PDA

View Full Version : Non traditional photographs



Donald Miller
23-Dec-2007, 03:44
The overwhelming preponderance seems to be threads showing photographs of a traditional (typically representational) nature. How about a thread showing some photographs of a more abstract nature? I will begin with this recent one.

Bill_1856
23-Dec-2007, 07:13
WOW! That's absolutely gorgeous. I hope your printing technique is up to maintaining the brilliance of the composition. (I'd love to have one, but I'm broke.)

Michael Graves
23-Dec-2007, 08:52
Does this qualify?

Matt Miller
23-Dec-2007, 10:05
How about a thread showing some photographs of a more abstract nature?

I know I just used this in a recent thread, but it's a scan I have on hand, and fits here as well.

Donald Miller
23-Dec-2007, 13:06
Thanks Bill,

Matt and Michael, both nice images as well. I especially like the metal Matt...reminds me of some of Brett W's images.

Kirk Gittings
23-Dec-2007, 13:27
Nice image Donald, but .......

"Abstract" images are traditional at this point. Abstraction in photography is at least 70 years old as a valid subject matter. Representational makes more sense than traditional. When "abstracts" have been a common classification at the local camera club for the last 30 years (as long as I have been volunteering as a judge), they are traditional.

adrian tyler
23-Dec-2007, 13:36
happy christmas, new year and kings:

chris_4622
23-Dec-2007, 17:21
4x5 negative scan.

domenico Foschi
23-Dec-2007, 20:15
The overwhelming preponderance seems to be threads showing photographs of a traditional (typically representational) nature. How about a thread showing some photographs of a more abstract nature? I will begin with this recent one.

Donald, your work is excellent!

vinny
23-Dec-2007, 20:44
here goes

Jrewt
23-Dec-2007, 20:53
I've been shooting abstracts exclusively for awhile now.. I can't seem to be "representational".. My abstracts get puzzled responses. Well, I guess most of the photographs get crummy responses, but what do they know? :(

Anyways, heres one of my favorites:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/510393302_0cf468d725.jpg

Donald Miller
24-Dec-2007, 01:05
Nice image Donald, but .......

"Abstract" images are traditional at this point. Abstraction in photography is at least 70 years old as a valid subject matter. Representational makes more sense than traditional. When "abstracts" have been a common classification at the local camera club for the last 30 years (as long as I have been volunteering as a judge), they are traditional.

Kirk, Interesting comment but... With all due respect, you seem to have failed to understand what I said in my opening statement. I addressed the subject matter in threads such as this...not representational versus abstraction in photography as a whole.

Makes more sense in what way and to whom? Given that your statement about making more sense may hold true to some people and in some ways does that mean that your assessment holds true for all? Are you elevating yourself to a peer position to dictate what should be true for all? Beyond that what in the heck does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Happy holidays!!!

Donald Miller
24-Dec-2007, 05:24
Adrian, Chris, Vinny, and Jrewt thanks for posting your images...very nice images all.

Domenico, Thanks for your generous compliment.

matthew blais
24-Dec-2007, 09:28
One of my latest Silver prints..

zoneVIII
24-Dec-2007, 09:41
this one maybe, thx for sharing ur great images http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/6529/malingpingvg0.jpg

Donald Miller
24-Dec-2007, 09:53
Matthew and Zone VIII, Thanks for sharing another two great images. Happy holidays to one and all.

Kirk Gittings
24-Dec-2007, 10:12
Donald have you ever heard of Historic Modernism? Moderism (of which abstraction is a vital part) as a movement is old enough now to be classified as historic. Not my opinion, common knowledge, even on the Antiques Road show.

sparq
24-Dec-2007, 10:20
I am not sure if this one qualifies, but I'll give it a shot. It is cheating anyway. :D

Doug Howk
24-Dec-2007, 10:47
A current photography exhibit at Gainesville, FL sites 70 master photographers of the 20th Century as being in the Modernist tradition. One of the dominant styles in the exhibit is abstraction. Some of Strands early work might fit, as well as prints by Brett Weston, Aaron Siskind, Bruce Barnbaum & many others. Just received one of Barnbaum's Tone Poems book which demonstrates him as a master of abstract photography. Some of the best are those that find patterns in Nature yet lose their referential basis.
An old print>

Ben Hopson
24-Dec-2007, 11:47
One from a day in the junkyard.

Jorge Gasteazoro
24-Dec-2007, 12:09
I have a couple I just made that are somewhat interesting (I think) simply because they are presented in a different way from what they are.

Sunrise is the top of a door which I presented upside down and one a simple photograph of a drain hole.. :)

Donald Miller
24-Dec-2007, 12:17
Donald have you ever heard of Historic Modernism? Moderism (of which abstraction is a vital part) as a movement is old enough now to be classified as historic. Not my opinion, common knowledge, even on the Antiques Road show.


Kirk, You continue to want to discuss something apart from the stated purpose of this thread. Can you tell me why that is the case? I ask that question because, quite honestly, I am confused by the content of your contributions. It seems that your contributions are intended to take things off their stated direction. I do not care to discuss abstraction and it's place in the historical or hierarchal scheme of things. I simply wanted to post and see some images that were not typical illustrative depictions of known objects. Is that too much to ask? If you want to discuss this in the context that you wish then you might consider starting a thread to discuss it.

I get kind of upset when I watch the Antiques Road Show (which happens quite rarely, by the way) and see the value of some of the "junk" I threw away in my lifetime. Have a great holiday season!!!

Donald Miller
24-Dec-2007, 12:20
Doug, Sparq, Ben and Jorge...great images. I like each of them for certain distinctive qualities that are individually inherent in each of them.

Struan Gray
24-Dec-2007, 14:04
God Jul

Eric Biggerstaff
24-Dec-2007, 15:16
Here is one ( I think)

jnantz
26-Dec-2007, 10:04
hi donald

this isn't made with sheet film, or a camera
so if you think it doesn't belong in this thread
i will ask the mods delete the post ...
but this is a printed out 4x5 azo photogram ...

john

Daniel_Buck
26-Dec-2007, 10:36
I already posted the images in the 'new images' thread, so I'll just post a link this time:

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/?p=70


I think I'm going to do more stuff like this, I enjoyed it!

katie cooke
26-Dec-2007, 11:33
if you'll accept cameraless photography in this non-traditional thread, here are a couple of images which are part-photogram and part-chemigram, part printing-out. It's amazing how much colour there is in regular black and white photographic paper...

domenico Foschi
26-Dec-2007, 11:53
John and Katie
congratulations to both of you for the work you posted.
Care to describe the process?

katie cooke
26-Dec-2007, 12:46
thanks, domenico!
These both started off as photograms on regular photographic paper, using printing out in daylight until they went a rich, dark pinkish-orange--the one on the left had a glass jar of water on there to make the caustics and the one on the right had blades of grass scattered over it. Then, in the darkroom, I dropped them into a tray of water, and, using a low-powered torch and a syringe of diluted developer, "painted" with the chemicals. Fixing makes the base colour paler, but permanent.

Playing, really! Lots of fun. I'd recommend trying it, as long as you are happy with chance, chaos, and stacks of wasted paper for the few that come out just right.

rippo
26-Dec-2007, 12:59
nice one Struan!

here's my contribution:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1203/1362973119_31cb5b68b6.jpg

jnantz
26-Dec-2007, 13:11
hi domenico

mine is just a traditional photogram.
bright light and shadow
( since it was azo the light was really bright ) ...
i took the photogram and contact printed it onto
a sheet of ilford mgfb ...

i use ansco130 as my stock developer, and this was a few days old in the tray
for the original photogram, and a few days more than that, for the print ..
i think it had been traybound and cocacola coloured for about 5 or 6 days ..

john

Kirk Gittings
26-Dec-2007, 13:56
Kirk, You continue to want to discuss something apart from the stated purpose of this thread.

I am discussing exactly the purpose of this thread, whose premise contains a statement which is historically inaccurate.

Gordon Moat
26-Dec-2007, 14:22
Seems that rocks, trees, and B/W images are non-traditional . . . though I wonder what we might now define as traditional. Anyway, some very nice images here so far, and here is my contribution:

http://www.gordonmoat.com/landscapes/Gordon_Moat_02.jpg

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

sanking
26-Dec-2007, 14:22
Kirk, You continue to want to discuss something apart from the stated purpose of this thread. Can you tell me why that is the case? I ask that question because, quite honestly, I am confused by the content of your contributions. It seems that your contributions are intended to take things off their stated direction. I do not care to discuss abstraction and it's place in the historical or hierarchal scheme of things. I simply wanted to post and see some images that were not typical illustrative depictions of known objects. Is that too much to ask? If you want to discuss this in the context that you wish then you might consider starting a thread to discuss it.

I get kind of upset when I watch the Antiques Road Show (which happens quite rarely, by the way) and see the value of some of the "junk" I threw away in my lifetime. Have a great holiday season!!!

Donald,

Your first post clearly establishes a categorization that implies that abstract imagery is non-traditional. Hell, the name of the thread itself is “Non traditional photographs. “You write:

"The overwhelming preponderance seems to be threads showing photographs of a traditional (typically representational) nature. How about a thread showing some photographs of a more abstract nature? I will begin with this recent one."

