Geologic Spirits

Image Critiques Abstract Nature Critiques
1

… or, "Marion, don’t look at it! (Movie quote reference…)

Only the second ICM I’m presenting from a recent visit to Yosemite. This is an in camera motion image on the rock wall I’ve been photographing for years. First time I’ve done something different here.

Would love to hear your thoughts, comments, suggestions.

49D2996VCR2_1500
49D2996VCR2_15001086×1500 282 KB

You may only download this image to demonstrate post-processing techniques.

What technical feedback would you like if any?

Processing of course - all feedback welcome.

What artistic feedback would you like if any?

Still curious on folks thoughts on these type images. The images, btw, are not limited to horizontal, vertical, zoom movements… the possibilities seem limitless.

Pertinent technical details or techniques:

(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)

Single frame
Nikon D800E, 38-300mm @28mm f/20 .6s iso 50

2

Lon, I just played with your image a little. And now hoping you like it. It was great fun !!

fantasie
fantasie1500×1072 1.16 MB

3

Lon, …OK, this is another experimental take that came out really nice again. To me it is a bit more soothing or peaceful then your “Candy Man” one, but both work in the abstract arena just fine. In each case you would be hard pressed to understand what either is or was. Different then static abstracts that can be outed in many cases. But the motion or blurred ones are a real challenge. In most cases just reviewed as what they’re in the end just a bit of a pleasant mind tease…:+1::+1:

4

Lon, an intriguing abstract. I’m debating whether it’s gently inviting or a bit spooky. The spooky part comes from “seeing” a pair of rib cage x-rays… I wonder how a bit of burning-in of the whitish vertical part that’s nearly centered vertically and about 1/3rd of the way in from the right.

5

Lon, This abstract really works for me. I definitely see the rock wall and like the soft colors and design.

6

Lovely. I really like the soft, lighter colored lines over the warm background. It has lots of energy, yet at the same time is soothing.

7

I am going to be the contrarian here. This one does not work as well as your previous effort. While I like the warm color palette, this one doesn’t have much punch for me.
–P

8

I am on the fence about this one Lon. I liked you previous vertical motion blurred trees. I like the colors here but too much motion in different directions. It does have a ghostly appearance though.

9

Lon,

I’m going to go against the grain here and cast a vote of No Bueno. In fact, I am a little bit perlexed by the whole notion of this genre of image. I find abstraction in nature to be quite intriguing and when the motion occurs in the subject and we capture it via a still camera, it imparts a sense of “life” in the subject. These camera movement images seem contrived to me. Not that they are not appealing, some are, but I think most just miss the boat entirely. And I think they miss the mark entirely that they represent nature somehow, regardless of the subject that was behind the image.

In light of the above, I did find your previous ICM image pleasing to look at. This one however, really just looks like you kicked the tripod real bad.

Sorry to be so frank, but I do admire your work and these just don’t seem to be up to your level of excellence.

1 Like
10

Boy, these types of images are really hard to critique. I can say that this is not as good as the previous one but I can’t say specifically why. Another words, it’s hard to say where it’s lacking and what to do about it. I like the bottom right general area. From that I deduce that the bright vertical in center left is a bit too bright, maybe? I think I know what you’re after here. It’s important to understand at least that before giving advice on whether you’re achieving it. One thing is certain - this genre has no sharp distinct lines anywhere. No texture. No detail. All is vague. Smoky.

I’ll take a stab at this and say that the composition, or as Charlotte Gibbs would say, the design ia a bit weak. The image consists mostly of arcs curving in different ways. The bright strong vertical seems out of character with the overall design. On the other hand, you could argue that that gives it more emphasis and adds to it. I’m all not sure about that large patch of rich warmth on the right. Like I said, the bottom right feels like a good combination of hues and tones.

I actually like Yousef’s strong stance on this subject. At least he knows what he likes and doesn’t like. My comments are as vague as the image.

11

I am in the Youssef camp on the ICM images. For the most part, they don’t do much for me. This one falls into that category, again, for me. I liked the previous one a lot more, but still not my thing.

12

Lon: I’ve read all the previous comments and am a bit puzzled by the negativity surrounding this image. I find it quite enjoyable and the larger the image the better I like it. Coming up with a new take on familiar subjects/territory is refreshing IMO. Keep 'em coming. >=))>

13

Hi Lon,
Quite an interesting group of responses to this image. I thought your previous post was exquisite but this one is not resonating. I just don’t find the colors and patterns as visually appealing. I still greatly admire your creativity and willingness to experiment. Something I need to do more of in my own photography.

14

Thank you all for the comments and most especially for the honesty! I think there is much to say about this and the genre in general - probably best for a discussion outside this image thread. I’m thinking on that… but in the mean time, a few responses.

@Ben_van_der_Sande - thanks for the look and experimenting - wow, hard to believe you started from the same image… something out of the Twighlight Zone maybe… Curious though, your critique on the original?

@Mark_Seaver - funny you mentioned the whitish vertical part. I actually dodged that a bit to emphasize because I saw that as one of the “spirits” - all be it, a tall one… :wink:

Thank you @larry, @Bonnie_Lampley, @Preston_Birdwell, @eva, @Harley_Goldman and @Dave_Dillemuth for your honest comments as well.

Igor - I think you’re absolutely right! There’s no standard, so no guidelines or “rules” to follow and subsequently pretty much impossible to critique. And as we’re seeing - it’s either thumbs up or thumbs down… either like it or you don’t. Also, most definite to connect with - which gets to the obvious that there’s a clear connection with whomever creates the image… but connecting with the viewer is a whole different thing…

Thanks @Bill_Fach for your comment. It’s quite ok. I know upfront that this is one of those types of images that you either like or don’t like, get or don’t get. And honestly, it’s not an NPN kind of image and as a moderator I should consider that… if anything I should self moderate and place this in the non-nature gallery.

And @Youssef_Ismail, I appreciate your honesty and direct comments. We’re friends and I certainly respect your view (and I understand it quite well actually.) And you may not have made your comments if we didn’t have that relationship. I do think though, that yours as well as the other responses would make for an interesting and though provoking discussion.

I’m heading back to Yosemite tomorrow and will be pondering the topic.

Thanks again all for your comments. The people of NPN are so GREAT! For this, I am THANKFUL on this day.