Nude 4. Part of a series. Please critique. Thanks. Ed

I'm not a really qualified critic of abstract photos, but I'll take a crack here. In my opinion, even an abstract photo has to have a visual link with reality in order to make it interesting. That is, I, as a viewer, feel that I should be able to recognize a small part of what I'm seeing in order to truly appreciate how you've interpreted the subject. Does that make sense? Anyway, this barely does it for me - if I hadn't known to look at this image in the context of the folder I wouldn't know what you were trying to do. As it is I'm still not sure what you're trying to do, which comes back to my non-existant qualifications as an abstract art critic.

Thanks for your commenst. I intended this one to be viewed as part of a series. There are two other pictures that I think it goes well with. I've only uploaded a few from that shoot that I already had scanned.

the colours are fine but i think - and i paint -

paint this abstraction composition with oil-colours on a large cottonground

i've been trying to create the aesthetic of impressionist painting with several of these pics (to varying degrees of success).

 

I'm kind of bored with standard nudes and am much more intrigued by impressionist and expressionist approaches as inspired by painting.

I'm mistaken. You have more than one fog-frame on each roll?

I like this one the best of the series you have uploaded. I disagree with some of the commentors above that a photograph has to have any connection to our perception of reality or objects. Film is a blank medium like any other, and the photographer's objective is not necessarily to have an accurate representation of the subject, but to interpret it has he/she seems fit. To say that a photograph should not try to imitate paintings is a bunch of bull. This picture is a pretty good effort, in my opinion, and I guess I'll leave it at that.