouble with. Why do humans feel the need to know the answer to every question?
I, too, have gotten lots of, "What is it?" questions over the years and my (admittedly contrarian) answer is usually, "It's a photograph." That usually leads to another, "Huh?" What they are trying to ask is, "What was it?" but once we are at the point in time of looking at the photograph I don't think it usually matters anymore and I will sometimes refuse to tell. One of my favorite print sales, from many years ago, was to someone who said, "Don't tell me what it was." I loved that because it told me she "got" the photograph.
I like the shot but with one nitpick--the pure white tones at the two bottom corners of the frame. A viewer's eye is most strongly drawn to brightness and having that on or near an edge makes it possible for the eye to drift out of the photo. Often just darkening the edges slightly is enough to "push" the eye back into the frame, but I don't think that would work for this shot where the strong graphic quality would be contradicted by subtle graying at the edges. For a while now I've been putting a small black line around the edge of my edited images and that defines the frame. I think that might work for you in this case.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
blogrodent says:
Hooray! I'm happy my photo got a passng grade!
I agree with the framing issue. When I first made the photo it was destined for printing, so the edges of the print didn't really require the border. I wish Flickr allowed users to choose the background color of the page background for individual photos. Some photos probably look best on white, but I much prefer some shade of gray. On white, it's like looking at photos with a flashlight pointed in your face.
Anyhow, thanks for the critique!
Rich
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
drunkcat says:
Originally posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
drunkcat edited this topic 9 months ago.
drunkcat says:
I am not confident whether I can pass your test. I just find my compostion is non-objective and abstractive. Your comment would be highly appreciated!
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
FAIL, but don't take that too hard. I recognize the subject as an architectural detail, looks like colored fabrics, in the upper area of a large open structure with the skylight behind it. It only fails on the issue of being able to recognize something specific, the glass panels behind the color panels, but it is really a beautiful shot and a much stronger composition than the other similar shot in your photos where the right side has a lot of dark area that doesn't contribute much to the scene. It's very difficult to do a wider shot of a scene and remove all reference to real world content (which is why most non-objective photos tend to be macros), but you made a good effort and by more casual standards it really is more about design--color, line and texture in this case--and less about subject. Nice picture.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
blogrodent--if you want your photos on a different ground than white do this. After you edit and size the photo in Photoshop, go to Canvas Size, just below the Image Size menu choice. Check the Relative box and put in whatever additional area size you would like to have for a neutral ground. Then you can fill that area with whatever tone or color you like. Once you save that file, the canvas tone will just be part of the image so it will set the actual image area off from the white ground of the Flickr page. Do keep in mind that the size of the photo now will include the canvas as well, so the actual image area will be smaller. Make the canvas too big and the image will be smaller and possibly more difficult to see. This is the way I create the small black border around my shots, using about a .1 inch relative black canvas.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
blogrodent says:
I suspected what it was when I saw it here and knew it when I saw the medium sized version, But does that mean I get points or does it mean you lose points? :: grin ::
The bleeding rust makes it pretty easy to figure out the context. In fact, it almost feels like that is your subject and the rest is ground.
Just my two pennies worth.
Rich
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
myDefinition says:
I haven't done much in this vein, but a good while back I shot this:
Originally posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
myDefinition edited this topic 9 months ago.
Get Closer! says:
Ryan--I'm guessing it's part of a metal sign, with a portion of one letter showing, but I'm unsure enough (short of looking at the tags) that I'll say you PASS.
Now I've looked at the tags, and I was close. (Part of this exercise is for me to test myself as well.) I think you have a strong balance of positive and negative space (the black and white tones) without them being too even or symmetrical. And I agree with blogrodent, the rust is the real subject. Without that the rest would be too flat and uninteresting. I also like the way the white curves into and back out of the frame from the top left, the area of a photo where we of western origin at least tend to start "reading" the photo. Good job.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
mthurmanator--no question, you PASS. I haven't got a clue, although it does remind me a little of the gel (cel?) photographs that are used to compare DNA. I like the contrast of the boxy sides framing the free floating dots and the way the three strong horizontal white lines on the left keep it from being too symmetrical which would have been too predictable as a pattern. Without them the shot would have become boring pretty quickly. Nice shot.
I just looked at this in your photos and found your DNA comparisons. Great minds....
