Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: jmdr on June 13, 2006, 11:30:46 pm

Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 13, 2006, 11:30:46 pm
I'd like to have a discussion about the role of abstraction in landscape photography- a category that is generally highly representational.

To me it seems that, generally, abstraction takes the form of a.) isolating features to the point it's hard to tell what they are, b.) motion blur, either from subject or camera movement, or c.) use of an extremely short depth of field.  It's this 3rd type of abstraction (there could be more that I've missed here) that I've begun to experiment with, and to move past, into something I haven't seen done before.

I started to experiment with greater levels of abstraction by deliberately de-focusing the image in an effort to capture the sense of my subject, rather than the details.  These images are more about the colours, tones, contrasts, the shapes of the landscape, rather than specific details.

You can see some examples of my recent work at my online gallery (http://www.borealisimages.ca).

I would love to hear any comments on my work, specifically or in general, but would also like to talk about your thoughts on this matter, hear about other photographers that used abstraction in their work, etc.

Thanks,

Jonathan


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/images/0601_010228.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/summer/images/duckmtn_1030.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/summer/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/summer/images/duckmtn_1287.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/summer/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/images/0605_011746_ministik.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/earlywinter/images/0512_009493_b_w.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/earlywinter/)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 14, 2006, 12:17:08 am
Sorry! To my eyes you've just got a sereies of out-of-focus images of no value (to me).

There's nothing here I find the slightest bit interesting.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 14, 2006, 03:09:12 am
Okay Ray, fair enough (in fact it's been a fairly common reaction - though I was kind of hoping it wouldn't be the first reaction...), and thanks for the honesty.

What I'd like to know is whether what you object to is the style of the abstraction in these images (the deliberate focus shift), or the practice of abstraction in general?  I've included some examples of the three types of photographic abstraction I mentioned in my initial post.  I'd love to know whether any of these are of interest or appeal to you (or to others reading this thread). and especially I'd like to know why, or why not...

This first image is sharply focused, yet still quite abstracted in the sense that I've zoomed in close enough that the "subject" of the photograph is no longer the grass in itself, but rather the contrasting lines of light and dark, the range of colour from blue to yellow, and the repeating, gently curved lines of the blades:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/images/0601_010194.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/)

This one is sharply focused, yet is of a blurry (foggy) scene:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/images/0601_010458.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/)

This next image was one of my favourite winners from the 2005 BBC wildlife photographer of the year award (see here (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/gallery/image.jsp?image=3469)).  It was shot at f/32, so depth of field/mis-focusing is not what's creating the effect, it's the motion of the water.  Again, the effect of the technique used by the photographer is to "capture the strange effect" (quote by the photographer), rather than a split-second representation of the waterfall:

(http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/gallery/pictures/62.jpg)

This next one of my own uses the same type of exposure settings (small aperture, long exposure time) to capture not only the colour, but also the movement of the early autumn leaves blowing in a breeze:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2004/autumn/images/0409_0248.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2004/autumn/)

These last two both use short depth of field to abstract the content. The first was taken with a long lens with a large distance between the sharply-focused foreground and the background, throwing the background out of focus.  The second is a close-up taken nearly parallel to the fallen log with a wide apeture so that only a small area is in the in-focus plane.  Both these techniques, here, again have the effect focusing the attention on the colours, shapes, and lines in the photograph as a whole, rather than on the "subject" (sapling and grass shadow, respectively).

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2004/earlywinter/images/0411_0230.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2004/earlywinter/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/images/0604_011503_sscp.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/)

So please, let me know how (or whether) you think abstraction can play a role in appealing landscape photography.  I've been rolling these ideas around in my head by myself for a while, and would enjoy having a genuine discussion to see what other people think about all this.  (and don't worry about hurting my feelings, as long as you're truthful and respectful, I want to know exactly what you think, good or bad)(besides, I still like the blurry ones, and that's what counts to me...)

Jonathan

(Again, you can browse through a collection of my images (many far less abstract than these) at www.borealisimages.ca (http://www.borealisimages.ca), or leave your comments at www.borealisimages.ca/discussionboard (http://www.borealisimages.ca/discussionboard/))
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 14, 2006, 11:13:47 am
Quote
What I'd like to know is whether what you object to is the style of the abstraction in these images (the deliberate focus shift), or the practice of abstraction in general?  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,
Having looked at a few of your images, I find that some of them are very evocative and striking. They grab the attention. You seem to have an eye for making the most out of small details that others might miss. But I have to say I like your 'in focus' images much better than your 'out of focus' images.

I'm not sure that the simple technique of getting the entire image OOF constitutes a meaningful abstraction. I see this as more of a reaction against the obsession with resolution, which I also see in many of your images which appear beautifully tack sharp at the point of focus. A sharp point of interest contrasted against a blurry background is fine. When the whole image becomes the blurry background it just seems incomplete to me. Nevertheless, anyone who likes minimalist paintings might like your OOF images. I'm sometimes amazed at the amount of valuable space that is often taken up in art galleries by huge minimalist paintings that are about as interesting as a bare wall.

I suppose one good point about your OOF images, they are restful for the eyes   . Is that their purpose?
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Grev on June 14, 2006, 11:41:23 am
I agree that the focused images are much better.  Partly because there is an "aim" to them, on the other hand the out of focused image seems "aimless".

I think out of focused images could be used if it was for like a photo diary of some sorts or a sillhouette of a easily recognised subject, other than that it just doesn't evoke.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Tim Gray on June 14, 2006, 12:18:07 pm
from the Merriam Webster online dictionary: abstract:  having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content

I suspect the problem with the images in you original post was that they actually had too much pictorial representation - ie weren't sufficiently "abstract" - since the essential subject was still very much apparent - trees, mountain etc.  The best one was the 3 "suns" and I liked that, as an abstract, becaused it really didn't look like an out of focus photograph.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 14, 2006, 03:34:59 pm
Thanks again everyone for your comments.

Ray- yes, I do find the out-of-focus images to be restful.  For me, I can look at them and appreciate the colours and shapes of the image, rather than being distracted by the details.

One of my favourite quotes from the great Ansel Adams reads: "A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed." (my emphasis)  Ansel was of course known for taking only the sharpest possible images, rebelling against the prevailing trend when he was first starting of using slightly soft focus to add a "dreamy" effect, but what he said still rings true for me. When I make these blurry images, the thing that makes me take my camera out of the bag and compose a photo, and what I am trying to capture and present to the viewer, is the overall colours/shapes/patterns of the landscape, not the specific details of the scene.  As you noticed, there are times when it's the details that I find inspiring me to take a picture, and then I make sure that those details are captured sharply.

I am interested in knowing whether more "traditional" methods of rendering the entire contents of a photograph out-of-focus, such as long exposures of moving subjects, deliberate camera movement during exposure,  or multiple exposures, are more appealing to people reading this thread, and if so, why?  Maybe some of you are familiar with the work of Freeman Patterson (http://www.freemanpatterson.com/)? He is a well established canadian photographer, who has published several excellent books that encouraged me to experiment with different techniques of capturing the essence of a subject, rather than the details.  His term for this style is "photo impression".  Here are a couple examples of his work (you can find more at his website (http://www.freemanpatterson.com/)).

(http://www.freemanpatterson.com/images/prints/photo_impressionism1/9.jpg)

(camera movement, maybe even out-of-focus)

(http://www.freemanpatterson.com/images/prints/photo_impressionism1/6.jpg)

(depth of field, with no subject in focus (the light circles are dew drops))

(http://www.freemanpatterson.com/images/prints/photo_impressionism1/11.jpg)

(camera movement)

(http://www.freemanpatterson.com/images/prints/photo_impressionism1/14.jpg)

(camera movement)

Courtney Milne (http://www.courtneymilne.com/) is another canadian photographer who's work inspired me to begin experimenting with my own work.  He too, uses the techniques I mentioned above to render his photographs as abstractions of the actual subject.  Here are a couple examples of his work, from a great book (http://www.courtneymilne.com/womitchell/woportfolio.html) that he did in tribute to canadian authour W.O. Mitchellgreat book (http://www.courtneymilne.com/womitchell/woportfolio.html)

(http://www.courtneymilne.com/womitchell/images/wo183.gif)

(long exposure with lens zoomed during exposure (reflections on a stream))


(http://www.courtneymilne.com/womitchell/images/wo204.gif)

(double exposure with camera movement)


(http://www.courtneymilne.com/womitchell/images/wo216.gif)

(camera movement)

Many more of my favourite examples of Courtney's work can be seen here (http://www.courtneymilne.com/carr/carr_port/index.html) in a gallery of images in tribute to canadian artist Emily Carr, including these:

(http://www.courtneymilne.com/carr/carr_port/images/597058.jpg)

(camera movement)

(http://www.courtneymilne.com/carr/carr_port/images/131055.jpg)

(depth of field (??))

So do any of these images appeal to anyone? How do you react to these different techniques?  What seperates the images/techniques that you do like versus the ones that you don't like?

I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this...

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: DarkPenguin on June 14, 2006, 05:05:01 pm
They'd make great mouse pads.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 14, 2006, 05:06:53 pm
Quote
from the Merriam Webster online dictionary: abstract:  having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68178\")

Tim- thank you for the interesting definition, I searched define:abstract art in google, and came up with these as the top two definitions: (my emphasis)

"Art that departs significantly from natural appearances. Forms are modified or changed to varying degrees in order to emphasize certain qualities or content. Recognizable references to original appearances may be slight. The term is also used to describe art that is nonrepresentational." [a href=\"http://www.ackland.org/tours/classes/glossary.html]link[/url]

"Not realistic, though the intention is often based on an actual subject, place, or feeling. Pure abstracion can be interpreted as any art in which the depiction of real objects has been entirely discarded and whose aesthetic content is expressed in a pattern or structure of shapes, lines and colors. When the representation of real objects is completely absent, such art may be called non-objective." link (http://www.patronsartgallery.com/glossary.htm)

Photography is an interesting medium in that, unlike a painting, a photograph must represent a subject that actually existed in reality.  Richard Martin (http://www.richardmartinphoto.com/) wrote a great article in the March 2005 article of the canadian photography magazine Photolife (http://www.photolife.com/).  If you're interested in this discussion, try to find a copy at your library.

It's interesting that of my blurry ones, it was the blurriest one that you prefered.  Many of the images from other photographers in my previous post still contain discernable subjects, do you find this "pictorial representation" to still be distracting with these different techniques of abstraction?  Below are some examples of my own, where I've taken the out-of-focus technique about as far as my lens would allow:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/images/0601_010240.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/images/0604_011579_sscp.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/earlywinter/images/0512_009202.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/earlywinter/)

A good friend of mine shares your opinion that the blurrier the better, so I'd be interested to see what you think of these ones above, or if I happened to "hit it lucky" with the "three suns" image.  And speaking of which, this was one of the few times that I've taken an alternate, sharply focused, photograph of the same subject matter.  So at the risk of providing an alternative to the lone positive reaction so far (I'm not sure if "nice mouse-pads" is a compliment or not...), here is the two alternate versions:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/images/0605_011740_ministik.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/images/0605_011746_ministik.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/)

Obviously, the two versions are doing two competely different things: the sharply focused image presenting a view of an interesting and beautiful sunset, the out-of-focus image presenting (hopefully) an interesting and beautiful image in it's own right, separate from the subject matter.

It seems to me that most people have a difficult time separating beautiful subject matter from beautiful image.  This seems especially true in photography, as opposed to paintings, due to the expectation of viewers that a photograph is a "true" or "accurate" depiction of the real world.

What do you think? I'd like to hear anybody's opinions on this topic.  

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: DarkPenguin on June 14, 2006, 05:40:58 pm
Quote
*chomp*
(I'm not sure if "nice mouse-pads" is a compliment or not...)
*chomp*

To be honest I'm not sure either.  But the first thing that went through my head was that I'd like that on a mouse pad.  (Or as a desktop.)

I think it is because it works when your focus is elsewhere.  Which makes sense since there is really no point of focus.  I'm not sure there is a catagory for art you shouldn't look at directly.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Digiteyesed on June 14, 2006, 07:46:16 pm
Jonathan, I like your abstracts where there are elements that my eye can snap to. I find that your completely out of focus shots don't provide a 'starting point' for me (which is probably the intent), but I find it unsettling because I've spent my entire life being trained to settle my eye onto some part of whatever I'm looking at.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: BernardLanguillier on June 15, 2006, 05:39:12 am
One from me:

(http://static.flickr.com/58/156885081_24c9cd2eba_o.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Tim Gray on June 15, 2006, 08:45:13 am
Quote
Tim- thank you for the interesting definition, I searched define:abstract art in google, and came up with these as the top two definitions: (my emphasis)

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I like the first image the most (actually quite like it).  If oof is the abstraction technique, then I think any actual representation needs to be pretty well "abstracted" out.

My preferred style of abstraction is to preserve sharp focus, but remove as much context as possible.

(http://www.timgrayphotography.com/galleries/200511bruce/slides/02983-01.jpg)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 15, 2006, 11:58:22 am
Quote
Jonathan, I like your abstracts where there are elements that my eye can snap to. I find that your completely out of focus shots don't provide a 'starting point' for me (which is probably the intent), but I find it unsettling because I've spent my entire life being trained to settle my eye onto some part of whatever I'm looking at.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68197\")

That's an interesting point Sean.  I've heard from a number of people that they are looking for something (anything) to act as a focal point in a photograph.  I think this is the same thing Grev was talking about the "aim" of an image.

I do think that a large part of the reason that viewers "require" this "snap-to" point is that, like you said, we've all been trained to view photographic images in a certain way, and anything that does not fit well with those ways of viewing photos becomes "uncomfortable".  I've been thinking that most people regard, and expect, photographs as documentation of a subject, rather than as aesthetic entities in their own right.  Not to suggest though, that the documentation can not be done in a compelling, beautiful manner.

I wonder Sean (or anyone), whether you find that the other abstraction techniques that render the entire image blurred or streaked, do provide this "starting point" or "aim", and if so, how exactly.  (I ask Sean specifically because he has some beautiful examples of camera movement, and lens zoom, during exposure posted on [a href=\"http://www.digiteyesed.com/]his website[/url])

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 15, 2006, 12:52:36 pm
Quote
...
My preferred style of abstraction is to preserve sharp focus, but remove as much context as possible.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68234\")

That's a beautiful image Tim, I also find the technique of isolating elements of the landscape is a great (and more accesible) way to get people to look more closely at the beauty around them.  

Bernard's contribution is a great example of this technique too, beautiful, but I can't tell exactly what it is. And for me, that's part of the appeal.  Not being able to discern the subject matter forces me to appreciate the photograph in it's own right, as a beautiful image, rather than as a well composed documentation of a beautiful scene.

Here's an example of my own:

[a href=\"http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2004/earlywinter/](http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2004/earlywinter/images/0411_0056.jpg)[/url]

It's interesting that Tim mentions maintaining sharp focus when, to my eye, all of the sharp detail in your image has been rendered "out of focus" due to the distortion of the water.  It's clear from the image that, had the water not been there, you've "correctly" set your lens to the proper focal distance to capture the sharp detail, and yet it's not there.  To me, this photograph is more about the colours, the pattern of light surfaces and dark lines, and the different textures in the top and bottom of the image, rather than a picture of stones in a lake.

I've found that photographers often use water for this effect, and I am interested in the difference in reaction to images where a photographer has captured pre-existing distortion, vs. when a photographer makes a creative decision to add abstraction to an image.  I think perhaps, similar to what Sean ("digiteyesed") mentioned, people are accustomed to seeing things distorted by water, but not by photographers.

