Ian Ledgard, GMPSA/b, EFIAP/p, AWPF, GPU-Cr5
January 2025 - Swirl
Original
Original 2
About the Image(s)
Happy New Year everybody - may it be rewarding photographically.
The original was shot in early autumn last year and cropped square. Then in Topaz I selected 'Swirly strokes' and applied at reduced opacity before moving back to Photoshop and tweaking saturation to place more emphasis on the golden leaves. I liked the result but weeks later returned to see what else was possible. I used the PS swirl filter followed by the oil paint filter. Finally resized to landcape format.
I think that perhaps this is a case of pushing an image too far - do you agree?
8 comments posted
(Groups 20 & 81)
Really colourful abstract! I like what the oil paint filter has done to the leaves bottom right. I think I like the original 2 best and using that OP filter without the swirl filter would be lovely!! Posted: 01/08/2025 15:59:46
My opinion - producing an abstract image, it's seldom a case of 'going too far'. Often results in pushing the creative aspect.
I really like your image and the filters you've used. As you know, critiquing abstracts is always a dicey thing - so I use the much the same criteria as if it's say a landscape. The big difference of course is that in the abstract version there is seldom an observable subject to focus on. For me the most important criteria for abstracts is the composition, with colour as the 2nd most important. When I view your picture my eyes are very nicely flowing through the image, until I hit the blue section. I find it out of place with the reds, yellows, greens and it interrupts my journey through the image - obviously a totally subjective viewpoint.
See my version attached. Flipped it to portrait layout, cropped it, and using HSL in Nik got rid of the blue. What do you think?
Posted: 01/09/2025 15:29:20
I really like your image and the filters you've used. As you know, critiquing abstracts is always a dicey thing - so I use the much the same criteria as if it's say a landscape. The big difference of course is that in the abstract version there is seldom an observable subject to focus on. For me the most important criteria for abstracts is the composition, with colour as the 2nd most important. When I view your picture my eyes are very nicely flowing through the image, until I hit the blue section. I find it out of place with the reds, yellows, greens and it interrupts my journey through the image - obviously a totally subjective viewpoint.
See my version attached. Flipped it to portrait layout, cropped it, and using HSL in Nik got rid of the blue. What do you think?
Posted: 01/09/2025 15:29:20
Gunter, I think you have done the right thing with my image. The blue areas were distracting. So I will try another version. Posted: 01/10/2025 20:17:46
Hi Ian, If I understand the question you have posed to us, if you take two mundane images, combine them, and then add technical filters and color changes, have you created art from photographs or from technology.
If that is the case, then I would say we should use the tools available to make art from a vision used to make the photograph.
If you are pointing out that you can indeed take two ordinary images, use processing tools to "create" a colorful and imaginary swirl of leaves, and how does that help meet the criteria of being a better photographer? I agree it does not.
AI is here to stay, and who knows what the results will be, and its effect on photography.
Meanwhile, as far as your image this month, I agree with Ian that it hasn't been pushed too far at all. It just lacks any inspiration and could be stronger with added elements to tell a story. Posted: 01/09/2025 16:55:58
If that is the case, then I would say we should use the tools available to make art from a vision used to make the photograph.
If you are pointing out that you can indeed take two ordinary images, use processing tools to "create" a colorful and imaginary swirl of leaves, and how does that help meet the criteria of being a better photographer? I agree it does not.
AI is here to stay, and who knows what the results will be, and its effect on photography.
Meanwhile, as far as your image this month, I agree with Ian that it hasn't been pushed too far at all. It just lacks any inspiration and could be stronger with added elements to tell a story. Posted: 01/09/2025 16:55:58
We live in interesting times. My take on technology and photography is fairly straightforward- If one uses a photograph and changes it with technology, you are a Photo Artist. However if you use Ai, to create pixels (I.e "add a mountain") you are a Digital Artist. I have no issues with Ai tools such as sharpen or denoise, as a photographer.
In my case, I have learned a lot about taking pictures with a camera, from technology enhanced images. Especially in improving compositions and effect of lighting conditions. Posted: 01/10/2025 20:10:18
In my case, I have learned a lot about taking pictures with a camera, from technology enhanced images. Especially in improving compositions and effect of lighting conditions. Posted: 01/10/2025 20:10:18
I agree entirely with your two definitions. Posted: 01/10/2025 20:18:36
Suzy Upton
I personally would not change a thing. My initial thought was this looks like an impressionist painting. For me, the blue area reminds me of a surfers wave that leads the eye into a swirl of beautiful colors. It has texture, movement and bright colors. I can see this on canvas. I never studied art but during the pandemic I discovered an appreciation for art/abstracts. By trying different settings and ways of editing in photoshop I've learned a lot about the many photoshop tools and love to create abstract images. Posted: 01/11/2025 02:05:44
I'm not a fan of the twirl filter. I like the impressionism of original no. 2 which is great. I think by using the twirl you have overworked this one. Posted: 01/21/2025 18:05:32