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
drunkcat says:
With limited comprehension of English, I didn't catch your aim of the test, but seeing the three passed compositions, I understand now. That is a composition that makes the audience don't know what it is in a glance.That's too abstractive to me too. I have to surrender.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
drunkcat--of course everyone has their preferences for subject matter and that's fine, but I would encourage you not to surrender. Working on purely abstract compositions is one of the best ways to improve your compositional skills for all the kinds of photos you take.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
myDefinition says:
Glad I stumped you with my picture. It was an experiment, and I am pleased with the result. You will know what it actually was if you view the comments, but heck, you may prefer not to know. Thanks for looking. If I have a suitable second candidate I will post it here.
ta
Mark
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Adam Douglas Photography says:
Not too hard to figure this one out, but I still like it.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
Adam Douglas--FAIL, but only because of the strict interpretation of abstraction I put on this assignment. Outside of that it is a very nice shot and I like it too, just like drunkcat's knowable but still handsome shot. The positioning of the solid rock in the lower left and the "line" that the white water draws across the diagonal of the frame make for a solid composition.
Rumata--PASS. I could speculate about it being a closeup of a loufa or some sort of scouring sponge of sorts, but bottom line, I don't know. (I just looked at your gallery and now I'm pretty sure it's moss.) It's a wonderful intricate pattern where one could get lost following the threads inside, kind of like a maze, but I think I would crop the softness on the right side. That way all of the image would be the same sharpness and have an even more abstracted, non photographic look.
More generally, for everyone, I would like to make a point about assignments, whether it's this academic one I gave out, or a commercial one you might get from a client. "Pretty" and "successful" are not the same thing. If you were assigned by the Sierra Club to photograph pollution and came back with a series of beautiful compositions, it might be hard for them to make the case that the scene is the result of bad political decisions.
So, my point here is you have to be able to separate what you like from what you were asked to do. If you don't satisfy the requirements of the assignment/client then you fail on at least one important level, the one where you do or don't get paid for your work. And that, even more so than any quality issues, is what separates the pros from the amateurs.
Amateurs shoot to satisfy themselves (and pros often have moments when they get to be amateurs in that sense); pros shoot to satisfy clients, although the best assignments let you do both.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
PASS, although I'm pretty sure I know what it is based on experience, there is no obvious clue in the photograph. I think it's the sky seen through two buildings, but it's one of those classic optical illusions like the two faces that can also be seen as a vase. Since light projects forward in a photo and dark recedes, we tend to see this as a light wedge shape against a dark ground. Good eye.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
Cook Jones says:
Correct. Two buildings in NYC underexposed on an already dreary day. In the bottom center you can see the beginnings of a third building cloaked in fog.
Thanks.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
blogrodent says:
Just for kicks, although I suspect this thread has died now … here's a recent shot I took.
I titled it "Reality Distortion Field."
Rich
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fimages%2Fbuddyicon.jpg)
sharaff (hachhooo) [deleted] says:
This can be called abstract? I saw leaf and wanted to try it this way. Hand held. Used the 105mm Nikkor
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1164%2F1195181639_c2cc169748_m.jpg)
-- from sharaff - (?)
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
analox says:
i titled it "A universe". Can it be called abstract? :)
Originally posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )
analox edited this topic 9 months ago.
blogrodent says:
sharaff, I'm pretty sure that, according to the standards G.C. posed, this is too readily identifiable to be non-objective and, therefore, does not qualify as an abstract piece in this sense. There's no question in my mind we have a photo of an evergreen of some sort here.
analox, going by the same standards, when I looked at this small pic I thought, "Looks like a lamp outside a rain-covered window." That may not be the case, but that's how it appears to me, and if it is the subject, I suspect it will fail G.C.'s test. However, nice composition!
Rich (only posting because I like to see activity on this thread and I'm hoping G.C. will chime in if only to correct me!) Tatum
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
FrogJD2 says:
Holy cow--I just read up on nonobjective abstraction last night for my fundamentals of design class... Text book definition says "shapes with no object reference and no subject matter suggestion"... In otherwords, I think "Get Closer" is looking for pure forms... Never thought of it in terms of photography--AWESOME IDEA!
P.S. The terminology for Cook Jones' image is "Figure/Ground" or "Pos./Neg. Space"
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
[srijith] says:
Abstraction ??? . Here is my contribution
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F83%2F248280175_b964707d4c_m.jpg)
View full size
Originally posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
[srijith] edited this topic 8 months ago.
