aplumpton

<p>Thanks for the heads up! I will check again further on their site, as my first tentative tonight after joining the app site and trying a download required a PC connection (I use MAC), although Brian Smith's site mentions MAC. </p>

<p>Perhaps I have overlooked some advice in my manual, but I am not sure what is best practice for low noise long exposures with a Sony A7 series camera or the like? I am generally talking about one minute to 30 minute exposures and not very long time astronomy imaging. Can I manually open the shutter, and close it after some time, while perhaps light painting in between?</p>

<p>Two passive darkroom vents seem to do the job, provided they are well placed. To facilitate even temperature I intake and vent out to another room in the house, which has good air exchange. Every once in a while I open the small window and darkroom door to further ventilate the room. You should check your exhaust fan and its position relative to your trays to avoid chemical fumes being swept up via your face, and consider where to place a passive intake vent in the room to minimize that flow pattern. Air filters provide some resistance to fllow, so they should be used where you can provide enough forced ventilation to make them work and in conjunction with a passive vent properly placed in the darkroom.</p> <p>Unless you are using color development chemicals or certain toners or pyro developers, short term use of a darkroom (an hour or two, or three) is not really a problem, as in between sessions you can clear the air by opening up the room to more positive air movement.</p> <p>Force air heating of the room may be a source of dust, but it guarantees certain air movement in and out of the room. However, as a precaution I usually close that system off before vacuuming and washing down the room surfaces and engaging in a long session. </p>

<p>Some of you may have visited these special places as well:</p> <p>Natural landscapes (or that part of occupied natural landscapes without settlements):</p> <ul> <li>Atlantic coastline in USA and Canada north of Bar Harbour Maine</li> <li>Canadian shield mountains and river coastline in Charlevoix Quebec</li> <li>Mountains and rivers from quiet roads in the area between central and southern France</li> <li>Lake district in NW England</li> <li>West coast Newfoundland</li> <li>Tuscany</li> </ul> <p>Occupied natural landscapes</p> <ul> <li>Farming villages in central south Quebec (along the Saint Lawrence river)</li> <li>Magdalene Islands in the Gulf of St Lawrence</li> <li>Picturesque wineries in France, Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec</li> <li>Tuscany</li> </ul> <p>City landscapes</p> <ul> <li>Squares of London and Savannah</li> <li>Upper and lower towns of Quebec City</li> <li>Gagetown village, New Brunswick</li> <li>St-Johns, Newfoundland</li> <li>Arrondissements 1 to 6, Paris</li> <li>Lucca and Florence</li> </ul>

<p>I much enjoyed the Makina 670 (like the 67) but its servicing was a bit of a problem. If you want a frame size compromise between 4.5 x 6 cm and 6 x 7 or larger (6 x 9 Fujifilm is an excellent camera), then a 6 x 6 cm camera like the Hasselblad or various TLRs or the Mamiya 6 (and its excellent three optics) is worth considering. I would give the nod to the latter as it seems to better suit travel, whereas the Hasselblad (not the wide angle fixed lens SWC) may be more versatile for other uses. The Mamiya 6 may not be easiest to get service on but if you find a well cared for (mint or mint- version) and go easy on its film advance system it should last well, as mine has. A 124G or similar TLR is probably best in economic sense, as a mint Mamiya 6 with normal lens will likely cost upwards of $1000 and one with the 50mm WA lens several hundred dollars more. I have a close to mint Minolta Autocord that I am not using (except shutter exercise every 3 to 6 month) but might be willing to part with if you are interested in that camera.</p>

<p>Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest mentions that in addition to the Voigtlander 21 mm finder (the metal version new is $209, plastic $20 less), a best buy for him is the Russian 20mm black square finder. Also in the best $ to performance category according to Gandy is the Avenon/Kobalux 21 finder. Apparently both Yashica and Minolta made 20/21 mm finders at one time. These may not be easy to find but maybe worth an Internet search.</p> <p>My 21mm plastic housing Leica finder is good, but probably expensive on the used market these days. Not sure if it easy to find these days, but the Cosina Voigtlander low angle finder with its accessory VF small screw in attachments for 12, 15 and 21 mm lenses is one I have used often with 12 and 21 mm optics. It is reasonably accurate, although few VFs are spot on in terms of framing and some testing is required to determine their limits in use.</p>

<p>Do you intend to upload your photos to your Photo.Net site? Greater image detail is possible there.</p>

<p>Hi Jon, no offence intended, but I was instead referring to John Harper's image in my comment. Your approach is surely of interest to those doing abstract photography.</p>

<p>Bela, rather than argue your thoughts, here are two definitions that describe abstraction and abstract art:<br> <strong>Abstract Art</strong> is a generic term that describes two different methods of abstraction: 'semi abstraction' and 'pure abstraction'. The word 'abstract' means to withdraw part of something in order to consider it separately. In Abstract art that 'something' is one or more of the visual elements of a subject: its line, shape, tone, pattern, texture, or form. <br /> <strong>Semi-Abstraction</strong> is where the image still has one foot in representational art, (see <strong><em>Cubism</em></strong> and Futurism). It uses a type of stylisation where the artist selects, develops and refines specific visual elements (e.g. line, color and <em><strong>shape</strong></em>) in order to create a poetic reconstruction or simplified essence of the original subject.<br /> (Source: www.<strong>art</strong>yfactory.com)<br> I think "Envol harmonieux" and some of the other examples given above probably adhere to the second definition.<br> Abstract art existed at least 35,000 years before Cubism, Futurism, Surrealism</p>

