POTW 3 - Geometrical abstract images

<p>It is down to Earth for me, Tim. If you have sufficient dirt under your nails, why don't you try it out ?</p>

<p>What you wrote above on what abstract Photography should do doesn't promise well, but one never knows !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>abstract photography should state that whatever is photographed or manipulated in post should register to the viewer primarily on first glance an emphasis on form, shape, color, texture, line, gradation, including placement, juxtaposition and relationship between negative vs positive spaces within the frame before the viewer ever sees it as a photo of a real object or just a snap shot of a normal scene. (Tim)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the heat of defining abstract I lost sight of the geometrical aspect. Though 'end' is a geometrical concept, and 'elim' implies eliminate, which is the end of something. I am considering abstraction as a property of a photo worth isolating, without requiring that it be the only or defining property. As a practical matter I have some photos of mundane things that are too uninteresting to describe in any detail, but which have some aspect that seems abstract, so that's the keyword I use to digest them, though everything in them is recognizable. I know now not to inflict any examples :-)</p>

 

<p>No, Bill, please, show us. In my view the abstract elements in a totally recognisable photo, is still an abstract photography. All a question of the prominence of the abstract dimension. I'll give an example below.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Anders, for your picture a keyword I might also use is juxtapose_size, since there is a large/small juxtaposition. (These keywords are 'spoken' as photo sequences by my AI; the words are treated like Sesame Street characters.) I wish I could have a committee of folk here on a conference call to keyword some pics together! Here is something geometrical to get back in step.</p><div></div>

<p>That one seems a bit grim - maybe I should boost midtones some more. Here's another example, while I'm stuck waiting for color space comparisons to run (using 2G of memory for 11000 pics, 32x32x32 RGB histograms), also kind of an abstract thing, though only indirectly geometrical.<br>

If anyone ever felt strongly enough about their definitions that they'd like to provide them with their pics, I could put them in the AI and you could see how they fly.</p><div></div>

<p>The most stirring definition of philosophy I have heard is that it is the study of everything that doesn't fit under any other category, sort of like all the hard decisions get kicked up to the President. Similarly, abstract is the last stop on the way to unclassifiable (which is a first cousin of unusable). I.e. the photo has something that I can't define, and has no siblings or cousins except other oddballs. In such cases, one might say *is abstract* without needing to say *is an abstract*, which seems to be the difference under discussion. Noting there aren't so many *is an abstracts* being posted, hopefully the lesser type isn't driving the pure away.</p>

<p>here is one pure "is an abstract", if you kindly ask, Bill</p><div></div>

<p>I give up. Post whatever you want. I really don't give a sh*t anymore.</p>

<p>No reason Tim. There is room for us all, I hope.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Noting there aren't so many *is an abstracts* being posted, hopefully the lesser type isn't driving the pure away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only thing that'll drive me away is having to scroll past a number of non-abstract images in a series at the size of the new 1000 pixel limit as the last two in this thread. On a 27" display it gets really tiresome. I have step back almost a foot and half from my display just to see it all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is room for all of us, I hope</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why I said post whatever anyone thinks is an abstract. It's all in everyone's head anyway as Bill pointed out. I'ld say that makes the size of the room limitless.</p>

<p>What I'm getting at is we could specify e.g. 'open abstract' or something concise for 'nonrepresentational abstract' in thread titles, then perhaps everyone can be happy. </p>

<p>For me, Bill, you can call it what you like as long as we are talking about abstract "art" type of thing and we don"t need a top down moderation to admit access for photonetters. <br>

When it comes to my last photo,Tim, it is a shot of a fence. <br>

By the way ,if you have difficulties seeing 1000 size images, why don't you use the crdl - keys to monitor your screen ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way ,if you have difficulties seeing 1000 size images, why don't you use the crdl - keys to monitor your screen ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just used the (Command minus keys) and the photos get smaller and so does the text making it unreadable. Not a good solution. My display's resolution is a native 1920 X 1080 which makes 1000 pixel images 12 inches across.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I'm getting at is we could specify e.g. 'open abstract' or something concise for 'nonrepresentational abstract' in thread titles, then perhaps everyone can be happy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like a good solution, Bill. I can deal with that.</p>