Get Closer! says:
I"m Baaaaaccccckkkkk! Sorry to be quiet so long, but I had to be in Yellowstone with Rosanne as Mentors on American Photo/Popular Photography's Montana Mentor Trek. Tough job, but somebody's gotta do it. :) I'll have to be gone again next week for about 10 days as well. I MUST spend 10 days in Provence with my wife. She insists, or otherwise I would love to just hang with you guys. (Not really, but I'm working on being polite.)
But...the thread is not dead, and blogrodent seems to be doing a fine job as stand in. So, to catch up:
Blogrodent--PASS; it looks like a dead palm frond to me, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. I'll niggle the composition just a little about the hot spot on the left edge near the bottom. It's a distraction and gives the viewers eye an escape route from the photo. Since a viewer's eye will be drawn to brightness, normally you should try to avoid it at the edges. In this case a slight cropping, or use of the clone tool to fill some color and density in the spot would help.
And nice call on the two comments.
Sharaff--FAIL, because it is so easily recognizable. It is a nice micro shot, but the bright vertical line in the left ground is a bit distracting. I would also like to see the camera repositioned a bit. Either get absolutely square on the leaf/limb so it is perfectly symmetrical, or move even more to the left and exploit the wonderful curve of the leaf spine as a compositional element.
Analox--PASS, although I too see a light reflecting in the nighttime window, covered with raindrops, though I think the light may be a lamp inside the room. But I can't be sure just from looking, so I'll accept it. And, I believe there is also a universe inside your window.
FrogJD2--to paraphrase Professor Higgins, "By George, I think he's got it." Making compositions concentrating on forms and other design elements (line, shape, color, texture, etc.) will improve all your compositions including the ones with identifiable subject matter.
Srijithpv--PASS. As with Sharaff's leaf, I would like to see a couple of variations that might strengthen the design. I like that you did not center the vertical line with equal amounts of green and gold, but I would like to see the vertical line exactly vertical, or more pointedly angled. This slight angle makes me wonder if you were paying close attention to that aspect of the design and the "weighting" of the different elements against each other.
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
cosmolito says:
The best I can do from the pics on my stream... got me thinking tho :)
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
analox says:
@GC & blogrodent: it's in fact a lamp outside my window while it was raining. Thanks a lot for your comments :)
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
cosmolito--I'm starting to need something between PASS and FAIL, maybe "PAIL" ?? I'm pretty sure this is some sort of woven basket/wicker thing. It's a nice idea, but the unevenness of the light--some bright, some dark--makes it less effective to me. Also, I'd like the "movement" of the weave to be more cohesive. Maybe tighter cropping to the center, lit section. Or maybe reshoot with only back lighting so all the reed work is black, silhouetted. If this got you thinking, I'll bet you can come up with a stronger version.
reiki1010--there's no photo there; it just says "This photo is currently unavailable" and going to your photo stream it indicates the photo has been deleted. Was this an attempt at absolute minimalism? :-)
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
reiki1010 says:
lol. It's a photo of a metal lamp base. That's the reason for the unevenness and brightness of some of the pieces. I just love the graceful lines in the base. I did delete it because I just took the shot for the challenge. I'm going to play with your suggestions and some others. Thanks for the ideas!
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
cosmolito says:
@ Get Closer! Points taken, however I have no chance to reshoot with this particular object.... it's now about 600 miles away from me, in france! It's not a crop though. Full frame original shot, close - up on this:
Thanks for the PAIL rating tho, I'll settle for that :-)
Originally posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
cosmolito edited this topic 8 months ago.
Get Closer! says:
karenslens--I'm gonna PASS both of these although I'm pretty sure the second one is either two buildings or two sections of the same building covered in mirrored glass, juxtaposed against each other. No matter, in both you've done a nice job of removing the "real" and composing based just on the lines and shapes. One nitpick--I'd crop about half of the left side solid black area in the first shot for a little more balance in the "weight" of the tones and lines.
cosmolito--please reread the rules for image sizing in the original post. Your punishment for this infraction is that you have to go back to France and reshoot.
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
f8onmyside says:
thanks for the comments, GC. And for the PASS :-)
#1 shows a side view of folded gift bags hanging for sale in a store
#2 is a detail of the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles.
