Abstracts

[Jody_S]

If by "scope image" you mean microscope, no a microscope was not used.

Image actually taken outside "in the field", though don't take the word "field" literally.

Image as seen on ground glass. Negative was scanned, levels adjusted, and image>adjustments>invert to get positive image. Slight crop.

Here's another one

These are lovely. I've had a couple of those oscillo- (Dumont, in my case) lenses, never got anything interesting out of either and they were fetching ridiculous prices on the 'bay so I sold them. Sort of regretting that now.

[Greg]

These are lovely. I've had a couple of those oscillo- (Dumont, in my case) lenses, never got anything interesting out of either and they were fetching ridiculous prices on the 'bay so I sold them. Sort of regretting that now.

Have also seen some of them go for ridiculous prices on 'bay. Some being described as covering 4x5 at maximum aperture!!!! Have to feel sorry for the buyers when he/she tried using the lens on their 4x5. Mine I bought at a local camera store (as with many now also gone) for $35.00.

[Corran]

Linhof MT, 240mm f/9 G-Claron, TMX, FX-39:

[stawastawa]

greg I love the tones and forms! I am more drawn to the chain of forms in #4.

Bryan, a very staccato image.

~n

[Corran]

Interesting use of the musical language as a description!

Here's two more abstracts, kind of. More old car images but I wanted to focus on the shapes and tones present, especially the "arrows."

Linhof MT, 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar, T-Max 100, FX-39, N+1 development:

[plaubel]

Dear folks,

interested in a discussion at this point?
In following this thread, from time to time I'm asking myself for what "abstract" stands to you.
For me, if things become strange, and I'm not able to identify the object, this I would call very abstract.
Brian, sorry, I have no idea where the abstraction in the last two pictures sits,in spite of your explanation - other than in your fantastic leaves and mud.

Ritchie

[Corran]

Great question plaubel. Personally there's traditional abstracts, like the image I shared a few posts back where you don't know what you are looking at (though I can tell you it's just moss on rocks), and then abstraction of shapes/tones, even if it is identifiable. Despite being close-up shots of an old car, for me the "car" is unseen and becomes irrelevant and not part of the photo, just the shapes. But perhaps that's just me, especially considering old cars are something of a "thing" around here so maybe others have a more specific reaction.

I could crop down to a tiny fraction of that image like this:



and that would probably be more of a traditional abstract. But it's still relatively identifiable as metal and rust, no?

[Wayne]

I didn't know there were non-traditional abstracts and traditional abstracts. Obviously with any art or music there will be some differences of opinion around the edges but obviously recognizable shapes/objects that are the subject are not around the edges. The image of rust is abstract, the image of a hood ornament in the shape of a place is an image of a hood ornament in the shape of a plane, not a "non-traditional abstract". All IMO of course.

I don't think the object necessarily has to be completely unrecognizable for it to be abstract, it just has to be incidental to and secondary to the subject of line, shape and color and not the subject itself. I challenge anyone to make sense of that in a way that can be applied to all images.

[Corran]

That's why I said "personally," because it's just how I approach the idea of abstraction. I few pages back there is an image by Austin of a building, for example, which is completely identifiable but I can see why Austin called it an abstraction. I will have to go look for a "textbook" definition.

As for the hood ornament, my wife initially was asking when the heck I took a picture of a rusting plane. The fact that she was very convinced that it was a plane to me signifies that it is not immediately identifiable, even if it is clearly a "thing." I certainly would not have guessed it was a hood ornament either if I had not taken the photo, but that may be because the car was probably manufactured when my parents were infants.

[jp]

The pitted chrome and cracked paint aren't going to make any of us reminisce and remember going to the drive-in with that car. So it's not likely other common uses of photography

To me, things like form and tone and mood are the subjects of abstract photos. What the object in the photo is, is clearly subordinate to the qualities the photographer sees and then represents in the photo. It can be very plain what the object is, or it can be very obscure like a microscope photo or nonexistent like a vortograph. The completely identifiable ones confuse people who aren't attune with photography and art. But the identifiable abstracts also strike a chord with those who like a subtle abstract and are eager to look beyond the surface.

Minor White was a prominent abstract photographer who photographed "what else it is".