DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Abstract Motion via Camera / Subject
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/27/2012 01:52:38 AM · #1
Sounds like an interesting one.

Previous challenge = Abstract Motion
06/27/2012 09:29:01 AM · #2
What if both camera AND subject are in motion?
06/27/2012 12:43:25 PM · #3
Originally posted by Spork99:

What if both camera AND subject are in motion?


It's impossible NOT to be in motion, as our little rock hurtles through time & space...
06/27/2012 02:53:17 PM · #4
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

What if both camera AND subject are in motion?


It's impossible NOT to be in motion, as our little rock hurtles through time & space...


Earth Motion
06/27/2012 02:53:17 PM · #5
Originally posted by Spork99:

What if both camera AND subject are in motion?

The camera will explode.
06/27/2012 03:15:18 PM · #6
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

What if both camera AND subject are in motion?


It's impossible NOT to be in motion, as our little rock hurtles through time & space...


As they say... It's all relative.
06/27/2012 03:21:58 PM · #7
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

What if both camera AND subject are in motion?


It's impossible NOT to be in motion, as our little rock hurtles through time & space...


Let me clarify then.

Assuming a stationary reference frame relative to a fixed point on (or in) the earth, what if both the camera and subject are in motion relative to each other and the aforementioned stationary reference frame?
06/27/2012 03:25:58 PM · #8
Then again, if I simply define my stationary frame of reference relative to my camera, any and all motion is subject motion. Or I could define my stationary reference frame relative to the subject and any and all motion becomes camera motion.
06/27/2012 03:28:29 PM · #9
And I thought I understood what they meant...
06/27/2012 03:52:35 PM · #10
Originally posted by Spork99:

Assuming a stationary reference frame relative to a fixed point on (or in) the earth, what if both the camera and subject are in motion relative to each other and the aforementioned stationary reference frame?

You have to do what I did, and choose which challenge you think (or you think the voters will think) it better suits ... or else flip a coin?
06/27/2012 07:06:00 PM · #11
how is it different than motion panning?
06/27/2012 07:09:04 PM · #12
Originally posted by pgirish007:

how is it different than motion panning?

It's not the method, but the outcome. You can do motion panning, but the result should be ABSTRACT.
06/27/2012 07:15:08 PM · #13
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

What if both camera AND subject are in motion?


It's impossible NOT to be in motion, as our little rock hurtles through time & space...


Let me clarify then.

Assuming a stationary reference frame relative to a fixed point on (or in) the earth, what if both the camera and subject are in motion relative to each other and the aforementioned stationary reference frame?


I love it when you speak "engineer". It's like someone speaking in tongues :-)
06/28/2012 05:33:11 AM · #14
Funny this challenge should come up now as only last week I was experimenting with zooming in and out whilst taking an image. Not sure if such a technique would also fall within the description of this challenge though. For what it's worth here is one of the results of my experimenting. This was in a pine forest. "Dodging trees at warp speed"
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/99263/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1023191.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/99263/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1023191.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
06/28/2012 09:34:41 AM · #15
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Spork99:

What if both camera AND subject are in motion?


It's impossible NOT to be in motion, as our little rock hurtles through time & space...


Let me clarify then.

Assuming a stationary reference frame relative to a fixed point on (or in) the earth, what if both the camera and subject are in motion relative to each other and the aforementioned stationary reference frame?


I love it when you speak "engineer". It's like someone speaking in tongues :-)


I get that a lot.

06/28/2012 10:54:21 AM · #16
Originally posted by JustFred:

Funny this challenge should come up now as only last week I was experimenting with zooming in and out whilst taking an image. Not sure if such a technique would also fall within the description of this challenge though. For what it's worth here is one of the results of my experimenting. This was in a pine forest. "Dodging trees at warp speed"
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/99263/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1023191.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/99263/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1023191.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

For this particular one, I would not consider it abstract enough.

