Are there any filters to help create abstract impressionism ?

[chauncey]

IMHO...on of my favorites is https://1x.com/member/ursula
but, looking at all her stuff should indicate that impressionism is not her only forte.
There are no shortcuts.

[DanK]

Very interesting. Some beautiful images. It looks like she uses a variety of different techniques, and I am guessing that she may have used intentional camera movement in a few. Compare her "evening in the woods" with the image below, which was my second try at ICM:

[purplehaze]

Oh, thank you for sharing that, Chauncey. Yes, Dan, she uses ICM, and multiple exposures. She is featured in the current issue of Vision magazine, which can be downloaded for free here, and in which she shares a (little) bit about her background and her technique.

[dennybeall]

Before computers we used to do things like smear petroleum jelly on a lens or sweep the lens or shoot while zooming and multiple exposures just to name a few. Now the "Filter Gallery" in Photoshop along with some of the other tools, especially Layers, can create most anything your imagination can build.

[arcadian]

Purposeful 'out of focus' is attainable:


Milan 2012


*

Because your camera is sub-miniature format (very small sensor), you will probably need to employ a procedure to get the image adequately out of focus.

For most shots it will probably be best to use your camera so that the lens is at the wider Focal Lengths (the wide angle end of the zoom), because this will allow you to attain the largest Aperture to allow you to attain the shallowest Depth of Field.

Then you need to focus on the very close foreground but NOT any object that is the frame of the shot.

I am not sure if your camera has Manual Focus - if it does, then you can manually focus at a very short distance.

If your camera does not have Manual Focus then you will need to focus on something close to the camera and then lock that focus, then reframe the shot.

Once you have developed a procedure for focussing at a very close distance, you can experiment with different Focal Lengths of the lens, but whatever Focal Length you choose, always use the Largest Aperture available to you: therefore I expect that it will be best to use Manual Camera Mode (that's where you select the Aperture, ISO and the Shutter Speed manually.

*

Above all else, and also if you use a stocking or other translucent device over the lens or play in Post Production you will need the LIGHTING to make the final image that you want.

WW

Image ©AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

Great very helpful indeed many thanks William ! I think it would be easiest and best to start as I'm still getting used to my digital camera, by using my old Konica TC which does have manual focus and then take it from there, which unfortunately means waiting a week or two for the prints to be developed by Boots a nationwide pharmacist.

No experience of developing myself so does anyone know of any quicker UK options....?

[arcadian]

IMHO...on of my favorites is https://1x.com/member/ursula
but, looking at all her stuff should indicate that impressionism is not her only forte.
There are no shortcuts.

Absolutely fantastic work I've never seen anything like it thanks indeed for sharing. What an uphill climb ahead !

[William W]

. . . I think it would be easiest and best to start . . . by using my old Konica TC which does have manual focus and then take it from there, which unfortunately means waiting a week or two for the prints to be developed by Boots a nationwide pharmacist. No experience of developing myself so does anyone know of any quicker UK options....?

I teach and tutor Photography. I have taught Photography in various offices for many years.

I totally disagree with your intended procedure.


You would best to forge ahead with you new camera.

Read the User manual.

Investigate if it has manual focus or how to lock focus.

Be brave and forge ahead.

Do not regress.

Attempting to learn the basics of new medium by using old tools is simply a waste of time and also a waste of money on film developing and negative printing.


WW

[Mike Buckley]

Though I think it's great that you are thinking so creatively, I encourage you to become comfortable using your digital camera to make images that are accurately documentary as a stepping stone to making images that are impressionistic. It may be just my way of learning and thinking things through, but it seems to me that I wouldn't be able to effectively do the things that make an effective impressionistic image until I have first learned to do the things that make an effective documentary image.

[arcadian]

Ok....

[DanK]

This has become a very interesting thread, with all sorts of angles.

Janis, thanks for posting the link. I'll give it a careful reading.

George, you wrote:

Only a camera with a possibility for multiple exposure and tripod.

There is no need for a camera that does multiple exposures. It is easy and much more flexible to combine images in postprocessing. A tripod is needed only if the two exposures you are combining are framed the same. They needn't be.

I agree with Bill--I would not go back to an older camera. However, I do think that to learn how to handle the core settings of the camera, you have to practice setting them, which means getting out of automatic/program mode. It's fine to stay in program mode while learning other aspects of the activity, like composition, but not when the time comes to learn to control aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. You can learn to use the brakes by bicycling with training wheels, but you can't learn to balance until you try to balance.

