This is much nicer. It's not a photograph "about" anything, or "of" anything. It is a photograph which expresses motion, light, color and form. What most people seem to have a hard time understanding when they look at so- called "abstracts" is to disengage their thinking from objective "what is it?" inspection and enjoy the interplay of simple visual elements.
I don't call this kind of work abstract except in the most primitive sense ... it is a photograph of something which is difficult to articulate in objective "what is it" terms. You look at this kind of photograph for the simpler properties of light and form, decide whether it is pleasing to the eye without such objective denotation. I did an abstract in this vein recently which I just rendered out for posting... http://homepage.mac.com/godders/15-light_n_form.jpg It is certainly a photograph of something, and there was no photoshopping involved other than the rendering to monochrome and cropping to square, but that's not the point. ;-) Godfrey On Feb 28, 2008, at 8:32 AM, AlunFoto wrote: > Abstracts can be great when there's a concious purpose behind the > abstraction. This one only served the purpose of entertaining a > photographer wielding a new toy. Hence the silliness... :-) > > Here's a 1024x700 version: > http://www.alunfoto.no/temp/20080227-0073.jpg > > Jostein > > 2008/2/28, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Only issue to me is that this photo needs to be rendered a lot larger >> to see it properly. >> >> What's so silly about an abstract? ;-) >> >> G >> >> On Feb 27, 2008, at 10:45 AM, AlunFoto wrote: >> >>> Just a silly abstract, maybe, but I really like this one myself. >>> http://alunfoto.blogspot.com/2008/02/water-filaments.html >>> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