What do you think?  Is there an essential difference between the two techniques?

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: collum on June 15, 2006, 02:57:59 pm
a couple  more

(http://www.jcollum.com/coastal/images/collum_219.jpg)


(http://www.jcollum.com/coastal/images/collum_045.jpg)

i also tend to favor the 'remove the frame of reference' style. it does seem to add anchor points more readily
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 15, 2006, 05:20:57 pm
This thoughtful and considered discussion has inspired me to explore abstraction more.

Difficulties in determining our ability to appreciate "abstract photography" I think relates to what Ray originally suggested and others have indicated (also in this thread http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=10667 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10667) )- that it is an oxymoron - because of the accepted nature of photography, that is, to capture what one can see. Digital imaging and photoshop have somewhat shifted this notion and enhancement and creative effects through photoshop have become tolerated and accepted to various degrees depending upon which area of the art one practices.

From my own artistic studies, (as I mentioned in the link above), one of the key elements of abstract art was the physical, tangible involvement with the medium. This may not be possible to the same extent with photography, unless one considers the camera or keyboard correlating with paint, pastel..etc. Perhaps because of the nature of photography this element is not important and the final product is the only element which is used to determine whether a photograph is an abstract.

Thanks for posting your images Collum, but in my mind I don't feel that they are actually abstracts. They explore shape and colour, but I don't think they satisfy many of the definitions of abstract, one of which Tim quoted above. Your images are more like close ups of rocks, rather than true abstractions.

Some of the other abstract photographs are truly beautiful and inspiring and have opened up a whole new way of seeing the world for me. Thak you also Tim, Bernard, and JMDR

It would be interesting to see whether artists-turned-photographers are able to appreciate 'blurred' out of focus photographs as abstractions without the need to have clear focal points and sharpness, more readily than photographers-turned artists.  

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Tim Gray on June 15, 2006, 07:39:46 pm
Hmmm....   I don't consider this shot "abstract"

(http://www.timgrayphotography.com/galleries/2004%2005%20zoos%20etc/slides/FB5E5384.jpg)

But, on a scale of 1 - 10, I would give this an "abstraction score" of 8.  

(http://www.timgrayphotography.com/galleries/200407misc/slides/FB5E6689.jpg)

Maybe part of the problem is that "abstract" isn't binary - an image can be "more or less" "abstract".  Of Collum's 2 images I would consider the second to be significantly more abstract than the first.

I think that the characterization of abstract might also depend on the media - what's abstract in the context of paint on a canvass might be different from what's abstract in the context of a photograph.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 15, 2006, 07:44:04 pm
Quote
it is an oxymoron - because of the accepted nature of photography, that is, to capture what one can see
...
one of the key elements of abstract art was the physical, tangible involvement with the medium. This may not be possible to the same extent with photography, unless one considers the camera or keyboard correlating with paint, pastel..etc.
...
Thanks for posting your images Collum, but in my mind I don't feel that they are actually abstracts. They explore shape and colour, but I don't think they satisfy many of the definitions of abstract, one of which Tim quoted above. Your images are more like close ups of rocks, rather than true abstractions.
...
It would be interesting to see whether artists-turned-photographers are able to appreciate 'blurred' out of focus photographs as abstractions without the need to have clear focal points and sharpness, more readily than photographers-turned artists.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68259\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Julie for some great points here, (and for the link to the other discussion- some interesting stuff going on), I'd like to respond to a little of what you've brought up:

For me, landscape photography is the epitome of "physical, tangible involvement with the medium", when I am making photographs I feel that I am fully immersed in my medium, i.e. the boreal forest that is my "palette".  I can see it, hear it, smell it, (get bitten by it).  My camera is then like a paintbrush, with which I can take what is on my palette and apply it, with different methods depending on my own creative impulses, to my "canvas" (I'm not sure where the analogy goes here, my sensor? my screen? a print? your screen? all of the above?).

I think you bring up a critical distinction between "abstraction" and what might be called "de-familiarization".  I would say that Bernard's and Collum's images (as well as my own ice pattern image) would fall into this second category.  Both these techniques go beyond "simple" representation of a subject, and force a viewer to, at least, look differently at a subject than they ever would on their own, and at the extreme, force the viewer to forget about the subject matter and to simply appreciate the image- something that is not comfortable for many people.

I have definitely found that friends of mine that are artists, be they painters, sculptors, poets, or musicians, have (overall) been more receptive to my out-of-focus photographs than have been my friends that are biologists, teachers, engineers.

It seems that the different reaction is due to a difference in the expectations of a photograph, related to the "accepted nature of photography" that you mentioned, i.e. "to capture what one can see".  I hear this often, and have thought long and hard about it.  

It's not hard to find magazine articles, etc. where the author explains that a camera does not in fact "see" the world the same way that humans do.  (e.g. the article in the Mar '05 Photolife I mentioned above).  When have you ever seen the world in black and white? with the velvia-esque colour intensity? with a narrow depth of field? with barrel distortion? in only two dimensions?  The list goes on...  A good example of one of the "conventions" of photography, is that "increasing blurriness = greater distance".  This is not the way things look like to the human eye, but rather is an effect of the lenses we use in front our cameras (technically, this is the way our eyes work too, except that they are always focusing themselves- just try to look at the blurry background when you're looking closely at a flower- it's pretty tough to catch much of a glimpse!).  And yet we have all been trained to interpret photographs this way.

I have faith though, that with enough people experimenting with abstraction, and enough practice looking at other's effort, even photographers (whom I resolutely insist get lumped into the "artist" category) will eventually be able to look at abstract photographs (oxymoronic or not), in their own right (although there's still no guarantee they'll like them...).

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 15, 2006, 07:53:00 pm
Quote
"abstract" isn't binary - an image can be "more or less" "abstract".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's definitely true Tim, and I'd agree that the "ladies in the window" is less abstract (if at all- though a very well done example of an often repeated subject, the window/reflection/subject thing) than the sea/sky-scape.  Although if you asked me, I'd say your first example of the stones is more abstracted than the other two, due to the effect of the water- and I wouldn't quite give that one a 9 or 10 out of 10...

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 15, 2006, 08:44:42 pm
Quote
It seems that the different reaction is due to a difference in the expectations of a photograph, related to the "accepted nature of photography" that you mentioned, i.e. "to capture what one can see".  I hear this often, and have thought long and hard about it. 

It's not hard to find magazine articles, etc. where the author explains that a camera does not in fact "see" the world the same way that humans do.  (e.g. the article in the Mar '05 Photolife I mentioned above).  When have you ever seen the world in black and white? with the velvia-esque colour intensity? with a narrow depth of field? with barrel distortion? in only two dimensions?  The list goes on...  A good example of one of the "conventions" of photography, is that "increasing blurriness = greater distance".  This is not the way things look like to the human eye, but rather is an effect of the lenses we use in front our cameras (technically, this is the way our eyes work too, except that they are always focusing themselves- just try to look at the blurry background when you're looking closely at a flower- it's pretty tough to catch much of a glimpse!).  And yet we have all been trained to interpret photographs this way.

Jonathan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes Jonathan, The irony of the phrase "the camera never lies" comes to mind. Most people know this is not true, yet I think many still hold on to, and expect, that what we see in an image is actually "what was". This may be due in part to the fact that most film, and now days - digital images, taken by the general public are submitted to mini-labs or processing labs, and the end result is a representation of what the photographer saw and took a photograph of. Just think of all the happy snaps in albums and boxes of prints and files in homes around the world. Not many I would think would consider the effect of a lens, or the way our eye works and the correlation between what we see and what transposes in print. The vast majority of photographers are not professionals nor capable or interested in doing anything other than handing their film or CF or SD card over for processing. I think perhaps it is this stimulus-response (take photo - see print) training that has reinforced the general perception of what a photograph is.  Often, the only "abstract" images that most people encounter, are photographer "slip ups", and are quickly binned.

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 15, 2006, 09:11:38 pm
Quote
For me, landscape photography is the epitome of "physical, tangible involvement with the medium", when I am making photographs I feel that I am fully immersed in my medium, i.e. the boreal forest that is my "palette".  I can see it, hear it, smell it, (get bitten by it).  My camera is then like a paintbrush, with which I can take what is on my palette and apply it, with different methods depending on my own creative impulses, to my "canvas" (I'm not sure where the analogy goes here, my sensor? my screen? a print? your screen? all of the above?).

Jonathan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan, I think one's own training and perceptions may influence each person's interperetation of terms. Differences in language, exerience and culture I'm sure. I can see how you percieve your "pallete" though, and your camera as your paintbrush. Canvas...???interesting  

What I have been taught is that the medium is the substance with which you create an image/artwork, i.e.; paint, charcoal, ink, clay, plaster, glass, paper etc and the Boreal forest you mention is the subject matter or stimulus.  The implement you use to make the image I have been taught is referred to as the "tool", i.e. brushes, hammer, spray gun, saw, rasp, oxy torch...camera.

For me too, when I take photographs, I have a physical, tangible involvement and I am immersed in what I am doing, but I am not sure that I am "fully immersed in my medium" unless I am developing my prints in a dark room, and using my hands with the paper and fluid in a tactile way - the way that abstract art developed.  

Regardless of terms - as I suggested before, it may be irrelevant and impossible to compare the elements of the process of abstract art in other forms - with photography, because of the nature of photography - and just examine the end product. ...time to let what I have been taught morph a bit.  

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 15, 2006, 09:57:57 pm
Quote
I have definitely found that friends of mine that are artists, be they painters, sculptors, poets, or musicians, have (overall) been more receptive to my out-of-focus photographs than have been my friends that are biologists, teachers, engineers.


That figures. Left-brain oriented people are generally more practical. Did we have much abstract art before the invention of the camera? I get the impression that there's a lot of pressure on artists to be innovative, different, unusual, shocking, whatever, just for the sake of it. The invention of the camera has increased the pressure so much that many artists (painters) seem to have flipped over into complete nonsensicality. And now it seems at least a few photographers are following them   .

We have now arrived at the point where most members of the general public can not tell the difference between a painting by a chimpanzee or elephant, and a painting by a supposedly cultured and skilled member of the artistic fraternity.

Will we soon arrive at the point where members of the general public will also not be able to tell the difference between an image from a skilled photographer and one from a complete amateur?

If defocussing an image was all it took to create an abstract, I could turn my entire photographic collection into works of abstraction by simply applying appropriate amounts of gaussian blur in Photoshop.

If you ever sell any of these OOF images, Jonathan, let me know, won't you? I reckon the market could be very easily flooded with similar images   .
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 15, 2006, 10:32:47 pm
Quote
The irony of the phrase "the camera never lies" comes to mind. Most people know this is not true, yet I think many still hold on to, and expect, that what we see in an image is actually "what was".


In a sense Jule, that probably is still true. The camera really does never lie. Only people lie. But sometimes it might not be clear if the lie was deliberate, which requires a certain familiarity with the characteristics of the medium (the camera), or if the lie was inadvertent, as a result of the photographer not being familiar with the characteristics of the camera.

A typical example might be a picture advertisement for rental rooms in a hotel or guest house. To fit the whole room into the shot (or most of it) it's usually easier for the photographer to use a wide-angle lens. However, the effects of a wide-angle lens are to exaggerate the size of near objects and reduce the size of far objects resulting in an over all impression that the room is much bigger than it actually is.

In this example, I would say the photographer has probably lied but might shift the blame to the camera if confronted with the lie.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 16, 2006, 11:34:16 am
Jonathan,
I said I'd get back to you with a bit of commentary on your images. As I already mentioned, quite a few of them are really pleasing and eyecatching, but I prefer the more conventional ones such as, Willows and Shadows, Mist & Snowbank, Mountain Bluebird on wire fence, Birch Canopy, Winter Lake Shore at dusk, Nuthatch in early Evening, Evening colour on Driftwood, and perhaps a few more.

You have a curious affect with some of your shallow DoFs which doesn't work for me, such as 'Aspen Leaf after Morning Rain". Whilst the leaf is beautifully sharp with nice, clear drops of water, the rest of the image is too dominant despite being out of focus, The deep shadows and crevices in the rock tend to compete with the central focus of interest.

Other images, such as 'Cow Parsnip stems' again seem flawed because of a few OOF stems which are competing for attention with stems that are in focus. (I'd be tempted to clone them out).

Similar situation with the Aster Stems and flowers where the DoF is so shallow the OOF flowers seem to be about the same distance away as the in-focus flowers. There is thus an effect of confusion between the blurred and sharp flowers which doesn't seem right.  Basically, I feel that an OOF or blurred part of an image is sending a message to the brain, "Don't look at me. There's nothing of interest." A sharp, in-focus part of an image is sending an opposite message to the brain. (Lookat me!). Place an in-focus subject next to an OOF subject, both of which appear to be in the same plane, and the eye can't avoid taking in the blurred part within the same glance.

One image I almost forgot, which I like a lot; The Hawk Owl, late winter 2005. That's outstanding, but one small criticism, it doesn't look tack sharp. I suspect your shutter speed of 1/200th wasn't fast enough for the 300mm lens.  
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 16, 2006, 10:44:00 pm
Julie, thanks again for your well thought, and well spoken, responses to this thread and the other thread you mentioned earlier.  I certainly agree with you that vocabulary is a tricky thing in this discussion, with words like "abstract" and "representation" meaning such different things to different people, and most of the time (myself included) not being used in a careful manner when trying to get an idea across. It's a great point at the end of your post, that sometimes we should forget the theory, etc. and concentrate on the product of our efforts.

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." -Edward Weston

It's great that you mention that "photographer slip-ups" are the main source of abstract images for most people.  I couldn't count the number of times that I've had people react to my blurred images by saying they thought they were mistakes (I guess without wondering why I'd post so many mistakes on my website!). Ray (and others), may not like the blurred images, but at least he assumed it was a deliberate choice of mine.  This is also why (for a little laugh at my expense) I'm not worried about market saturation Ray, everyone else always deletes their blurry pictures!

It sounds to me Julie, like you've had some formal, or at least more extensive, training in art and art history, and an interest in "traditional" abstract art.  I am wondering if you, or anyone else, know of examples of artists that could inform the development of "abstraction" in photography (and for me, in my work and experimentation, in particular).  

I am also interested in what you think, as an "artist-photographer", about the different techniques of "abstraction" in photography, some of which I provided examples of earlier in this thread?

Jonathan

p.s. It's great to hear that these discussions have encouraged you to explore abstraction in photography more, I think the more people are willing to let themselves "morph" a little bit, the better off we'll all be...
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 16, 2006, 11:35:02 pm
Quote
Jonathan,
I said I'd get back to you with a bit of commentary on your images...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, thank you for the feedback, it's interesting to see the images that you pick out as favourites. I love that you picked out "willows and shadows", it is also one of my favourites, enough so that I gave my sister a large matted print of it for a wedding present!

The shallow depth-of-field effect that you mention was, I think, an early stepping stone in the development of my completely "defocused" technique.  

It's interesting that you mentioned the "Aspen leaf.." image as an example of this effect, it's one of my best selling images (although I would agree with you that the crevasses, actually furrows in a blown-over aspen trunk, might be a bit on the "heavy" side).

It wasn't until the summer of 2005 that I first started playing around with completely de-focused images, although you can see a lone blurry picture in the summer 2004 gallery, "Wood stove on a rainy day" (I guess they'd call that foreshadowing...).

And you're right about the "Hawk Owl" picture, it was a dark grey day and I didn't have my tripod along on this hike, of the series that I took of this bird (some of which I like the composition better), this is the only usable one.  Even for me there's good blurry and bad blurry...

