Crop for Modern Art?

donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
edited February 2013 in Nikon DSLR cameras
Here is something to try. Take an image with good colorful out of focus sections. Enlarge the image to 100%. Crop segments out to emulate modern art painting: just pleasing patterns and colors. See what you can get. Here are some I did. They are best viewed on Flicker in the lighbox with the black surround.

DSC_0936e

Viewed in lightbox: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8484380104/in/photostream/lightbox/

DSC_0936a

Viewed in lightbox: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8484380082/in/photostream/lightbox/

DSC_0936f

Viewed in lightbox: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8484424582/in/photostream/lightbox/

DSC_0936b

Viewed in lightbox: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8483286707/in/photostream/lightbox/

DSC_0936c

Viewed in lightbox: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8484379944/in/photostream/lightbox/

DSC_0936d

Viewed in lightbox: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8483286577/in/photostream/lightbox/

The above "modern art" crops all came from this photo. Can you find them?
DSC_0936

I like the second one best when viewed in lightbox.

Try this technique and post your results in this thread. It is surprising what pleasing colors and shapes we can find "hidden" in our photos.
Post edited by donaldejose on
«1

Comments

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    Are you shooting .jpgs Donald? I see banding...
    Always learning.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    Yes, I don't see the "banding." Can you show it to me?
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    @ spraynpray

    Click the image and examine on Flickr at a larger size. The :"banding" may disappear.
    Msmoto, mod
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    edited February 2013
    If the banding is what I think you are referring to: colors tending to separate into distinct colors rather than demonstrate a smooth graduation, that is part of the effect. If RAW seen at 100% shows smoother color graduations that would be a different effect. Perhaps someone shooting RAW can use the same technique and post some examples of smoother transitions so we can see the difference. Some impressionist artists use very distinct color transitions. the works of Henri Matisse and Vincent Van Gogh come to mind. Their works are so old now they are considered pre-modern art.

    Now some people will argue this technique is neither art nor photography because it is not intentional and it is not in focus. You are just finding random sections of out of focus areas in the background of a photo. True. But you are intentionally looking for something pleasing to you in the randomness and you are intentionally selecting a frame to crop out just what you want to show. And, of course, you are post processing to enhance whatever effect you desire. Is that not what much of photography does? We don't create nature or street scenes. We observe randomness, find something interesting in it, crop to the composition we wish to capture and then we post process to enhance whatever effect we desire. Not so much difference.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    I guess that is what I don't like about most art - it is meaningless to me. I guess it would be more interesting if I took some recreational drugs, but as I don't, it is.

    Give me a beautiful landscape, cityscape or wildlife image any day.
    Always learning.
  • blandbland Posts: 811Member
    Brings back memories of the lava lamp. I think this would be a neat and inexpensive way of decorating a home with a 60's contemporary theme. I don't know if I'd call it art but it's better then anything Andy Warhol ever did.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    edited February 2013
    " I don't know if I'd call it art but it's better then anything Andy Warhol ever did."

    +1 definitely!
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    Sure, I feel the same (as would most people drawn to photography) but perhaps that is because I am (we are) less in tune with my (our) emotions and need some substantive context in order to generate feelings. I have spent time with modern art in an effort to better understand it. I have to strip away expectations of meaning and context and just try to let the image evoke feelings in me. When I try that self-awareness of my feelings (just let my feelings go) I can develop positive feelings for abstract "art." I can get as much a "warm glow" from beautiful (to me) colors and shapes as I can from an realistic image shot in great light.

    Look at this image in the black lightbox surround: http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8484380082/in/photostream/lightbox/

    It gives me a "warm glow." I see beauty there and wouldn't mind having it on my wall. But that same image doesn't generate the same feelings in me when viewed in PAD or when viewed on flicker with a white surround in any size. To me it is the black surround which completes the image. I guess this one should be framed and matted in black to produce the emotions I can feel from it.

    Does it make any difference to your feelings if you view these images on PAD or in the lighbox with the black surround?
  • GabGab Posts: 63Member
    edited February 2013
    I thought I would give this a whack. Here is my try, it's very different from yours tho and ofc me trying to make art is pretty much futile :D (I'm going to post it on the Pad too for a laugh.)

    DSC_1460-Edit
    Post edited by Gab on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    Re: the banding? It is clear on Flickr too (on my screen).
    Always learning.
  • GabGab Posts: 63Member
    Re: the banding? It is clear on Flickr too (on my screen).
    I can see it too, it's not high iso color banding, more like banding that could be a result of jpeg editing.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    edited February 2013
    Yes, it is an effect from jpeg editing and then cropping the image to 100% to allow it to be more visible.

