BelaMolnar

<p>Thank you guys, I get it. Charles lead me there and I get a better cursor now.<br>

-BLM.</p>

<p><strong>Peter Carter</strong> explained precisely, and you have to read his line very attentively. Film and digital an entirely different medium. All film have a grain, smaller or bigger, depend on the film type. Grain is NOT noise. And those grain can be beautiful in an expert and talented photographic artist hand, creation. </p>

<p>Thank you Julie. Exactly as quoted. Period.<br>

Cubism and Dadoism is not abstrac it is Cubism or Dadoism, surrealism is not abstract aether.<br>

-BLM.</p>

<p>No. It is not an abstract. It is a graphic art as Andy Warhol's "Campbell's Soup Cans" painting.<br>

"Harmonious flight" is a surrealistic image and not an abstract.</p>

<p>I'm second to Julie. Period. Thank you.</p>

<p>Dear Tim. WE have a hell of a misunderstanding here...! Those images you posted as a (link) are graphic images created in the computer OR painted by talented artist ( Georgia O'Keeffe, etc. ) on canvas or any other medium. Yes, they are abstract. And they are beautiful abstract images.<br /> Because this site is a "Photographic" web site, we supposed to discus, argue, opinionated strictly, images, created with camera, thru the lens. Then, you can do what ever your imagination, artistic talent is dictating to edit, process, create an abstract or abstraction like image in the end.<br /> We don't talking about abstract here in general, it is abstract or abstraction as photography. Ar you arguing on that?<br /> -BLM.<br>

Btw, I like some of your abstract images.</p>

<p>W</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Jack Henry Pollock</strong> . He stretched the canvas on the floor and splashed paint on it. You think it is easy. His images of this style is in balance in color, contrast distribution of darker and lighter element in the composition and finally the canvas as an abstract image get in a nice balanced composition. I tried to copy his style and technic, and many other people, artist did, and failed most of the time.</p>

<p>Hi Anders. The image above? It is a rusty side of a car in the junkyard, enhanced colors and contrast. Nothing more. The image just posted for critic is a tree, a real tree in a cemetery with a blank sky. Select mask and added a texture of colors, which I created for my texture folder for future use. No distortion of the elements or forms, increase contrast and saturation only.<br>

Your attached image is an abstract, the artistic quality is an other question.</p>

<p>Anders Hingel. If you make that little white spot bigger it my be qualified as an abstract, in the present state, it is just a texture photograph for future use for a composite image as a texture.<br /> Michael Linder. Your attached large image is an abstract, no question about it. But, the thing on the bookshelf or what, is a funny photograph of something only, not a Surrealism, not an abstraction or abstract.<br /> What I seeing here, how little knowledge we know of art, or how strongly we attached ourselves, our visual mind to photography in the popular meaning as photography. Photography today evolved to a new art form, and as, it has to have some story, power, impact, feeling, emotion, and etc, etc. As I stated earlier, abstract is not an accidental creation of something, except nature, it is a created art style, mach more difficult to create then a plain landscape or other subject in photography. To enjoy any visual art style of many, is a question of individual test, which is relative.<br /> To highlight of the subject, I haw to mention the difficulty, and the artistic visual talent, technique required to create a good "surrealistic' image. In this web site, only a couple of photographers able to do it, to mention one of them, is, Ben Gossen, If I remember right the spelling of his name. <br /> This discussion going to be a Don Quijote style struggle, against the windmills story.<br>

Tim, it is a nice close-up of a leaf, but, not an abstract.</p>

<p>For the development and refining the human eyes, harmony for forms and colors is a long way in art. Most of the people never rich that point and it is an ultimate point in life appreciate, love, understand art, and finally abstract. Contrary to the general believe of people, creation of abstract image is not an easy task. Nature is full of abstract images and so, it is a best abstract artist. As a painter of myself, and lover of abstract I failed many time to paint, create a good abstract image. To be charged by other, if an abstract image is god is very difficult, because the majority of people don't have the talent the artistic feeling developed for abstract. Abstract can be very beautiful, — for some, and ugly-nothing for the rest of the 90 percent population, not like red setting sun pictures ( kitsch) hanging all over homes. Abstract art of any medium can have compositional elements of geometrical form or any natural substance, but, not as a major element of composition. Abstract art is very badly understand art form, from the average persons. All the above posted images are NON abstract, they are minimalist images, photographs of something, generally called here as abstraction. Which is not. In photography or even in other media as painting, graphic, sculpture , etc., can haw a recognizable human hand created element, but, as a secondary building block, subject of the whole abstract image. Most of the pure abstract do not have even those little elements, build up of harmonious forms shades and colors. The most frequently asked question of many people, standing in front of an abstract image, "what it is show", represent", etc. Wrong question. Like a cloud, do not represent a human imagined form of know something, it is the form, shade, colors by itself of the pure beauty.<br /> Please excuse my english.<br /> Abstract and abstraction is two entirely different thing.</p><div></div>