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 16, 2006, 11:37:57 pm
Quote
Basically, I feel that an OOF or blurred part of an image is sending a message to the brain, "Don't look at me. There's nothing of interest." A sharp, in-focus part of an image is sending an opposite message to the brain...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68317\")

I think it's a crucial comment that Ray made in his last post that, for him (and I think for a lot of people), the message that his brain has been trained to receive when looking at a blurred part in an image is "nothing of interest" (which is almost verbatim his first reply here I think  )

My question then, is why?  Why are photographers' brains automatically interpreting areas of colour, line, light, and form, that are not "tack sharp" as uninteresting?  

And what then, is the crucial difference between an in-focus photograph of a blurry scene (such as the 2nd and 5th images in my second post [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11235&view=findpost&p=68142]here[/url] (fog and treeline, and sapling and sunset), as well as Tim's photo of stones and water here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11235&view=findpost&p=68234)) versus a deliberately out-of-focus photograph of a "not-blurry" scene??

Anybody?
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: alainbriot on June 17, 2006, 03:02:31 am
Quote
I think it's a crucial comment that Ray made in his last post that, for him (and I think for a lot of people), the message that his brain has been trained to receive when looking at a blurred part in an image is "nothing of interest" (which is almost verbatim his first reply here I think  )

My question then, is why?  Why are photographers' brains automatically interpreting areas of colour, line, light, and form, that are not "tack sharp" as uninteresting? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In any style that takes a radical departure from what is accepted (currently) you are basically creating your own world.  To make it successful, and eventually accepted (more difficult), you have to live in the world you have created.  To do so you have to trust that this world truly exists and you have to find living there to your liking.  The responsibilty is really on you, that is what I am saying in short.  Don't ask us to like it.  Make us like it.  Make it inviting, hospitable, welcoming. Make it something we want to be part of.  There's little need for talk here.  There is much need for images or for work on images although I do understand there is need for discussion as it may be helpful in finding out the boundaries and the definition of this world.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 17, 2006, 05:27:54 am
Jonathan, I have seen many exhibitions of a Brisbane based artist - Carl Warner, whose work is abstract - using photography. Warner uses the camera to record the detail he observes in the urban, industrial and natural envoronment. His contribution to Australian Photographic Art has been recently recognised by an Exhibition at the Queensland University Art Galllery, surveying his work over the past 10 years, in conjunction with the publication of a book by the University. Coincidentally, I saw this exhibition today whilst attending a lecture and forum entitled "Is Photography driving the regeneration of Contemporary Art?" at the University.  - very interesting!

All of Warner's photographs are quite luscious, textural and are amazingly beautiful when looking at them in the gallery. I have seen most of them over the years, but revisiting them again with more experienced eyes brought with it much pleasure. I must say though, the thing which was quite apparent, was the difference between the 'feel' and impact of each image when standing in front of it, compared with the reproduction in the book and on his website. Looking at the photographs in 'real life' was a far more powerful experience and reproductions just don't seem to do the images justice.  Carl Warner (http://www.visualartist.info/visualartist/artist/default.asp?artistId=1185)

Here is an artist who has continued to be true to himself by expressing the world in his chosen way - through photography, which in the main is abstract -regardless of whether it is 'accepted' or not. He has continued to work on a more commercial basis (to pay the bills), in conjunction with his committment to his artistic practice, and now is making his mark in the history books in Australian Art by expressing the way he sees the world through his camera.

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 17, 2006, 05:49:00 am
Quote
I think it's a crucial comment that Ray made in his last post that, for him (and I think for a lot of people), the message that his brain has been trained to receive when looking at a blurred part in an image is "nothing of interest" (which is almost verbatim his first reply here I think  )

My question then, is why?  Why are photographers' brains automatically interpreting areas of colour, line, light, and form, that are not "tack sharp" as uninteresting? 

And what then, is the crucial difference between an in-focus photograph of a blurry scene (such as the 2nd and 5th images in my second post here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11235&view=findpost&p=68142) (fog and treeline, and sapling and sunset), as well as Tim's photo of stones and water here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11235&view=findpost&p=68234)) versus a deliberately out-of-focus photograph of a "not-blurry" scene??

Anybody?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan, perhaps it has something to do with the physical properties of our vision. When our vision becomes 'blurry' something is wrong - either there is something in our eye, or we require optical assistance through glasses. We try to overcome blurriness in our day to day lives. It is unnatural to be happy with something which is blurry...so how can we be comfortable looking at an image which is purposely blurry - especially when we are conditioned to percieve that the lens (of the camera) is an extension of our vision. I know this isn't totally answering the second part of your question, but it may help in the understanding of why clearly focussed abstracts are more well received than blurry ones.

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 17, 2006, 06:53:55 am
Quote
Jonathan, perhaps it has something to do with the physical properties of our vision. When our vision becomes 'blurry' something is wrong - either there is something in our eye, or we require optical assistance through glasses. We try to overcome blurriness in our day to day lives. It is unnatural to be happy with something which is blurry...so how can we be comfortable looking at an image which is purposely blurry - especially when we are conditioned to percieve that the lens (of the camera) is an extension of our vision. I know this isn't totally answering the second part of your question, but it may help in the understanding of why clearly focussed abstracts are more well received than blurry ones.

Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
.....ah yes, I have not forgotten all the styles/schools of art in which the subject is not clear, most actually, - but paint, pastel, charcoal etc, do not have the expectations accompanying the medium that photography has. Imagine trying to use "unsharp mask" on a Monet!    
Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 17, 2006, 10:10:04 am
Quote
My question then, is why?  Why are photographers' brains automatically interpreting areas of colour, line, light, and form, that are not "tack sharp" as uninteresting? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,
I think Jule has part of the answer. A direct perception of blurriness is an indication that something is wrong, with our eyesight perhaps. As a biological species we've evolved and survived  through application of skills that depend very significantly on having keen eyesight. Just about everybody in a modern society who has poor eyesight will get either prescription glasses or some sort of magnifying spectacles from the Chemist or Woolies. We might not need them to avoid predators in a modern society, but we certainly need them to read books and appreciate fine detail in photographs.

Another related issue is the way our eyes instantly focus on whatever we are directing out gaze at. It is in fact rather difficult to deliberately defocus what we are directly looking at, although anyone who uses Adobe Gamma to calibrate his/her monitor would be advised to at least try this by narrowing the eyes and sort of squinting.

It seems clear to me that OOF parts of a photograph 'represent' (rather than accurately depict) any part of any scene that we are not looking at directly. In the real scene, all we have to do is change the direction of our gaze and what was previously OOF almost instantly becomes in focus. In the photograph, the photographer has decided what parts are permanently in focus and permanently out of focus, and there's nothing the viewer can do about it. It's simply a technique of directing the viewer's attention to the 'in-focus' part of the image.

If the entire image is acceptably sharp, the viewer's gaze can shift from corner to corner and there might indeed be something of interest in every part of the image, even though there might also be a specific, dominant part of greatest significance.

I really don't think I want to retrain my brain to like totally blurry images, because, if I live to a ripe old age, say 110, that's going to happen anyway.  
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 17, 2006, 02:21:24 pm
Quote
In any style that takes a radical departure from what is accepted (currently) you are basically creating your own world.  To make it successful, and eventually accepted (more difficult), you have to live in the world you have created.  To do so you have to trust that this world truly exists and you have to find living there to your liking.  The responsibilty is really on you, that is what I am saying in short.  Don't ask us to like it.  Make us like it.  Make it inviting, hospitable, welcoming. Make it something we want to be part of.  There's little need for talk here.  There is much need for images or for work on images although I do understand there is need for discussion as it may be helpful in finding out the boundaries and the definition of this world.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Alain for these words of encouragement.  I agree with you the key here is the images, the process, and the development.  The reason I started this thread was to try to understand how to incorporate into that development, an idea of what elements of an abstracted photograph different people find to be "inviting, hospitable, (and) welcoming", and which elements people react against.  In the end, I like the work that I'm producing, and I enjoy the process of getting there.  If I never sell a print, so be it, it's still been worthwhile in my books.

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 17, 2006, 02:31:35 pm
Quote
All of Warner's (http://www.visualartist.info/visualartist/artist/default.asp?artistId=1185) photographs are quite luscious, textural and are amazingly beautiful when looking at them in the gallery.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68383\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for the reference Julie, this is beautiful stuff.  And it certainly is "abstract" to my eyes, even as it falls into the "defamiliarization" category mentioned earlier, just taken to an extreme level.

Unfortunately, I think there's a slim chance of seeing a show of his in Alberta!  I certainly know what you mean about the different experience of a photograph when you're actually there in front of a print.

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: alainbriot on June 17, 2006, 05:32:12 pm
Quote
Thank you Alain for these words of encouragement.  I agree with you the key here is the images, the process, and the development.  The reason I started this thread was to try to understand how to incorporate into that development, an idea of what elements of an abstracted photograph different people find to be "inviting, hospitable, (and) welcoming", and which elements people react against.  In the end, I like the work that I'm producing, and I enjoy the process of getting there.  If I never sell a print, so be it, it's still been worthwhile in my books.
Jonathan
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68402\")

I think that eventually we are talking about developing a personal style, a process which is difficult and takes a long time.  That is why I mentioned "creating one's world," which is in fact Georgia O'Keefe's wording for this process.  Reading how other developed their style is certainly a recommended approach. My essay on Personal Style is available on this site at
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics9.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics9.shtml[/url]

I also recommend Georgia O'Keefe's writings.

I wish you the best for this process.  In my experience, the best road to success is to immerse yourself in your work and pay little attention to criticism.  Set high standards for your work and aim for these.  Don't listen to the critics.  Instead, do what you love.  This works great for me, although I do understand that we are all different.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 17, 2006, 06:34:22 pm
Well...time to bare my soul, and as Alain suggests - examine images ....so I share a few photographs from my current body of work to be exhibited later in the year.  I post these with a warning   - that they are not your usual landscapes. My landscape is underwater and I have taken photographs of a vortex in water. They are printed quite large, 45cm x 78cm and 60 x 90cm, face mounted on acrylic with composite aluminium backing, so the surface is high gloss to support the subject matter.  I have also included my artist statement for this body of work for those who are interested.

Comments welcome
Julie

[attachment=708:attachment]

[attachment=709:attachment]

[attachment=710:attachment]

[attachment=711:attachment]

Artist Statement (http://www.twinviewturf.com.au/photos/statement.doc)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Anon E. Mouse on June 17, 2006, 09:32:10 pm
Abstract?
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 18, 2006, 08:17:35 pm
Geez! Jule, this is deep stuff....'connecting with one's true nature'.....'the nature of infinity' ......'images without cognitive social referencing'. Not sure what to make of these images. Seems you are trying to express the ineffable.

I'll have to think seriously about my response   .
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 18, 2006, 08:51:16 pm
Jule,
On reflection, the top triptych is the most appealing. I wouldn't mind having that on my wall   . It reminds me of some of the semi-abstract glassware I saw at Murano recently in Venice.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 18, 2006, 09:12:32 pm
Quote
Geez! Jule, this is deep stuff....'connecting with one's true nature'.....'the nature of infinity' ......'images without cognitive social referencing'. Not sure what to make of these images. Seems you are trying to express the ineffable.

I'll have to think seriously about my response   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68472\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes Ray...arty farty stuff hey! I'm also a poet, ....an idealist,... interested in philosphy  , and although I love my day to day photography with a passion,  I immerse myself in a body of work examining all aspects; technical, visual, theoretical and philosophical.  ...  each to his own - and I just love doing my art and study.
Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 18, 2006, 09:23:16 pm
Quote
Jule,
On reflection, the top triptych is the most appealing. I wouldn't mind having that on my wall   . It reminds me of some of the semi-abstract glassware I saw at Murano recently in Venice.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68479\")
Thank you for the wonderful complement. In my last exhibition my images looked particularly like glass sculptures. The works of Dale Chihuly [a href=\"http://www.chihuly.com]http://www.chihuly.com[/url] , a wonderful artist, influenced the inspiration I had for that previous body of work.
Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 18, 2006, 10:22:08 pm
Julie, beautiful stuff.  I, like Ray, had to sit with it for a while before being able to reply appropriately.  I too found myself most interested in the triptych.  The play of colour and light is incredible.  I also really liked the 2nd dark vortex, the slash of white and the "blur" at the bottom- terrific.

I have never seen photographs like these before, and it's very exciting the scope of what is possible when people actively experiment with a camera as an expressive implement.

It was also great to read your artist's statement, I have long been unable to clearly articulate this well, (which is partly why I thought I'd try muddling through some of it here with you guys first...)

Thanks again for sharing this work, is there anywhere that we can see more (besides SE Auz?  )

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: James Godman on June 19, 2006, 12:11:52 pm
This is a great discussion!  Jonathan, I also think that your more out of focus images are best, almost like being outside, but focused on some task other than looking at the surroundings, as if in one's peripheral vision.

For context, I do both photography and abstract paintings.  I have included a few here.[attachment=719:attachment][attachment=720:attachment]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 19, 2006, 05:34:01 pm
Quote
For context, I do both photography and abstract paintings.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68550\")
James, I really like the tree image- the colour and mood is great.  It's hard to tell from this little reproduction, but it looks like a photograph that's been worked with post-capture, (?) how did you achieve this effect?  I like the isolation of the subject, and the blurring of the detail in the foreground and sky.

I'd be interested to know how how (or if) you feel being an abstract painter informs your work as a photographer.  Your current online portfolio had a much different feel than the two images attached to your post, and I noticed this intriguing line in your bio: "His early work was rather abstract and suffered from a lack of direction".  It sounds like you have been "cured" from the use of abstraction in your photography .

Jonathan

And thanks for the insight on my own photos, it's interesting to me the different ways that people express their reactions to the out-of-focus images.  Taking Alain's advice I went out this weekend to do the most important thing, take more photographs- here's one example that I am pleased with:

[a href=\"http://www.borealisimages.ca](http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/summer/images/0606_012362_beaverhill.jpg)[/url]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: James Godman on June 19, 2006, 08:00:03 pm
Hi Jonathan-

This picture you took reminds me of what Mondrian did which was to distill the landscape into its basic elements of line, color, and shape.  I really like it.

Being a painter absolutely informs my photography.  For me, painting is a very philosophical pursuit that is more process oriented than my photography.  The photography, even though my work is all over the place, is more subject oriented, but has lately been more influenced by my painting.  The photographs I have been doing lately are also inspired by other artists like Keith Carter, Mark Tucker, and Jack Spencer, whose out of focus, textured, and layered work I admire.  As to how I did it, the tree shot was captured on film and then I scanned and added some texture that was digitally captured.

Glad you read my bio!  When I wrote that, I was a little tired of reading other photographers bios;  nearly every one had a line like "he picked the camera up at age 12 and never looked back" or some such thing.  No offense to anyone whatsoever.

Jule-  I really like what you are doing as well.

Here's a few more...
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 19, 2006, 09:58:41 pm
Hi Jonathan,

I've been wanting to join this wonderful thread for quite a while, but I've been too busy to more than lurk. Like some of the other responders, I am not yet completely convinced by all of your soft-focus abstractions. But I think you are onto something, and should keep working on them. So far my favorites are the last one you posted, as well as the first and fifth from your June 14 post (#1 is a bit similar to the latest post; #5 is the one someone called "three suns".) Those one grab me in an elemental way, and I agree with James that there is something Mondrianish about them.

I have to add my thanks to Julie, too: those are fantastic images. I am tempted to go out and try photographing vortexes, too; but I won't.  

