I'm interested in finding out if this actually meets the parameters for the challenge. I received 1 comment so far and very low scoring, which indicates that I probably got it wrong... if this is the case, I will pull the photo, as I don't want to waste anyone's time in voting, or go through the frustration of seeing these miserable scores.
Thank You;
Frank Ertl
Statistics
Place: 196 out of 227 Avg (all users): 4.4550 Avg (commenters): 4.4444 Avg (participants): 4.0814 Avg (non-participants): 4.7368 Views since voting: 1063 Views during voting: 306 Votes: 200 Comments: 21 Favorites: 0
Hello, I’m from the Critique Club;
In regards to the challenge, as other users have noted, IMHO this would not be considered abstract or motion. When I think of depicting motion, the first thing I think of is blur. There are other ways to depict motion, such as freezing action but still including reference points in the photo to give the viewer a sense of the motion. The background of this photo doesn’t give me a good reference point for any movement, because it is far off and there is no scale given. As far as the abstract part goes, I think that is one of the most difficult concepts to pin down when you’re considering what you’re going to photograph and how. Many people have hugely varying opinions on this, and if you ever feel the need to further confuse yourself on the topic, you can find numerous threads in the forum in regard to “what does abstract mean?” It seems to me that a good starting point is to make things a bit more difficult to identify. Some require it be unidentifiable, others enjoy photos that are simply difficult to discern, but I would say few if any think abstract refers to perfect focus and exposure on the subject. An alternative way to photograph this scene would be to increase the exposure time and pan with the subject to more effectively blur and streak the background. Also, if possible, some camera movements might be welcomed to help blur the gull itself.
If this photo were entered a challenge more fitting of it, I think it could have scored significantly higher. You did a great job on the focus. The definition on the feathers is very good. Colors seem well saturated. You left space in front of the gull to help give some sense of the motion. I might’ve considered stretching it out a bit more and giving some additional room in front of the gull, but that might just be me. Some additional isolation from the background might be nice, especially that fellow standing there. Being located right at the head of the bird and wearing strongly contrasting clothes makes him rather distracting for a background element.
Mostly, I think this was just a case of not quite meshing with what voters came into the challenge expecting.
-Derek
I've been using the definition: "Of, relating to, or being a style of art in which natural objects are not represented realistically." With this in mind, it really doesn't fit abstract, IMO.
perfect focus, though I don't think it really fits 'abstract motion' as it's fairly obviously a seagull, and although I guess it's moving, the photograph itself doesn't give any indication of a feeling of movement.
Definitely very cool. But these kinds of shots, where the background is blurred and the object is crystal clear, captures more a sense of stillness than of motion.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