I also agree with Mike, to a point. I think that to be effective in creating less realistic images, you have to first master the skills needed to create realistic ones. It doesn't pay to spend an hour fussing with ICM to get an impressionistic image if you have the aperture set wrong.

[george013]

This has become a very interesting thread, with all sorts of angles.

Janis, thanks for posting the link. I'll give it a careful reading.

George, you wrote:



There is no need for a camera that does multiple exposures. It is easy and much more flexible to combine images in postprocessing. A tripod is needed only if the two exposures you are combining are framed the same. They needn't be.

I agree with Bill--I would not go back to an older camera. However, I do think that to learn how to handle the core settings of the camera, you have to practice setting them, which means getting out of automatic/program mode. It's fine to stay in program mode while learning other aspects of the activity, like composition, but not when the time comes to learn to control aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. You can learn to use the brakes by bicycling with training wheels, but you can't learn to balance until you try to balance.

I also agree with Mike, to a point. I think that to be effective in creating less realistic images, you have to first master the skills needed to create realistic ones. It doesn't pay to spend an hour fussing with ICM to get an impressionistic image if you have the aperture set wrong.

There are more roads leading to Rome.

George

[lukaswerth]

I am also going to talk about impressionism, not birds (for which I would just use short exposure times around 1/1000 sec, and see what happens), though I would not call Monet abstract.
Others have talked about filters, jellie, cellophane, in- and out of focus, and I am certain some googling will turn up a lot of freeware programs which you may apply to your pictures. (I know I have a few filters in photoshop for such purposes, though I would never touch them.)
But the thing is: Monet is great art. You won't get anything near what he did by just some tinkering, using filters, and such sleights of hand. Look only at that image file in your link: he painted Mount St. Michel in reddish brown with bluish touches, and the motive turns together with the air and the water into a symphony of glowing reds, yellows and blues. Briefly, he created an impression of light - which is where the word comes from. Monet investigated the quality of light very closely: he painted the cathedral of Chartres from the same angle a number of times just in different light.
And here comes the punchline: photography is also about light. At the heart of impressionism lies the quality of light, and this is what you want to look for, first and foremost - or, at least, this is my strong advice. Then, if you got some pictures which deserve it, you may think of rendering/postprocessing/manipulating them in such a way as it suits your vision.

I hope this helps.

Lukas

[DanK]

Monet is great art. You won't get anything near what he did by just some tinkering, using filters, and such sleights of hand.

I think you are being too tough on the OP. You make some important and helpful points, in particular, about the importance of lighting, but I don't think the overall impression is unduly discouraging. At least, that's how I read it.

First, terms like "sleights of hand" and "tinkering" are disparaging. I use focus stacking routinely to get more depth of field in macro work than one could get with film. Is that 'tinkering' and therefor something bad to use? B&W landscape photographers routinely used red filters to exaggerate the contrast with blue skies, and people often do that now in postprocessing. Is that a sleight of hand? Like you, I never use filters and have no interest in them, but I don't see a reason to disparage the OP's interest in techniques that create an impressionistic image.

Most of us here aren't great artists. I certainly am not. I won't get results on a par with Edward Weston, not by tinkering,' and not by any other means. Does that mean I shouldn't try to emulate some of the things I see in their work? If I didn't, I would make very little progress. I try to learn from the people who are great artists.

I've started using ICM, after disdaining it for a long time. My natural niche is highly realistic photos, e.g., focused-stacked images that show great detail, so out-of-focus photography didn't appeal to me. Recently, I started on using it, and I found that I really enjoy it. I certainly haven't produced great art with it, and I never will, but I have managed to produce a few images that I and others enjoy. Should I stop?

While no one can disagree with your noting how important lighting is, I disagree with your implication that one should only try impressionistic postprocessing after one nails the lighting. So far, I have produced a grand total of three images with ICM that I am willing to show and that people say they like. Two were done under lousy lighting conditions, because that's what the lighting was when I had my one opportunity to shoot. One was done in the woods when the sun was already down, and one was done in awful mid-day full sun. With some work, they came out fine in the end, although I am sure they would have been better if I had been able to time the shoot for better lighting. Should I have therefore not tried ICM?