Kirk merely pointed out that abstract photography at this point in time is quite traditional, as one can readily ascertain by a cursory examination of the histories of photography, most of which contain sections or chapters on abstract photography.

If in fact all you had wanted to do was have some folks show some abstract images you might simply have asked for that rather than attempting to establish a false distinction between the traditional and the abstract.

In any event, some of the images posted here are quite interesting.


Sandy King

Greg Lockrey
26-Dec-2007, 15:34
Not to stir the pot, but I also agree with Kirk's definition. When I took a course in college called "Non-Traditional Photography" it was about using photgraphic materials to make photos without the benifit of using a camera. Examples were making photos from using objects like leaves contacted on photopaper/ film and exposed to light. Katie's images are very excellent examples of the process. Abstract photos made with a camera are just that "Abstracts" and they are traditional in nature.

tim atherton
26-Dec-2007, 15:43
Kirk, Interesting comment but... With all due respect, you seem to have failed to understand what I said in my opening statement. I addressed the subject matter in threads such as this...not representational versus abstraction in photography as a whole.

Makes more sense in what way and to whom? Given that your statement about making more sense may hold true to some people and in some ways does that mean that your assessment holds true for all? Are you elevating yourself to a peer position to dictate what should be true for all? Beyond that what in the heck does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Happy holidays!!!

Almost all of the photographs presented so far (with the exception of one or two such as Struan's?) are very very tradition photographs. There's not really anything "non-traditional" about them at all

(which isn't to speak to their quality at all)

rippo
26-Dec-2007, 15:45
everyone is locking onto a literal reading of "non-traditional", which is understandable. however donald seems to have meant "not run of the mill", "non-standard", "not garden variety" etc. so can't we just accept the miswording and put up some nice, abstract pictures?

or even put up some nice non-traditional pictures, whatever those might be. probably would involve photoshop.

as for photograms...they're very nice. but hardly non-traditional. photograms predate lens-based photography, from what i recall. :)

seems like a fair share of post-xmas blues around here.

Donald Miller
26-Dec-2007, 15:55
everyone is locking onto a literal reading of "non-traditional", which is understandable. however donald seems to have meant "not run of the mill", "non-standard", "not garden variety" etc. so can't we just accept the miswording and put up some nice, abstract pictures?

or even put up some nice non-traditional pictures, whatever those might be. probably would involve photoshop.

as for photograms...they're very nice. but hardly non-traditional. photograms predate lens-based photography, from what i recall. :)

seems like a fair share of post-xmas blues around here.sd

Thank God,
Someone understands what the hell I meant. It seems that there are some here who want nothing more than to make their nuts by picking nits...For those who fit that category... that will be readily apparent when one reads the responses to this thread. I will leave it to you to argue among yourselves and you can pick apart your run of the mill pictures. I am out of here...your argumentative positions bore me to the point of nausea. It is interesting to me that those who contend to be such experts have difficulty with the use of our native language let alone spelling it correctly.

One appropriate response for Kirk or Sandy would have been to post an image appropriate to the thread...to argue about designations or definitions does nothing more than indicate one's self consumed orientation to their fellows.

I am willing to wager as much money as anyone wants to wager that my posted image is not traditional...it has never been done before and will not be repeated unless someone copies it...and I hope the hell that happens.

tim atherton
26-Dec-2007, 16:03
everyone is locking onto a literal reading of "non-traditional", which is understandable. however donald seems to have meant "not run of the mill", "non-standard", "not garden variety" etc. so can't we just accept the miswording and put up some nice, abstract pictures?

But most of these are just that - standard examples of a longstanding genre - albeit many are very good examples of such work.

jnantz
26-Dec-2007, 17:37
SNIP




as for photograms...they're very nice. but hardly non-traditional. photograms predate lens-based photography, from what i recall. :)


yep,
talbot's first images were photograms of leaves ...
but in the context of this forum, they are not the typical
landscape, portrait, architectural view, or still life ..

i'd be happy to have it removed, if donald thinks it is too far off
from LF photography to be included in this thread, but seeing it was made
with 4x5"azo paper --- i figured it was close ;)

paulr
26-Dec-2007, 22:34
It seems that there are some here who want nothing more than to make their nuts by picking nits...

I read the whole thread, and it just seems to me that Kirk was trying to add some clarity. I don't know why you're fighting with him; you should thank him. I was confused at first by the title of the thread. He said exactly what i was thinking.


I am willing to wager as much money as anyone wants to wager that my posted image is not traditional...it has never been done before and will not be repeated unless someone copies it...and I hope the hell that happens.

Here you're doing another version of what you did in your first post: implying that two unrelated things are the same. In the beginning the implication was "abstract=non-traditional." Now it's "doesn't look precisely like something else=not traditional."

Even a picture I take of a sunset or of a flower in a vase will not be exactly, to the last detail, like any other picture taken before. But this says nothing about whether or not it falls into a well-worn tradition.

I like your picture a lot. And I have indeed not seen a picture that looks exactly like it. But it fits squarely into a tradition formal modern abstraction that's been around since world war one. In fact it's not just traditional; at this point in history it's retro.

If you look at abstract work from Weston (both Edward and Brett), Strand, Paul Sheeler, Alvin Langdon Coburn, Walker Evans, or Aaron Siskind, you won't have a hard time finding the tradition we're talking about.

Kirk Gittings
26-Dec-2007, 23:52
I agree completely with Paul here:


Even a picture I take of a sunset or of a flower in a vase will not be exactly, to the last detail, like any other picture taken before. But this says nothing about whether or not it falls into a well-worn tradition.

I like your picture a lot. And I have indeed not seen a picture that looks exactly like it. But it fits squarely into a tradition formal modern abstraction that's been around since world war one. In fact it's not just traditional; at this point in history it's retro.

And to illustrate the point, none of my work
has never been done before and will not be repeated unless someone copies it. but it is all traditional.

Donald Miller
27-Dec-2007, 02:58
I agree completely with Paul here:



And to illustrate the point, none of my work but it is all traditional.

Kirk and Paul, If I understand you correctly, appearance of the print counts for everything and process and technique count for absolutely nothing. Let me clearly state that my image is non traditional because of the appearance and the technique used. When you say that it is "all traditional" that may be true from appearances only...in the case of the image that I posted, it is definitely not traditional on the basis of the behavior or action that was involved in it's creation.

Since this thread has been hijacked because of a narrow interpretation of a word (erroneously, I might add) by Kirk, let me begin by indicating that there has been a massive leap of logic that is erroneous, unwarranted, and deserving of an apology. In plain language, it would appear to me, that Kirk pole vaulted over a mouse turd and landed in a pile of crap. I say this because Kirk immediately jumped to a conclusion without asking a single question about the origin or the creation of my photograph. Which brings me to the point of asking "How in the hell did he learn to read minds?"

To wit: The word traditional has it's roots in the word tradition. In other words traditional is indicative of a condition that is predisposed by the meaning of the word tradition.

The definition of the word tradition is as follows:
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2. something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition

Now, nowhere does it say in these definitions that appearances are the sole qualifier of a practice of tradition...while appearance may be involved, the single largest determiner of tradition would seem to be defined by a single quality...that being a behavior or an action.

Now this is why I said earlier that there seems to be a major disconnect when it comes to the use of our native (English) language...no questions (none, nada, zilche) on my photograph or it's creation. It would seem that either Kirk is paranormal or he is making ill conceived judgments solely on the basis of appearance. Whose failure has this been? Well it sure doesn't seem to be on this end. I would go on to say that this is not a condition visited on Kirk alone. Paul seems to be saying the same thing when he suggests that I revisit the work of some photographers and in so doing seems to relegate me to a position in which I do not belong without knowing a damned thing about how my photograph was created...once again only appearances used in making a judgement...either that or, my God, the mind reading seems to be a contagious condition.

Now I said at the beginning of this thread that I was posting a non traditional photograph...I asked others to do the same. I will continue to reiterate that my photograph is non-traditional based upon an action...the way of producing my image is not traditional. Should the need or the opportunity with sufficient financial incentives arise, I am prepared to prove that as being true.

I think that we can all agree, here, that I have no control over what others may post in the way of images. I tried to keep the thread to it's stated objective of posting a certain type of image without having it hijacked by someone who, by virtue of the clear evidence here, apparently has very little understanding or knowledge of the use of the English language.

Now I am convinced enough about my image being non traditional that I am willing to put up some of my money provided that Kirk, Sandy, or Paul ...those who want to continue to advocate their belief of the validity of their position...are willing to do the same. I think that I would be willing to put up something that is worthwhile...a couple of hundred thousand dollars should fit that criteria...and let a judge in an open court decide if my use of the term was appropriate or not...based upon the image that I posted and the manner in which it was brought into existence. I would not want to do this for less than $50,000.00

The winner of this matter would take all of the money...the loser pays for all of the costs related to the determination of the accurate and valid position. Sound fair? I think so...I hope that each and every one of you think so too.

That having been said, I think that unless you, individually, are willing to put your money where your mouths are we have nothing further to discuss.