<p>Is this the sort of quality that you are looking for? If so, it is quite easily obtained by curve adjustments on a B&W negative or positive, or scanned image, or by adjusting the three color sliders in transforming a digital color image to B&W. </p><div></div>

<p>If we are discussing abstract art, and not abstract photography, graphic styles, or simple sketches and cartoons, we need to consider the critical and ordered aspects of color harmony, the use of point, line and form, equilibrium of masses, tones and and contrasts and related visual constructions that create original non-figurative graphics and compositions of beauty that merit the title of abstract art. Neglecting these building blocks and formal relationships simply robs the image of added value and this is so easy to see in abstract photography. </p> <p>In photography abstraction is useful in creating images - It is providing freedom from representational qualities, turning your subject into something that apparently it is not.</p>

<p>There are landscapes of nature and those made or altered by man. Land can be untouched mountains or valleys, forests or lightly worked land that is used for farming or other land based human activity, city parks, and even cityscapes. In other words, land is everywhere except perhaps for the oceans or very large bodies of water.</p> <p>Man landscapes are often just as intriguing as entirely natural or mainly natural ones. Unless a definition is constructed otherwise, landscape postings here (written or visual) will mean for me cityscapes, natural landscapes altered or used by man, and landscapes entirely natural. How do you see landscapes? Why do you photograph them?</p>

<p>Anders and Bela, do you not think that surrealism is really just a subset (or part) of abstract art, different only from what is normally associated with or as abstract art? Cubism and Dadoism are probably that as well. They do not show things as they appear, but something else which is often more. When the image is a deconstruction of perceived reality and replaced by something that is not what one might normally perceive as reality, or which offers an alternative meaning, is that not also abstract? I see violins and geese as each exhibiting similar harmonious patterns, one in sound, the other in flight. We don't see violins in flight. Their flight pattern (one might think "there is music in the air...") is I think an abstraction. How or what the viewer sees in regard to an image is likely important in determining whether he or she concludes that it is predominantly surrealist or mainly abstract.</p> <p>The last graphic pattern of Anders is visually appealing, but to take it from simply appearing as pretty wallpaper (Note that by staring at it one can sense the slight illusion of other shapes, which may to do mainly with how our eyes and brain registers patterns...) have you not considered introducing complementary masses, varied color or other forms into that background to yield a more dynamic or complete abstract composition? It has the potential that it does not offer recognizable objects. </p>

<p>Tim, while I agree that repetition of elements is entirely acceptable in an abstract image, I think it depends on whether they are there in a realistic context or are instead presented as part of an abstraction from reality. One definition of abstract art is art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.</p> <p>A flight of geese is one in which each bird is not in some absolutely perfect geometrical relation to the others. By substituting a violin for geese I also could not present each element in a perfect geometrical array (and not desired) as each violin was exposed as a small negative onto a previously projected larger sky photo negative on the enlarger easel, and the creation of the V pattern was done in the dark and by moving the easel at each exposure. Needless to say it took two or tree trials to get the desired overall image without violins being superposed on each other (airborne geese collisions).</p> <p>The objective was not only surrealistic but an abstraction (albeit using recognizable elements) from the reality of geese flying through the sky, in other words the first half of the above definition of abstract art. The second half the definition is partly satisfied as the form of the violins is only partly similar to the substituted long necked snow geese that I had been observing earlier that day.</p> <p>Surrealism is I think just one approach to abstraction and abstract art. It surprises the viewer as it is not reality, although it may not harbor all the intellectual aspects of non-figurative abstract art. The extended darkroom experience was accompanied by remembrances of watching the geese in migration that morning and listening in the darkroom to a recorded version of Vaughan William's "The lark ascending". A sort of state of grace for a darkroom photographer toiling in the dark. </p>

<blockquote> <p>"they are photos and a camera has been involved in the proces of creation"<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Digital graphics, other conventional graphic art methods, sculpture and painting can all certainly be applied to create abstract images, but most Photo.Net abstract photography forum readers will I think use a camera at some stage of their process of creation, whether it is capture by a camera only process or that of a camera film negative or digital file subsequently modified in post production to create the abstract image.</p>

<p>Sanford, for me your photo is indeed abstract, as abstract photography does not have to obey the more restricted conventions of abstract art, but simply to remove us from what may be perceived as reality. </p> <p>John, lovely mix of two complementary colours, in a warm and inspiring abstract.</p>

