3
by arsenal

Comment by Cutter:
I am going to try to predict what it is for each photo: Yours is .... people walking

3
by arsenal

Comment by Man_Called_Horse:
I am sorry this is not an abstract. This is more of an impressionistic example at best. Also, I wish I could give you a solid critique, but the blur is to much giving away to the out of focus.

Definition 1= Art that departs significantly from natural appearances. Forms are modified or changed to varying degrees in order to emphasize certain qualities or content. Recognizable references to original appearances may be slight. The term is also used to describe art that is nonrepresentational.

Definition 2=Not realistic, though the intention is often based on an actual subject, place, or feeling. Pure abstracion can be interpreted as any art in which the depiction of real objects has been entirely discarded and whose aesthetic content is expressed in a formal pattern or structure of shapes, lines and colors. When the representation of real objects is completely absent, such art may be called non-objective.

3
by arsenal

Comment by JunieMoon:
This could have been very intense, but I think the soft focus and the lack of detail really hides the strengths of this photo.

bassist
by arsenal

Comment by BMacD:
Hi! Here�s a comment from the Critique Club.

First Impression:
Nice B&W. Interesting motion blur. What are those lines on the fingers?

Composition:
Found the pic too dark. Too much negative space. (After reviewing your site, I see this is your style) Interesting capture with the bottom right corner of the guitar in motion, but the top left was steady. Don�t know if it would have looked better if only the strings and the fingers were in blur.
It wasn�t until after I took a good second look, that I realized what the lines were on the fingers. Neat capture!

Subject:
I think the picture would appeal to a limited audience. The darkness and blur would also limit the appeal.
I think you captured what you wanted to! I like the detail in the steady fingers. I like the detail in the non-motion area. It works well with the blurred areas.

Technical:
Can�t say a lot technically. The lighting & DOF work for you. I also don�t think you have a lot of options with the camera you used.

Suggestions:
More of the neck, to the right may have reduced the negative space. (Not sure of the proper name)

Summary:
Interesting picture, technically ok, but not a subject or a capture to evoke a WOW from the majority of the voters in this �Best of 2005� challenge.

3
by arsenal

Comment by FranziskaLang:
Hm. I have to confess this one doesn't really qualify as an abstract for me, not just because the objects (or shadows + persons in this case) are recognizable, but because they are also not at an unusual angle or anyththing that would make me go, wow, I never looked at it this way, or take a minute to figure out what I'm looking for. Obviously, interpretations of an abstract are very personal. This is just mine. I'll have to come back to you on whether I like this as an image. It works better than I would expect, being that nothing is really in focus.

3
by arsenal

Comment by bleu:
not abstract, but interesting

3
by arsenal

Comment by shamrock:
This doesn't appear abstract to me, it's just bad motion blur.

3
by arsenal

Comment by Keith Maniac:
Sweet! Nicely done.

labios
by arsenal

Comment by bucket:
I don't for a moment understand how people vote..this is one of the best shots in the challenge in my eye..

labios
by arsenal

Comment by aznym:
Nice work, man.