Greg Lockrey
27-Dec-2007, 04:11
Donald, you are arguing definitions of art with a couple of guys who teach or have taught fine art photography at the university level. I don't know your background other than you make some nice images, but when someone says "let's go to court" or "you wanna bet", you already lost your argument. Non-tradional photography is typically about the process using photographic materials to make images without either negatives or cameras. The process is so unique that the image can not be repeated using the same process. Now your image looks to me to be a abstract photo done with a camera of some pieces of metal the are rolled in a manner similar to a ribbon. You will have to answer yourself, can multible images of this be made? If yes, then it's traditional. What is it about your process that apparently no one is seeing that makes it non-traditional?

Donald Miller
27-Dec-2007, 04:40
Donald, you are arguing definitions of art with a couple of guys who teach or have taught fine art photography at the university level. I don't know your background other than you make some nice images, but when someone says "let's go to court" or "you wanna bet", you already lost your argument. Non-tradional photography is typically about the process using photographic materials to make images without either negatives or cameras. The process is so unique that the image can not be repeated using the same process. Now your image looks to me to be a abstract photo done with a camera of some pieces of metal the are rolled in a manner similar to a ribbon. You will have to answer yourself, can multible images of this be made? If yes, then it's traditional. What is it about your process that apparently no one is seeing that makes it non-traditional?


Greg, I already answered that question of repeatability earlier...I clearly stated "no".

I am a person who chooses my words. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

It appears that you also are making a judgment based upon appearances...that can be a treacherous place in this discussion. My process is non-traditional...I will divulge that process under the appropriate conditions...which, as I stated earlier, quite apparently is not at this moment.

As someone once told me "Money talks and B.S. walks"...Have a Happy New Year!!!!!

Greg Lockrey
27-Dec-2007, 05:13
Greg, I already answered that question of repeatability earlier...I clearly stated "no".

I am a person who chooses my words. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

It appears that you also are making a judgment based upon appearances...that can be a treacherous place in this discussion. My process is non-traditional...I will divulge that process under the appropriate conditions...which, as I stated earlier, quite apparently is not at this moment.

As someone once told me "Money talks and B.S. walks"...Have a Happy New Year!!!!!

I must have missed your statement about repeatability. Once the columns get passed a couple of paragraphs, my mind wanders, Old Timers I guess. ;)

Not arguing anything, just trying to find out what the magical process is. After all, we are looking at a small digital file on a computer screen which changes things a lot too. No digital file can ever do an original any kind of justice. As for being worth $50k to find out, sorry it ain't that good even if it took a year and 15 bald naked virgins to make it. Happy New Year to you too!!!

Doug Howk
27-Dec-2007, 05:48
From Wikipedia
The word tradition comes from the Latin word traditio which means "to hand down" or "to hand over." It is used in a number of ways in the English language:

1. Beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally. For example, we can speak of the tradition of sending birth announcements.
2. A set of customs or practices. For example, we can speak of Christmas traditions.
3. A broad religious movement made up of religious denominations or church bodies that have a common history, customs, culture, and, to some extent, body of teachings. For example, one can speak of Islam's Sufi tradition or Christianity's Lutheran tradition.

However, on a more basic theoretical level, tradition(s) can be seen as information or composed of information. For that which is brought into the present from the past, in a particular societal context, is information. This is even more fundamental than particular acts or practices even if repeated over a long sequence of time. For such acts or practices, once performed, disappear unless they have been transformed into some manner of communicable information. Hate to get involved in a pointless semantics argument; but, from above, it would appear that "traditional" is more than action but rather can include information. So, how a photograph looks (its information content) as well as how it is produced can be traditional.

jnantz
27-Dec-2007, 06:02
*yawn*

traditional, non traditional, abstract, representational ... who cares ?

at this point we all know what was intended,
and i at least would rather look at images than read a thesis.

Annie M.
27-Dec-2007, 08:27
'My process is non-traditional...I will divulge that process under the appropriate conditions...which, as I stated earlier, quite apparently is not at this moment.'

my guess... ( a mystery process just begs for guesses) a computor generated collage based upon a mathematical formula derived from nature... fractal... golden section or some such...

Kirk Gittings
27-Dec-2007, 10:38
If you want to claim that your process is non-traditional, more power to you (you never mentioned the process until like your 9th post, up until then it was "image"). However, the image you made is classic traditional formal modern abstraction (in Paul's words). Many of my traditional images are printed digitally. That doesn't change in any way shape or form the fact that they are traditional images just as yours is.

David Millard
27-Dec-2007, 11:06
I am a person who chooses my words. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

!

Although I appreciate seeing the images submitted because of Donald Miller's thread, I'm still reminded of Humpty Dumpty's response to Alice: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less".

paulr
27-Dec-2007, 11:26
It appears that you also are making a judgment based upon appearances...

Um, well, yeah. It's visual art, isn't it? Should I judge it by how it smells?

Seriously, Don, you might have crafted that picture with some combination of witchcraft and nanotechnology for all I know. It's still a very traditional image. And I still like it. And I still have no idea why you're getting bent out of shape over this.

domenico Foschi
27-Dec-2007, 11:56
In my opinion, all photography is abstraction,especially black and white, at different degrees.
Just the action to isolate the subject for sake of composition puts the work in that realm.
I have seen images of Cartier Bresson depicting people that take me uncompromisingly into that realm.
The word Abstract comes from the latin abstractus which means to take from.
To extrapolate the essence of something as seen by the artist and showing it.
Donald, I didn't see any intention on Kirk's side to be critical or rude with his post.
Let's have fun with this.

BrianShaw
27-Dec-2007, 12:18
'My process is non-traditional...I will divulge that process under the appropriate conditions...which, as I stated earlier, quite apparently is not at this moment.'

my guess... ( a mystery process just begs for guesses) a computor generated collage based upon a mathematical formula derived from nature... fractal... golden section or some such...

My guess is that it is visual trickery done with mirrors. The image reminds me of work Barbara Kasten did in the 1980's.

(edit: whether traditional or non-traditional, or whether the creator chooses to divulge the process or not, I like the image.)

(more edit: and... no matter what the "correct answer" is, I also like the discussion of concepts and terminology. I feel like I'm in college again - and that is a good thing!)

paulr
27-Dec-2007, 12:58
In my opinion, all photography is abstraction,especially black and white, at different degrees.
Just the action to isolate the subject for sake of composition puts the work in that realm.
I have seen images of Cartier Bresson depicting people that take me uncompromisingly into that realm.
The word Abstract comes from the latin abstractus which means to take from.
To extrapolate the essence of something as seen by the artist and showing it.
Donald, I didn't see any intention on Kirk's side to be critical or rude with his post.
Let's have fun with this.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's still a useful term, though. Some pictures succeed as abstractions, but also depict something in a representational way. We're less likely to call those pictures abstract than we are pictures that try to be purely formal.

Greg Lockrey
27-Dec-2007, 14:00
(more edit: and... no matter what the "correct answer" is, I also like the discussion of concepts and terminology. I feel like I'm in college again - and that is a good thing!)

Me too, but we be doing this in Latin.:D

Kirk Keyes
27-Dec-2007, 15:20
I will continue to reiterate that my photograph is non-traditional based upon an action...the way of producing my image is not traditional.

You mean you used DIGITIAL??

Dan Schwartz
27-Dec-2007, 16:01
I'm with you on this one, wanting to see images: This pissing contest reminds me of movie & music performers talking about politics. As Laura Ingraham put it succinctly to the Barbra Streisands out there...

"Shut up and sing"


*yawn*

traditional, non traditional, abstract, representational ... who cares ?

at this point we all know what was intended,
and i at least would rather look at images than read a thesis.

Donald Miller
27-Dec-2007, 19:00
***

Donald Miller
27-Dec-2007, 19:06
You mean you used DIGITIAL??

What do you mean? Do you mean digital?

jetcode
27-Dec-2007, 19:24
One from a day in the junkyard.

junk is my favorite, shipping yards, car barns, etc

Kirk Keyes
27-Dec-2007, 20:06
What do you mean? Do you mean digital?

Yes, I typed what I meant. ;^)

Of course, "digital".

Kirk Keyes
27-Dec-2007, 20:08
***

Shots of reflections on mylar?

But they look like digitally created simulations of reflections.

Jrewt
27-Dec-2007, 20:15
http://www.apug.org/gallery/data/500/Paint-on-Floor_-LITH-copy.jpg

Donald Miller
28-Dec-2007, 01:18
Shots of reflections on mylar?

But they look like digitally created simulations of reflections.

Not

Donald Miller
28-Dec-2007, 01:20
Yes, I typed what I meant. ;^)

Of course, "digital".

Not

Donald Miller
28-Dec-2007, 01:20
Jrewt, I like this a lot...very nice.

paulr
28-Dec-2007, 07:43
My work has so far been pretty traditional, but here are some images by my friend Anne McDonald, which strike me as unusual both in content and process.

The first is from a series called "the body in transformation." She made them by essentially making a photogram of herself on mural paper, and then developing, toning, and bleaching each inch of the paper by hand with an assorment of witches brew chemicals from the darkroom, kitchen, and bathroom. Some of the work was done in the dark, and some in direct sunlight, to develop out and solarize portions of the image.

The second is from her "botanicals" series, which were made by placing objects both on the photo paper and on the negative carrier.