Alain (and Georgia O'Keefe) put it very well, speaking of "living in the world you have created." Unlike some others here, I have moved more into a kind of "abstraction" as I get older. I do still try to retain a direct link to reality, or at least "plausibility". After a number of years, I began to realize that most of my best images were fairly abstract, at least in avoiding obvious clues to scale, or often "what is it?" My work now is pretty much divided between landscapes (generally quite literal), and what I might call "found abstractions". Recent subject matter that has fascinated me has included drips of tar put down to fix cracks in a road surface (inherently pretty ugly!); patterns created by the tide on sandy beaches; and graffiti and weathered paint on a long-abandoned railroad car. You can see some of these on my website, which you will find at http://myrvaagnes.com/ (http://myrvaagnes.com/) .

Comments are welcome. As soon as I have a bit more time, I'll pick a few to poste here, with my own comments.

I must add that I agree with Ray that an image must have emotional content or it won't move me at all. I do feel that abstractions can (but won't necessarily) do this.

Again, thanks for a great thread.

Eric

Edit (1/26/09): Just updated my website URL, which changed over a year ago.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 19, 2006, 11:50:44 pm
James, Thank you for posting your images. I really love your style of photography - (visited your site). I am particulary drawn to the image in the centre of the three you posted, the one of the ocean and sky. I think it is quite lovely. It continues to hold my attention. I really feel the expansiveness which is portrayed. I also love the image of the stairs. The textural element of the surface of the concrete in conjunction with the angular lines of the rails and steps is just wonderful. I think the graduation of light is superb. ....stairway to heaven..  

I'm not sure though whether I would classify them as abstract though - just my thoughts however - as there is clearly recognisable subject matter. Regardless of that, the way you have explored space I think is beautiful.

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: James Godman on June 20, 2006, 12:43:42 am
Hey Julie-

Thanks for your wonderful comments!  I agree these photographs are not abstract.  My paintings are though, which was the initial comparison.

Eric, I love your tar in the road shots!  Those are cool.

Jonathan, let's see some more!
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 20, 2006, 01:49:49 am
James, thanks for the response.  I'll have to look at more of Mondrian's stuff in the next couple days, as well as some of the other artists you've mentioned.

As for seeing more of my images, please have a look at my website any time at www.borealisimages.ca (http://www.borealisimages.ca).  The galleries are arranged chronologically, and the out-of-focus technique began for me in the summer of 2005 if you're interested in those, although I think you can certainly see a progression leading up to them.  I usually post new galleries 4 times a year, but I'm headed out to the west coast at the end of the week (camera in tow), and I'll definitely share an image or two if I end up with something that I'm happy with.

Thanks again to everyone who's joined in here lately, this has been terrific and I'd love to hear from more of you.

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 20, 2006, 11:11:47 am
Quote
although I love my day to day photography with a passion,  I immerse myself in a body of work examining all aspects; technical, visual, theoretical and philosophical.  ...  each to his own - and I just love doing my art and study.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Julie,
That's an enviable position to be in. How do you manage to avoid the pressures of duties, responsibilities, common chores etc which can so easily interrupt such immersion in philosophical and poetical contemplations?

Let me know the date and venue of your next exhibition, won't you?
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 20, 2006, 11:28:32 am
Quote
Taking Alain's advice I went out this weekend to do the most important thing, take more photographs- here's one example that I am pleased with:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,
I'd like to ask you in what way you need a camera to make this picture. Is it just easier to process an OOF camera image than start with a 'new window' in Photoshop and use whatever brushes and tools are available to create whatever effect you wish?
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: James Godman on June 20, 2006, 11:40:17 am
Hey Ray-  

I won't answer for Jonathan, but I will give a somewhat philosophical exposition.  These type of images are not drawings, but lines and shapes and colors that are created by nature.  The photographer only has partial control over what is shown, and that's the point.  One might find it difficult to do better than nature.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 20, 2006, 11:58:15 am
Quote
Jonathan,
I'd like to ask you in what way you need a camera to make this picture. Is it just easier to process an OOF camera image than start with a 'new window' in Photoshop and use whatever brushes and tools are available to create whatever effect you wish?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
I think my mind works a little like Jonathan's. Sometimes when my wife and I are going out for dinner, she asks "what do you want to eat?" My usual answer is "I don't know until I see the menu." My photography is like that, too. If I started with a blank screen in Photoshop, I would have no idea how to begin. But looking at things with my camera along, I can often find things I like visually, even if I might distort them later in Photoshop.

I guess I just need the external inspiration. I don't know if Jonathan feels the same.

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 20, 2006, 02:24:53 pm
This is great! Thanks for asking Ray, I think I might be able to explain a little bit about what goes into the out-of-focus images that might shed some light onto how I got to this point.  First of all, I'm a photographer, not a painter- so I need to use a camera.  I tried my hand at painting, but was never entirely happy with what came out (usually a not-great rendition of a good photograph!).

When I first started experimenting with defocusing the entire image, the goal for me was to abstract, or "hide" the details of what I was photographing in order to concentrate the attention onto the larger forms and patterns of the landscape.  I had become frustrated with photographs that were not portraying well the impact that I felt when I reached for my camera, or that were ruined (or at least lessened) by "excessive" detail when what I was trying to capture was the overall feel of the scene.  

So I tried the out-of-focus thing, and kind of liked it.  After playing with it a bit, I had a similar thought as you, why not take all the pictures in focus, and blur them afterwards?  This way I'd have both versions, more control, and I could work on it in my office where the bugs aren't nearly so bad.  After all, that's how I shoot black & white these days.  

So with that in mind, I went out, took some side-by-side, in- and out-of-focus shots of scenes where I would have taken just a blurry shot, and sat down with photoshop for a while.  Here's one example:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/0507_DuckMtn_1307_400px.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2005/summer/)
1. sharply focused

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/0507_DuckMtn_1307_blurred_400px.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/about_images.html)
2. same photo as above, blurred in photoshop

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/0507_DuckMtn_1302_incamerablur_400px.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/about_images.html)
3. same scene, defocused in-camera

This scene is a good example where I felt that the details of the tree branches, and all the scraggly stuff in there, was getting in the way of what I was actually trying to take a picture of, i.e. the shape of the trees in front of the lake, the green of the near shore, and the blue of far shore.  Technically speaking as well, these small details, when so strongly backlit are often plagued by purple-fringing and chromatic abberations.

As you can see, there's a significant difference between what I could do with the blurring filters in PS versus what I could achieve with the optics of my camera lens (and yes, I did try my best in PS).

For me, what is lost in the PS version is the way that light is transformed by a camera lens.  There are a couple crucial elements that I found missing in the PS version;
1. the way that the bright highlights are rendered as disks of light (known as the "circle of confusion"- see Sean's website!)
2. the way that, although there is nothing in sharp focus, depth is still communicated by differences in the degree of blurriness.  The little sapling in the foreground (middle-right) is nearly completely obscured, and the trees are non-uniformly blurred (this is more apparent in a print).
To me, the the PS version looks "murky" and blurry, rather than out-of-focus. (I know  this is a pretty fine distinction, and one that I have muddled almost continually)

Other examples are more extreme.  I'd challenge you to take the in-focus version of the "three suns" image, and make it look like the out-of-focus version.  

To me, there is something special about the way that a lens distorts different types of light, and the ultimately, how that light is recorded by my camera.  There is also something essential, to me, in the point that James made; my blurry pictures are attempts, as are my non-blurry ones, to capture something that is there, that is present in front of me, on the landscape.  I am a photographer for the same reason that I am a biologist by trade: I love the forest.  But the reason that I am a photographer and not a painter is that I also love the camera, and the way that a camera specifically, allows me to portray the forest.

Another reason that I prefer to use my lens to abstract these images, rather than photoshop, also ties into this last point.  As has been discussed previously here, people expect a photograph to represent something "true" or "real", rather than something that was "invented" by the artist.  By not giving the viewer the "excuse" to be able to think "oh, it's been photoshopped" (which is a big turn-off for many people, maybe even more than a completely out-of-focus photograph), I can force people to believe that what I've captured in my camera was really there, and from there they can respond to it.  I hope too, that this might help people to understand that no photograph is a depiction of a scene in a completely unaltered state.

Whew, so there you go- that's why I use my camera.  (I also prefer to spend my time out there looking through my viewfinder, than at home staring at my monitor- bugs or no...)

Any comments on any of this would again, (of course) be most appreciated

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 20, 2006, 02:57:23 pm
I also meant to mention that Eric makes a good point, the scenes that I shoot defocused are not the same scenes that I shoot in-focus.  In order to find those compositions where, in my opinion, the out-of-focus technique adds something, I need to be looking through the viewfinder and working with the manual focus ring.  

As you can tell, I do not  uniformly defocus between shots- some are more, some are less in focus.  I can assure you that for each one, I have chosen the exact amount that I found most pleasing.  Often too, my composition will change depending on the degree of defocusing- elements of a scene interact differently when they're thrown out of focus.  And the best time to find that out is when I'm standing there with my camera, not back home in the evening.

Here's an example of what I mean; one of the things that I've enjoyed discovering is the way that criss-crossing elements (grass blades, tree branches, etc.) form "nodes" (for lack of a better term) where they overlap visually, even if they are not spatially adjacent.  This is another example of the way that the a lens interacts with a subject in a way that can not be duplicated by the computer.

Here's an two examples of what I mean:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/images/0605_011754_ministik.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/spring/)

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/images/0601_010247.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/)

And this is an example of what I referred to in my last post, where depth of field is still portrayed, even in the absence of an in-focus element.  Here, the aspen on the far left, and the one just right of centre were the closest to me, and retain some detail of the patterns on their trunks.  The trunks just to the left of centre were the farthest back (it was aspens all the way back, I couldn't see the sky through the stand), and have been reduced to solid vertical lines, in different shades of white.  I would not have composed the photo in the same way if I had been looking through a "sharp" viewfinder:

(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/images/0602_010941_jasper.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/galleries/2006/latewinter/)

Again, most of these examples can be seen in the galleries on my website (http://www.borealisimages.ca), along with many other, more sharply focused, images.  I'd invite anyone who's interested to have a look around there, and I welcome any comments or criticisms, either here, on the "discussion" section of my website, or privately if you prefer, by email.

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 20, 2006, 03:55:22 pm
Very good explanations and illustrations, Jonathan. I find myself getting more and more convinced by your approach.  

I think, of the images you have posted here, your very latest Aspens image works the best for me so far. The subtle differences between near and far and the balances between left, right, and middle areas make it very effective.

I hope I'll get to spend more time at your website soon -- too busy lately.  

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Jessica D on June 20, 2006, 04:07:48 pm
Hi Everyone,
I just started reading through this thread a couple days ago, and have really enjoyed reading everybody's responses.  I am a photographer myself, but probably not as developed in style, content and aim as what the rest of you seem to be.  Actually, the majority of my subject matter is people, predominently children and babies, although I have a deep love of nature and desire to capture those images as well.  Many of my newer pictures border on the abstract (although I almost fear to use that word in this forum!) in the sense that as many of you take extreme close ups of parts of nature, I enjoy the extreme close ups (and often play with depth of field) of a baby's ear, or children's feet as they run in the ocean.

A couple people have commented on the fact that the thumbnails don't quite do justice to a photograph, and how different these images look when you see them in a gallery or a large print.  Jonathan, I was just wondering if you have printed large versions of any of your blurry photographs, and if so, what you thought of them
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 20, 2006, 04:53:13 pm
Quote
I was just wondering if you have printed large versions of any of your blurry photographs, and if so, what you thought of them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Jessica, thanks for joining in- "the more the merrier"  

To answer your question, yes I have printed off a number of the out-of-focus images, and find that they work very nicely- sometimes.  

One advantage is that I can print them as large as I want (no need to worry about the loss of detail!) which can make the print very striking.  The problem that I've run into is that for these, the exact colours and brightness are crucial to the images, and I sometimes have a hard time duplicating the subtleties in print (but I'm pretty picky).  

This is, I think, due largely to the difference between viewing the images in a medium that is projecting light (a monitor) versus one that is reflecting light (prints).  I think my ideal gallery show would be to have the walls hung with large, high resolution, perfectly calibrated (and framed), lcd screens- each one displaying a single image (or I could have a different show every night!).  If anyone knows of a gallery like that, let me know...  

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: wynpotter on June 20, 2006, 05:35:05 pm
A little late to the discussion but a reaction that I have is that for me, I enjoy the sharp focus abstraction because
 1, I don't have to strain to focus an out of focus image. It' like my mind is on af and keeps tracking.
2. Abstractions in painting are always in focus, distorted, skewed, etc, but alway in focus. Even the softest muted painting is always in focus. This allows me to dig deeper into the image that's presented before me.
For a test, take the OOF image apply WC filter, sometimes interesting result, sometimes nothing of any value.
A very interesting discussion and will allow the conventional to step out the box.
Wyndham
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 20, 2006, 05:59:15 pm
Quote
Julie,
That's an enviable position to be in. How do you manage to avoid the pressures of duties, responsibilities, common chores etc which can so easily interrupt such immersion in philosophical and poetical contemplations?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68637\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ahhh...  an astute observation Ray! yes..quite a balancing act, and yes I am in an enviable position. I have had to set boundaries for myself, (time mainly), and realise there is no point in philosophising and creating art at the expense of the commitments I have made to the other responsibilities I have chosen in my life.  My mind is always observing, listening...pondering, and my family are used to me stopping suddenly to take photographs. My exhibitions have provided an opportunity for us to travel together, and it is quite special to have one's 18 year old son come and help his mum set up an exhibition.

My first priority is my family, so time on task is usually 'school/university time'.  It is just a fact of my life that I close books/turn off printer/pen down, to pick up our boys from the train - and that is just the way it is, and I wouldn't have it any other way. ....in saying that though, there are times when there are piles of washing and eggs for dinner  

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 20, 2006, 06:10:58 pm
Quote
Julie,
Let me know the date and venue of your next exhibition, won't you?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68637\")
Ray,
Next exhibition is in Sydney 29th November at Esa Jaske Gallery, [a href=\"http://www.esajaskegallery.com/Default.htm]Esa Jaske Gallery[/url] . Will also let you know when my next exhibition is a bit closer to home - in Brisbane.

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: sgwrx on June 20, 2006, 06:47:00 pm
this is an interesting and timely thread.  i liked this image because of the out of focus foreground trees. i wondered if this were an interesting approach or something that screams rank amatuer with DOF problems (which of course i was at the time). either way, i like it because it's complex but the foreground trees soften the complexity of the branches going this-way-and-that.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 20, 2006, 06:50:51 pm
Quote
...It's like my mind is on af and keeps tracking.

2. Abstractions in painting are always in focus, distorted, skewed, etc, but alway in focus.
...
For a test, take the OOF image apply WC filter
...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=68686\")
Wyndham, I like the image of an autofocus brain that can stop searching for focus- even I can relate to the frustration that can cause!  

It's an interesting comment you make that abstracted paintings are always "in focus".  I know what you mean, but wonder how such an essentially "optical" characteristic can be applied to a painting?  I had the pleasure of viewing some of canadian artist [a href=\"http://www.tomthomson.org/groupseven/harris.html]Lawren Harris'[/url] paintings this weekend at the local art gallery.  His work, they way that he portrayed Canadian landscapes, was very influential to my artistic development early on.  My few attempts at painting usually looked like thrown-away Lawren Harris canvases!  His paintings are, as you describe, "in focus", but he discards the details of the scene to concentrate on the larger forms.  A few examples:

(http://www.tomthomson.org/images/collections/974006.jpg)

(http://www.artgalleryalberta.ca/images/subimages/OAG_Harris_MountThuleBylo.jpg)

What's interesting is that Harris began in a fairly representational style, and by the end of his career had evolved into what might be (although probably not) called "pure" abstacts.

