Abstract Landscape

[Donald]

Not my usual sort of image. Really interested to get responses and reactions. Let me know what you think.

Until the Lightbox is fixed, if you click on it you'll see it in Flickr.

[Shadowman]

Might work with a 90 degree counterclockwise rotation. Too recognizable in its current orientation.

[Dave A]

Lots of different textures there......nice.

Dave

[ST1]

Well seen Donald, have you considered creating a mirror effect by duplicating and flipping the image and sitting the two images back to back. Just thinking aloud really and contemplating if a dual image would be more abstract IYSWIM

[NorthernFocus]

Nicely seen curves and textures, Donald. From an abstract perspective it may have been even more so if no birds were present. But my brain doesn't trend to abstract so give my comment its due...

[Rebel]

I really like the composition, I'm not sure about the PP though.

A shot with a lot of potential, I'd play around with some different effects.

[Geoff F]

With clearly recognisable birds it is something of a mix between abstract and reality.

I wonder about a crop which slightly reduced the top?

There are several options with this scene which has a lot of potential.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Donald,

I agree with the consensus; it is too recognisable to work as an abstract for me, perhaps because I might take such a shot myself and certainly wouldn't define it as abstract.

If we use the now restored LyteBox to move the image down, so only the top quarter is visible - then it could be classed as abstract, however, by then it's a bit small, so I'd almost suggest cloning out the birds, if that weren't such a daft idea

[Donald]

Okay, message received: Wrong title.

Thank you all for that (and other) comments. It really helps to stop you and make you think. I blithely went for that title, but of course, everyone is right. It's not an abstract image.

[mugge]

I love it. Maybe 15 to 20mm off the top, no more.
Cheers Ole

[Ndukes]

I like the composition. If it were mine I would also experiment with increasing contrast and adding some grain.

[purplehaze]

My definition of abstract art includes images that distill recognizable visual elements of the real world. Freeman Patterson, whom I consider a great maker of nature abstracts, speaks of the "abstracting of visual elements in order to recognize their particularity". Whether the elements are recognizable or not is unimportant; what is important is their function as a design element. Here is an essay that explains the notion as I understand it: http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../dw0209-1.html. Patterson's ambition is to see these elements in nature, and to combine them into "integrated wholes".

I find it interesting, Dave, that you say you would take such a shot yourself. I think many of us would, and I think that in so doing, we would be responding to the universal design elements here of line and tone and texture. The fact that we would take this shot, for me, validates Donald's sense that there is something here that speaks, and makes us all abstractionists.

Donald, I am thrilled that you are taking this direction, whatever you want to call it. The birds only add to the image for me, in the way that they contrast with every other element in the image.

[Donald]

Janis - Thank you for that analysis. That is a fascinating article you liked to.

A couple of bits of it really capture what, I think, I was thinking, but did not have vocabulary to express it in words:-

"Abstraction is really about learning to see the basic visual building blocks within your subject (line and shape, form and colour) and then arranging these components in pure design", but rather than 'line and shape, form and colour', I would write, 'line, shape, tone and texture'.

"There seems to be a common misconception in photographic circles that abstracts are pictures where the object photographed cannot be readily identified. Indeed, I just read a quote from a well-known photographer that stated, "If it is recognizable as an object – it is not an abstract." Does this mean if I can identify the object that was photographed then the image is not an abstract? But if someone else cannot identify the object, then the image becomes an abstract? Does this mean abstraction is viewer dependant?"

Whatever your point of view, this statement should serve the purpose of making you think about your image-making. That is its strength.

[Manfred M]

I've started to push my photography in a bit of a different direction and am trying to look at scenes differently that I might have in the past. I'm not totally convinced that these shots are working quite yet, but getting out of my "comfort zone" is an interesting exercise and I suspect it will improve my photography in the long run (I hope).

What strikes me about this image (and I've been looking at it from time to time), is that it needs a bit of simplification. I wonder if your image might not be stronger if you trimmed off almost all of the water showing at the top and stick mostly with the beautiful sweeping curves?

[JBW]

Not my usual sort of image. Really interested to get responses and reactions. Let me know what you think.

Until the Lightbox is fixed, if you click on it you'll see it in Flickr.

Donald I didn't see it as an abstract. After years as a lighthouse keeper and then a deckhand on a coaster I have seen far too many blue/grey days. I hope you don't mind but I tried a flip and a few adjustments?

[bnnrcn]

I like this image Donald I would try reprocessing it as a real BnW image instead of an abstract looking image .