Somewhat Less Representational

[churly]

Last time I used the term 'abstract' in a title I was thoroughly lashed by a commentator so I have been less specific this time  .
Chuck

Mini-Alps




Swamp Creature

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, it seems very much representational... of a nightmare!

EDIT: Upon re-reading my post above, it occurred to me it could be easily interpreted as if I am making fun of your photographs or implying something negative about them. Sorry if it came across that way, that wasn't my intention. I still stand by my "nightmare" impression, except I do not think it is a bad thing in itself to have in an abstract (or "less-representational") image.

[luxborealis]

Enjoy the first very much - lots to explore!
The second, less so, although the title is appropriate.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Enjoy the first very much - lots to explore!
The second, less so, although the title is appropriate.

I agree (I don't like writing "+1").

Jeremy

[Paulo Bizarro]

#1 for me, lovely textures and tones. the second one, it is a bit of a stretch...

[stamper]

Me too for the first one. A nice balance of tones and the lines help break up the stonework.

[sdwilsonsct]

The first has a simple subject and repetition lacking from the second. Very nice.

[churly]

Interesting comments.  Thanks all.
Personally I like the simplicity of the first but I am more intrigued by the second shot and the mystery or potential menace of the two large dark eyes in the background.  I guess that doesn't transmit.

I only had 3 of the 4 available  monkeys (theoretical peak of 22 monkaflops) pushing buttons on the 2nd shot.  The 4th was answering my emails. 
Chuck

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I agree (I don't like writing "+1").

Jeremy

+1.

(Sorry, Jeremy. Couldn't resist.)

The first is easier to grasp, thus easier to like, but the second is also good (but more work for the lazy viewer).