<p>Abstract in intention, if not completely removed from reality.</p><div></div>

<p>As a further note to my comment about a series of photographs and a successful creative film being implicitly similar, the adage "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" can apply to works of a photographer that are consciously and creatively conceived or assembled in a series. I presented an exhibition this summer on just those lines and in that case feel that the whole was aesthetically and emotionally as important as, or even more effective than, specific constituent images.</p> <p>When discussing the works of well-known photographers or artists (for example Monet's pond lily series that collectively explored the question of time), the series can be considered very important. Of course, if your time is limited, it might be easier to establish what you believe is artistic in a single work rather than determining the collective artistic value or significant aesthetic thread of a series of photographs.</p>

<p>Anders, good reading and fine photos by Coburn. Many are a combination of figurative and abstract elements or forms, which justifies a wide interpretation of what is an abstract image. The field of abstract photography is very wide indeed.</p> <p>This is my own initial venture in the field of abstract photography, some 30 years ago, called "Envol harmonieux", or "harmonious flight" (My multiple (14x) printed image appeared in historian Dr. Michel Lessard's 1989 monograph, "La magie de l'image - 150 années de la photographie" (homage on 150 years of negative - positive image photography, 1849 - 1989).</p><div></div>

<p>I agree with Steve. There are several adjustment possibilities for tonal adjustment, whether in RAW conversion or Photoshop or Silver Efex Pro software. However, as I mentioned, as this is done on a computer screen the eventual output (and I assume your eventual target is a print, if not a platinum print look alike on a screen) may well differ from the wet process darkroom print type of medium (platinum printing).</p>

<p>Perhaps it is the scans, but I have seen better Strand prints than these ones that on my screen seem to me to verge on "muddy" tonality. So, I assume that the originals are better in their wide and detailed range of tones and possess multiple intermediate tones and microcontrasts. Have a try working on modifying the characteristic curves (graphical equivalents of the B&W histogram) of the image in order to induce expanded middle tones (each end of the spectrum seems OK in a few of these images). Hope this helps a little.</p> <p>Getting a platinum print texture and luminosity is another thing, and possibly only possible using traditional darkroom techniques with those chemicals and papers unless Nix Silver effects pro software is able to mimic it to some degree (maybe platinum paper effect is not included...) in digital processing.</p>

<p>Is a creative film (short or full length), involving a series of images (and sound), a work of art? </p>

<p>Bela, this is very fine use of photography to suggest a non-figurative aspect of the leaf while at the same time creating an emotional effect (fragility? isolation) and use of the frame, with the importance of the white background and the extended members of the leaf.</p> <p>Anders, good links! I find few of the Google examples very interesting; most look too "mechanical" in approach and intent, with only a few (to my mind) of any reasonable artistic approach. But I am getting off the subject a bit and agree that the forum should not have any limits on the photographer and what he considers for himself abstract (rather than an attempt by the photographer at a more rigorous fine art description).</p> <p>Your second link is good (especially, the texts below the varied examples). The concept of abstract photography as merely "rendering figurative objects unrecognizable" is probably the result most often seen. This form of "optical art" is interesting, but whether it is art is another thing. Probably seeking that artistic result is just as difficult as seeing art in most figurative photography on this site, or elsewhere. It happens, but only rarely I think. To be fair, it is likely not the objective of most and therefore, notwithstanding my desire for a more rigorous definition and examples of abstract photography, why should we require it here? There is no law about the limits of use of a Photoshop (or other) color saturation control or slider. </p> <p>If we were to accept art as a goal perhaps the title "Optical art" might be good ("optical photography" would of course be an oxymoron). In the latter part of his life, his best friend Georges Clemenceau incited the Impressionist Monet to continue painting beyond his 70+ years, which he did for at least 10 years, in creating his extensive series of water lilies. While Monet described them as realistic, he was really portraying abstract renditions of color and light.</p> <p>Perhaps abstract photographers might be tempted to create the sort of beauty that Monet did, while their subjects need not be fully detached from what might be perceived as reality. I personally find that a more interesting aim in photography than simply rendering the subject unrecognizable.</p>

<p>There is a difference between decoration, which is the case of many so-called abstract photographic pictures of physical subjects, and that of abstract art. The latter is different from decoration in that its best examples conform to principals of harmony and contrast, equilibrium of masses, and assembly of point, line and form that are in balanced composition. The examples given to this point are, in my humble opinion, largely decorative. Which is still nice, if abstract art is not your objective</p>

<p>I think of a definition of abstract photography like abstract art, being one that is not based upon figurative elements yet employs such elements as colour, form, texture, lines, points, masses and other elements in a composition of beauty (for which the latter may have different definitions).</p> <p>Yet how do we avoid figurative elements in photography? As we are usually photographing some aspect of the world around us, it is very difficult to escape from figurative elements, something that is much less difficult for the artist painter or sculptor. All of the examples above are abstractions of more or less recognisable physical things (even Bela's example).</p> <p>Perhaps successful abstract photography requires that the physical things photographed be completely removed from their recognisable state (again difficult) and of course contain a composition that inspires an appreciation of beauty of form and other elements of art that constitute it.</p> <p>Perhaps <strong>"abstractions from perceived reality"</strong> rather than "abstract photography" might be closer to the truth than "abstract photography" that is to a great degree simply a contradiction in terms .</p>