http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3458/3369203594_e16d39223d_b.jpg
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:13:22AM +0100, Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote: > > perhaps it is just that. i tought it had a good balance and that it > > was graphically compelling. > > I liked the colors of the cars, and as far as I could tell on my > crappy monitor at work, technically it is spot on, the tonal range > looks good, everything looks sharp. Perhaps the details detract, I > look for meaning in the people crossing the street, the traffic, and > so forth. > > If you like it as an abstract, it might work better if it were more > abstract. Can you throw the digital equivalent of a soft focus on it? > Maybe one of those faux oil painting photoshop plug ins? > Why not just vomit on it instead? It reminded me at first glance of this photo, which also looks like a snapshot of some parked cars and people. http://tinyurl.com/dbpxjm http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=Mod_ViewBox.ViewBoxZoom_VPage&; VBID=2K1HZOY09145W&IT=ImageZoom01&PN=1&STM=T&DTTM=Image&SP=Search&IID=2S5RYD IIGDSX&SAKL=T&SGBT=T&DT=Image This word 'abstract' that people use about photographs is pure bollocks. A photograph cannot be abstract. A photograph has formal geometrical properties which may dominate the subject, as they do in this photograph, but it's not abstract. People also use the term about close-ups and pictures where it's sometimes at first difficult to recognise what the subject is. But they are not abstract, they're just close-ups. It's a misuse of the word, drawn from painting where genuine abstraction is possible. People see they geometric or other non-figurative properties of a painting and think that that's what abstraction means, and consequently misapply it to photographs. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
