Psychodelic

Cactus.

When I think a photo has potential but the image won't hold up to a big enlargement, I start adding special effects.

Slide film, Nikon camera, Sigma lens. SFX from gradient map.

Honest, constructive criticism welcome.

Cheers,

Cosmo

It's an interesting example of turning 'photographed objects' (in this case a close up of a cactus) into something more 'arty'. Back in the 1970's I could imagine this as poster-tacked to a student's wall. I have 2 impressions from this abstract::

The first is that changing/shifting colors and contrast doesn't change the basic structural composition: vertical streaks of color and long vertical chains of 'stars. The cactus nature's wonderful, effective but fairly simple composition! But to me, not very interesting as the only one in an abstract photo. Particularly in combination with the harsh contrast and limited color range (which with a stronger composition might work well!).

The second is that there's (deliberately) little 'depth' in the photo. So no added interest there.

So my main suggestion - using the original cactus photo - is to experiment more with how you could use the photo to produce a (psychedelic) abstract image. The most important tip I can give is to replicate the photo onto multiple layers, say 5 - 10, each with it's own mask. On each layer you can then do multiple transformations (rotation, scaling, distortion, various filters, color shifts and other adjustments, etc). For each layer you can also vary the blend mode and opacity.You need to be prevent the result from being too muddy, but using masks and transparencies, you can ínclude the parts of each layer that you want, where you want it and with the transparency you want.To be honest, I'd never tried this before I played around with your 'psychedelic image'. I think you'll find that by working on multiple copies of the photo on different layers, you'll have a much bigger 'paintbox' to create complex abstract images from 1 photo. And of course, there's nothing against blending in other photos on on additional layers

Hope this helps

Mike

PS If it would help you, I could post my ''experiment' as an illustration. But I never do this for critiques unless requested.

I start adding special effects.

I think adding special effects is one thing but, in this case, it feels like nothing but special effects.

[As a personal aside, I also wonder if photography could be used to express a more contemporary rather than imitative take on it?]

In any case, what strikes me is that a psychedelic photo might want to start off with some sense of the psychedelic being first captured with the camera, perhaps in the subject or scene chosen, the lighting, reflections, original lens effects, etc. Doing it because an image won’t otherwise hold up is not an auspicious beginning and winds up looking more like a surface attempt than an authentic feeling for the psychedelic.

To my eye, this is a construction paper and Elmers glue version of psychedelic. One can approach it as a series of special effects, pushing slider bars into caricature mode. Alternatively, one can approach it metaphorically (and literally at the same time) and adapt photography to it in a somewhat organic vision, more challenging and satisfying to the viewer than what seeing a few obvious effects as an afterthought will yield.

All that said, this exercise can be a challenge. Having created the above, perhaps use it as a springboard to go out with the determination to find, capture and express psychedelic a little more holistically. It may still mean a fair bit of post processing but will not reduce to it.

When I think a photo has potential but the image won't hold up to a big enlargement, I start adding special effects.

Interpreting this as the Artist's Statement of Purpose, I find "critique" difficult without further information as to what are parameters encompassing: "won't hold up".

That stated, and stated as an implied request: The image was a jar to my eye when I first viewed it. I opened the thread with an expectation, based upon the Title: "Psychodelic"

That expectation was not fulfilled.

There has been discussion of 'Titles' and the use of 'Titles' here before. I think if a Title is used it need to be judiciously chosen and chosen for a (strong) purpose. To this end it was assumed the title was correct in its spelling: which should go a long way explain the critique of visual anticipation and expectations based upon Title, remaining unfulfilled.

***

On the other hand, the image also does not meet parameters of “Psychedelic”. At the least it should relate in some way to a realm of ‘Psychedelic’ - to my mind the image is neither clear in its own manifest, nor is it stimulating enough to create a change in the manifest of the Viewer’s Mind.

***

Taking away all reference to Title - the image has two sets of week verticals, stuck onto an overpowering background. I think, this is the best summary – “it feels like nothing but special effects”.