An advantage of using a paintbrush instead of a camera on broad landscape scenes is that you can selectively choose where to include, or exclude, detail.  With a camera, it's all or none (unless, of course, you're close enough to your subject that a narrow depth of field can have an effect).

I'm interested to know what you think is gained by applying the "watercolor" filter in photoshop to an out-of-focus image?  Is it that it becomes more "recognizable"? more similar to images that you are familiar with?  Although, as I've mentioned, I shy away from using the computer to create images myself (although I have no problem with others doing so), I'm interested in understanding the difference in peoples reaction to images that have been abstracted or distorted on a computer, or by any of the techniques that have been mentioned in this thread (camera movement, multiple exposure, "defamiliarization", etc.)

Thanks again for adding your thoughts,

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 20, 2006, 08:14:43 pm
Quote
...
I wondered if this were an interesting approach or something that screams rank amatuer with DOF problems (which of course i was at the time).

either way, i like it ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...I like it too!  Great mood, although (as roughly defined in this thread), I'm not sure that it would "count" as abstract. It's great to see other people playing around with focus (intentionally or not- at least you didn't toss the image!)  And I've certainly encountered the term "rank amateur with depth of field problems" myself   !

I thought I'd share this image taken by Courtney Milne (whom I've mentioned earlier) that uses the blurred-foreground technique to a beautiful end:  (he entitled it "The Three Sisters, through flower petals, Canmore, AB")

 )

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: sgwrx on June 20, 2006, 08:35:59 pm
The using of the watercolor filter on the OOF image is great.

Thanks Jonathan, what most important about this thread of course is expanding boundaries.  Where would we be if not for artists like Pollock? but, his paintings really were in focus LOL.

-steve

Quote
...I like it too!  Great mood, although (as roughly defined in this thread), I'm not sure that it would "count" as abstract. It's great to see other people playing around with focus (intentionally or not- at least you didn't toss the image!)  And I've certainly encountered the term "rank amateur with depth of field problems" myself   !

I thought I'd share this image posted by Courtney Milne (whom I've mentioned earlier) that uses the blurred-foreground technique to a beautiful end:  (he entitled it "The Three Sisters, through flower petals, Canmore, AB"

 )

Jonathan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on June 21, 2006, 03:16:17 pm
I've found this quote back that I've been looking for since this thread started- it's from Courtney Milne's book, "Emily Carr Country".

"Occasionally, I will deliberately allow sun flare on the lens to form an integral part of the composition, something normally considered a mistake in photography. ... Another technique I enjoy is to record a number of exposures on the same frame of film.  It is a way of focusing attention on the quality and shimmer of light, rather than on form.  By diminishing shape and making it a less dominant element, I can portray the universal forest rather than a specific one.  Similarly, when I purposely move the camera during an exposure, the actual shapes and details of the trees are obscured and the resulting image conveys more about my impression, and less about documenting the scene."

Milne uses different techniques than myself to achieve a somewhat similar objective.  I'm wondering how/what other people feel about these other techniques of abstraction, beyond either removing context, or my own out-of-focus technique?

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 21, 2006, 04:39:01 pm
It's interesting that Milne mentions sun flare as an abstraction technique. I have used that one -- quite by accident, using a rangefinder (MF film) camera, so I didn't see the flare when I took the picture. My first reaction to the proof print was that it was a disaster, but then I looked again and decided I liked it. I have even used it in an exhibit (of course, I don't tell people that it was an accident). I'm sorry I haven't scanned that image yet, or I'd post it.

I'm again reminded of Edward Weston's comment that he would "print on a doormat if it would give me the effect I wanted." So I'm for using any trick/technique you can think of, as long as it gets you the effect you want. Sometimes it may take a lot of near misses before you really get it to work for you.

So keep on with the focus experiments!

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 24, 2006, 05:44:05 am
Quote
When I first started experimenting with defocusing the entire image, the goal for me was to abstract, or "hide" the details of what I was photographing in order to concentrate the attention onto the larger forms and patterns of the landscape.  I had become frustrated with photographs that were not portraying well the impact that I felt when I reached for my camera, or that were ruined (or at least lessened) by "excessive" detail when what I was trying to capture was the overall feel of the scene. 

As you can see, there's a significant difference between what I could do with the blurring filters in PS versus what I could achieve with the optics of my camera lens (and yes, I did try my best in PS).

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Joanathan,
Okay! There is a difference between an in-focus image blurred in PS and a lens-defocussed image. If you are going to swoon over blurry images, then the difference might be significant.

Just playing around a bit with some 'artistic' filters in PS, I came up with the following alternatives to try and inject some interest into what is, I'm sure you'll admit, a rather uninteresting example.

[attachment=734:attachment]

In my opinion, the two blurry renditions are probably the least interesting. Others might disagree.

I tend to sometimes use the artistic filters in PS when I'm trying to salvage a cock-up. The following image of an overgrown joey trying to scramble into it's mother's pouch because it saw a strange biped with a long, cream-colored nose (the Canon 100-400), is spoilt because it is not sharp. I had the wrong ISO setting. An artistic filter, in this case, 'accented edges', disguises the fact it is not as tack sharp as I woulld like it to be.  

[attachment=735:attachment]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 25, 2006, 03:29:14 pm
Ray,

I wish you hadn't posted your latest examples.

I have never bothered trying the "artistic filters" in PS before, but your samples make me begin to think that they may have a useful place after all. The trouble is: that gives me yet one more excuse not to throw away my obvious losers.    

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 27, 2006, 04:01:26 am
Quote
The trouble is: that gives me yet one more excuse not to throw away my obvious losers.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
You should never throw away your losers. The following image is one I would have thrown away were it not for the auto settings of ACR which somehow produced a recognisable image from the total blackness of a flash not fired. I like it and I'm keeping it, even without artistic filters applied.

[attachment=746:attachment]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 27, 2006, 04:52:27 pm
Quote
Eric,
You should never throw away your losers. The following image is one I would have thrown away were it not for the auto settings of ACR which somehow produced a recognisable image from the total blackness of a flash not fired. I like it and I'm keeping it, even without artistic filters applied.

[attachment=746:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,

I like that picture, but I wouldn't call it a "loser" at all. On those occasions where an "accident" gives me a better picture than the one I intended, I definitely keep it. And, of course, I'm willing to take full credit for the accident.  

By "loser", I mean the kind where I look at it and say to myself, "Why on earth did I ever think that would make a good photo?" If I still wince whenever I see it, even after the tenth time, it's probably time to chuck it. But I never do.  

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on June 27, 2006, 10:30:27 pm
Quote
By "loser", I mean the kind where I look at it and say to myself, "Why on earth did I ever think that would make a good photo?" If I still wince whenever I see it, even after the tenth time, it's probably time to chuck it. But I never do.

Which is why I have over 120,000 images in my archive; nearly 2 terabytes...
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 27, 2006, 11:37:23 pm
Quote
Which is why I have over 120,000 images in my archive; nearly 2 terabytes...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And lately I've been considering one of those 13-bay enclosures that I could populate with 500 GB drives . . .

I'm glad the Army is letting you have a little time to check in with LL now and then, Jonathan.

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 28, 2006, 01:32:46 am
Quote
Which is why I have over 120,000 images in my archive; nearly 2 terabytes...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think we'll have to change the saying from .."Putting away some pennies for a rainy day",  to...."Putting away some pixels for a rainy day"
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on June 28, 2006, 08:17:12 am
Quote
I'm glad the Army is letting you have a little time to check in with LL now and then, Jonathan.

I've been on leave the last 2 weeks; I fly to my new duty station in Baumholder Germany this afternoon.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on June 28, 2006, 10:03:37 pm
Quote
I think we'll have to change the saying from .."Putting away some pennies for a rainy day",  to...."Putting away some pixels for a rainy day"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69302\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Trouble is, Jule, in Australia there are simply not enough rainy days to justify collecting so many pixels. On the other hand, if you become really famous, then your rejects might add value without your lifting a finger   .
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on June 30, 2006, 04:38:49 am
Quote
Trouble is, Jule, in Australia there are simply not enough rainy days to justify collecting so many pixels. On the other hand, if you become really famous, then your rejects might add value without your lifting a finger   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

lol...
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on July 01, 2006, 08:43:36 am
I thought I would have a play yesterday with some of the concepts that Jonathan (jmdr) mentioned with regard to using focus as a tool for abstraction. I experiemented with various scenes and I think the best that I came up with yesterday was this;
[attachment=775:attachment]
which was out of focus in-camera. It captures the feeling I had whilst I was there, with colourings, the definite division between the grasses and the forest, and also the specked light, but still probably not that great an image.
The in focus scene was this;
[attachment=776:attachment]
Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Ray on July 01, 2006, 10:08:20 am
Quote
I thought I would have a play yesterday with some of the concepts that Jonathan (jmdr) mentioned with regard to using focus as a tool for abstraction.....It captures the feeling I had whilst I was there, with colourings, the definite division between the grasses and the forest, and also the specked light....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So let's get this straight, Jule. You were standing in this beautiful field of tall grass, admiring the lovely pine trees, Australia's attempt to reduce green house gasses and provide a resource for future timber needs, and suddenly you were afflicted with blurry vision and a feeling of being invaded by aliens descending in miniature flying saucers. Right?  

Sorry! I couldn't resist.  
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on July 01, 2006, 10:43:31 am
Quote
So let's get this straight, Jule. You were standing in this beautiful field of tall grass, admiring the lovely pine trees, Australia's attempt to reduce green house gasses and provide a resource for future timber needs, and suddenly you were afflicted with blurry vision and a feeling of being invaded by aliens descending in miniature flying saucers. Right?  

Sorry! I couldn't resist. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know the feeling. If I take off my glasses to clean them, or if I brought the wrong glasses with me, I get that effect.  Now I'll know to call it "abstraction".    

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on July 01, 2006, 06:17:06 pm
Quote
So let's get this straight, Jule. You were standing in this beautiful field of tall grass, admiring the lovely pine trees, Australia's attempt to reduce green house gasses and provide a resource for future timber needs, and suddenly you were afflicted with blurry vision and a feeling of being invaded by aliens descending in miniature flying saucers. Right?  

Sorry! I couldn't resist. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
lol Ray   Good to see that I provided a few laughs!
Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on July 01, 2006, 06:29:13 pm
Quote
I know the feeling. If I take off my glasses to clean them, or if I brought the wrong glasses with me, I get that effect.  Now I'll know to call it "abstraction".   

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=69585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Eric ...now you know how to be an 'abstract artist'  
Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on November 25, 2006, 03:11:20 pm
For those who followed this thread on abstraction, the time has come for my own exhibition.   I invite all who are interested to view my work - in Sydney from 29th November - 23rd December. Details  http://www.esajaskegallery.com/Exhibitions.html (http://www.esajaskegallery.com/Exhibitions.html)

julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on November 25, 2006, 09:26:55 pm
Quote
For those who followed this thread on abstraction, the time has come for my own exhibition.   I invite all who are interested to view my work - in Sydney from 29th November - 23rd December. Details  http://www.esajaskegallery.com/Exhibitions.html (http://www.esajaskegallery.com/Exhibitions.html)

julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The samples on the website look really nice. I wish I could see the real show, but it's a bit too long a walk from the northeastern U.S.

Congratulations, Julie!

-Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: GerardK on November 26, 2006, 06:59:02 am
Sorry to arrive so late to smell the coffee in this thread; I just spent some time reading from the beginning. I've been experimenting with motion blur for about a year now, and I'm still not sure whether or not I'm on to something. Or, rather, I should say we - I hadn't realised so many other photographers were experimenting along similar lines.

Please have a look at my website at http://www.kingma.nu/ (http://www.kingma.nu/) and click on the galleries 'Memories' and 'Motion'. There are also brief 'artist's statements' (click "About this series...").

In these experiments, I usually take a lot of pictures, easily a hundred within an hour or so, while moving the camera. I shoot RAW and select the images that work for me in Adobe Bridge; I then adjust brightness, contrast and saturation in RAW conversion, but not much else. No Photoshop filters.

What I've learned sofar is:
- the images that work best, fairly rigorously adhere to basic principles of composition in the way the various image elements interact in the way they fill the frame;
- they work well in series of images that complement each other, more so than 'traditional' (in-focus) images
- although the object is not to focus on details, it's my experience as well that the images work best when printed large (24"x36"), with a myriad of subtle color transitions to enjoy;
- they are fiendishly difficult to print well because of the very fine and gentle gradations that are easily ruined by dithering patterns or posterization and whatnot.

So please tell me what you think!

Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu (http://www.kingma.nu)

[attachment=1232:attachment] [attachment=1229:attachment] [attachment=1231:attachment][attachment=1228:attachment] [attachment=1230:attachment] [attachment=1233:attachment]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on November 26, 2006, 10:41:25 am
Gerard,

Wow! The six you posted are stunning. I find them totally convincing, and beautiful (and my own predisposition is toward the f64 school.)

I'll check your website as soon as I have time (got to go out right now) and offer comments.

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 26, 2006, 04:08:27 pm
Just for fun, I posted an "abstract" image of my own here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13316). I'm curious to see what y'all think of it...
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on November 26, 2006, 08:47:53 pm
Gerard, wow- beautiful images!  I especially like the 3rd and 4th images you've attached to your post (and the 1st is a close runner-up).

I also had the pleasure to have a quick look at your website, and was inspired by the different variations of motion blur that you've created.  I also really appreciated your description of the artistic choices you make to obscure or enhance detail in your images.

I was wondering how you "decide" when to use the radial movement (e.g. "Memory nr. 1"), and when to use the linear movement (e.g. "Autumn forest 1-3")?

(and I had a big smile on my face when I saw "Memory nr. 12"!)

Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: GerardK on November 27, 2006, 03:47:07 am
Eric, Jonathan,

Thanks for your kind and enthusiastic feedback! It's a big help to me that some of this stuff connects with anyone. Jonathan, I hadn't really thought about using various techniques of blurring, but you're right. Your favorite picture, Memory 12 of the girl turning cartwheels, was made without moving the camera, but only thrown out of focus, what you experimented with (by the way, it's darned difficult to get a digicam out of focus, I set it to super macro mode.) I feel motion adds energy, which works well with pictures of running dogs and children. If you use only out-of-focus without motion it's somehow more restful or tranquil, and that seems to work well with some of your images as well.

As I indicated, I take a lot (a LOT) of pictures in a short time with various techniques without thinking about it too much, I just try to get a feel for my surroundings and then point the camera at it, and see what happened afterwards on the computer. I see all these thumbnails appear in Bridge and my eyes wander around and sort of come to rest on the ones that work. As to your question when to use radial motion blur and linear motion blur - sometimes it seems to work best when the movement follows the basic pattern of the subject. Again, I don't decide beforehand, but pick out the ones that work best afterward. Basically, the ones I liked from rows of trees are linear movement in the same direction, moving from the tree roots to the leaves. This somehow emphasizes the repeating patterns of trees. If you do that kind of subject with radial blur, it just becomes messy.

Conversely, radial blur seems to work well with subjects that are, well, radial, such as an entire tree crown with autumn leaves etc.

Eric, it may surprise you that I'm also a f64 type of guy - to me it's different sides of the same medal. I also use a 4x5 large format camera, with which I take pictures in extreme detail. In a way, that's the same kind of abstraction, interpreted the other way around. I wrote a bit about that on my website, the "About..." text with the Motion images and the Large format images.


Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu (http://www.kingma.nu)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on November 27, 2006, 08:51:11 pm
Quote
Eric, it may surprise you that I'm also a f64 type of guy - to me it's different sides of the same medal. I also use a 4x5 large format camera, with which I take pictures in extreme detail. In a way, that's the same kind of abstraction, interpreted the other way around. I wrote a bit about that on my website, the "About..." text with the Motion images and the Large format images.
Gerard Kingma
www.kingma.nu (http://www.kingma.nu)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87319\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gerard,

I've now had a chance to take an initial look at your website, and I immediately bookmarked it. I want to go back and savor it a little at a time. So far I have looked at (and thoroughly enjoyed) Motion, Memories, Austria, and Norway.

I am also very pleased with the clean, uncluttered look of your website and the ease of navigation. And I find your commentaries very informative.

Beautiful work. Thanks for sharing it.

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: GerardK on November 28, 2006, 03:54:04 am
Eric,

You know, that really makes my day. Thanks a million. The site has developed over a number of years, but I've always had visitors in mind that had to rely on crappy phone line connections in the desert and still wanted to visit the website (if they're still out there, get them a beer will you?) So no fancy flash, no java, no nothing, just the good stuff. A warm welcome to you, and enjoy the ride. Feel free to contact me with any questions!



Gerard Kingma

www.kingma.nu (http://www.kingma.nu)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 29, 2006, 12:30:16 am
Gerard,

Thanks for posting these, I am especially fond of the 3rd and last ones!

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Dan Gaye on December 02, 2006, 02:38:09 am
Quote
I would love to hear any comments on my work, specifically or in general, but would also like to talk about your thoughts on this matter, hear about other photographers that used abstraction in their work, etc.

You can also post your comments/thoughts on my own (recently installed) discussion board at www.borealisimages.ca/disussionboard/ (http://www.borealisimages.ca/discussionboard/)

Thanks,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

I have enjoyed reading this thread. Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject. Out of focus, motion blur, selective focus... I have used all of these techniques in my work with some success. I think techniques are like tools they are not the basis for what makes it work. I think that you will find if you have a point of interest regardless of the focus the photo will communicate to the viewer better. I shoot abstracts for fun but have a few rules for myself. Although I shoot with a digital camera, I do not use photoshop to alter the image with retouching or filters. I do adjust color, contrast and crop my images but these techniques can be done traditionally during printing. For me, the challenge was to create art with my camera not the computer. I own several original abstract paintings from different artists and thought it would be fun to create something that I could hang on my wall that I would enjoy looking at. Other restrictions I put on myself include shooting handheld, available light, and I do not repeat the subject matter. The latter keeps each image more unique but makes finding your subject much harder. I had these images giclée printed on a very heavy 500 gsm somerset paper and later spot-glossed coated. The size of each print is close to 20"x28". I have shown some of my photos at a few local art shows. It is interesting to see how people react to them but I haven't sold any yet. I didn't create them to sell so I don't really care. Maybe when I am retired I will have more time to spend on my artwork. Meanwhile I will add images to my collection.

Dan

[attachment=1273:attachment][attachment=1274:attachment][attachment=1275:attachm
ent][attachment=1276:attachment]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: James Godman on December 08, 2006, 11:51:01 am
Hey Dan-

I especially like your spill and lights images.  Thanks for sharing.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: peter-natureindetail on January 15, 2007, 07:20:15 am
Hello fellow photographers,
Just logged in as new member, to share and be challenged! I am a Dutch photographer and have "focussed" on the subject of (mostly) abstract natural photos. I published www.natureindetail.nl last week, would welcome you to take a look and comments to learn more.
To give an idea I added these already to this post:
[attachment=1552:attachment]
[attachment=1553:attachment]
[attachment=1554:attachment]
[attachment=1555:attachment]
[attachment=1556:attachment]
[attachment=1557:attachment]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 16, 2007, 03:16:33 am
One from me on this:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/357555509_dc32c5373a_o.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: dobson on January 21, 2007, 02:36:17 pm
My 50mm 1.8 fell apart so I experimented with the obviously flawed optics. By reversing the front elements you can create some interesting effects; especially wide open. This is a view of the forest behind my house with the broken 50.

[attachment=1588:attachment]

Phillip
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 21, 2007, 03:59:17 pm
Quote
My 50mm 1.8 fell apart so I experimented with the obviously flawed optics. By reversing the front elements you can create some interesting effects; especially wide open. This is a view of the forest behind my house with the broken 50.

[attachment=1588:attachment]

Phillip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quite a neat abstract!
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on January 21, 2007, 06:01:18 pm
Quote
Hello fellow photographers,
Just logged in as new member, to share and be challenged! I am a Dutch photographer and have "focussed" on the subject of (mostly) abstract natural photos. I published www.natureindetail.nl last week, would welcome you to take a look and comments to learn more.
To give an idea I added these already to this post:
[attachment=1552:attachment]
[attachment=1553:attachment]
[attachment=1554:attachment]
[attachment=1555:attachment]
[attachment=1556:attachment]
[attachment=1557:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95814\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for sharing your images. I stand to be corrected, but I'm not certain that your images can be classified as abstract. They are too easily identifiable, and look like crops from larger images.

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: peter-natureindetail on January 22, 2007, 06:54:31 am
Quote
Thank you for sharing your images. I stand to be corrected, but I'm not certain that your images can be classified as abstract. They are too easily identifiable, and look like crops from larger images.

Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Julie,
Depends on what thinks about abstract, some of my photos could be called abstract others not, I agree. My photos are all uncropped, not from larger images. I use the zoom to focus in on a subject. Crops from larger images would result in loss of detail.
Regards,
Peter-natureindetail
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: LoisWakeman on January 22, 2007, 08:56:36 am
Peter,

Regardless of how you cropped or framed your images, I have to agree with Julie that they are not what I think of as natural abstracts, but closeups. (if they were details of the wider landscape, then the term "intimate landscape" might be applicable.)

You are right that abstraction is largely in the eye of the beholder of course! But to me, an abstract makes me wonder, at least for a moment or two "what is that?". With the exception of the penultimate one, there is none of that mystery here.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: LoisWakeman on February 12, 2007, 05:50:14 am
Jonathan - first, thanks for starting this thread, which I have found both interesting and inspirational. And secondly, for those who are interested in botanical abstracts, I came across this page of images from the UBC Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research, in Vancouver.

http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/potd/photo_abstracts/ (http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/potd/photo_abstracts/)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on May 18, 2007, 03:53:09 pm
<p>"It would be interesting to see whether artists-turned-photographers are able to appreciate 'blurred' out of focus photographs as abstractions without the need to have clear focal points and sharpness, more readily than photographers-turned artists. "

<p>This subject interests me and I've done some work of this kind recently. In fact I joined the site specifically for this but don't know how to navigate here. Is this thread still alive? How do I join this forum? How do I post shots? All help appreciated.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on September 23, 2007, 05:52:30 pm
Well, this thread has been quiet for a little while, but I'd like to thank the people who have posted links- I've really enjoyed seeing the range of work out there.

Myself, I've been experimenting, playing around some more, and I think that I'd like to revise my initial position of there being three types of abstraction in landscape photography- I've discovered a bunch more! And rather than give them away, I'll invite you to have a look at some of the images in the latest galleries on my website (www.borealisimages.ca (http://www.borealisimages.ca)), see what you like, and (hopefully) get inspired to try some things out yourself. I'd also love to hear some reactions if anything strikes you especially.

I've also recently read an article that I thought I'd pass along and highly recommend to those of you interested in this discussion. The article was in issue #70 of the excellent photography magazine "Lenswork". It was written by the editor, Brooks Jensen, as an introduction to a portfolio of abstract photos he had created and published in the same issue. In the article he compares the experience of looking at abstract photography to that of listening to music.

Any paraphrase of my own wouldn't work nearly as well, so you should instead read the article yourselves. You can download a pdf copy of it from the Lenswork website by clicking this link (http://enhanced.lenswork.com/previewpages/lw070preview.pdf). The article is the "Editor's Comments" in the sample pages from Lenswork section of the download.

As a side note, the images that Brooks presents in his portfolio are a type of abstract photo that hasn't been mentioned in this thread: they're perfectly crisp, clear, representational photographs of random paint patterns on concrete walls. These images don't fit into any of the categories that have been mentioned in this forum so far, but they certainly (to my eye/mind) still qualify as abstract photographs... time to broaden the horizons once again I guess (what fun).
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: larsrc on September 25, 2007, 10:06:34 am
Just read through this whole thread, and it's quite interesting.  While I agree that the "just defocused" shots are not very interesting, I think there are things that can be done with sloppy focus that makes things abstract and still interesting.  Just after finishing reading the thread, something happened here that lead to another type of abstract photo (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1144/1437487067_24cd869457.jpg?v=0).  See if you can guess what it is:)

That aside, my thoughts of why the "just unfocused" shots don't work while purely abstract paintings "work" (at least to the tune of selling very well) is that there's always something in the paintings to grab our attention, specifically sharp contrasts or fine detail.  Real unfocused-like blur is not easy to make in a painting.  The eyes cannot fix on anything in a truly blurred photo, they just slide off without anything to hold interest.  But kudos for trying something different.

-Lars
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Monochromophile on September 26, 2007, 01:57:29 pm
My attempt at landscape abstraction:
http://i.pbase.com/o6/61/186761/1/86253298...3.NHCreek2A.jpg (http://i.pbase.com/o6/61/186761/1/86253298.vPl56uO3.NHCreek2A.jpg)

Original inage:
http://i.pbase.com/o6/61/186761/1/86253322...PJ.NHCreek2.jpg (http://i.pbase.com/o6/61/186761/1/86253322.gP1xU0PJ.NHCreek2.jpg)

(I hope I pested the pictures correstly.  If not,  see http://www.pbase.com/lenw/temp&page=4 (http://www.pbase.com/lenw/temp&page=4)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Monochromophile on September 26, 2007, 02:23:02 pm
Quote
In a sense Jule, that probably is still true. The camera really does never lie. Only people lie. But sometimes it might not be clear if the lie was deliberate, which requires a certain familiarity with the characteristics of the medium (the camera), or if the lie was inadvertent, as a result of the photographer not being familiar with the characteristics of the camera.

A typical example might be a picture advertisement for rental rooms in a hotel or guest house. To fit the whole room into the shot (or most of it) it's usually easier for the photographer to use a wide-angle lens. However, the effects of a wide-angle lens are to exaggerate the size of near objects and reduce the size of far objects resulting in an over all impression that the room is much bigger than it actually is.

In this example, I would say the photographer has probably lied but might shift the blame to the camera if confronted with the lie.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the picture is used as evedence in a criminal case, or illustrating a product in an ad, etc, "lying" with the camera is possible.  But no lie is implied if the picture is strictly used as artistic expression.  Painters don't lie when they abstract a scene., why can't photographers have the same right.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: russell a on September 26, 2007, 03:55:14 pm
There is an interesting issue as regards abstraction in photography.  It's related to abstract art in general.  It took years before the majority of even the "informed" public gave up on asking of abstract paintings ** "what is it?".  Photography still has that issue and it relates to the following.  

1)  we know that photography is nearly (99.999%) based in some objective reality - so the abstract pattern that we see may be the result of, variously, photomicrography, macro photography, unusual points of view, focus/flare, etc., but it is of some worldly something.  

2)  with painting, the "informed public" has been taught to associate abstraction with implied non-visual "content" - emotional states, moral positions, psychological intent.  While recent criticism (Donald Kuspit, Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe) suggests that, to a great extent, such association is over-blown and ill-placed, such assumptions are firmly embedded in arts education and museum practice.

3)  so the problem arises that, whenever there are insufficient clues for the viewer of a photograph to determine "what is it?", the question is immediately forthcoming. Additionally, because the viewer knows that photographs are produced differently than are paintings, the viewer is not likely to reward the photographer with having imbued the image with the above mentioned non-visual content.  So, abstract photographs are taken less seriously than abstract paintings and are often treated as puzzles that, once solved, can be discarded.

4)  part of the issue is that of a fundamental misunderstanding of the model of communications as regards the arts.  Education and practice, as above, also reinforce the myth that art works are supposed to communicate from the artist to the viewer.  In fact, what takes place are two separate processes:  the relationship of artist to the work and the relationship from the work to the viewer.  Any correspondence between these two relationships is illusory and unnecessary.  One may easily see this at work in the extravagant reinterpretations of ancient, tribal, or any work from outside a given culture.  To the extent that a shared relationship seems to exist, it is based on cultural agreements that tend toward the trivial, the cliched, or the kitsch.  In short, what Chomsky once called "deep structure" is individual and not even (sorry Karl Jung) archetypal.

Now, much of what is termed abstraction in photography approaches what I would term "pure seeing" or perhaps "seeing for seeings sake".  There is nothing wrong with this, but the practitioner may well encounter the shoals cited above.

What to do about it?  Probably nothing.  Keep shooting.


**  technically the appropriate quarter-to-mid 20th Century terminology was "non-objective" but I will use the term abstraction here to refer to any work without a tangible reference to a worldly visual reality.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: larsrc on September 27, 2007, 02:11:23 am
Quote
There is an interesting issue as regards abstraction in photography.  It's related to abstract art in general.  It took years before the majority of even the "informed" public gave up on asking of abstract paintings ** "what is it?".  Photography still has that issue and it relates to the following. 

1)  we know that photography is nearly (99.999%) based in some objective reality - so the abstract pattern that we see may be the result of, variously, photomicrography, macro photography, unusual points of view, focus/flare, etc., but it is of some worldly something

2)  with painting, the "informed public" has been taught to associate abstraction with implied non-visual "content" - emotional states, moral positions, psychological intent.  While recent criticism (Donald Kuspit, Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe) suggests that, to a great extent, such association is over-blown and ill-placed, such assumptions are firmly embedded in arts education and museum practice.

I surely hope people will listen to these two, I'm so tired of looking at abstract paintings.  Try as I might, I just cannot find anything interesting in them.

Quote
3)  so the problem arises that, whenever there are insufficient clues for the viewer of a photograph to determine "what is it?", the question is immediately forthcoming. Additionally, because the viewer knows that photographs are produced differently than are paintings, the viewer is not likely to reward the photographer will having imbued the image with the above mentioned non-visual content.  So, abstract photographs are taken less seriously than abstract paintings and are often treated as puzzles that, once solved, can be discarded.

4)  part of the issue is that of a fundamental misunderstanding of the model of communications as regards the arts.  Education and practice, as above, also reinforce the myth that art works are supposed to communicate from the artist to the viewer.  In fact, what takes place are two separate processes:  the relationship of artist to the work and the relationship from the work to the viewer.  Any correspondence between these two relationships is illusory and unnecessary. 

Here I don't agree.  While the actual processes that happen may be as you describe, we especially as landscape photographers are frequently trying to communicate what we experience "in the field" to the final viewer.  One of the hard parts to learn is how to this effectively using the medium at hand.  Of course, it does apply less to abstract photography, but it's not a myth in general.

Quote
One may easily see this at work in the extravagant reinterpretations of ancient, tribal, or any work from outside a given culture.  To the extent that a shared relationship seems to exist, it is based on cultural agreements that tend toward the trivial, the cliched, or the kitsch.  In short, what Chomsky once called "deep structure" is individual and not even (sorry Karl Jung) archetypal.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: LoisWakeman on September 27, 2007, 09:03:37 am
A different meaning of abstraction I suppose: but as you can very clearly see the subject, it is more a graphic but representational treatment IMO.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Rob C on September 27, 2007, 10:28:30 am
Russell a

What a beautifully written post.

