I'm not sure about this "abstract" business, but I guess if the content of a photo is not immediately obvious, it resembles an abstract painting. Iain McGilchrist suggests that we are incapable of real abstraction, that all art derives from the real world. What do you think?
Here for your opinions reactions and suggestions is a fairly "abstract" image.
Beautiful dynamics and flow feeling in the right direction. Maybe it's worth a try some monochromatic version.
I don't know how much is intimate, but it turned out nice :)
The water is beautiful. I think I'd crop up from the bottom to remove that rock leaving the just the swirling water.
Like Ian said, I'd remove the rock so it's totally abstract and you almost can't tell what it is anymore.
Thanks to all of you. Now this sort of criticism I can cope with... ;-)
Radisa - the colour combination of the tannin-stained water, the reflected blue skylight and the red rocks is largely what motivated the shot. In this case, a monochrome would seem "dead" to me compared with the memory of the scene. Oh, our subjectivity!
BTW - isn't the flow in the "wrong" direction for you? I'm thinking of your reversing Eric Ritchie's snowy treescape recently.
Guys - I definitely wanted the glistening rock as a foil to all the softness.
But I see the merit in all your suggestions. So thanks again.
Btw I didn’t read a damn thing before I posted lol you keep your foil rock if you like it lol
You're right Chris, this duotone style may be best suited to this photo. This my version just expands it...
Drama queen again, Radisa! You like mystery and other-worldliness, don't you? This version is immediately more "you". Interesting rendition, indeed expanding on the abstraction.
I did one of these when I first started shooting back in July I loved the shot but I was beaten up for it detail shots and abstract shots are some of my more favorite. On this I love the movement but I would lose the detailed rock make it a square crop right above the fluffy water bottom middle.
All right, all right - here it IS! Happy NOW? ;-)
If I wanted squares, I'd buy a bloody Hasselblad...
You might try printing that.
Thanks, David - I have. What I've posted here is a resized jpeg of the 200MB tiff for the printer. It looks good at A2. Still blown away by the output of the Epson P800 after 3 years.
Your shot is one of those that can fit just about anywhere. I sell my prints and from experience, it would do well. And, I use a P800 as well. Just a very nice printer.
What paper did you use? Because of the soft, flowing features, I would think it would look nice on matte or a satin paper.
Thanks, David!
I still miss the liquid appearance of Cibachrome, so print on gloss usually, my preferred paper being Canson Photo Highgloss Premium RC, partly because of its 315g/sqm weight. It's a bit creamy, so sometimes I use Epson papers, which are whiter. The inks are not as glossy as the paper, so I often use Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl, which produces a more even overall lustre that most people prefer.
I usually want that "window on the world" effect from photos, whereas matte papers tend to produce a visual block for me, like a dirty window.. I'm not sure I can convey this very subjective issue. I'm never bothered by watercolours being matte!
You have a point about this image, in which the long exposure makes it less realistic, especially the rock-less crop.
Once they're framed with glass or acrylic on top, it's all moot anyway.