WW

It's an interesting example of turning 'photographed objects' (in this case a close up of a cactus) into something more 'arty'. Back in the 1970's I could imagine this as poster-tacked to a student's wall. I have 2 impressions from this abstract::

 

The first is that changing/shifting colors and contrast doesn't change the basic structural composition: vertical streaks of color and long vertical chains of 'stars. The cactus nature's wonderful, effective but fairly simple composition! But to me, not very interesting as the only one in an abstract photo. Particularly in combination with the harsh contrast and limited color range (which with a stronger composition might work well!).

 

The second is that there's (deliberately) little 'depth' in the photo. So no added interest there.

 

So my main suggestion - using the original cactus photo - is to experiment more with how you could use the photo to produce a (psychedelic) abstract image. The most important tip I can give is to replicate the photo onto multiple layers, say 5 - 10, each with it's own mask. On each layer you can then do multiple transformations (rotation, scaling, distortion, various filters, color shifts and other adjustments, etc). For each layer you can also vary the blend mode and opacity.You need to be prevent the result from being too muddy, but using masks and transparencies, you can ínclude the parts of each layer that you want, where you want it and with the transparency you want.To be honest, I'd never tried this before I played around with your 'psychedelic image'. I think you'll find that by working on multiple copies of the photo on different layers, you'll have a much bigger 'paintbox' to create complex abstract images from 1 photo. And of course, there's nothing against blending in other photos on on additional layers

 

Hope this helps

 

Mike

PS If it would help you, I could post my ''experiment' as an illustration. But I never do this for critiques unless requested.

Yes please do.

I was just playing around and I had no 'artistic intention' in mind. I don't suggest that my version is any better than yours. I just applied different techniques. I hope it helps as an illustration of what's possible.

 

I had no 'artistic intention' in mind.

Hmmm.

The second is that there's (deliberately) little 'depth' in the photo.

One of your ‘artistic intentions’ seemed to be to give the picture more depth.

harsh contrast

Another of your ‘artistic intentions’ seemed to be to reduce the harsh contrast ... (by easing up on the saturation levels).

an illustration of what's possible

An overriding ‘artistic intention’ seemed to be to apply different techniques to show more possibilities.

_______________

In most cases, unless the changes to a photo are going to be relatively minor, a good beginning is to access the original image and work from scratch. Trying to ease up on or undo processing with more processing is tough.

_______________

10989770, William asked you an important question about your introduction of the photo. It would be helpful to hear your answer. That would enable us to know more specifically what about the photo wasn’t working for you to begin with and I think William is suggesting it could lead us to critiquing toward your goals or vision.

_______________

In terms of critiques I’ve received over the years, I’ve found that dialogues I engage in once I’ve read the critiques can be as helpful as simply reading them, often more so.

Fully agree with your comments to me, Sam. As you say working with an already heavily PP image is far from ideal. There would have much more scope (and options) when working with an original image. My only intention was to quickly illustrate how - by working in different layers - there's more scope for introducing non-vertical elements, varying intensities, etc. I've never really tried to work on 'composite images', abstract or otherwise so I have no experience in this.

Mike

Hmmm.

 

One of your ‘artistic intentions’ seemed to be to give the picture more depth.

 

Another of your ‘artistic intentions’ seemed to be to reduce the harsh contrast ... (by easing up on the saturation levels).

 

An overriding ‘artistic intention’ seemed to be to apply different techniques to show more possibilities.

_______________

 

In most cases, unless the changes to a photo are going to be relatively minor, a good beginning is to access the original image and work from scratch. Trying to ease up on or undo processing with more processing is tough.

_______________

 

10989770, William asked you an important question about your introduction of the photo. It would be helpful to hear your answer. That would enable us to know more specifically what about the photo wasn’t working for you to begin with and I think William is suggesting it could lead us to critiquing toward your goals or vision.

_______________

 

In terms of critiques I’ve received over the years, I’ve found that dialogues I engage in once I’ve read the critiques can be as helpful as simply reading them, often more so.

. . . I think William is suggesting [providing information as to why the photo "won't hold up to a big enlargement"] could lead us to critiquing toward your goals or vision.

100% correct in all aspects.

