Abstract photos

[Anbesol]

Yes they are photo's. I don't know exactly how these could be critiqued because of their unusual nature, but there is no 'abstract photo' section in the forums.









Also, any better ideas on how to make a watermark? I forget how to make a brush preset, anyone able to explain or point me to a site that explains it? Thanks!

[Frog]

I don't know much about abstracts but these are pretty interesting and I've not seen anything simialr.

[xwingkiller]

imo, you should get these in a gallery and have someone show them.

[AgingEyes]

I think there's a reason why these days people use terms like "digital images" or "digital imaging" instead of photographs.

[Anbesol]

Thank you wing..

Aging - heres the thing though - I could have done this all 100% with film too ;). I only used photoshop for very minor adjustments...

[AgingEyes]

Thank you wing..

Aging - heres the thing though - I could have done this all 100% with film too ;). I only used photoshop for very minor adjustments...

Laugh on.

What is a photograph? Some suggest start thinking about what it means by "photo-realistic". Why don't we call a Picasso's painting a photograph while some still insists that his/hers is a photograph when it looks more like a painting after all the "manipulation" in Photoshop and the like?

Just because you start with film doesn't mean you end with a photograph.

Digital image, imo, is a good name, for some of the images we see today.

[Charles Hess]

I think it would be helpful if you described how you produced these images, since you posted them for critiques. Also, and I could be the only one thinking this was(have been away from PR for a long time), but it's hard to write a critique on numerous images. I'd post just one at a time...but that's me.

[Anbesol]

Aging - I agree, it does look very digital, very modern. I guess if picasso used a camera to do it, maybe so ;).

Fireworks - manual focus to infinite focal distance, 1/2 to 1 sec exposures, f15. Then its just a matter of moving the lens right with the fireworks to get the desired results... zooming in or out and moving certain ways...

[Frog]

Well now I know they're fireworks.
I won't debate whether they're photgraphs or not....we see lots of manipulated photos on the web that aren't anywhere near close to be realistic.
I would say they are an art form using photographs and editing as your tool.

[Anbesol]

well the only thing I really did to these was invert them - so its really just the negative, which I thought looked a lot better than the positive.

[shespawn]

WOW! Those are fireworks, holy cow batman that is cool, I think the photographs are well composed, I would love to see more contrasted colors in the last two, but otherwise (especially knowing these are fireworks) this are really pleasing.

[gahspidy]

I agree it is a good idea to post one image per thread so that we can give it our best evaluations.

I like what I see in all of these and have no problem at all with edits and digital manipulations. Though when you say "all I did was invert" it sounds simple enough, after all it is only one step, but that is a major step. I see lots of work that start offf as basic photographs and then through editing and digital manipulation become more of artistic creation. whether it was one step or many editing steps, the resulting image does not look anything like the original photograph and it is fair to say this is a digital manipulation or "Digital Art" Nothing wrong with that. you have a good thing going with these works and they would make a strong series.
We do have a forum here called "Photography as Art" and you might think about starting a thread on your feelings about this.
Keep up the good works.