So, my advice would be: learn the fundamentals--including the importance of lighting--and go ahead and 'tinker'. Just tinker carefully, and study while doing it.

[lukaswerth]

Dan,

okay, this was perhaps misleading: with b/w film, I used yellow, red, orange, red filters all the time, and I have no qualms whatsoever to use the equivalent sliders in photoshop. I also do focus-stacking from time to time, even though I don't do macro (for which I clearly see that this is a very valuable tool), and panoramas, and what not.

What I meant with tinkering and so on, and by this I stand, although others are welcome to differ, is the use of all those readymade applications, PS-actions, or effect filters which give a certain, pre-designed effect. I am thinking of those paint- and brush-filters designed to imitate painterly effects. Much more often than not, for me at least, these effects are quite cheap, uncreative, and unproductive. As I said, if people want to use them, welcome, but this is my take on them: something commercially designed for a very particular effect - it is a bit for me like filling out colors on a canvas with a pre-drawn motive.

Come back to impressionism: I didn't mean to be discouraging, but point to a way which I think is more promising. Up to anyone to take my hint of to beg to differ.

Lukas

[DanK]

Dan,

okay, this was perhaps misleading: with b/w film, I used yellow, red, orange, red filters all the time, and I have no qualms whatsoever to use the equivalent sliders in photoshop. I also do focus-stacking from time to time, even though I don't do macro (for which I clearly see that this is a very valuable tool), and panoramas, and what not.

What I meant with tinkering and so on, and by this I stand, although others are welcome to differ, is the use of all those readymade applications, PS-actions, or effect filters which give a certain, pre-designed effect. I am thinking of those paint- and brush-filters designed to imitate painterly effects. Much more often than not, for me at least, these effects are quite cheap, uncreative, and unproductive. As I said, if people want to use them, welcome, but this is my take on them: something commercially designed for a very particular effect - it is a bit for me like filling out colors on a canvas with a pre-drawn motive.

Come back to impressionism: I didn't mean to be discouraging, but point to a way which I think is more promising. Up to anyone to take my hint of to beg to differ.

Lukas

Lukas,

when you express it this way, we are more in agreement. What I think people should aim for is this sequence:

1. I found the scene
2. What do I want the image to look like?
3. What tools can I use to get to that appearance?

Rather then:

1. I found the scene.
2. I'll drop a bunch of filters on and see what I get.

However, even that I have to qualify. A lot of the tools folks consider standard are really not that different from presets, actions, or filters--the package in one simple tool a bunch of adjustments that you could do individually by yourself. Some are more extreme than others, and some (tone mapping, the fractalius filter) most of us probably couldn't replicate. The dividing line between the tools that I accept and the ones that I shun is pretty hazy, and pretty arbitrary.

Dan

[jcuknz]

To get a bridge camera to take an out of focus shot another method is to add a close-up lens when shooting distant subjects. A collection of these is usually available on EBAY forf around $15 ... their quality is usually appalling for regular work but this might be an advantage in what you or after. Plus if you go the darkroom way or editing prhramme there are other things than Photoshop and you will find that GIMP [free] and Paint Shop Pro [ moderately priced] will do all sorts of tricks for you.
I do not take photos of flowers in the paddock so in a quick hunt I found this mushroom which is as sharp as the surrounding fallen leaves but the mushroom was duplicated and moved slightly and then merged ... not as artistic as Bill's shot but that is the photographer not the editing programme I am pretty sure.



Now I think about it I could have duplicate and blurred the duplicate layer for a similar but different result.

[davidedric]

This is not serious art, but if you want to have some fun you can try something like this: http://www.fotosketcher.com

For very different approach of adding brush strokes to photos, have a look at the Retouching forum on DP Review, especially work by Ray Guselli (just picked a recent one): http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56225936

Dave

[tao2]

Free toys in Picasa

A spare 15 mins. and ...

an impression...almost abstract...




On reflection, it should be, more accurately,

an expression...almost abstract...

[rpcrowe]

There is a very inexpensive program available, Corel Paint, which allows some abstractions...





Of course, if you use Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, you have many abstract filters available.

Additionally, Topaz Impressions allows many abstractions...

[dennybeall]

The sequence I would suggest is this. Learn to take great well composed, in focus pictures. Build a portfolio of really good stuff (your definition of good by the way). Then learn about post processing effects and tricks. Then apply those to your own photos. Now you've got skills and a saleable product that is free of any copyright infringement.