I feel like I almost need to confirm this is a ‘nature’ image because, were it posted almost anywhere outside this forum, ‘what is it’ might be a common question. And even posted here, I suspect some might wonder if the one semi-identifiable element is part of a tree (it is). So yes…, it is nature based and the raw capture was made in one of our local state parks.
I’m basically just wondering if this resonates with anyone. It seems like much ICM that resonates with many people retains at least a smidgeon of identifiable reality. And at least for me, this one pushes beyond that. The camera motion itself significantly alters the entire scene while leaving the one tree trunk somewhat recognizable as such. And the modification of the color palette (SOOC it was full of normal summer earth tones) takes it yet another step away from reality.
Type of Critique Requested
Aesthetic: Feedback on the overall visual appeal of the image, including its color, lighting, cropping, and composition.
Specific Feedback and Self-Critique
I have a handful of similar images that are dominated by the motion of the camera creating structural elements that often are pushed beyond my ability to identify any recognizable bits that were actually present at time of capture.
I like that aspect. But in some respects it also strikes me as little more than ‘sofa art’. I.e., it might appeal to the stars of the HGTV and/or Magnolia Network home design/renovation shows because the color palette could be easily manipulated to suit the color palette of the living room of their current client. So maybe it never works as ‘fine art’.(??)
Technical Details
1/10sec shutter speed and 50mm focal length strike me as the only pertinent technical bits. The only ‘non standard’ bit of processing was the application of a Lightroom preset that produced the colors.
RJ, I’m glad you mentioned this was a nature subject. I would have said it was a cityscape or a building. The dark background really makes the colors, structure, and motion stand out. The cropping works for me too. I like the image by the way. It definitely made me stop and think about the subject.
RJ: Aesthetically this does not work for me. I am unable to find any focal point or organization in the colored lines shown on the image to hold or attract my interest.
I was told at one point that the key to an ICM image is having a small part of the image in focus. I have found that to be a good piece of advice in my very early attempts to learn how to use the technique.
Actually, I disagree with @jimdolan , in that to my eye this does have a point of focus, namely the bright column in the central part of the frame. For me this is a pure abstract and I’m finding that I keep coming back to have a look. I like the dark fury of it. Is it sofa art? I think that depends on the extent to which you, as an artist, have intention. That being said, I think this image as a part of a series of images could be sensational. It isn’t so easy to do - to create an abstract series where each image informs the intention without merely repeating itself. To do that I think you would have to clarify for yourself what your intention actually is but it would be a fascinating project.
Thanks for the comment, Alfredo. I had given some consideration to taking this one step further and create a negative of this version. It was interesting in that it turned all the ‘black’ areas white, and the primary color bits turned towards blue and green. The latter appealed to me because they are truer ‘nature’ colors. But for now, I’m content to leave it as is.
I’d be inclined to question the need for any part of the image to be in focus. I’ve certainly seen some wonderful ICM images that do employ that quality, but I believe I’ve seen just as many wonderful ICM images that don’t. I went for almost a year doing ICM almost exclusively and tried every style of camera movement I could think of and a bunch I saw described by others. I wouldn’t hardly describe myself as an expert, but if I learned one thing in all that experimentation, it’s that there are as many potentially successful variations of camera movement as there are photographers. We each just need to find what works best for us.
Good point about ‘intention’. For this particular image, there really wasn’t any. At this point, I was just experimenting with various modes of camera movement and liked the SOOC version sufficiently to experiment what might come of it with some altering of the color palette.
Thanks for this comment. As I’m replying, I think the lack of intention at time of capture is probably a sizable portion of what’s left me questioning the image overall.
The ICM works quite nicely for me. Your mention relating the original file with your altered color rendition is consistent with my view on the ICM - it’s most certainly not about reality and we are free to process colors, sat, contrast, hue, etc. in whatever direction we want. I like that freedom since we’re not tied to reality.
Personally I don’t get any real sense that the origin in s a tree. It more closely resembles some lighted structure - or Christmas decoration with the ICM applied. Which is awesome - I don’t need to know wha the “real” scene was. Yeah, often times - and I find myself in this camp, the ICM can and does alter a scene while retaining some sense of reality or at least a reality story telling. But it doesn’t have to, and so I can still enjoy images like the one you have presented here.
I can’t suggest any changes. I like how for the most part the surrounding part of the image is dark, allowing the lines and colors to take center stage.
