10989770

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.

If this has been asked before, please excuse. I'm a noob here.

When converting a color image to BW which do you prefer, Channel mixer or some of the options in gradient mapping?

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

I'm probably the oldest noob here. Confirmed filmosaur. I've been at this avocation since roughly 1968. Took a decade or so off after the divorce. Entered a few local contests, got a few prizes, a magazine cover, and a special award at the Ohio State Fair. Had to get a couple new gizmos that played nicer with Win 10. Still have my Epson 2200, but I'm going to figure it would need some major work; it hasn't been run since 2005. Gonna get an Epson P400; nice price and have quite a bit of Epson papers left over. Also, I cut my own mats; I'm getting those chops back (hopefully; I'm a lot less steady than I used to be).

I'm hoping for some constructive criticism on my work.

Nice to be here.

Cheers,

Cosmo