But at least in some cases – even when you’re not obscuring anything about the subject – the “abstract mindset” is a good one to have. It’s like the photo isn’t really showing the cloud and mountain, but their shapes and tones instead.Īgain, that’s not to say this is always ideal, such as documentary work, or photos where the subject is so impressive or unusual that it already anchors the photo completely. The image might show a cloud over a mountain, but something about the photo or the composition feels separate and independent of the subject. This is something I often see in my favorite images from other photographers. In fact, maybe everyday photography (the non-abstract kind) can gain something from adopting this perspective more often – composing your scene as if it is an abstract collection of lines, shapes, colors, textures, and harmonies, culminating to form your chosen emotional message – with the literal nature of your scene almost a secondary fact. Semi-abstract work can have a lot of impressive qualities. Sure, maybe you can tell that a certain photo depicts a building, but that doesn’t mean it is a purely literal image that takes no cues from abstract photography. That’s especially true if you ignore images which are blurred and distorted beyond all recognition very few pin-sharp photographs are so unexpected that it is impossible to figure out any sort of subject. Canon EOS Rebel T7i + EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM 118mm, ISO 100, 1/125, f/16.0īecause photography is so literal, it’s more common to see semi-abstract photos than completely abstract work. They are not “true abstract” in the sense of some paintings, where there is no distinct subject at all, just lines or colors on a canvas. Many of the photos in this article are semi-abstract, meaning that you will have at least an idea of what the subject is when you see them. This is the difference between abstract and semi-abstract photography. Is a photo “abstract” only when you can’t tell what the subject is, no matter how hard you try? What about a case where you do understand what the photo shows, at least at some level, but the more important parts of the image are its lines, shapes, structure, and so on? In short, abstract photographers have plenty of ways to get their message across.īefore going any further, take a moment and try to define abstract photography. Not to mention that abstract photos can still hint at the subject – say, nature versus an industrial scene – which can change the mood of the image as well. Emotion: Any mood you can imagine, born of the elements above.Composition: Balanced, imbalanced, dynamic, static, open, closed, busy, simple.Texture: Smooth, rough, hard, soft, and countless variations.Color: Warm versus cool, vibrant versus subdued.
Light: Bright versus dark, harsh versus gentle.Abstract photographers still have plenty of tools at their disposal to take great pictures: Sometimes, that loss is essential – you would be justified in firing a reporter who takes nothing but abstract photos of new legislation being signed.īut with other types of photography, removing the subject doesn’t ruin the photo, and it can even make it stronger. That said, when you take abstract photos, there is no denying that you lose an important part of the image. So, the underlying mood of your photo is somewhat malleable, not irreversibly tied to one particular subject or another. But by the same token, you can take photos that are pleasant and cheerful without always and only photographing people at weddings. If you’re taking pictures of a smiling couple at a wedding, the photo’s mood is likely to be pleasant and cheerful. Your subject certainly affects these variables. Indeed, the most important parts of a photo often are the “intangibles” – things like composition, mood, and emotion. There’s a lot more to a photograph than the specific scene you’re capturing. Once You Remove the Subject, What’s Left? Once You Remove the Subject, What’s Left?.
0 kommentar(er)
