Show us some Abstracts!

[graeme]

Nice image Mike.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nice image Mike.

I agree.

A good image doesn't necessarily have to have a lot of varied content. Yours has just what it needs, and no more.

[drmike]

Thank you Eric. I do like simplicity.

[armand]

Here is the last one and 3 more (I think they are more interesting as a set).

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

OK, folks. I haven't put any u in a while, so here goes. Two B&W and two Color (or Colour for those on the other side of the pond.

[John R]

I am partial to the colour images, especially the first image. For me it's the white surrounding the orange-brown that gives it a dynamic quality. It allows the cracks and black dimple areas to be more noticeable.

JR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Thanks, John.

I have quite a few of these "satins on walls" images, but most don't have enough color to make the color versions work.
I'll dig up another one or two that I think do work in color.

Eric

[John R]

I took a couple yesterday, when it was dull gray. We stopped at a restaurant to have breakfast. On the way out we complained about the light. But I cheered up when I espied these elements on the wall opposite the restaurant.

converted to BW


Played with colours to make this one pop a little more:

[Chris Calohan]

Almost Went Unnoticed

[drmike]

John

Nice subject and I think the B&W composition works better but possibly needs some harsher processing? Or is my lack subtlety showing

Colour one doesn't work for me.

Mike

[Rob C]

OK, folks. I haven't put any u in a while, so here goes. Two B&W and two Color (or Colour for those on the other side of the pond.

For me: the bottom one. Love the mental playground it provides.

Rob C

[John R]

For me: the bottom one. Love the mental playground it provides.

Rob C

Now that you mention it< I do really like Eric's bottom bw image. It grew on me, I think because of the play between dark and light elements and because of an overall circle of light (white area) that appears to envelope the whole scene.

JR

[John R]

John

Nice subject and I think the B&W composition works better but possibly needs some harsher processing? Or is my lack subtlety showing

Colour one doesn't work for me.

Mike

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Mike, I was over at Leica monochrome thread looking at images of Allan Bourgeois. Great stuff, with excellent smooth, natural looking bw images, especially the high contrast ones. He stated in one post that if he can't make the image look natural, and unprocessed, it was not well done. I feel the same way. I have seen too many bw images that are pushed to extremes and they just don't look good or natural. I wanted more light to bring out and better delineate the elements and give them a more 3D look, but it was not to be. I don't think I can manage more with this low contrast image. Besides, it's a jpeg. Thanks again.

JR

[drmike]

I suspect I am guilty of pushing B&W conversions too hard. I find it very hard to get the elegance of tones I managed with 6x6 on Pan-F 40 years go So, maybe I misunderstood your intent.

[Rob C]

I suspect I am guilty of pushing B&W conversions too hard. I find it very hard to get the elegance of tones I managed with 6x6 on Pan-F 40 years go So, maybe I misunderstood your intent.

AAMOF I found that the more elegant tones came not from slow film, but TXP 120 rated 320 ASA, processed D76 1+1. Slow, for me, was one film faster: FP3 at 125 ASA. I never got it together with that film (FP3) on 120, but magically so on the Nikon, for some reason that I never could discover.

All I can guess is the difference in lens manufacture. I must confess that I tried bloody hard, both with Pan F as well as Pan X, but in the end I concluded that imaginary grain, as in not visible, wasn't as expressive as some real, visible grain. I used any crutch I could find to advance whatever I thought I wanted to achieve!

Ironically, now there's no grain, I often create it.

Such the perversity of man.

Rob C

[drmike]

I used FP4 in the Leica (or sometimes Tri-X) and the slower Pan F in the Rollei always on a tripod. Before anyone thinks moneybags, the Rollei cost £15 in 1972 but the Leica an M3 double stroke was a bit more maybe £100+ I cannot now recall.

I'm a bit baffled by the recent discussion about how silver halide was either black or not, I didn't think that was the case and it could be shades of grey but I'm no chemist. I do know that very slow (25 ASA) film gave me no visible grain and beautiful tones. One of the very few photographs I ever got published was another pretty unique thing for me a nude on Pan-F and Rollei. I still have the print and it looks as good as it did then, 40 years ago.

Mike

[Rob C]

I used FP4 in the Leica (or sometimes Tri-X) and the slower Pan F in the Rollei always on a tripod. Before anyone thinks moneybags, the Rollei cost £15 in 1972 but the Leica an M3 double stroke was a bit more maybe £100+ I cannot now recall.

I'm a bit baffled by the recent discussion about how silver halide was either black or not, I didn't think that was the case and it could be shades of grey but I'm no chemist. I do know that very slow (25 ASA) film gave me no visible grain and beautiful tones. One of the very few photographs I ever got published was another pretty unique thing for me a nude on Pan-F and Rollei. I still have the print and it looks as good as it did then, 40 years ago.

Mike

That's my opinion too; it's matter of strength of light striking the film, or everything would look like it had been shot on line film. But there's no point in arguing with digi pundits - they see everything as an extreme: I don't have a terribly good magnifying glass and so I must rest my case on memory of old lectures!

I'll bet it looks better today than the model! When I think of mine, they are probably grannies now; but back then...

;-)

Rob

[drmike]

The model was quite a pretty girl bur her main attribute was that she was 'trim' not too big anywhere and was able to take direction. It was a university Photo Society evening so there were about 12 of us shooting. I was the only one to get anything useable as I kept it very simple and non glamorous. I couldn't do what you did

As for silver halide I went to Wiki which isn't always wise but it did reinforce what my PhD chemist buddy told me all those years ago;

When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light, a sensitivity speck on the surface of the crystal is turned into a small speck of metallic silver (these comprise the invisible or latent image). If the speck of silver contains approximately four or more atoms, it is rendered developable - meaning that it can undergo development which turns the entire crystal into metallic silver. Areas of the emulsion receiving larger amounts of light (reflected from a subject being photographed, for example) undergo the greatest development and therefore results in the highest optical density.

My reading of this is that one crystal could have many dark areas or not so that a crystal which I assume is extremely small could in effect be grey because of the limited areas of black. So everyone is right!

Mike

[armand]

3 totally different abstracts

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

3 totally different abstracts

Minimalist, and very fine ones!