Anne's "body in transformation" work is the most beautifully analog work I've seen. She's exploring things that can ONLY be done with traditional materials ... in the same way that painters, after photography came along, started doing things that could only be done with paint.

Colin Graham
28-Dec-2007, 08:04
Nice work Paul, thanks for posting it.

paulr
28-Dec-2007, 11:09
More of her work at www.anneardenmcdonald.com

Kirk Gittings
28-Dec-2007, 12:27
Paul, Some really interesting work there. Thanks for sharing that.

Colin Graham
31-Dec-2007, 19:29
Very nice indeed. Just realized one of her self-portraits was used as cover art for one of my favorite albums, Freedy Johnston's Can You Fly.

Vaughn
3-Jan-2008, 01:58
Here is an abstract image. I'll leave the worries about non-traditional lables alone.

Two 4x5 negatives...ceiling of a lava tube in NE California. Scanned from contact print (negs printed together). Actual work is two 16x20 prints.

Vaughn

Jrewt
3-Jan-2008, 09:37
Here is one from this past saturday... Only got to shoot one sheet before a dozen 14-15 year olds showed up and bugged me till I left =)

http://www.apug.org/gallery/data/500/Moore-Cove-Wall-2-copy.jpg

Jim Galli
3-Jan-2008, 10:45
Here's mine. Someone tell me if it is traditional non-traditional or non-traditional non-traditional.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/TrainsPlainsAutomobiles/Inyo.jpg
Inyo

Done with the secret weapon lens (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Secret%20Weapon%20Lens/Everything_with_Nothing.html).

rippo
3-Jan-2008, 11:04
well if "what's old is new" holds, then it would non-traditional. i think.

did you dig up one of those old print vignetters for this one? someone gave me one of those recently and i chucked it. :)

Jim Galli
3-Jan-2008, 11:07
well if "what's old is new" holds, then it would non-traditional. i think.

did you dig up one of those old print vignetters for this one? someone gave me one of those recently and i chucked it. :)
Thanks. No the lens did the vignetting and I added the oval matt in PS.

Donald Miller
3-Jan-2008, 11:15
Another camera captured photograph. I will classify this one as traditional.

Gordon Moat
3-Jan-2008, 12:30
Hello Jim Galli,

Maybe somewhat traditional by the usage of B/W, though the approach is not very common. I suppose recycling old ideas, and old gear, could be more avant garde.

I thought a little about Charles Sheeler (http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Charles_Sheeler/5.L.htm) when viewing that image. While I don't think Sheeler is thought of as being traditional, his way of looking at the world was unique. He also seemed to have an interest in industry, particularly trains (http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=61841&handle=li).

I would think many people would consider B/W landscape shots to be traditional photography. This has more to do with style, than with picking a time period. If we consider how long ago André Kertész (http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=62333&handle=li) produced his distortions series, on time alone it would be traditional; yet so few have done similar images that if these were shown today to someone not familiar with Kertész, then they might be considered non-traditional.

About the only thing really surprising me on this thread is the lack of colour photography. Are there really so few of us here doing colour large format on this forum?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

paulr
3-Jan-2008, 13:06
I thought a little about Charles Sheeler (http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Charles_Sheeler/5.L.htm) when viewing that image. While I don't think Sheeler is thought of as being traditional, his way of looking at the world was unique.

At the SFMOMA exhibit a few years ago of the Paul and Prentice Sack collection of modern photography, both the curator and Mr. Sack considered Sheeler's Bucks County Barn picture to be the most important, innovative one in the show (among numerous Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, Evans, etc. pictures. The reason is the date: at 1915, it was the first example anyone knew about of this kind of planar, abstract modernism in photography.

Hearing this was an interesting lesson ... the picture is great but it's hard to imagine singling it out from all those others unless you knew its context as well as the historians do.

Jeremy Moore
3-Jan-2008, 13:11
Are there really so few of us here doing colour large format on this forum?

I think it's an expense thing. I'd shoot color large format (in addition to b&w) if it wasn't exponentially more expensive than b&w. So my color work stays in the digital and medium format realm... if I could only find a good deal on a Sinar Zoom then the Deardorff would see some color 120 run through it :)

Edit to add: by looking at the age and the work shown here, lots of people got into large format due to western american landscape influences (be they Adams or Weston) which is, for the most part, b&w. This may also have something to do with it.

Gordon Moat
3-Jan-2008, 13:21
I think I sometimes miss the cost aspect Jeremy mentions, because largely my film cost is passed on to commercial clients. So I had not really considered that aspect.

I have a Linhof Super Rollex back for my 4x5 largely because I wanted to use films not available as 4x5, such as Kodak E200, and lately Fuji 400X. An additional benefit is the crop gives you more composition options over 4x5 without needing to carry more lenses.

As Paul mentions above, in regards to Sheeler, context is an important aspect of whether or not an image is traditional or non-traditional. One thing that occurs to me in this is that in 1915, when that image was made, people just did not do this sort of photography; it was somewhat of a rare and unique approach. Such an image today might hardly get noticed, without the explanation.

So in a way I think Jim Galli is doing some non-traditional imaging, because his images fall outside of the norm of what the average (non-photographer) viewer would see. Perhaps if we used the term contemporary instead of traditional, then we might consider the work differently . . . though perhaps that is better left to a different thread sometime in the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Jeremy Moore
3-Jan-2008, 14:22
I think I sometimes miss the cost aspect Jeremy mentions, because largely my film cost is passed on to commercial clients. So I had not really considered that aspect.

Yes, I think between buying the film and paying the development cost it's ~$3.75/shot last I looked. With my black and white I purchased 300 sheets of b&w at $0.25/sheet and I spent $50 buying bulk chemicals to mix up developer, etc.

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 13:55
1DsIII, 24-105mm @ 50, hand held, 2x3 stitch, 10441x11251

http://alan-george.com/tmp/082Q2800-5.jpg

Jim Galli
4-Jan-2008, 14:01
1DsIII, 24-105mm @ 50, hand held, 2x3 stitch, 10441x11251



This is the Large Format Forum.

??

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 15:51
1DsIII, 24-105mm @ 50, hand held, 2x3 stitch, 10441x11251


This is the Large Format Forum.

??

Yes this is....

and stitches are allowed.

Jim Galli
4-Jan-2008, 16:11
Yes this is....

and stitches are allowed.
Fair enough, it's not my forum and I have no say in rules or expectations, but explain to me what exactly is non traditional beyond the fact that you did not use a Large Format camera. The picture is painfully ordinary. Whoopee.

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 16:55
Fair enough, it's not my forum and I have no say in rules or expectations, but explain to me what exactly is non traditional beyond the fact that you did not use a Large Format camera. The picture is painfully ordinary. Whoopee.

More "painfully ordinary"...

1DsIII, 50mm, I did use a tripod this time, 2x4 stitch, 12341x10060

http://alan-george.com/tmp/082Q2702-9.jpg

scrichton
4-Jan-2008, 17:27
Painfully Ordinary
Or contemporary commentary? Very Stephen Shore in approach.
As I am sure we can all agree stitch/no-stitch/digital/film .. the thought process conveyed is one which applies to how most of us will carefully approach an image when using a bigger light gathering plane.

ageorge ... keep firing them in.

(lets try to always sidestep the bickering about the medium used and move apart from it whenever we can, this forum must have a horrific proportion of threads overtaken by the LF debates. After all the end result is what everyone should be concentrating on.)

Jan Pedersen
4-Jan-2008, 18:16
(lets try to always sidestep the bickering about the medium used and move apart from it whenever we can, this forum must have a horrific proportion of threads overtaken by the LF debates. After all the end result is what everyone should be concentrating on.)


This is the large format forum, not photo.net

cobalt
4-Jan-2008, 18:20
Kirk, You continue to want to discuss something apart from the stated purpose of this thread. Can you tell me why that is the case? I ask that question because, quite honestly, I am confused by the content of your contributions. It seems that your contributions are intended to take things off their stated direction. I do not care to discuss abstraction and it's place in the historical or hierarchal scheme of things. I simply wanted to post and see some images that were not typical illustrative depictions of known objects. Is that too much to ask? If you want to discuss this in the context that you wish then you might consider starting a thread to discuss it.

I get kind of upset when I watch the Antiques Road Show (which happens quite rarely, by the way) and see the value of some of the "junk" I threw away in my lifetime. Have a great holiday season!!!

Well stated, Donald.
And, excellent thread starter, accompanied by equally superior work.
I have no images at hand, and unfortunately cannot contribute at this time.

Jim Galli
4-Jan-2008, 18:20
Bickering aside, I don't see where either photo fits the intent of the thread other than to say look at me, I can make a digital picture soooooooo big. Now if you looked into the mud pattern in the greenish ooze at the bottom of the second photo and stitched a few giga pixels of the pattern in the mud that at least would satisfy the threads intent. Have fun with your Canon Mr. George.

Daniel_Buck
4-Jan-2008, 18:48
here is something interesting (I think)

http://404photography.net/wip/scs_challenge_04.jpg

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 18:53
Bickering aside, I don't see where either photo fits the intent of the thread other than to say look at me, I can make a digital picture soooooooo big. Now if you looked into the mud pattern in the greenish ooze at the bottom of the second photo and stitched a few giga pixels of the pattern in the mud that at least would satisfy the threads intent.