For what it´s worth, and quite by chance, I have found myself working in this very aspect of photography lo these past few days.

I thought it would be interesting to use digital capture in a sort of abstract manner, so I put a very light coating of Vaseline on a small piece of glass which fits in a Cokin holder. With this hightly sophisticated adaptation in front of the lens, I moved very close to some flowers, closer even than the normal focussing range of the lens, and proceeded to manipulate the resulting blurred images in a variety of ways, even by such simple means as by changing the angle of rotation of the ´filter´ and immediately fell in love with the images in the camera.

After working on the files in the computer, I took them to a level of abstract beauty (in MY eyes) where I could hardly wait to print.

At the same time, I had managed to source some Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Bright White and thought that a combination of the new images and a new (to me) paper might inspire my mind to even greater heights.

Until I printed the first test strip.

Dismally poor would be a kind way of putting it, unlike prints of other subjects on a much cheaper paper available from the UK - Jessops Heavyweight Photo Matt 230gsm -  which gives me a great combination with the HP B9180 at the Jessops-recommended profile of HP Premium Paper. I did not use that profile with the Hahnemuehle material trying, instead, the HP Smooth Fine Art which has been recommended on this forum. It was horribly flat, showing absolutely nothing of the vibrancy and deep, deep colours of the screen (I understand the difference between transmitted and reflected light viewing). I then downloaded two different versions of Hahnemuehle profile from their site (one suggests using Rigid Rag as paper type - I tried that and also the alternative, the name of which, at the moment, escapes my memory) but the difference was a very slight increase in separation of the colours but still a pronounced flatness coupled with what seemed, at first glance, to be banding.

This led to an instant head realignment exercise. In for a penny, in for a pound - or three - per pop,  I decided, so I printed an A3+ on the Hahne-supplied profile and also another A3+ using the HP Smooth Fine Art profile.

The Hahne-profiled one still shows the ´banding´and the HP profiled one does not, being only slightly less contrasty than the Hahne, but still very flat.

On looking even more deeply into the soul of the Hahne-profiled shot, I began to think that I was not really seeing banding at all, more a sort of smallish wave pattern, entirely absent in the other print.

I ran an A5 test of the second Hahnemuehle-supplied profile, but as it showed the same fault as the first such profile, I went no further with it.

I have yet to try this Hahnemuehle paper on the same profile that works so well with Jessops paper, but my gut feeling is not positve!

But anyway, that´s just the background to the meat of this post, which is that abstract photography is, I believe, quite different to abstract painting for the very reasons mentioned in your post and also because where there is sufficient data to give an understanding of the reality/identity of the subject in the photograph, something in the mind wants - no, demands - that a small part at least of that subject be rendered fairly crisply as a token of confirmation of the viewer´s/photographer´s understanding of what it is that he is looking at so closely.

For my own shots from that session, I should have ensured that a tiny slot of glass was free of Vaseline smear. I don´t imagine this would have had any effect on the subsequent banding(?) issue, but if so, then it also raises the question of whether, where there is NO sharp feature in a picture,  the printer does not have a harder time behaving itself without offering any corrective input of its own...

Don´t ask me how this might happen - I have insufficient trust in the entire business as it is!

Rob C
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: russell a on September 27, 2007, 01:29:24 pm
Quote
While the actual processes that happen may be as you describe, we especially as landscape photographers are frequently trying to communicate what we experience "in the field" to the final viewer.  One of the hard parts to learn is how to this effectively using the medium at hand.  Of course, it does apply less to abstract photography, but it's not a myth in general.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The fact that someone is trying to communicate with the final viewer doesn't mean that it is going to occur.  If closely examined, two individuals** who "agree entirely" may find that they do this for very different reasons.  In many cases it doesn't matter, the two individuals are sufficiently happy to be in agreement and are not motivated to discover any deeply embedded divergence.  The appearance of communication should not be taken to prove that communication occurred, although it is our tendency to do so.

It would be interesting to be able to study this phenomena in the case of identical twins.



**  I use this term deliberately.  That's the point.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on October 18, 2007, 06:07:13 pm
[attachment=3605:attachment]<p>I see that the interactions in this thread proceed at a languorous pace. The subject matter is both fascinating to me and relevant to much of the photography I do.  Discussions here can get heady to the point where theory gets separated from the work in question and becomes the subject--something I try to avoid but we can only work case by case.

<p>I favor a broad definition of "abstraction". This  includes subjects that are not recognizable except as color, line and form. Also subjects in  which these aspects are emphasized as part of things that are recognizable: i.e., a blurred, camera- movement- produced image of a tree in which the color patterns of fall leaves are the subject. Out of focus pictures of buildings that work with light and with bold architectural forms rather than sharp detail are abstract for me. I don't spend much time thinking where the line between the abstract and the representational lies.

<p>What mainly interests me in photography and in art in general are the means by which human emotion is evoked--how this is done conceptually and by technical execution. I've never posted here so I'll introduce myself with these few paragraphs and a picture. I look forward to exchanging images and thoughts with you all.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: larsrc on October 19, 2007, 05:22:11 am
Quote
The fact that someone is trying to communicate with the final viewer doesn't mean that it is going to occur.  If closely examined, two individuals** who "agree entirely" may find that they do this for very different reasons.  In many cases it doesn't matter, the two individuals are sufficiently happy to be in agreement and are not motivated to discover any deeply embedded divergence.  The appearance of communication should not be taken to prove that communication occurred, although it is our tendency to do so.

It would be interesting to be able to study this phenomena in the case of identical twins.
**  I use this term deliberately.  That's the point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The fact that communication might not occur does not mean that is is not, or should not, be attempted.  If I wrote a sentence on a piece of paper and put that in a frame on the wall, who would claim that no communication takes place (to viewers who can read that language)?  Why, then, are people so ready to claim that images do not communicate anything?  I was about to say that art should communicate something, but I can see the place for art that is left entirely open to the viewers interpretation.  I guess I'm just reacting to the prominence that kind of art has had recently.  I cannot say that art that attempts to communicate something and conveys something else is a failure.  Art that means nothing to the viewer is a failure as art and will by its very definition be ignored.  Art that doesn't communicate what the creator intended is a failure as communicative art, but not necessarily as invocative art.

-Lars
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Rob C on October 19, 2007, 01:36:57 pm
Generally, assuming freedom from commercial pressure, artistic truth might be seen to lie in the old adage: you can´t please everyone, so you might just as well please yourself.

That way, whatever you do, if it pleases you then it has succeeded.

Rob C
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on October 29, 2007, 01:24:37 am
Quote
[attachment=3605:attachment]<p>I see that the interactions in this thread proceed at a languorous pace. The subject matter is both fascinating to me and relevant to much of the photography I do.  Discussions here can get heady to the point where theory gets separated from the work in question and becomes the subject--something I try to avoid but we can only work case by case.

<p>I favor a broad definition of "abstraction". This  includes subjects that are not recognizable except as color, line and form. Also subjects in  which these aspects are emphasized as part of things that are recognizable: i.e., a blurred, camera- movement- produced image of a tree in which the color patterns of fall leaves are the subject. Out of focus pictures of buildings that work with light and with bold architectural forms rather than sharp detail are abstract for me. I don't spend much time thinking where the line between the abstract and the representational lies.

<p>What mainly interests me in photography and in art in general are the means by which human emotion is evoked--how this is done conceptually and by technical execution. I've never posted here so I'll introduce myself with these few paragraphs and a picture. I look forward to exchanging images and thoughts with you all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hankbenson, Your image reminds me of some i took earlier in the year. I have been experimenting with abstraction - not very successfully - endeavoring to capture the mood of an environment rather than the visual particulars. Here are a couple of my photos which have had no post processing other than quick Raw conversion and resizing for this post. These initial images didn't exude the feeling I was hoping for - so consequently have been left untouched in my backup, until now when I saw yours which - reminded me of mine.  

I am very interested in abstraction in photography, but as yet am to create anything which I am happy with.

[attachment=3675:attachment]

[attachment=3676:attachment]

[attachment=3677:attachment]

[attachment=3678:attachment]

[attachment=3679:attachment]

Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on October 29, 2007, 09:42:06 am
Hank and Julie,

I find your woodsie abstractions quite intriguing. They remind me of situations when I have been in a forest with a fascinating mood, but the scene is too busy and/or the light is too contrasty to get anything usable. Your experiments suggest a possible way to try to, as Julie put it,
Quote
capture the mood of an environment rather than the visual particulars.

One difficulty, as I see it, is that viewers have been conditioned to expect "sharp", and "blurred" suggests an error. I think grouping several such images, as Julie has done, helps to overcome this viewer predisposition by saying "this is intentional".

Thanks to you both, I will plan to try some of these myself.

Eric
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on October 29, 2007, 05:48:54 pm
Quote
hankbenson, Your image reminds me of some i took earlier in the year. I have been experimenting with abstraction - not very successfully - endeavoring to capture the mood of an environment rather than the visual particulars. Here are a couple of my photos which have had no post processing other than quick Raw conversion and resizing for this post. These initial images didn't exude the feeling I was hoping for - so consequently have been left untouched in my backup, until now when I saw yours which - reminded me of mine.   

I am very interested in abstraction in photography, but as yet am to create anything which I am happy with.

[attachment=3675:attachment]

[attachment=3676:attachment]

[attachment=3677:attachment]

[attachment=3678:attachment]

[attachment=3679:attachment]

Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on October 29, 2007, 05:50:51 pm
Quote
hankbenson, Your image reminds me of some i took earlier in the year. I have been experimenting with abstraction - not very successfully - endeavoring to capture the mood of an environment rather than the visual particulars. Here are a couple of my photos which have had no post processing other than quick Raw conversion and resizing for this post. These initial images didn't exude the feeling I was hoping for - so consequently have been left untouched in my backup, until now when I saw yours which - reminded me of mine.   

I am very interested in abstraction in photography, but as yet am to create anything which I am happy with.

[attachment=3675:attachment]

[attachment=3676:attachment]

[attachment=3677:attachment]

[attachment=3678:attachment]

[attachment=3679:attachment]

Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on October 29, 2007, 06:16:31 pm
Julie and Eric, forgive my poor navigational skills here and my delay in responding to Julie. I haven't been back to the site for a week or so.

<p>Here's what I've learned about vertical camera movement shots of forest scenes: First, they are imprecise so I typically get one in six to ten that I like okay and fewer that are better.

<p> My basic approach is: I set the shutter speed between 1/5" to 1/3" with the compatible aperture setting. Don't  worry too much about sharpness and DOF. I support the camera to avoid horizontal movement and move the camera as smoothly as possible downwards during exposure, avoiding exaggerated vertical stripes of light from the sky and from too rapid camera movement (this is very important.) If you still get  light stripes near the top but like most of the image, you can clone or crop them out later.

<p> Check your results and adjust shutter speed and camera movement accordingly. Except in low light conditions, I would think 1/2" would be about a maximum exposure time but I haven't experimented enough to be sure.

<P> When you have a composition and exposure that please you, adjust levels, curves, and then play with saturation and hue (you're distorting reality to begin with so I don't suggest being too pure in this realm.)

<P?I'll post a few images for reference and your questions
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on October 29, 2007, 06:22:44 pm
Julie and Eric, forgive my poor navigational skills here and my delay in responding to Julie. I haven't been back to the site for a week or so.

<p>Here's what I've learned about vertical camera movement shots of forest scenes: First, they are imprecise so I typically get one in six to ten that I like okay and fewer that are better.

<p> My basic approach is: I set the shutter speed between 1/5" to 1/3" with the compatible aperture setting. Don't  worry too much about sharpness and DOF. I support the camera to avoid horizontal movement and move the camera as smoothly as possible downwards during exposure, avoiding exaggerated vertical stripes of light from the sky and from too rapid camera movement (this is very important.) If you still get  light stripes near the top but like most of the image, you can clone or crop them out later.

<p> Check your results and adjust shutter speed and camera movement accordingly. Except in low light conditions, I would think 1/2" would be about a maximum exposure time but I haven't experimented enough to be sure.

<P> When you have a composition and exposure that please you, adjust levels, curves, and then play with saturation and hue (you're distorting reality to begin with so I don't suggest being too pure in this realm.)

<P?I'll post a few images for reference and your questions
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on October 29, 2007, 06:46:24 pm
Julie and Eric, forgive my poor navigational skills here and my delay in responding to Julie. I haven't been back to the site for a week or so.

<p>Here's what I've learned about vertical camera movement shots of forest scenes: First, they are imprecise so I typically get one in six to ten that I like okay and fewer that are better.

<p> My basic approach is: I set the shutter speed between 1/5" to 1/3" with the compatible aperture setting. Don't worry too much about sharpness and DOF. I support the camera to avoid horizontal movement and move the camera as smoothly as possible downwards during exposure, avoiding exaggerated vertical stripes of light from the sky and from too rapid camera movement (this is very important.) If you still get light stripes near the top but like most of the image, you can clone or crop them out later.

<p> Check your results and adjust shutter speed and camera movement accordingly. Except in low light conditions, I would think 1/2" would be about a maximum exposure time but I haven't experimented enough to be sure.

<P> When you have a composition and exposure that please you, adjust levels, curves, and then play with saturation and hue (you're distorting reality to begin with so I don't suggest being too pure in this realm.)

<P?I'll post a few images for reference and your questions
Quote
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: nineinone on December 12, 2007, 01:51:38 am
Personally, I think photography is the most "representational" of art forms, and as such, has an in-built prejudice against any abstract or unconventional visions of reality. A painter starts with a blank canvas, but the photographer starts out with a more or less well established and accepted "conventional" depiction of reality, and only in diverging from so-called "rules" like the zone system, sharp focus, etc etc does he "rebel" against what is "expected" from photography. So, to those abstract photographers out there, keep up the faith, because 9/10 people do not want/expect photographs to not look like its "supposed" to. In this sense, I think abstract photographers have something in common with the abstract expressionists, who were "rebelling" at the time against what painting was supposed to do or look like.

For me, the greatest abstract photographer of all time is Mario Giacomelli, and his landscape work is probably his best too. He threw out absolutely every single convention of what black and white photography is supposed to look like; today's digital photographers would be horrified by his clipped histograms; Ansel Adams would be turning in his grave at seeing his zone system reduced to 2 single tones!

As an abstract photographer myself, I feel more like a painter who happens to use a camera, as opposed to strictly a pure "photographer" -because while I share the same equipment as say a wedding shooter, I dont share the same intent, nor the same assumptions, nor even the same process "with" that camera.  Personally I think all truly abstract photographers are really secretly painters, LOL.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jjj on December 12, 2007, 04:18:17 am
Quote
So, to those abstract photographers out there, keep up the faith, because 9/10 people do not want/expect photographs to not look like its "supposed" to. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Many of the most consistently liked images in my portfolio are the abstracts. So maybe it's more a case of doing abstracts that work as images, rather than doing abstracts, just to be abstract. If that makes sense?
You still need to compose and create an image, even if it is abstract. Whereas it may be that people are taking less care when creating an abstract image, when they should possibly take even more care when creating the image. It still needs to work as an image and an abstract usually doesn't have the crutch of content to give meaning, so you need to spend more time on the composition.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: hankbenson on December 12, 2007, 03:13:38 pm
"Personally I think all truly abstract photographers are really secretly painters, LOL. "

I move freely between abstract and representational photography, but I often look at the latter in terms of form, line and color as an abstract artist does. That tendency often surprises viewers and I think it opens up creative possibilities.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jule on December 12, 2007, 05:28:15 pm
Quote
For me, the greatest abstract photographer of all time is Mario Giacomelli, and his landscape work is probably his best too. He threw out absolutely every single convention of what black and white photography is supposed to look like;
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was not aware that Mario Giacomelli was known as an abstract photographer. I would be interested in seeing some of his abstract works if you could provide a link or reference where they could be found.
Julie
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Stuarte on February 28, 2008, 09:32:00 am
This thread has had me reflecting long and hard for quite a while, which is already a great result.

