On the way to Sheng Siong, Serangoon shot this staircase. I like abstracts with lines and curves. What do you think the image below?
Stairs
- Thread starter saymell
- Start date
- Status
Your picture has too much clutter, the rooftop and the tree. The bricks lines are adding confusion. Abstract of lines like foxtwo said is a pattern. It's best for the picture to be as simple as possible as in mainly one subject in it and not too many.
You can also try shaking the camera, making sure it's out of focus, making sure the exposure is way off, etc.--- you never know what can pass off as "art" and "abstract"....
No offence, but thats the worst advice I think ive ever heard. There is no need to do this to get a 'passable' shot, and most likely the result will be god awful.
Try to find a more unique angle, play with the lines more, id suggest looking for a better staircase, there are some great ones in chinatown which look fantastic in black and white.
Please dont resort to shaking your camera, taking shots that are out of focus with the wrong exposure, you will most likely be wasting your time.
Have you done that before?
If you had not, don't ask the TS to try it.
If it's meant as a joke, I think it's in bad taste.
One reason why CSers post their pics here are to seek
advices from the seniors and more experienced shooters.
You being one is....ONE BIG LET DOWN:thumbsd:
if you have no idea how you can help the critique seeker, please do not post useless comments.
warning issued.
please keep all discussions relevant to the critique of the picture posted.
1. This is not about sarcasm. It's about opening your mind to what "abstract" means.
2. A simple Google search of "abstract photographs" reveals many many links. The very first one is http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/thumbs.html. A few of the images below should illustrate my point:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/046.html
http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/047.html
http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/033.html
3. I'm sure you understand how Google organises search results (by popularity of links and clickthrus-- in this case, I doubt the guy paid for it).
4. The TS specifically asked about "abstracts". Art, esp abstract art, can be very "strange". I remember being in the Met in 2006, where there was a piece of blue cloth placed horizontally in a room with a couple of fans under it, and the effect was to blow the cloth upwards and downwards so that it was like waves in the ocean. The Met considered the fans and that flapping piece of cloth to be a masterpiece and paid a lot of money for it. So who are we to say what art can or cannot be, no matter how strange we may think it is?
5. In classical photography, we can talk about "rules" like the golden mean, 2:1 or 3:1 lighting ratio, 1/focal length min handholding shutter speed, stopping down for max depth of field, focusing on the eyes for portraits, not chopping off the limbs, etc. but these do not apply to abstract photography. I may not be an expert on abstract art, but I can see that a spirit of experimentation is necessary, the classical rules do not necessarily apply, much less its universal acceptability and understandability.
2. A simple Google search of "abstract photographs" reveals many many links. The very first one is http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/thumbs.html. A few of the images below should illustrate my point:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/046.html
http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/047.html
http://www.urban75.org/photos/abstract/033.html
3. I'm sure you understand how Google organises search results (by popularity of links and clickthrus-- in this case, I doubt the guy paid for it).
4. The TS specifically asked about "abstracts". Art, esp abstract art, can be very "strange". I remember being in the Met in 2006, where there was a piece of blue cloth placed horizontally in a room with a couple of fans under it, and the effect was to blow the cloth upwards and downwards so that it was like waves in the ocean. The Met considered the fans and that flapping piece of cloth to be a masterpiece and paid a lot of money for it. So who are we to say what art can or cannot be, no matter how strange we may think it is?
5. In classical photography, we can talk about "rules" like the golden mean, 2:1 or 3:1 lighting ratio, 1/focal length min handholding shutter speed, stopping down for max depth of field, focusing on the eyes for portraits, not chopping off the limbs, etc. but these do not apply to abstract photography. I may not be an expert on abstract art, but I can see that a spirit of experimentation is necessary, the classical rules do not necessarily apply, much less its universal acceptability and understandability.
which simply means you have no idea what you were talking about when you tell TS to make sure he makes images that are out of focus and over exposed.
since you chose to put this picture up for public critique, maybe you'll like to answer the following 2 questions.
1. specifically, what do you like about abstracts with lines and curves?
2. what have you done in your picture to make sure those qualities that you like are expressed in your picture?
lastly, anymore useless comments will not be entertained. please keep all comments relevant.
try simplifying your subject more...and bringing out the curves and lines in the photo. an abstract means distilling the elements of the photo into the barest elements, so that it is not immediately obvious what the subject matter is.
a crude example of simplifying the "stairs" photo into something more abstract would be something like this:
a crude example of simplifying the "stairs" photo into something more abstract would be something like this:
Really? I told the TS to open his mind to possibilities, that abstract photography can be anything, as shown by the examples I pointed you to.
- Status
Similar threads