Jim,

The title of the thread is "Non traditional photographs", given the context of this forum and the images that are typically posted, I consider those two images non-traditional. If you see differently, please explain, in what way are these images traditional?


Have fun with your Canon Mr. George.

I will, thank you.

Greg Lockrey
4-Jan-2008, 19:08
This is a pinhole image . The intent was to photograph the interior of a room. The exposure was about an hour. Low and behold, a plant "walked" into the picture.:)

Shen45
4-Jan-2008, 22:32
This is the large format forum, not photo.net

I agree with Jan and Jim.

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 22:59
This is the large format forum, not photo.net

I agree with Jan and Jim.

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

You can ping QT on it, but as I understand it, stitching is allowed. If that bothers you, perhaps you should raise it with QT or perhaps you would be happier sticking with APUG:)

It's my opinion that this is a "non-traditional photograph" (given the context), which reading the title on this thread, is what this thread is about.

1DsII, 45mm, tripod w/ RRS pano head, 2x4 stitch, 8623x7349

http://alan-george.com/tmp/XI9Q0887-94.jpg

Andrew O'Neill
4-Jan-2008, 23:01
so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

Exactly.

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 23:20
so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.


Exactly.

Again, you can ping QT on it, but it's my understanding that stitching is allowed.

Another color "non-traditional" photograph....

1DsII, 45mm, 2x4 stitch, 9640x8811

http://alan-george.com/tmp/XI9Q0630-5.jpg

Greg Lockrey
4-Jan-2008, 23:31
Why are we being subjected to this blasphemy?:eek: :eek: :eek:

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 23:31
Another "non-traditional" and perhaps controversial (http://www.horseinfo.com/info/misc/jockeyinfo.html) stitched photograph....


1DsII, 45mm, 2x3 stitch, 7172x6624

http://alan-george.com/tmp/XI9Q0734-39.jpg

ageorge
4-Jan-2008, 23:42
Why are we being subjected to this blasphemy?:eek: :eek: :eek:

blas·phe·my - impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

"God or sacred things", hummmmm

Greg Lockrey
4-Jan-2008, 23:46
blas·phe·my - impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

"God or sacred things", hummmmm

Large format is sacred.:(

ageorge
5-Jan-2008, 00:05
Large format is sacred.:(

dog·ma - a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

traditional or non-traditional?

1DsII, 50mm, 2x3 stitch, 7040x7277

http://alan-george.com/tmp/XI9Q2135-40.jpg

Greg Lockrey
5-Jan-2008, 00:14
Interesting effect.

Gordon Moat
5-Jan-2008, 00:33
Considering that D-SLRs are now somewhat common, and there is nothing really new about stitching, that would imply that the technique and tools are now traditional. Without your explanation of tools and technique, we are left with the images. Those are how we should decide traditional or non-traditional, and not how they were created. Just on subject matter, I would place them in the style of the Beckers, or similar manufactured landscapes . . . somewhat contemporary, though by now this style might have been around long enough to fit the traditional moniker.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Daniel_Buck
5-Jan-2008, 00:59
how about we just get back onto topic and stop arguing. How about more folks post up images! :) I think we are mature enough to do that!

domenico Foschi
5-Jan-2008, 01:04
Ageorge, I might not like your attitude, but I am enjoying your images

kjsphotography
5-Jan-2008, 03:41
My work has so far been pretty traditional, but here are some images by my friend Anne McDonald, which strike me as unusual both in content and process.

The first is from a series called "the body in transformation." She made them by essentially making a photogram of herself on mural paper, and then developing, toning, and bleaching each inch of the paper by hand with an assorment of witches brew chemicals from the darkroom, kitchen, and bathroom. Some of the work was done in the dark, and some in direct sunlight, to develop out and solarize portions of the image.

The second is from her "botanicals" series, which were made by placing objects both on the photo paper and on the negative carrier.

Anne's "body in transformation" work is the most beautifully analog work I've seen. She's exploring things that can ONLY be done with traditional materials ... in the same way that painters, after photography came along, started doing things that could only be done with paint.

The images of your friends in the post are amazing. Wow... Just beautiful..

Donald Miller
5-Jan-2008, 11:33
A bit more of traditionalism. This is an "in camera" photograph.

Ole Tjugen
5-Jan-2008, 11:41
A bit more of traditionalism. This is an "in camera" photograph.

Hey! That's "crown glass" - the kind that gave the name to the glass type as used in lenses! :)

Donald Miller
5-Jan-2008, 11:44
Hey! That's "crown glass" - the kind that gave the name to the glass type as used in lenses! :)

Really???? Are you sure?

Jorge Gasteazoro
5-Jan-2008, 11:56
Jim,

The title of the thread is "Non traditional photographs", given the context of this forum and the images that are typically posted, I consider those two images non-traditional. If you see differently, please explain, in what way are these images traditional?



I will, thank you.

Yes, stitching is allowed from LARGE FORMAT negatives and transparencies or digital files taken with a LARGE FORMAT CAMERA and a digital back. See that, the key words being LARGE FORMAT and the use of them on obtaining the image.

Stitching from a dslr is no big deal, most here have programs already which do it for you without any problem, all you need is enough memory in your pc.

I might be wrong but I think Donald's intention was for us to show photographs which somehow presented out of the box thinking. Your images are very traditional in the sense that while you are showing a subject matter that might be interesting (to some) they are common place now. As someone mentioned, social commentary a la Stephen Shore..... nothing new about this.

Ted Harris
5-Jan-2008, 13:08
dog·ma - a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds


And here I always thought it meant my mother's dog.

Daniel_Buck
5-Jan-2008, 13:23
Stitching from a dslr is no big deal
neither is stitching from a 4x5 or anything else, stitching is all the same :)

Jorge Gasteazoro
5-Jan-2008, 13:33
neither is stitching from a 4x5 or anything else, stitching is all the same :)
yes, so? at least a LARGE FORMAT CAMERA was used, which I beleive is the focus of this forum....

Ole Tjugen
5-Jan-2008, 13:37
Really???? Are you sure?

This could be a newer "replica", but "crown glass" was originally the lumpy bit from the "bottom" of hand-blown windowpanes: They made a big bottle-thingy, cut it open and used the sides for flat glass, and the lumpy bottom became the "crown". :)

Kirk Gittings
5-Jan-2008, 13:38
Generally, I think Jorge is absolutely right, though the odd demonstration of some point with a DSLR image is probably OK. If we don't keep this kind of standard we will lose the focus and uniqueness of this marvelous resource.

Henry Ambrose
5-Jan-2008, 14:51
Yep, there are plenty of places to go see digicam photos.

If this were a forum for wooden rowing shell users there wouldn't be much point in writing about and posting photos of your fiberglass motor boat - now would there?

ageorge
5-Jan-2008, 14:58
The primary differentiating characteristic of "large format" is its unique descriptive capabilities. It's ability to capture/describe a subject with the utmost detail. All other characteristics are not unique to "large format". With stitching, you can match and even surpass these descriptive capabilities and is very relevant to "Large Format Photography", IMO.

It is my understanding that stitched images are allowed on the forum and until I hear otherwise from QT, this will continue to be my understanding.



I might be wrong but I think Donald's intention was for us to show photographs which somehow presented out of the box thinking. Your images are very traditional in the sense that while you are showing a subject matter that might be interesting (to some) they are common place now. As someone mentioned, social commentary a la Stephen Shore..... nothing new about this.

My interpretation of "traditional" was within the context of what is "traditionally" posted on THIS forum. The idealized BW landscape being the most obvious target. I feel that the images I have posted do fail outside of this "tradition". Are my images unique of all photographic traditions? Certainly not. An image unique of all photographic traditions would be an exceedingly rare and noteworthy event.

1DsII, 45mm, 2x2 stitch, 6479x6457

http://alan-george.com/tmp/XI9Q0164-7.jpg

Daniel_Buck
5-Jan-2008, 15:03
I think everyone's point has been made. Could we stop arguing about it and get on with everyone posting photos again? :)

Greg Lockrey
5-Jan-2008, 15:11
I think everyone's point has been made. Could we stop arguing about it and get on with everyone posting photos again? :)

The more the point is made, the more we get to see these wonderful digital images. :rolleyes:

Jorge Gasteazoro
5-Jan-2008, 15:42
The primary differentiating characteristic of "large format" is its unique descriptive capabilities. It's ability to capture/describe a subject with the utmost detail. All other characteristics are not unique to "large format". With stitching, you can match and even surpass these descriptive capabilities and is very relevant to "Large Format Photography", IMO.




It is obvious that you cannot seem to have the courtesy to adhere to the purpose of this forum which is the use and promoting of LARGE FORMAT, but further more insist on posting lame ass, down right boring pictures with the excuse that they are not traditional because they were taken with a dslr. If this is not stupid twisted logic I don't know what is.

Detail is not the only one of the unique qualities of LF, it is also it's ability to change the plane of focus, and just because you now can simulate the same things with PS it does not make it LARGE FORMAT.

Using a LARGE FORMAT CAMERA is not the same as using a dslr and stitching....but then this is a basic concept you apparently are unable to understand. Why don't you go to photo.net and post your stuff there and stop fouling this forum?