***

. . . In terms of critiques I’ve received over the years, I’ve found that dialogues I engage in once I’ve read the critiques can be as helpful as simply reading them, often more so.

100% Sage.

That's the purpose of and the fundamental definition of "Forum". Oxford will suffice, my bold for emphasis - forum (noun) "an event or medium where people can exchange opinions and ideas on a particular issue"

WW

Although I'm quite late to this party, I'd like to add my 2 cents.

In terms of critiques I’ve received over the years, I’ve found that dialogues I engage in once I’ve read the critiques can be as helpful as simply reading them, often more so.

Well put, Sam.

Cactus.

 

[ATTACH=full]1339270[/ATTACH]

 

When I think a photo has potential but the image won't hold up to a big enlargement, I start adding special effects.

Slide film, Nikon camera, Sigma lens. SFX from gradient map.

Honest, constructive criticism welcome.

Cheers,

Cosmo

Cosmo, although I'm quite late to this party, here's my 2 cents. I've produced quite a bit of abstract work, and lately - and before reading the comments on this thread, I have started to feel that I have a better opportunity to create an image of higher quality if my starting point also is of higher quality. Having said this, I think the OP image may have some abstract potential, but not necessarily in terms of possible psychedelic properties. If you'd like, I'll give it a try, though.

Cosmo, although I'm quite late to this party, here's my 2 cents. I've produced quite a bit of abstract work, and lately - and before reading the comments on this thread, I have started to feel that I have a better opportunity to create an image of higher quality if my starting point also is of higher quality. Having said this, I think the OP image may have some abstract potential, but not necessarily in terms of possible psychedelic properties. If you'd like, I'll give it a try, though.

I just revoked my offer. You could have had the courtesy to tell me to go f#*k myself.

 

Hmmm.

 

10989770, William asked you an important question about your introduction of the photo. It would be helpful to hear your answer. That would enable us to know more specifically what about the photo wasn’t working for you to begin with and I think William is suggesting it could lead us to critiquing toward your goals or vision.

_______________

 

In terms of critiques I’ve received over the years, I’ve found that dialogues I engage in once I’ve read the critiques can be as helpful as simply reading them, often more so.

I often find it somewhat frustrating when somebody makes a post, evokes any number of responses, then disappears into the ether, never responding to questions or participating in a discussion which they, in effect, initiated. edit: I do see now that the OP has popped back in once.

I just revoked my offer. You could have had the courtesy to tell me to go f#*k myself.

Well clearly I've missed something here.

I throw my 2 cents in, just for the heck of it. This post has been up a while and I've looked at the image more than a few times. I agree that my expectations brought on by the title, "Psychodelic" (misspelled purposely or otherwise), weren't really fulfilled. As William Michael said, titles can be problematic.

Looking at this photo, I am sort of nonplussed. Even trying to imagine it in its original form without enhancements, it doesn't really strike me in any sort of meaningful way. There seems to be some imbalance in the composition with the long blank spot between the lines of thorns (or whatever they're called) left of center. It feels to me as though the shot would have benefitted more from a crop than from the chosen edit- such as @mikemorrell has shown us.

While digital color treatments like this can sometimes wind up being very cool, they seem to work more often when the overall composition is spot on. That said, I like the linear feeling of this and the colors and shading and texture are nice. I love cacti and succulents, so the photo speaks to me from that standpoint. Ultimately, viewed as a stand-alone, completely without any context or knowledge of what you, @10989770, typically shoot, I feel like this is a not-so-great composition that has been propped up by an overly enthusiastic edit.

If there are more shots of this cactus, I'd dearly love to see them. I'd also love to see the original.

EDIT: I do not mean to be harsh here and I do encourage you to participate in discussion here inCritiques, and to pst more of work work here- and around the forum, in other photo threads and forums. Thanks very much for posting you photo, hope to see you around.

I often find it somewhat frustrating when somebody makes a post, evokes any number of responses, then disappears into the ether, never responding to questions or participating in a discussion which they, in effect, initiated.

In that same constructive spirit ...

LINK and LINK

ha ha, touche, Sam!

I'll take a minute to check in to both threads and follow up