Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: churly on April 15, 2014, 07:50:47 pm
-
1) Early Morning on the Balcony After a Late Night. Thinking of Sleep
2) Memories Dancing in the Pavilion at Midnight
3) Organic
-
??
-
I think #3 turned out surprisingly well for the genre.
-
Chuck, I like all of them. #2 is my favorite.
-
Not landscape, not street. Abstracts!
All good ones.
-
I like the sides, top and bottom of #1. I think the middle needs to do more or maybe less.
-
I like the sides, top and bottom of #1. I think the middle needs to do more or maybe less.
Bruce, may I nominate this for the Critique of the Year? ;)
-
Chuck, Have you considered painting?
-
Bruce, may I nominate this for the Critique of the Year? ;)
In that case, I may use it again.
Bruce
-
Chuck, Have you considered painting?
Fallowing Russ suggestion in a way, I have found #3 to be a flexable and durable image, standing up to my crude colorizing fairly well. If I may?
Bruce
-
I'm quite fond of number two.
-
Chuck, Have you considered painting?
Painting NO. This is most definitely photography. Just not your cup of tea Russ.
Peter
-
I'd agree with you, Peter, except I've seen painting do the same thing far better than photography ever could do it. You're right, it's not my cuppa tea, not even in painting, but with paint you can do things you can't even get close to doing with photography.
-
??
Interesting and varied viewpoints.
Russ, I presume that your comment is asking the question - Why did I post these? My objective was to reiterate Slobodan's earlier comment that it seems like multiple genres should be able to coexist in the forum. Clearly, the fact that you don't like these is not a universal viewpoint but is a perfectly valid view. I enjoy your street work but I also think that Lula is better off and more interesting if there is room for differences, fun and some experimentation. I've noticed that some (not all) of the folks that used to post somewhat edgier material here have drifted away.
Bruce - I like your version. It has a bit more soul than mine. Also your prize critique is spot on. :)
Russ - I am interested in photography as the medium. Again, if you don't like the results that's fine but give the rest of us a bit of slack to work outside of your comfort zone. My view is that there is oodles of story and ambiguity in these shots.
All the best to all of you. Personally I'm rooting for a more varied and open critique forum. Clearly Eric's Abstracts thread has had a lot of interest.
Chuck
-
Photographic abstracts have a harder row to hoe than abstract paintings. A photo is always of something, there is no denying that there was something there in front of the lens, the photographer is simply choosing to conceal what it is. So you're starting off in a bad place with the viewer.
Am I supposed to figure out what it is? Or not? Can I? A degree of frustration and potential annoyance is built in.
-
For everyone out there blurry is NOT abstraction . Blurry is just that, blurry. Also, GOOD abstraction is not easier.
Peter
PS. I happen to like blur in photographs.
-
Blur, by reducing the representational character of the photograph, necessarily increases the abstraction.
This is not to see that a blurry photograph is an abstract photograph. That is a subtly different statement.
These photographs are abstracts, as far as I can see, though.
-
The term "abstract" means two different things in the different realms of painting and photography. In painting "abstract" means: modified by thought and experience. In photography "abstract" means: untouched by thought or experience. They are both good things, though they can lead people to talk, or shout, past each other.
I was a painter first and it may be best for me to avoid the word abstract when in this forum.
-
I was a painter first and it may be best for me to avoid the word abstract when in this forum.
[/quote]
I agree for me as well.
Peter