Snap!

[Katherine Enns]

Dragon, that is. Sorry no details, on this one, again. Photographed recently with Canon Xsi, this is my 100 macro I think. My apologies, for lack of data. You see I wanted to make it into the abstract theme, but missed the boat. Due to cold feet. This was inspired by all the floral shots by Julie and others. I have deliberately softened it. Bruce says his definition of Abstract is....when he doesnt know what it is!

Please tell me what yez think.

[Ramesh Adkoli]

Kat,

A close up of the lower part of this flower (i can see some texture there) could have made up for the abstract. It is tough to render an abstract. Usually a wide tonal range, or a mix of bright colors or patterns in a subject with/without camera shake/panning do help sometimes to get an abstract. All the best next time;-)

regards,
ramesh

[Bruce Enns]

Okay, I'll jump in, although I could just go downstairs and tell you in person...while I agree that there are some textural and tone elements of an abstract present in this image, for me an abstract usually fills the whole frame with form and colour, and yes, it is often hard to tell what you are looking at without being told. Other than that I find the image overall underexposed, which was due to the bright backlit white petal. The underexposure in camera was also responsible for the visible noise in the background.

An even more long-winded comment than you might have got directly!

Bruce

[Katherine Enns]

Fine. I can see this. How about....this one!? (I am just messin' as the Irish like to say). But really what your saying is, its got to be unrecognizable as a structure, has to be driven by feeling, form and light and color to a greater extent than documentation.

[Keith Carver]

Kat, I like the second post better than the first. Am thinking that a Gaussian blur might help this, give it more dreamy quality. I like the greenish area in the URC.

[Ed Vatza]

Kat,

I'm not sure something has to be "unrecognizable" to be an abstract. But I do think it is difficult to take an image that you have in hand and make an abstract out of it - if that makes sense. That's what I think you are trying to do here. And I'm not sure it's working. If you want an abstract, I think you go in with the goal of creating an abstract.

That's not to say there isn't some interesting potential here. As I looked at the second image, I was contemplating that shadow on the petal. That could have some potential but again it is tough to create it after the fact.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and I'm not sure what that blue edging is around the petals. CA possibly?

[Julie Kenward]

Hey Katherine...sorry it took me so long to respond - I just switched Internet providers and am back up and running again!

I agree with the other comments - it is hard to make an abstract - that's why I issued the challenge! What I like to do is strap the macro lens on (and extension tubes if you have them) and get right up to my subject while looking through the viewfinder and then start slowing moving around the object. Get above it, get below it, get behind it...all the while looking for colors or light that makes you stop and think "beautiful!" That's when I click the shutter. I might make 50 images of one flower and only save 1 or 2 but those are usually some of my favorite images because they remind me of a time when I saw a flower or other object differently for the very first time.

I do think the shadow area of this image would have been the best potential for the abstract. If you could get in close enough that only that petal filled the frame I think you would have left us all in a daze as to what it was. As is, I think you're still a little too far removed from your subject for a super macro close-up abstract.

Not that all abstracts have to be that type but for flowers I tend to do them that way. Another idea would be to pick a bunch of petals and throw them on the ground and see what interesting shapes/images come out of that. Other great abstracts are done with patterns or textures (Ed Vazta's was a great example of this type!) Keep playing around...once you create a true abstract you'll never look back - they are such a fascinating way to see something old in a brand new way.

[Katherine Enns]

Thanks Jules, I have been an admirer of your photographs on this site for a while now. I only recently started posting. I initially responded to Ed and didnt see your post till I was in flagrante, as it were. I wasnt being serious in this definition. I guess I should have put a smiley after my definition. I wasnt sure it was working either, which is why I posted it. Your definition, Jules, is more helpful than telling me what is not abstract. If its positional to the point that you recognize something thats very different than having an accident with the camera. Which is what I had. Perhaps not fatal, but somewhere between abstract and documentation, and I am just not in the groove yet, with this particulare image I guess. My problem is recognizing it critically enough, and you have really helped me with this in your note above.

I do believe there is an element of miasma in abstract work. (I studied art for a couple of years before reality set in.) I agree that if you look at this image and try to decide what the abstract parts are the banner or hood modified petal is the best place to find it, and the rest of the image is too sharp to be abstract. I was struggling with what constitutes and abstract image. Versus an abstract sculpture or drawing.

Thanks for your comments, all.

ke