06/28/2012 11:21:56 AM · #17
Originally posted by marcusvdt:

Originally posted by JustFred:

Funny this challenge should come up now as only last week I was experimenting with zooming in and out whilst taking an image. Not sure if such a technique would also fall within the description of this challenge though. For what it's worth here is one of the results of my experimenting. This was in a pine forest. "Dodging trees at warp speed"
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/99263/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1023191.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/95000-99999/99263/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1023191.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

For this particular one, I would not consider it abstract enough.


Have to agree, though it is a cool shot. Zoomblurs are fun! Abstracts, as I understand it, are supposed to be of a subject that can barely be recognized. Or something like that :-/
06/28/2012 11:41:19 AM · #18
To me, abstract is about shapes and colors (if not b&w). If the shot is about trees, it doesn't really fit my idea of abstract. That's not to say that a shot of trees can't be abstract, it's just about the emphasis. Are the trees the main emphasis, or are the shapes and colors what peaks your interest.
06/28/2012 12:15:35 PM · #19
Originally posted by JuliBoc:

To me, abstract is about shapes and colors (if not b&w). If the shot is about trees, it doesn't really fit my idea of abstract. That's not to say that a shot of trees can't be abstract, it's just about the emphasis. Are the trees the main emphasis, or are the shapes and colors what peaks your interest.


Similar, to what you say...my definition has always been not whether the object is "recognizable"...but what you see first and predominantly.

If the shapes and patterns are more prominant than the "recognition of whats there", then it's abstract.

Not motion blur, but a good example:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1012938.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1012938.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This is clearly recognizable, yet to me it's abstract, because the shapes and patterns predominate over our recognition of the subject.

Of course, the more unrecognizeable, the easier it is to claim...e.g.,

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1012943.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1565/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1012943.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Also recognizable, but it takes effort because the patterns are so strong.

For motion blur, I consider this abstract, though recognizable:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/212/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_73934.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/212/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_73934.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

And this moreso, though also recognizable:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10000-14999/12253/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_105399.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10000-14999/12253/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_105399.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
06/28/2012 02:43:47 PM · #20
Abstract art relies on form, line and/or color independent of reference to the physical world.

So, a photo could be of some "thing" that's recognizable and still be abstract as long as the form, line and/or color dominate over the "thing". In other words, does the "thing" in the photo make the photo? If it does, the photo is probably more about the "thing" and not so much abstract.

Message edited by author 2012-06-28 14:44:46.
06/28/2012 04:35:30 PM · #21
Just to pile on the definition party... I thought this was well stated:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Abstract for me is when the work's strongest subject is any or all of the elements of composition--line, color, form, shape, texture, value, space, & point of view.
06/28/2012 04:59:50 PM · #22
We have had this discussion about an abstract not being recognizable or recognizable so many times here on DPC.
I think the following piece of writing puts it very aptly and I did post this in the previous discussion as well but nobody took any notice of it then.

Quote" Abstraction is really about learning to see the basic visual building blocks within your subject (line and shape, form and colour) and then arranging these components in pure design. Generally such an exercise will present the subject in an unusual way, and most often in "stripped down" form, often leaving the subject unrecognizable. But whether we still can or cannot recognize the subject is a moot point and neither negates nor validates the work as an abstract"
Going back to the opening quote, "If it is recognizable as an object – it is not an abstract," if the photographer literally meant that if viewers can identify what the subject is, then it is not an abstract, then he misunderstands the concept of abstraction. But if he meant that presenting the object as a recognizable "whole" means we haven’t created an abstract, I would agree"Unquote

Read the complete short article here:
//www.naturephotographers.net/articles0209/dw0209-1.html

Message edited by author 2012-06-28 17:03:23.
06/28/2012 05:49:20 PM · #23
All this talk about what is/isn't *supposed* to be abstract is driving me to distraction. Or should that be disabstraction?
06/30/2012 11:32:56 AM · #24
Pass. Who is coming up with these Challenges? Looks like the only one worth entering is the free study.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 06:33:42 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 06:33:42 PM EST.