You are a perfect example of the problem with digital and people who use it, you absolutely have to ram it down everybodies throat just because you want to.....

You will probably answer this post with one more boring shitty picture....you know what? once you are put in the ignore list, they fail to appear.... thank god for that.

Ole Tjugen
5-Jan-2008, 16:00
Here's mine:

http://www.bruraholo.no/bilder/POP2.jpg

Linhof Technika 13x18, Xenar 300mm f:4.5, full front and (opposite) rear swing, and a smidgeon of front tilt.

Jorge Gasteazoro
5-Jan-2008, 16:03
Actually, you know what, I have reported your posts and would like an answer from QT and/or the moderators. Stitching dlsr images to make one big file is NOT large format nor does it make it an example of non traditional LARGE FORMAT photography...

Andrew O'Neill
5-Jan-2008, 16:20
Nice image, Ole!

paulr
5-Jan-2008, 17:13
Ageorge, I don't know what's allowed here and what isn't, and personally don't care if your pics are daguerrotypes or from a minox. But I have no idea what's nontraditional about the images. They seem to me to fall squarely in a linneage that moved from Walker Evans to Robert Adams to William Eggleston and Stephen Shore and Joel Meyerowitz, and more recently to guys like Struth and Burtynsky.

Technically speaking, stitching is already a tradition, so you're not talking about that.

It might be true that Romantic and early modern landscapes are common around here, but there are plenty of us doing work that lies outside of that (and some of us doing work in the same tradition you seem to be working in)

Or am I missing something?

Marko
5-Jan-2008, 19:24
Yep, there are plenty of places to go see digicam photos.

There are plenty of places to gripe and moan about them too... :D

Marko
5-Jan-2008, 19:25
Honestly and directly speaking, those among us who are using every opportunity to turn every thread and topic into an apug-like anti-digital bitchfest have no moral right to preach about respecting the purpose of the forum, since they have shown utmost disrespect toward Donald and his intended purpose by drowning this thread with their negativity.

Why is it so hard to say nothing when you don't have anything nice to contribute?

Perhaps it might be a good time to respectfully ask Donald to please restart the thread fresh and give us another chance to simply enjoy nice photographs. It might even succeed now that everybody seems to have made their point, so loud and clear...

BrianShaw
5-Jan-2008, 19:31
Why is it so hard to say nothing when you don't have anything nice to contribute?

Marko, do you have a bandaid to spare - I've been biting my tongue so hard, and for so long, that it is starting to bleed again.


p.s. I've enjoyed almost all of the images in this thread but have been afraid to say it. Oops, I just said it.

Marko
5-Jan-2008, 19:54
Marko, do you have a bandaid to spare - I've been biting my tongue so hard, and for so long, that it is starting to bleed again.

The one I have is not strong enough, I'm afraid, since I've already bitten through it. Ditto for my antacid...

Jim Galli
5-Jan-2008, 20:40
The primary differentiating characteristic of "large format" is its unique descriptive capabilities. It's ability to capture/describe a subject with the utmost detail. All other characteristics are not unique to "large format". With stitching, you can match and even surpass these descriptive capabilities and is very relevant to "Large Format Photography", IMO.



You couldn't be more wrong. Go look at some of my stuff with an 11X14 and a lens that cannot resolve 1 line pair in a mm. Your crappy dslr will never be able to do what real large format can do. It aint just about sharp pictures. Brute force and tonality, maybe, but like it says on my dark room wall, "It's the picture, stupid".

Donald correct me if I'm wrong but I understood your intent to mean those pictures that you hand to someone and they try it 90 180 and 270 degrees out from they way you handed it to them to see which way they like it best.

tim atherton
5-Jan-2008, 20:55
dog·ma - a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

traditional or non-traditional?

1DsII, 50mm, 2x3 stitch, 7040x7277 etc


well, they are all very traditional "New" Topographics/"New" Colour - which is now not quite so "new" and very much a well established tradition in its own right.... :-)

(they are very nice though)

ageorge
5-Jan-2008, 21:57
etc


well, they are all very traditional "New" Topographics/"New" Colour - which is now not quite so "new" and very much a well established tradition in its own right.... :-)



I agree, but using similar arguments all proposed non-traditional photography could be rooted in some tradition. No man is an island....


Considering the context of this forum, what/who's photography would you propose as "non-traditional".

Jrewt
5-Jan-2008, 22:19
?

http://www.apug.org/gallery/data/500/NoosaSky-_LITH_.jpg

paulr
5-Jan-2008, 22:35
I agree, but using similar arguments all proposed non-traditional photography could be rooted in some tradition. No man is an island....

Most things are rooted in one tradition or another, but some make pretty big departures from those roots. The pics I posted in this thread (neither of them by me) have precedents, but strike me as departing from those precedents in important enough ways to call them non-traditional.

And of course, anything truly non-traditional, if people notice it and like it, will probably become the seed of a new tradition. Which is why anything done today that looks like that Sheeler picture, for example, would be considered traditional to the point of being old fashioned.

ageorge
5-Jan-2008, 22:51
Generally, I think Jorge is absolutely right, though the odd demonstration of some point with a DSLR image is probably OK. If we don't keep this kind of standard we will lose the focus and uniqueness of this marvelous resource.

Pray tell, which "standard" am I corrupting by posting these images?

Vaughn
5-Jan-2008, 23:35
Hey Donald! I really enjoyed your last image! Thanks for sharing it!

Vaughn

domenico Foschi
6-Jan-2008, 00:23
jrewt!
Fantastic!
Care to explain the process?

domenico Foschi
6-Jan-2008, 00:53
Pray tell, which "standard" am I corrupting by posting these images?

ageorge,
as I said before I like your images.
I don't have a huge issue with you posting your images,a good image is a good image, although this should still be the Large Format Photography Forum(It has been called that way for a reason).
Do we need to explain that film photography has become a very rarefied branch of photography and Large format photography(film and digital) even more so?
DO we really need to explain that this forum has done and has been doing a lot of good in educating and help to perpetuate this Art form?
This is not an elitist attitude, but, ..should we call it self preservation?
Again, If you had a less confrontational and less childishly attitude, probably you wouldn't have met such resistance from some members.

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 02:21
You couldn't be more wrong. Go look at some of my stuff with an 11X14 and a lens that cannot resolve 1 line pair in a mm. Your crappy dslr will never be able to do what real large format can do. It aint just about sharp pictures. Brute force and tonality, maybe, but like it says on my dark room wall, "It's the picture, stupid".

Donald correct me if I'm wrong but I understood your intent to mean those pictures that you hand to someone and they try it 90 180 and 270 degrees out from they way you handed it to them to see which way they like it best.

Jim, That is along the lines of what I meant in my original post. I wanted to try to start a thread where photographs apart from apparently "known objects" or strictly "representational photographs" would be welcomed and posted. Unfortunately there is one fellow here who chose to contribute in a argumentative way rather than posting an image. I think that I was clear in my original post to this thread what I was suggesting.

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 02:26
Hey Donald! I really enjoyed your last image! Thanks for sharing it!

Vaughn

Thank you Vaughn

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 04:27
In keeping with this thread's stated purpose, another recent photograph made with a self designed and built distortion chamber incorporating more than nine planes of lens/mirror configurations. Taking camera 5X7 Wisner with 450 Nikkor M lens (f22 @thirty seconds incl reciprocity). Film, in this case, was Efke Pl 100 developed in Pyrocat HD and printed on J and C Nuance paper (Adox). Not sure if this makes it a traditional or non-traditional photograph. What do you say it is?

kjsphotography
6-Jan-2008, 04:31
I agree with Jan and Jim.

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

This is exactly the reason I am done with photography. Crap everywhere and yet they call it contemporary! :rolleyes:

Photography in the digital world is a lost art, what a damn shame. If AA was alive today or Bret Weston for that matter, I can guarantee they would not make it as photographers.

How do you compete with crap and more importantly HUGE prints just for the sake of being HUGE with no artistic qualities. People are accepting the ordinary instead of seeking the extraordinary.

What a shame what digital is doing to the photographic art form. You can have it...

I am back to the brush and pencil. Maybe I suck at it, maybe I don't, but at least my hand and skill is involved with no damn computers doing everything for you! :mad:

Slam me as you will as I wont reply anyway....

kjsphotography
6-Jan-2008, 04:34
In keeping with this thread's stated purpose, another recent photograph made with a self designed and built distortion chamber incorporating more than nine planes of lens/mirror configurations. Taking camera 5X7 Wisner with 450 Nikkor M lens (f22 @thirty seconds incl reciprocity). Film, in this case, was Efke Pl 100 developed in Pyrocat HD and printed on J and C Nuance paper (Adox). Not sure if this makes it a traditional or non-traditional photograph. What do you say it is?

Why these are cool if you are indeed using film, they are not out of the ordinary, They are abstract form with emphasis on form and movement. Just like what Brett Weston did with his work, or Minor White for that matter. Yours are more about form and shape but not unusual. Abstract, yes.

They are photographs and interesting ones..

You know, if these were paintings, they would be pretty awesome for sure ;)

Just my opinion.

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 04:56
Jrewt, I agree. These are outstanding.

jnantz
6-Jan-2008, 07:48
...

