Abstract Landscape (ICM)

[ShaneS]

I have been dabbling with intentional camera movement as a form of expression with my camera for a while now and was recently inspired to head out for another try. This technique is very hit and miss (you get a lot of images that end up in the recycle bin) and while you can process the scenes differently it is impossible to recreate any one image.

I would be interested to read your impressions of this image.

[NorthernFocus]

Generally speaking I'm not a fan of this sort of technique. But I like this image. Perhaps because I live where we get a lot of foggy days on the water which is what this reminds me of. Thumbs up on this one.

[Clive Kirby]

Good, I quite like this. They say "one man's meat, another man's poison". This seems to apply very much to this type of abstract. I've tried the technique quite a bit and I find the most appealing images are those that retain a suggestion of the original image. You've achieved that with this image. As you say there is a degree of lack of control and you end up hitting the delete button a lot. Good work.

[Mike Buckley]

This appears to me to be more of an impressionistic image than an abstract image. That may be because your thread title explains that it's a landscape but I think I would have immediately recognized it as that without the information.

Regardless of the label we assign to the image, it's absolutely gorgeous. It's so good that I hope you stop "dabbling" and make a concentrated effort to produce a body of work in this style.

[ShaneS]

Abstract vs. impressionist - my lack of an art education is showing through

Thank you Dan, Clive and Mark for your kind comments. I do plan to continue working with this technique as it keeps nagging at my creative side. It can be very rewarding but also quite frustrating.

We are having a debate in our house right now between a color version and a black and white version that I think resembles an Asian watercolor (see above if I got that wrong ). My husband prefers the black and white which is quite unusual as he usually prefers color. A good friend prefers the color. Which one do you prefer?

[Mike Buckley]

I prefer the black-and-white version but only because of the slightly increased contrast and tonal range in the sky. If the color version had similar characteristics, it would be a toss-up for me.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Shane,I like both of them very much If you crop the coloured one from top to center the horizon,I think you can solve the problem of blank and toneless sky...in this case prefer both.If you leave the first one as it is ,then I prefer the B and W version for the same reason as Mike says.

[jamn4ex]

I like the color, and I think Binnurs' suggested crop would help it.

[Mike Buckley]

I'll explain why I wouldn't recommend Binnur's suggested crop along with another point that I actually can't explain.

Some of us like the B&W version better because of the slightly greater tonal range and contrast in the sky. To quantify that, the tonal values in the sky of the B&W version range from 182 to 245. They range only from 209 to 236 in the sky of the color version.

If you crop the color version as Binnur suggests, you will eliminate most if not all of the brighter tones in the sky, which will decrease the sky's contrast and tonal range even more. More important, the brightest tones in the image will then be in the lower part of the sky and very near the left frame. That will lead your eye out of the frame, especially considering the lines in the composition that lead the eye to that area.

Now the stuff that I can't explain, which also makes me question the tonal range that I determined in the sky of the color version: The tonal value of 236 that I found there is also the brightest value I found anywhere in the image. Yet the histogram clearly indicates tonal values at about 253. I really searched hard and couldn't find anything other than the 236 that I found in the sky.

[Mike Buckley]

Now that I have discovered a tool in my editing software that I had never noticed in the past, I can now explain the perplexing issue in my previous post. I used that tool to determine that the brightest part of the color image is the sky and that its tonal value is 255, not 236 as I previously determined. The problem is that the brighter area is so small that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's no more than 10 pixels. (No wonder I couldn't manually find that tonal value!)

So, even though the actual tonal range is greater in the sky of the color version, there are so few of the brighter pixels that my eye "reads" the scene to be less bright. Regardless of whether you pay more attention to perception as I do rather than statistics pertaining to tonal values, if you use my understanding of Binnur's suggested crop, you will probably eliminate the brightest area of the sky. That gets us back to making the sky less interesting.

By the way, I confirmed with my new-found tool that the brightest tonal value in the B&W version is indeed 245 and that it is in the sky as I had thought.

[John 2]

I like both version Shane to the extent that I won't express a preference. If I have a comment it would be that my instinct would be to lower the bright area (with a gradient) to the left to stop my eye drifting out of the frame but until I tried it, I couldn't say whether it would be an improvement on the original. One for the wall in any event.

[Karm Redland]

Shane, I also like both images. I think the color version has a bit of a watercolor feel that I like a lot. I agree with Mike that it's really an impressionistic image.

karm

[deetheturk]

Shane,i'm another that likes both,well done you!

David

[Wavelength]

Excellent art

[Brownbear]

Hi Shane,

The B&W version (to me) is very nice. The colour version is drop dead gorgeous. I love the muted colours and ethereal feel. Beautiful!

[AndrewMcD]

I like the color version. I feel that cropping the sky would reduce the emotional impact of this image for ME. This image evokes a powerful sense of instability and almost vertigo. Cropping the image would reduce that impact; no doubt others have a much different reaction to the image. Wonderful work!
Andrew

[Daisy Mae]

Well..you know how much I love ICM Shane!

I think the colour version works best here.

[Stagecoach]

I can't make my mind up but that's immaterial really as both are great

Grahame

[Downrigger]

Really lovely. Honestly - it seems impossible to disregard the amazing hues in the color version. I'm not sure where I have ever seen that palette before and it is incredible. The image is constrained so in that narrow yellow green palette that it is almost monochrome already.

I have done some of these. The issue regarding authenticity pertains to the fact that one doesn't know what one is actually going to get. And the few I have that seem to have worked have brought for the issue to me that I "cheated" or "just got lucky" somehow.

But I do believe it is an approach that can can be a home for "Art" "and Mastery".
I found this fellow on the Nat Geo site and he has an amazing body of this sort of work - anybody interested in this approach would enjoy this man's gallery http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/435081/

[ShaneS]

It seems that there is broad agreement that the tonalities of the sky area slightly better in the mono version and I agree. But how to correct?

I played with brightness in NIK Viveza but even the slightest increase produced small blown areas and a slightly pink halo around those areas.

Is this a case where dodging and burning might be a better solution? I'm at work right now but seem to recall doing this with a result that was worse that before I started so I gave up.

Do you have any other PP techniques that might be worth giving a try?

Mark I can relate your statement,

The issue regarding authenticity pertains to the fact that one doesn't know what one is actually going to get. And the few I have that seem to have worked have brought for the issue to me that I "cheated" or "just got lucky" somehow.

I don't view this as luck as even if someone else was standing right beside you they would never be able to recreate the same image that you create (due to the camera movement). I also think that you need to find a scene that works with this technique and of course be there at the right time for the light, etc. I do find that it is a bit hard to reconcile a technique like this with "straight photography" where focus and sharpness are the norm.

Another photographer working in this style is Doug Chinnery. His obscura images are a great inspiration for me:

http://www.dougchinnery.com/galleries/obscura-i/

Thanks to everyone for their kind comments and thoughtful critiques. I am still absorbing it all and will be taking another look at it when I get home from work tonight.