<p>No. 432</p><div></div>

<p>@ 35 mm format, the Nikon-Nikkor AF 17-35 mm f/2.8 ED. Prime, the Nikkor 20mm f/4 AI.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thank you Charles. I think I posted my question in a wrong way. The curser of the mouse in the Photoshop is the problem. It is a cross-hear, with thin line and small and in the Photoshop-Preferences- I can't find the option to increase the size and thickness of the cursor. I'm kinda dummy for computers, know only how to use some of the programs.<br>

Ok. I get it, by following you advise, and increased the cursor size and thickness <strong>in the photoshop too.</strong><br>

Thank you very much, Charles.</p>

<p>I having the same problem, the cross-hair of the mouse so thin, I hardly can see it if it is not in the image or in the very light or neutral area. MAC, Ps-CS5. Try to find "Control panel" in the "System preferences", no luck. In the "Mouse setup" no such a thing to increase the thickness of the cross-hair. Anybody can lead me to this setting, step by step?<br>

Thank You.</p>

<p>The Nikon SB-400 is the best choice, has a till table reflector, small, low and powerful. I haw 3 of them I like them so much, I haw in every camera bag one or just slip to my pocket to be ready if I needed. I don't like the pop-up flashes.</p>

<p>If it possible the widest lens is a most suitable to shot sky, Milky-Way and Aurora-Borealis. The 24mm is relatively wide and you can caver a lots of sky. For an easy way to shot in night sky, for me, is a NON autofocus old prime lens with a hard stop infinity setting, not haw to bather with focusing. I successfully using a 20mm F/4 ( can be any Ai or AI-S lenses ) or a 18mm f/4 AI-S lens. I also using the AF-S 14mm f/2.8ED prime sometime, preset the focusing at infinity. The problem with all this lenses, the haw a very bad light distortion at the corners, calling a "sagittal coma" with show the point of light of a star like a little birds in flight. The only lens I know and own is the NIKON-Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 AI-S which created just for this to avoid those distortion in full open aperture, @ f/1.2 But, this lens has a much narrower angle of view, which would be still god for the Aurora-Borealis to shoot. I would not bother to spend money, the 24mm is good enough for that subject. IMHO. Please try out first then dicid if you really need a wider lens then you existing 24mm.</p>

<p>Bromide drag or not bromide drag, I like the image very much. The pose, a natural pose and the shades and of course the film grain to me, like seeing a painted canvass in life, instead the same object, subject photographed in high quality. It has more natural and artistic look then a super high-tech digital print. Yes, Arthur, your wife is beautiful, just crop out the unwanted areas, print it (4x6) or (4x4) and frame it, put up on you desk, or where ewer you find a place for it.</p>

<p>Mr. Bailey looking for a <strong>NON metered</strong> plain prism for the Nikon F body.<br>

For your two gentlemen, I have two, 2 Photomick head for my Nikon F cameras, working but not calibrated. Which is not a big deal for me. I don't using them anyway, instead, using the non metered plain prism.<br>

Have a Happy Thanksgiving weekend. (in Canada )</p>

<p>Two option, KEh, or ebay. The latest have one in good condition US $429.99 Buy it Now option + shipping and import charge. Add an other 100 dollar to it. Very difficult to find one specially in relatively good condition. The plaid prism finder for Nikon F is a collection item and not many in the market, or, they gone with the camera. And sometime the best solution to buy the camera with the prism finder.<br>

Ops, I find one for you, US $ 169.95 + 32.75 shipping. Item number 201674529417</p>

<p>I used on the Namibia African safari a Tamron 200-500 on a Nikon D3s or D4, ( I never use an extender ) and I get home with lots of beautiful images, more then half a price and weight as the other guys super expensive lenses. See the images in my portfolio. The new Tamron 150-600 mm probably as good too. The slow f/5-6.3 used fully open, f/5 or at f8-11 most of the time, was no problem even in hand hold use, with high ISO.</p>

<p>I like this image very much, it reminds me of my mothers kitchen. I can smell those cookies as my mother used to do them. Thank you for posting.<br>

-BLM</p>

<p>Very shortly. Don't be clumsy, learn to hold you camera safe in your hand. Any camera or lens suffer when you drop them on the concrete. Out of my Dig cameras, D3s, D4, Df, I like my Df the most. Build, and quality of images the camera producing.</p>

<p>Thank you Jim. Ah the normal AA batteries, of-course. Those time we used mostly batteries for everything, flash, motor-drive gadgets , etc., getting old, 77, forgetting the good all time.</p>