PS - I volunteer to serve out cosmolito's punishment!
Originally posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
f8onmyside edited this topic 8 months ago.
Get Closer! says:
karenslens--too late. I'm leaving for Provence Monday. I love croissant, and, as unpopular as this may be with some Americans, I love France and the French. Any country that shuts pretty much everything down for a 2 hour lunch break has the right priorities in my book.
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
dro!d says:
Great thread GC, thanks. I know you'll enjoy Provence this time of year. I miss Valbonne quite a lot.
If you're still taking submissions, I'll pony up this one:
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
Get Closer! says:
dro!d--PASS, with an A+. This is beautiful, sensuous, and completely non-objective. I like the way the brighter blue glow with the black corners near the bottom left and top right contain the composition. Good job!
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
dro!d says:
Wow. I'll take it. :^)
FWIW, this is a section of interior wall / ceiling architecture, appropriately wavy, at the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta. It's also among the first things I shot with my first DSLR, but I can't find any other non-objective abstracts I've made in the year since. Something to work on.
Thanks again GC and bon voyage.
Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
blogrodent says:
I appreciate this thread because it's instructive. I haven't focused a lot on abstraction, but this discussion has helped me think a little differently about my photography, and that's great.
So, okay, here's a recent one from my photostream: "The Vandal Constellation"
Some concerns I already have about this piece: I should have gotten rid of the bit of white in the top left - it's distracting and deosn't serve the photo. Also, I probabliy should have flopped the photo since the eye is drawn naturally to the left to follow that streak out of frame away from the "action" in the photo on the right. On the other hand, I don't know.
Any and all comments welcome.
Rich
Originally posted 3 months ago. ( permalink )
blogrodent edited this topic 3 months ago.
Get Closer! says:
A nice shot that would have been improved by your suggestion to remove the little bit of white in the top left corner. Also I think toning down the center area of the top to keep brighter tones away from the edge of the frame, where they offer an "escape route" from the photo, would help. As for flopping the image, I disagree. Since in western culture we tend to read images left to right, I think the single line leads the viewer to the other cluster of lines where he/she will be drawn to exploring the pattern of circles. If flopped I think the single line would lead the viewer out of the frame. I also like the warm color and texture and the little bits of yellow flickering through the shot.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
tef10-7 says:
Glad this thread came around again as I was experimenting a bit with this. This ones probably easy to recognize (or you'll kick yourself if you don't) but I like the geometry of it... Tom
I think I like this one better...
Originally posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
tef10-7 edited this topic 2 months ago.
John Leonard, Vote For The Eye on jpgmag.com! says:
What the heck, I'll play. I don't do much of pure abstract but I have a few images here and there.
I know the last one is not in the truest spirit of the thread, but I like it. I think it shows why incorporating abstract thinking into an image is important.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
Graeme Smith says:
I think this is something I should do more of this kind of thing… It's very fun - but for some reason I haven't really done many abstract shots lately.
Originally posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
Graeme Smith edited this topic 2 months ago.
Get Closer! says:
tef10-7--I'm guessing the grid covering a fluorescent light fixture? I agree that I think the second one is stronger. I like the formality of the pattern. However, these shots and the formal patterns from John Leonard, shpotnik, and Graeme Smith will all have a long term fatal flaw. They are too predictable. What I mean by that is they are interesting at first, but they quickly come to hold no surprises. If you printed any of these and hung them on the wall they would become invisible to anyone who is regularly in that space.
That doesn't mean they are bad though; shooting this kind of thing is a good exercise for working out ways to approach balance and spatial arrangements in more complex images.
gherringer and D&J Huber have come up with really interesting versions of the more complex image I'm referring to. The shots are non-objective, although I am 99% sure the first is water reflections and the second is ice sheeting on a body of water. They have some repetition for cohesiveness, but enough irregularity that you keep exploring them, studying the colors, tones, textures and lines. Nice work, all.
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
tef10-7 says:
@Get Closer --Many thanks for this and other topics/dicussions you have started. I always end up learning a lot after reading them! Agree with the "fatal flaw" observation/critique --thanks again!
Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon Digital Learning Center discussion threads
Flickr Blog | About Flickr | Terms of Use | Your Privacy | Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
| Deutsch | English | Español | Français | 
| Italiano | Português Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! All rights reserved.
You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here