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 08:08
...
John,

Another fine example of your creative output. As I have told you before, the greatest single aspect of your photography and there are several that are notable, is the fact that you pose questions so very effectively through your imagery. Questions posed are a million times more effective than all of the visual stories told, in my humble opinion.

jnantz
6-Jan-2008, 09:14
John,

Another fine example of your creative output. As I have told you before, the greatest single aspect of your photography and there are several that are notable, is the fact that you pose questions so very effectively through your imagery. Questions posed are a million times more effective than all of the visual stories told, in my humble opinion.

thanks donald -

i appreciate your comment :)

john

windpointphoto
6-Jan-2008, 09:27
How do you compete with crap and more importantly HUGE prints just for the sake of being HUGE with no artistic qualities. People are accepting the ordinary instead of seeking the extraordinary.



Well you're right but that isn't a new thought. There's always been the folks, always more successfull then me, who do the "if you can't print it good, print it big".

matthew blais
6-Jan-2008, 09:44
Here's a gold toned lith print

Jrewt
6-Jan-2008, 09:45
These are negatives made 8 months apart. The lower was taken in Noosa, QLD Australia. The other was made a few weeks ago in order to complete what I felt being on that beach for the short 3 hours that I was there. I made 10 negatives, but only made it the 12,000 miles home with 2 that weren't fogged. Both of the prints are Lith. I used much longer exposures than was needed in order to bring out as much texture as I could. I used a 3" paint brush to move the developer around to get some darker areas out in the water in the lower picture. They are both 8x10 contact prints (I only own one camera), but I plan to print these as 16x20 one day.


jrewt!
Fantastic!
Care to explain the process?

Greg Lockrey
6-Jan-2008, 09:47
Well you're right but that isn't a new thought. There's always been the folks, always more successfull then me, who do the "if you can't print it good, print it big".

Funny, that's what they used to say in art school, "if you're not good, paint it big".

Kirk Keyes
6-Jan-2008, 11:18
In keeping with this thread's stated purpose, another recent photograph made with a self designed and built distortion chamber incorporating more than nine planes of lens/mirror configurations.

So I was close with the mylar guess. You're saying it's like a fancy kaleidoscopes then.

Very nice images.

Do you get migraines a lot?

jetcode
6-Jan-2008, 11:24
I agree with Jan and Jim.

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

clearly for many format is more important than image but I ask kindly which came first: the desire to capture the image? or the desire to create the format?

jetcode
6-Jan-2008, 11:26
Funny, that's what they used to say in art school, "if you're not good, paint it big".

my photo teacher said the same "can't make it good make it big"

Jorge Gasteazoro
6-Jan-2008, 11:29
Pray tell, which "standard" am I corrupting by posting these images?

The standard that using a large format camera forces you to consider your subject more carefully than just snapping away with a dslr, and that you need to know HOW to use a view camera to make your shot more powerful.

For example, your shot of the Biggs cranes. You have the makings of a very powerful shot there, but since you just snapped away with a dslr you missed some wonderful opportunities. You have a very interesting foreground, if I had been with you using my VC I would have set the camera low to the ground, used a bit of a wide angle and tilted the back of the camera towards the back, to give the fore ground more prominence and counterpoint the organic nature of the run off with the hard lines of the cranes and the buidling.

I would also have used a polarizer so that the dark earth at the bottom of the building would have been darker, this giving the shot more drama.

SO you see, there is more to using a LF camera than just getting everything sharp and one big file. It allows you..no, it forces you to THINK about why you are taking the picture, what elements would make the photograph more interesting and to adjust the camera in many different ways to obtain the results you visualize BEFORE you press the shutter.

Using a view camera is much different than using a dslr and the stitching the results...and that is the standard Kirk is talking about.

Jim Galli
6-Jan-2008, 11:34
So I was close with the mylar guess. You're saying it's like a fancy kaleidoscopes then.

Very nice images.

Do you get migraines a lot?

Ahh. They are traditional then ;) Alvin Langdon Coburn did these in 1917. The Vortographs. But yours are different and very beautiful.

Brian Bullen
6-Jan-2008, 12:18
I don't know if this counts, but it was taken with a large format camera.:)

ageorge
6-Jan-2008, 12:50
The standard that using a large format camera forces you to consider your subject more carefully than just snapping away with a dslr, and that you need to know HOW to use a view camera to make your shot more powerful.

For example, your shot of the Biggs cranes. You have the makings of a very powerful shot there, but since you just snapped away with a dslr you missed some wonderful opportunities. You have a very interesting foreground, if I had been with you using my VC I would have set the camera low to the ground, used a bit of a wide angle and tilted the back of the camera towards the back, to give the fore ground more prominence and counterpoint the organic nature of the run off with the hard lines of the cranes and the buidling.

I would also have used a polarizer so that the dark earth at the bottom of the building would have been darker, this giving the shot more drama.

SO you see, there is more to using a LF camera than just getting everything sharp and one big file. It allows you..no, it forces you to THINK about why you are taking the picture, what elements would make the photograph more interesting and to adjust the camera in many different ways to obtain the results you visualize BEFORE you press the shutter.

Using a view camera is much different than using a dslr and the stitching the results...and that is the standard Kirk is talking about.


I idea that using a LF camera is the only way one can have standards is ridiculous. I have and I use a 4x5. The tool I choose does not change my approach to image making. If I had been using my 4x5 for the "Bigge" shot, my approach and resulting image (and standards) would have been exactly the same. Actually, if I would have been using the 4x5, I would not have gotten the "Bigge" image. As it was I was standing on my tip toes on a rock just barely able to see through the viewfinder over a chain link fence as you can see from the image below taken the same time. With the 4x5 I would have passed. The 1DsII(I) and stitching allowed me to get a LF quality image from a situation where I probably wouldn't have with my 4x5. Stitching is not lowering my standards it is increasing them.

http://alan-george.com/tmp/Untitled_Panorama1.jpg

http://alan-george.com/tmp/082Q2800-5.jpg

Jorge Gasteazoro
6-Jan-2008, 13:01
Whatever, just because a shot was difficult to take does not make it good....but if these are your standards so be it. Nevertheless, contrary to what you and the owner of this site think, sitiching images does not a LF quality photograph make nor is it an example of a non traditional LARGE FORMAT image. I guess to you large format = big file...and this is truly ridiculous.

Greg Lockrey
6-Jan-2008, 13:20
Is it my imagination but is that building in the "Bigge" photo leaning to the left?

ageorge
6-Jan-2008, 13:31
Is it my imagination but is that building in the "Bigge" photo leaning to the left?

I image with the big red arrow is not a finished image. It has a multitude of technical issues that would need taking care of. It was simply for illustration purposes.

Gordon Moat
6-Jan-2008, 13:39
The floors and some building edges seem to curve in the stitched shots, and not just the last one posted. Perhaps this is lens introduced distortion, or from spherical panning.

Without the explanation of technique used, nor gear used, how should we consider these images? I don't see anything that different in approach that could be found in colour images of the last thirty years, using any size camera. Taking away the stitching with D-SLR technique, how can you claim these are non-traditional?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

ageorge
6-Jan-2008, 14:04
Without the explanation of technique used, nor gear used, how should we consider these images? I don't see anything that different in approach that could be found in colour images of the last thirty years, using any size camera. Taking away the stitching with D-SLR technique, how can you claim these are non-traditional?


I was considering traditional versus non-traditional in the context of this forum, which in my experience, the usual images posted here are of the idealized, natural, modernist, reductionist, landscape stripe. Outside of this forum, these images definitely fall into a well worn but still relevant tradition. Where as modernism has now achieved a historic status.

Struan Gray
6-Jan-2008, 14:35
ho hum.

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 14:49
Here's a gold toned lith print

Matthew, I like your image. I don't recall seeing lith gold toned before. It is a nice departure.

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 14:53
So I was close with the mylar guess. You're saying it's like a fancy kaleidoscopes then.

Very nice images.

Do you get migraines a lot?


Kirk, I guess that you could say that it is like a super calibrated mylar...mulititudes of possibilities all controllable. Nope, never had a migraine in my life, thanks for that.

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 14:54
Why these are cool if you are indeed using film, they are not out of the ordinary, They are abstract form with emphasis on form and movement. Just like what Brett Weston did with his work, or Minor White for that matter. Yours are more about form and shape but not unusual. Abstract, yes.

They are photographs and interesting ones..

You know, if these were paintings, they would be pretty awesome for sure ;)

Just my opinion.

Thanks Kevin

Donald Miller
6-Jan-2008, 14:55
Ahh. They are traditional then ;) Alvin Langdon Coburn did these in 1917. The Vortographs. But yours are different and very beautiful.

Thank you Jim.

jetcode
6-Jan-2008, 16:26
I like your images Donald - they are original to my eye and well executed

Greg Lockrey
6-Jan-2008, 20:40
The floors and some building edges seem to curve in the stitched shots, and not just the last one posted. Perhaps this is lens introduced distortion, or from spherical panning.

