Thanks, John, that's a definite improvement. The colors are much better, and I like the added boost to the center of the image. However, it still has the problem that almost caused me to delete it in the first place: what is the subject, or the message, or whatever? The ICM shots that you and others have posted have generally had some identifiable subject -- i.e., a picture of X presented in an interesting way. I feel like even abstract images should have some feature that makes them pleasing -- symmetry, texture, motion, contrast, etc. This one doesn't really. I'd tried some editing tricks to try to ressurect it, but it I don't think I improved it. Sorry -- it's weird of me to be complaining about the picture that I myself chose to post, but that's photography!
Not weird at all - it's the way you see it. I belong to and post to several different ICM groups and the one thing I never do is try to explain or give a title to my images, as do most others. I am careful in what I post here because of this group's reaction to the abstract. To me, abstract art is for what the viewer gets out of it, not what I intended. What I got from this one (edited) was, as Tom said, new growth on tress blowing in the wind - the essence of spring. It's just a joyous natural movement that makes me want to get out and see something like that for myself! I enjoy, as I told Camellia in today's post, the literal, but I really love the abstract impressionistic images as well - my restless imagination needs a playground. I'm getting a bunch of them together for my Senior Planet group for next month and will try to lead them through how to make both styles.☺️
Interesting capture looks like trees blowing in the wind
ReplyDeleteThanks, John, that's a definite improvement. The colors are much better, and I like the added boost to the center of the image. However, it still has the problem that almost caused me to delete it in the first place: what is the subject, or the message, or whatever? The ICM shots that you and others have posted have generally had some identifiable subject -- i.e., a picture of X presented in an interesting way. I feel like even abstract images should have some feature that makes them pleasing -- symmetry, texture, motion, contrast, etc. This one doesn't really. I'd tried some editing tricks to try to ressurect it, but it I don't think I improved it. Sorry -- it's weird of me to be complaining about the picture that I myself chose to post, but that's photography!
ReplyDeleteNot weird at all - it's the way you see it. I belong to and post to several different ICM groups and the one thing I never do is try to explain or give a title to my images, as do most others. I am careful in what I post here because of this group's reaction to the abstract. To me, abstract art is for what the viewer gets out of it, not what I intended. What I got from this one (edited) was, as Tom said, new growth on tress blowing in the wind - the essence of spring. It's just a joyous natural movement that makes me want to get out and see something like that for myself! I enjoy, as I told Camellia in today's post, the literal, but I really love the abstract impressionistic images as well - my restless imagination needs a playground. I'm getting a bunch of them together for my Senior Planet group for next month and will try to lead them through how to make both styles.☺️
Delete