I've greatly enjoyed looking at work referenced in this thread, including the original poster's online gallery.  One of the unexpected benefits for me has been a sense of liberation from (what I experience as) the tyranny of technical perfection.  The world is full of photos that meet the highest technical requirements on calendars, book covers, posters, advertisements and brochures. I salute the technical skill of the photographers, but... Looking through JMDR's galleries, the pictures that held me and stayed with me were most certainly not the most technically "correct" photos.  

Another great pleasure has been getting a real sense of a distinctive personality and vision through JMDR's words and work.  In that sense, he has been very successful in using his camera as an expressive tool.

Somewhere in this thread there's mention of photos communicating emotions.  Personally, I find the "emotions" thing a bit limiting, although that may be a matter of terminology.  For me, the question is what is the "state" elicited by a particular image?  

I find a perfectly-executed portrait or landscape or product shot generally tends to elicit what I would call a completed state; I may linger and look at the detail, I may think "that's nice" or "great shot" and I may even get excited or I may laugh, but I end up feeling that I've "got it" and moving on.  The loop of noticing, looking, processing, and understanding closes.

What interests me far more are images that elicit an incompleted state, where the loop remains open - photos that are ambiguous or don't strictly confirm to the normal criteria of technical excellence.  A photo that has the mojo evokes what feels like a (neurological) state of potential, of receptivity; I'm not just "consuming" the photo passively, and I'm just not doing a technical appraisal of it.  Somehow the photo sets off a cascade of conscious and unconscious activity, mental, emotional ... maybe even spiritual.  

More in due course.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: larsrc on February 28, 2008, 02:44:52 pm
Quote
I'd like to have a discussion about the role of abstraction in landscape photography- a category that is generally highly representational.

To me it seems that, generally, abstraction takes the form of a.) isolating features to the point it's hard to tell what they are, b.) motion blur, either from subject or camera movement, or c.) use of an extremely short depth of field.  It's this 3rd type of abstraction (there could be more that I've missed here) that I've begun to experiment with, and to move past, into something I haven't seen done before.

I started to experiment with greater levels of abstraction by deliberately de-focusing the image in an effort to capture the sense of my subject, rather than the details.  These images are more about the colours, tones, contrasts, the shapes of the landscape, rather than specific details.

You can see some examples of my recent work at my online gallery (http://www.borealisimages.ca).

I would love to hear any comments on my work, specifically or in general, but would also like to talk about your thoughts on this matter, hear about other photographers that used abstraction in their work, etc.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I finally got to look through your galleries, and found a) that you make a lot of really good stuff, and  that a few of the deliberately de-focused pictures work for me.  Specifically, there are two with aspen trunks where the trunk patterning comes through as the main subject, and those work.  Most of the de-focused ones just have my eyes slide off them, though.

-Lars
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: MikeKeyW on November 22, 2008, 12:08:00 am
Forgive the necro-threading but I'd like to put in my two cents. I have been an experimentalist pretty much since I first picked up a camera in the mid-60's, it really took of when I setup my first darkroom in '68, I was in the 8th grade. I quickly discovered Kodalith Ortho (http://www.kpgraphics.com/service_support/downloads/support/online/ortho/ti/ti1105.pdf), Diazochrome (http://www.nleindex.com/index.php?pID=HTDI&sID=BrowseIndex&tID=C/3812), reticulation (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Create-reticulation), sabattier effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_Effect) soon entered my bag of tricks. Inspired by Man Ray and Phillipe Halsman, along with Salvador Dali and M. C. Escher, I pushed traditional views and never looked back.
I applaud anyone's efforts to push the boundaries of creative expression, often contrary to the contemporary traditionalist. In resurrecting this thread I'd like to see some more artistic manipulations of reality, not landscapes but here are some of mine:
Key West Biking
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3044773023_88311069ef_o.jpg)
Key West get away
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3045607866_5b1b4c704b_b.jpg)
Flower on the porch
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2186/2509469937_16de351b64_b.jpg)
Up and down
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/2510277926_6df33ab91e_b.jpg)
Florida Mastodon
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/2509457327_8061dc9a08_b.jpg)
A Key West Ying-Yang
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2183/2510280026_e6f847e0dc_b.jpg)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: jmdr on December 07, 2008, 02:53:24 am
Thanks for resurrecting this thread Mike--it was a fun discussion.

I've been meaning to share the work of another photographer whose photographs I've been enjoying lately and who has inspired me to get back out there and keep making my blurry pictures. William Neill's (http://www.williamneill.com/) Impressions of Light (http://www.williamneill.com/ImpressionsofLight/index.html) portfolio is all images produced with camera motion to create a blurred effect. His artist statement for the portfolio really resonated with my own motivations for creating this type of photograph. He wrote,


"My Goal is to remove the context, distill down to the essence,
in order to convey the energy of a subject or scene in a fresh way,
much as snow simplifies the landscape.

For me, these images deflect the mind's tendency to dwell
on the concrete issues of place and name when viewing a subject.
The spirit of a place or an object can be more strongly conveyed"


I would definitely recommend having a look through his site, he also has many terrific "traditional" landscape photographs. I purchased the ebook portfolio of the "Impressions" work, and it's just stunning (disclosure: no, I don't know him personally, or work for him, or get a commission...).

I've been continuing to play with, and develop my "blurry" work--I've recently updated my website (http://www.borealisimages.ca/index.html) with several new galleries (and a new design, which unfortunately broke a bunch of the links earlier in this thread). I've also decided, partially thanks to everyone here, (and despite what I suggested my initial post), that there are a near-infinite number of ways to produce abstract photography. Now, someone more clever than I may still be able to break things down into a couple categories (anyone up for a try??), but I've been enjoying exploring the whole range of techniques. Here are some examples:


some new "defocused" ones:


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/01_Bright_morning_after_rain_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2007/summer/index.html)


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/02_Young_poplar_stand_in_autumn_colours_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2007/autumn/index.html)




some of my own camera motion ones:


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/03_Poplar_shoreline_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2005/summer/index.html)


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/04_Young_aspen_stand_1_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2007/autumn/index.html)




two blurred by subject movement:


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/05_Dowitcher_flock_along_shoreline_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2006/autumn/index.html)


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/06_Reeds_along_stormy_shoreline_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/index.html)




some "Orton imagery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orton_(photography))":


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/07_Young_aspen_fall_colour_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2007/autumn/index.html)




and finally, some photographs made using a lens seemingly custom-built for photographers experimenting with blur--the Lensbaby (http://www.lensbaby.com/index.php):


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/08_Aspen_canopy_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2007/autumn/index.html)


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/09_Tiger_lily_impression_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2007/summer/index.html)


(http://www.borealisimages.ca/images/misc/10_Goldenrod_in_grassy_clearing_wwwborealisimagesca.jpg) (http://www.borealisimages.ca/galleries/2007/autumn/index.html)



I'd love to hear your reactions to these, or any of the newer work in my galleries (http://www.borealisimages.ca/index.html). Also, can anyone suggest other photographer (professional, or otherwise) that are doing this type of work? Along with William Neill, I've mentioned Freeman Patterson (http://www.freemanpatterson.com/) and Courtney Milne (http://www.courtneymilne.com/) earlier in this thread (although my favourite work of Milne's is no longer on his website). Any others that I should know about?

'all the best
Jonathan
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 07, 2008, 11:04:02 am
Jmdr:
The fourth one down works great for me. Quite dazzling. Number 7 is also effective. I'm afraid I find most of the rest somewhat disturbing, as they remind me of what the world looks like when I take my @#$%& glasses off! For me, numbers 4 and 7 have a 'sense' of sharpness, or at least of showing the image's 'essence' clearly, which the others don't quite have. This may just be me (or me and my confounded glasses). But I think you are onto something good. Keep at it.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Diamond D on December 16, 2008, 06:04:22 pm
Hi all, this is my first post here, in fact I registered to reply to this interesting thread. I've enjoyed reading the opinions here and looking at some of the photos. In the previous post, I particularly like the one of the birds in flight.

Reading this thread brought to mind a few images I have taken recently, when I was really thinking about a "feeling" rather than an image.

The first is driving on the Blue Ridge Parkway in fall, we were in a thick forest and both sides of the road were just oceans of flowing color

(http://diamondd.smugmug.com/photos/417245151_sAsZM-M.jpg)

(http://diamondd.smugmug.com/photos/417247229_ySfD5-M.jpg)

Obviously these are less "abstract" than some of the others posted here, but to me the blur does a much better job of capturing what I saw than any static composition.


More recently, I was shooting the local Christmas display, and took this defocused shot

(http://diamondd.smugmug.com/photos/437471294_do9KS-M.jpg)

To me it says "Christmas" (or at least "Winter") without being tied down by scenery or location.

This one also has gotten some positive feedback. It's actually the reflection of Christmas lights on a water tower in a man-made water feature in a long exposure.

(http://diamondd.smugmug.com/photos/437473912_3KXf3-M.jpg)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Philip Weber on January 02, 2009, 06:41:14 pm
Also, can anyone suggest other photographer (professional, or otherwise) that are doing this type of work? Along with William Neill, I've mentioned Freeman Patterson and earlier in this thread (although my favourite work of Milne's is no longer on his website). Any others that I should know about?

'all the best
Jonathan



Check out the work by Tony Sweet. He has quite a bit of this type of photography (especially in his Macro work) as well as some great HDR images. It's not everyone's cup of tea but if one is interested in this type of stuff, Tony is well worth checking out.

Phil
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: John R on January 05, 2009, 10:55:03 am
I like this subject as I am fond of shooting abstracts, or what I call interpretive images. we abstract everything, including any decision to shoot simple doicmentary photos, of say a house. I include a different examples of the current technique under discussion. When doing this type of camera movement, it is best to use tripod or at least brace yourself. Shoot manual at about 1/15 sec or slower. Shoot in overcast lighting whenever possible. Try to avoid any white or light areas, such as sky, unless you think this will be benefical to your image. In my experience, white areas when panning or moving camera during exposure seldom produces good images.

The first is a good attempt but I think should be softer and more abstract; notice anything whitish (grasses) draws attention to itself
The second is a crop with sky cropped out (white streaks), but I think has been successfully cropped.
The third is pretty good

Hope this helps.

John R - http://lusalight.smugmug.com/ (http://lusalight.smugmug.com/)
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: John R on January 05, 2009, 01:36:51 pm
check out this one: http://www.stephenpatterson.com/ (http://www.stephenpatterson.com/)

John R
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 05, 2009, 05:43:44 pm
Quote from: John R
I like this subject as I am fond of shooting abstracts, or what I call interpretive images. we abstract everything, including any decision to shoot simple doicmentary photos, of say a house. I include a different examples of the current technique under discussion. When doing this type of camera movement, it is best to use tripod or at least brace yourself. Shoot manual at about 1/15 sec or slower. Shoot in overcast lighting whenever possible. Try to avoid any white or light areas, such as sky, unless you think this will be benefical to your image. In my experience, white areas when panning or moving camera during exposure seldom produces good images.

The first is a good attempt but I think should be softer and more abstract; notice anything whitish (grasses) draws attention to itself
The second is a crop with sky cropped out (white streaks), but I think has been successfully cropped.
The third is pretty good

Hope this helps.

John R - http://lusalight.smugmug.com/ (http://lusalight.smugmug.com/)
John: Those are very nice!
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: John R on January 05, 2009, 07:36:44 pm
Quote from: EricM
John: Those are very nice!
Thanks Eric. It goes without saying, that is only one technique to achieve interpretive images. Just being aware of your surroundings and being able to see ordinary things in new or extraordinary ways, is still the best way to create good images.

John R
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: ChrisS on January 20, 2009, 05:26:21 pm
I enjoyed reading this thread. Two thoughts came to mind (sorry if they've already been mentioned  - I could easily have missed them).

First, many accounts of the development of painting toward abstraction tell how photography displaced painting's conventional 'representational' role, allowing/ forcing painting to become more 'philosophical', and eventually abstract. It's kind of ironic (I think) that photography should have followed painting down this route.

Second, the works of Gerhard Richter (quite diverse, so have a look at a range of them) develop the relation of painting to photography, and abstraction in particular, in ways that relate to issues developed in this thread.

Chris


[attachment=11017:_MG_3272.jpg]

Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: John R on January 20, 2009, 09:55:27 pm
Quote from: ChrisS
I enjoyed reading this thread. Two thoughts came to mind (sorry if they've already been mentioned  - I could easily have missed them).

First, many accounts of the development of painting toward abstraction tell how photography displaced painting's conventional 'representational' role, allowing/ forcing painting to become more 'philosophical', and eventually abstract. It's kind of ironic (I think) that photography should have followed painting down this route.

Second, the works of Gerhard Richter (quite diverse, so have a look at a range of them) develop the relation of painting to photography, and abstraction in particular, in ways that relate to issues developed in this thread.

Chris
I really like that shot Chris. I will say this, no matter how abstract a photo or painting, if people can't relate to it, it will remain unnoticed. To me this means, however slight, there has to be some representation present in order for people to relate to the work, even if the artist claims otherwise.

JMR
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: wolfnowl on January 21, 2009, 02:49:21 am
Quote from: hankbenson
"Personally I think all truly abstract photographers are really secretly painters, LOL. "

I move freely between abstract and representational photography, but I often look at the latter in terms of form, line and color as an abstract artist does. That tendency often surprises viewers and I think it opens up creative possibilities.

I agree.  Some of my work is very accurate, crisp, following all of the rules.  And some of it is more non-representational, whether from movement, focus or post-processing.  I try not to follow one style but go with what the scene and the image present.

Mike.

[attachment=11023:IMG_2235.jpg][attachment=11024:IMG_3314.jpg][attachment=11025:
IMG_3400.jpg]
[attachment=11026:IMG_3502.jpg][attachment=11027:IMG_3704.jpg][attachment=11028:
IMG_4512.jpg]
[attachment=11029:IMG_4645.jpg][attachment=11030:IMG_4657.jpg][attachment=11031:
IMG_4956.jpg]
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: John R on January 21, 2009, 06:23:36 pm
[quote name='wolfnowl' date='Jan 21 2009, 02:49 AM' post='253497']
I agree.  Some of my work is very accurate, crisp, following all of the rules.  And some of it is more non-representational, whether from movement, focus or post-processing.  I try not to follow one style but go with what the scene and the image present.
Quote

Mike.

You have some interesting images there, Mike. I particlarly like the lilies in the pond, as whatever you did accentuated the colours, and made the whole scene come alive. But the point I want to stess, inkeeping with your comments, is that the technique has to suit the subject and work in the sense that it conveys what you want. Well done.

John R.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: wolfnowl on January 22, 2009, 01:58:35 am
Thanks, John.  For that waterlily shot I did basic lighting adjustments, then pushed contrast all the way up and clarity all the way down in Lightroom.  I don't know that it would work for any other image, but it seemed to work for that one.

Mike.
Title: Abstraction in landscape photography
Post by: erick.boileau on July 23, 2009, 11:56:12 am
deleted