I would like to get some feed back on these abstract photos because I recently tried some B&W abstract photography I like this kind of photography but I cant seam to get it how I want it dose anyone have any ideas on what I could do to edit, position and lighting them?
You're a tough critic of your own work, Jeremy! I think they're good as is. Dynamic images. 2 is amazing! Love it. You've got a good eye, as they say.
1, 2 and 4 I can't think of how to improve much. 3 is underexposed to the extent that it's too hard to "read" - for instance there seems to be a distant fork that's important to the composition, which is all-but invisible, leaving a sense of a void at the top. I've edited to bring it out a bit, but it's easy to overbrighten the foreground highlights. To a slight extent, the same criticism could be made of 4, with the lateral edges of the outer forks a bit "lost" in the shadow, but I'm sure many people would think that's just fine.
Photographers tend to want shadow detail that other artists may not care about. So photographers' criticism on these scores should be read with this in mind. To whom do you wish to appeal?
I suspect that if you had lower contrast to begin with, with a bland-looking image as a result, you could then manipulate the tones to get both contrast and detail where it's needed. If you don't like post-processing, you can just manipulate the light and check on the camera as you go.
Getting it "how you want it" depends on what you want! What are you unhappy about with these images? Can you describe this?
Thanks Chris for your feedback.
my biggest problem I have is how to do the lighting and how to arrange the things would you have any idea?
You've done a pretty good job with both! It looks as if you may have used window light. If so, you could simply turn on an overhead light, bring in a desk or standard lamp, or maybe bounce a flash off a side wall or ceiling - with monochrome the varied colour of these won't matter. This is if you WANT to have less dark shadows, as I've suggested - you don't have to! And then just experiment!
There's no right way to do still life, since you're creating it. Personally, I'd make shots 1 and 3 a bit brighter, esp. 3 as above, simply because some of your composition is lost in the darkness. But to some people that would add appealingly to the mystery. Many pros use studio flash, especially for portraits - but some pros prefer daylight, often window light, and move the subject, as you've done..
Nowadays, most photographers would make the image fairly bright, then darken it in post-processing, and in the past darkroom manipulation would do a bit of the same, but that's not the only way to do it. And post-processing on the computer can easily be overdone, looking contrived, fakey, irritating - like any other creative tool, it won't make a good artist. Picking up oils won't make me into a Turner!
I'd bet that most of us photographers are unhappy with most of what we produce, and find a small fraction of our images rewarding. I suspect you're looking for a secret that isn't there - you've made an excellent start. Your first image caught my eye, 2 is a knockout, I really like 4, and you know what struck me about 3.Just do lots more, and I think you'll come up with more that you're happier with.
do you think this is a better picture than no.3
It's a DIFFERENT picture, Jeremy! It is easier to make out all the forks - that's not important in itself (we all know what a fork looks like!) but these compositions are comprised solely of cutlery, so if you can't make them out, there appears to be a void rather than an object there. This image has a different feel, but for instance the topmost forks are visible enough now that the composition is balanced. Your new image has a sort of jubilant or bouncy air to it, because of all the upward-pointing tines, whereas 3 is more mysterious, which is also appealing.
I think 3 was balanced, basically - you've got a real eye for composition! - but some of the tines were just that little bit too hard to make out.
So, short answer to your question: yes, but only because it's easier to see your composition.
One of the things that appeals to us about these images, I think, is that they take familiar objects and make them look anything but. You have a good visual imagination, evident in your portfolio, and especially in this series, and you have a good feel for composition. These form the basis of good images; beyond that, it's basically practice. Understanding the technical stuff helps, but it doesn't make art. And these images are good art. Seriously. Keep it up!
Well said Chris.
Good work Jeremy.
You've got strong dynamics, good control and keen feeling for textures. My only idea for how to find the spot you are looking for might be to play more and maybe explore some compositions that embrace less symmetry and maybe more weight offset. Your technique is very strong so now is the time to start playing with story and tension.
Thanks for sharing and keep us posted on your explorations.
Here is another one it is some bee wax
Like this one too! Looks very mysterious. Hard to tell if it's backlit or a negative. Well composed again - just enough curve, just enough black space.
Now you've really got me wondering which it is. Here's a neg of your post. Doesn't mean you should necessarily tell us. "Keep 'em guessing" is a good strategy sometimes!
Hi Chris it is back lit by the window it is just a close up of this
I absolutely love these Jeremy! Great job :)