Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Architectural Photos (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/architectural-photos-74/)
-   -   Reflections From A House In Grand Harbour Canal - Overview and details (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/architectural-photos-74/reflections-house-grand-harbour-canal-overview-details-193230/)

Torgny Oct 30, 2011 3:15 PM

Reflections From A House In Grand Harbour Canal - Overview and details
 
1 Attachment(s)
Gothenburg

Torgny Oct 30, 2011 3:28 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Picture number two

Torgny Oct 30, 2011 5:52 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Picture number three

toshi43 Nov 5, 2011 1:02 PM

Those shots are more abstract art than architectural IMHO, but beautiful they certainly are. If they were mine, I'd put them up on a wall where everyone could see them. :oogle:

bluenose Nov 5, 2011 2:18 PM

All three are wonderful, the second one in particular. I like the way the bottom area is similar to the top area of the image. In the third one these areas are quite different.

You have a good eye for colour and the abstract.

Regards

Torgny Nov 7, 2011 9:37 PM

1 Attachment(s)
toshi43,

bluenose,

Thanks for viewing and the comments. Yes, I like the "abstract", whatever it is. Would be nice with a discussion on a sustainable definition. To me it's part of reality

In this case there is also a "crass" (?) reason. I walk a lot along the canals. I like the houses. But - there are those "pesky" (?) automobiles. See the image below.

So I point the camera so the cars disappear in the canals. See the three pictures. So I get some "abstracts" for free. Minor manipulations. The "abstracts" are genuin.

Torgny

Torgny Nov 7, 2011 9:45 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by bluenose (Post 1264317)
All three are wonderful, the second one in particular. I like the way the bottom area is similar to the top area of the image. In the third one these areas are quite different.

You have a good eye for colour and the abstract.

Regards


bluenose,

Well, thanks. And you've got really sharp eyes. You see a connection between number one and number two.

The third is upside down so your observation is perceptually interesting. I'll turn it around. Sometimes turn reflections downside up to see what it looks like. Seems I saved the file in the wrong position

Here is the real picture. On the other hand, I f you tur turn them it's what the eyes really see

If this doesn't make sense - let go of it :)

Torgny

bluenose Nov 8, 2011 7:21 AM

"...I like the "abstract", whatever it is. Would be nice with a discussion on a sustainable definition. To me it's part of reality..."

You raise a good point as to a definition of abstract and it made me stop and think about how I use it and my interpretation of it.

For me an abstract image would be an image where an emphasis on colour, shape, lines, texture, etc. has made the object or subject less recognizable or even perhaps indistinguishable from what it is. As you say, "...part of reality.." or even based on reality.

A sustainable definition is more difficult to come up with. I think my use of the term is more subjective than objective and at times I may use it when an image doesn't fit neatly into some easily defined category. As well, my interpretation of the image may differ greatly from the photographer's intent.

Hope what I've written makes some kind of sense regarding the points you've raised.

Regards

Torgny Nov 11, 2011 8:12 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by bluenose (Post 1264986)
"...I like the "abstract", whatever it is. Would be nice with a discussion on a sustainable definition. To me it's part of reality..."

You raise a good point as to a definition of abstract and it made me stop and think about how I use it and my interpretation of it.

For me an abstract image would be an image where an emphasis on colour, shape, lines, texture, etc. has made the object or subject less recognizable or even perhaps indistinguishable from what it is. As you say, "...part of reality.." or even based on reality.

A sustainable definition is more difficult to come up with. I think my use of the term is more subjective than objective and at times I may use it when an image doesn't fit neatly into some easily defined category. As well, my interpretation of the image may differ greatly from the photographer's intent.

Hope what I've written makes some kind of sense regarding the points you've raised.

Regards


bluenose,

I like your definition, pretty sustainable I think. Even dictionaries and encyclopedias are subjective. I think that one should draw a line between "natural" abstracts and heavily manipulated ones

What do you think of this picture from the canals. It's just turned upside down - nothing else (if I remember correctly)

Regards

Torgny

bluenose Nov 12, 2011 5:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torgny (Post 1265766)
bluenose,

I like your definition, pretty sustainable I think. Even dictionaries and encyclopedias are subjective. I think that one should draw a line between "natural" abstracts and heavily manipulated ones

What do you think of this picture from the canals. It's just turned upside down - nothing else (if I remember correctly)

Regards

Torgny


The buildings are certainly more recognizable in the last one. The water surface (i.e. rough, smooth) would influence the amount of distortion in the reflection. The "wider" view also keeps the image more easy to distinguish.

Regards


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.