Without the explanation of technique used, nor gear used, how should we consider these images? I don't see anything that different in approach that could be found in colour images of the last thirty years, using any size camera. Taking away the stitching with D-SLR technique, how can you claim these are non-traditional?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

There was also one of the "Hillbilly Hunter's House" that had a lot of curvature. Looked to me that it was shot through a fish bowl.:confused:

Kirk Keyes
6-Jan-2008, 22:50
Nope, never had a migraine in my life, thanks for that.

Just wondering. I've never had one, but I understand that some people see swirlly patterns that your images could be similar to.

Super calibrated mylar - very nice.

Donald Miller
7-Jan-2008, 03:07
I like your images Donald - they are original to my eye and well executed

Thank you Joe

Joakim Ahnfelt
7-Jan-2008, 06:45
I take my chance during this brief pause in all the yelling and post a picture instead of more angry words. Usually my abstracts are done in medium format with some exeptions.
Interresting thread, occasionally.

Cheers
Joakim

Donald Miller
7-Jan-2008, 09:30
Joakim, Thanks for posting a very engaging photograph.

Daniel_Buck
7-Jan-2008, 10:12
Yes, more photographs! :-)

I'm not sure how non-traditional this one is, but most people probably would have closed down the aperture more. I left this one at just f11 to let the top left and bottom right corners blur out a bit, in hopes that maybe the fence would stick out a bit in a '3d' type of way.

http://danielbuck.net/hikingblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/4x5_topenga_03.jpg

Joakim Ahnfelt
7-Jan-2008, 11:01
”...showing some photographs of a more abstract nature?”
How about some optical trickery?

g zuili
7-Jan-2008, 20:59
A little one.
G.

Donald Miller
8-Jan-2008, 01:55
q zuili, I like the feeling of antiquity that I have when I view your image. When I ask myself why that happens, I find that it arises from what would normally be considered imperfections in the print...very effective in this case. The strong triangular shape also is quite wonderful. I choose to consider it a road or pathway but it could be other things to other people. As such it has great symbolic meaning to me.

Donald Miller
8-Jan-2008, 01:57
”...showing some photographs of a more abstract nature?”
How about some optical trickery?

Joakim, Another engaging photograph. It certainly stops my mad dash by making me sort out what is happening here...What is this I am brought to ask...Questions are powerful things.

g zuili
8-Jan-2008, 11:18
Thanks Donald,
It's a line !
Guillaume

Eric James
8-Jan-2008, 12:58
How about some optical trickery?

Somewhat Escheresque - I had to come back a few times to figure out what was going on. I won't spoil it for others. Thanks Joakin.

Donald Miller
8-Jan-2008, 14:02
Another recent photograph. Made with 5X7 Wisner (305 G Claron) with 4X5 reducing back and 4X5 Velvia. Exposure F16 @ 34 seconds.

Eric James
8-Jan-2008, 14:19
Donald, Your images remind me of "camera toss" images - each one is very unique and intriguing. Although achievable with LF gear, most "tossers" use point and shoot digicams. They are certainly non-traditional, and in my opinion very beautiful. Check out my friend Dave Hull's portfolio:

http://flickr.com/photos/mtnrockdhh/sets/72157594577784688/

Jorge Gasteazoro
8-Jan-2008, 14:29
Ah... now see how you are doing this. Sort of like the funny mirrors in a fair. You create reflections on a piece of mylar and then you distort the mylar to give you these shapes...pretty ingenous......and some great shots to boot.. :)

The great thing about these shots is that I think they would work very well both in B&W as well as color...

OTOH, you are in Italy and you are staying inside doing this?!?..... Here goes a virtual slap upside the head... :)

Donald Miller
8-Jan-2008, 14:40
Ah... now see how you are doing this. Sort of like the funny mirrors in a fair. You create reflections on a piece of mylar and then you distort the mylar to give you these shapes...pretty ingenous......and some great shots to boot.. :)

The great thing about these shots is that I think they would work very well both in B&W as well as color...

OTOH, you are in Italy and you are staying inside doing this?!?..... Here goes a virtual slap upside the head... :)

Jorge, It is pea soupy here in Milano like only London was supposed to be...But, oh well, everyone has to be somewhere sometime.

On a serious note, no mylar is used in this distortion chamber...just more than nine planes of lens(s) and stages of reflection...but individually they are rigid fixtures that while adjustable are not flexible in and of themselves. Mylar is far too unpredictable for me.

Yes, black and white works great too. Each photograph is a distortion of a normal occurence or scene in everyday life.

Hope that everything is going well with you...

Donald Miller
8-Jan-2008, 14:41
Donald, Your images remind me of "camera toss" images - each one is very unique and intriguing. Although achievable with LF gear, most "tossers" use point and shoot digicams. They are certainly non-traditional, and in my opinion very beautiful. Check out my friend Dave Hull's portfolio:

http://flickr.com/photos/mtnrockdhh/sets/72157594577784688/

Eric, Thanks for the link to your friend's site. He has some beautiful and intriguing images. I had not heard of camera toss before. Thanks for your compliment. Best regards.

paulr
8-Jan-2008, 15:42
How about some optical trickery?

one of my favorite tricky landscapes, by Mike Smith ...



(original web page: http://www.kochgallery.com/artists/contemporary/Smith/series/01.html)

Daniel_Buck
8-Jan-2008, 16:27
That Mike Smith series is excellent! Thanks for sharing! Just wish they were a little bigger :)

Donald Miller
16-Jan-2008, 13:43
A recent photograph through my self designed and constructed distortion chamber with Wisner/305 G Claron and Velvia. The basis for this photograph is a common scene available in objective reality.

paulr
16-Jan-2008, 14:05
interesting image.


... my self designed and constructed distortion chamber ...

sounds like something you'd have in your lair inside a hollowed out volcano, for the purpose of Taking Over The World ... ;)

Jim Galli
16-Jan-2008, 14:40
OK, I'll give this another shot.........

......so the other day my wife says to me, "Honey, do you know what happened to all our iced tea glasses?"


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Secret%20Weapon%20Lens/IceTeaGlassesS.jpg
iced tea glasses

Secret Weapon Lens
8X10 Efke, Kodak 2D
Printed on Ilford MGIV

Chris Jones
17-Jan-2008, 00:06
I have been enjoying this thread immensely. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what non-traditional is or means, either, which adds to the enjoyment.

Donald Miller
17-Jan-2008, 01:08
interesting image.



sounds like something you'd have in your lair inside a hollowed out volcano, for the purpose of Taking Over The World ... ;)


Nope that is where I keep the death ray.

Donald Miller
17-Jan-2008, 01:09
OK, I'll give this another shot.........

......so the other day my wife says to me, "Honey, do you know what happened to all our iced tea glasses?"


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Secret%20Weapon%20Lens/IceTeaGlassesS.jpg
iced tea glasses

Secret Weapon Lens
8X10 Efke, Kodak 2D
Printed on Ilford MGIV

Jim, Nice image. So how many did you break before you were finished?

Donald Miller
17-Jan-2008, 02:59
Another without color. Same photograph details. This with Efke PL 100.

walter23
17-Jan-2008, 03:57
ageorge: those look pretty representational to me. ;)


http://ashphotography.ca/zenphoto/albums/victoria08/Untitled-3.jpg

KenM
17-Jan-2008, 06:33
One of my faves....

JoeV
17-Jan-2008, 17:12
Thanks, Donald, for starting this thread on abstract imagery. And I'm appreciative to all those who have posted truly abstract images for us to enjoy.

However, wading through the plethora of images posted here that are decidedly representational, or derivatively representational so as to be inadequately abstract, I am now of the mind to think that, given the common understanding of the term 'abstract' as evidenced by many of these images, the term 'abstract' has now become a mere abstraction.

BTW, I always understood your use of the term 'traditional' wasn't an art-history usage of the term, but rather 'common', 'ordinary', 'run-of-the-mill'.

Thanks again.

~Joe

Chris Jones
17-Jan-2008, 20:06
I have been thinking quite a bit about the terms non-traditional and abstract and the usage these words seem to attract and collect. Strictly speaking both abstract and non-traditional cannot be placed into specific categories or genres but I don't see that this is what is at issue here.

So I began to think that what may be the case is that the photos being placed under non-traditional here are in some way questioning, refusing and challenging mimesis which is (at least?) an implied function with traditional categories of landscape, portrait, photo-journalism etc.

(I am currently working on a series with the working title-- on the edges of representation; hence my interest in this. Sorry, don't have any 4x5's to post but have been considering motion blur and disfocus. Disfocus in the sense of not in focus in what may be considered an inappropriate way. There are examples posted which I noted with interest.)

sanking
23-Jan-2008, 22:26
This picture is a homenaje to Donald Miller.

I call it, "Imagen tradicional abstracta en busca de su esencia contemporánea."

Sandy

domenico Foschi
24-Jan-2008, 01:28
One of my faves....


Rightly so!

Donald Miller
28-Jan-2008, 06:40
***

Michael N. Meyer
28-Jan-2008, 07:07
A couple from a series called Direct Forms. One of these will be up at a show at Gallery Five in Lewiston, Maine through February. Anyone in the area should drop by (opening this Wednesday.)

Absolutely non-representational.

More at www.michaelmeyerphoto.com.

Jrewt
28-Jan-2008, 10:14
Heres one.. I made an 8x8" holder, and here's one from the other day.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2225735707_8cd7631005_o.jpg