    Gab: your image is more impressionist than modern art. I like it better than mine. What technique did you use?
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    My Junk, er, images

    Funny Junk

    Funny Junk
    Msmoto, mod
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,098Member
    I guess that is what I don't like about most art - it is meaningless to me. I guess it would be more interesting if I took some recreational drugs, but as I don't, it is.

    Give me a beautiful landscape, cityscape or wildlife image any day.
    Hate to break it to you, but photography (regardless of what type) is an art form... ;) So I guess photography is meaningless to you. :p
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    edited February 2013
    Interesting to see the different colors, shapes and techniques used on "throw away" parts of an image to turn the background into the main subject.

    These two images are excerpts run through two different Elements 11 fllters.

    The Palette Knife Filter.
    PaletteKnifeFilter

    The Ocean Ripple Filter.
    OceanRippleFilter

    I think it works better if we crop closer:
    Palette Knife Filter Excerpt from photo above.
    PaletteKnifeFilterExcerpt

    Ocean Ripple Filter Excerpt from photo above.
    OceanRippleFilterExcerpt

    I still think Gab's is the most artistic so far.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,289Member
    I should try this. I have lots of poorly focused shots.

    Might not even have to crop them. :D
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,200Moderator
    edited February 2013
    @PB_PM "Hate to break it to you, but photography (regardless of what type) is an art form... So I guess photography is meaningless to you. "

    You overlooked the word 'most' PB. 8-|

    @dissent - LOL!
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    What Donald has demonstrated is the struggle we all have in defining our tastes, opinions, and knowledge. We all come from different areas and no one can actually describe another based upon the posts here on NRF. It is interesting how we we do tend to become polarized, and I suppose this is what a forum is all about. But, IMO, I can learn from the experiences of others if I remain with an open mind. And, for sure, I do not understand a lot of the stuff I see. A nice photo of an animal or person is my preferred subject.
    Msmoto, mod
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    Yes, we have had different life experiences and sometimes significantly different cultural backgrounds. These differences plus our own various personalities lead us to different tastes and opinions. Unfortunately, some personality types think their tastes and opinions are "valid" and others "invalid" (polarization). The same thing happens with religion: often the most sincere feel the way they "found God" is the only way and if someone is not on that same path, they are "lost." It is always surprising to me to see how people from different countries around the word think their country is "best" and how people who have lived all of their lives in one US state think that state is "best." Such a point of view inhibits learning. It is best to try to understand others rather than to quickly criticize them.

    BUT a word about beauty and I will use the human face as an example. Anyone who has used Portrait Professional will realize the program is making slight changes to facial features, not just removing pimples. Anyone who has studied the results of plastic surgery or has simply observed the faces of "stars" improving over time will realize there must be some unconsciously accepted facial shapes and ratios between facial features that are found to be more pleasing to most humans. I have seen plastic surgeons discuss what these ratios are and how to make small adjustments to the human fact to achieve them. This is what many "stars" are doing. They don't look different, they just look much better. Now the current scientific hypothesis is that humans have been "hard wired" by hundreds of thousands or millions of years of experience to select mates based upon some visible features which are linked to more reproductive success and healthier children. In short, survival of the fittest tends to define the fittest as the most beautiful. Beauty becomes a proxy for selecting the fittest to enhance chances of survival of our genes. It is an interesting hypothesis which suggests "beauty" is not entirely subjective. If that is true, I wonder if it applies beyond the human face and body? Do we like images of animals because they are food? Do we tend to like the warm colors because they remind us of a fire and we want to be warm rather than cold? Are we drawn to babies because they represent survival of our genes? There just may be some objective basis for our various tastes as to what is beautiful.
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,289Member
    D5100, 85mm 1.8G, LR; hardly cropped at all.

    Dark of the Moon 1
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    I like it. Might even like it more without the moon?
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    How about something like this for a room decorated in tans and browns"

    DSC_1009b

    D5100, 18-55 kit lens.

    It is an oak leaf trapped in long grass I noticed this morning as I wondered around an office complex waiting for my wife to finish her appointment.
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,289Member
    edited February 2013
    Nice shot; and with the kit lens too! Nicely edited.
    Post edited by dissent on
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,176Member
    Nice shot; and with the kit lens too! Nicely edited.
    Focus and resolution a bit low though ...

    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,327Member
    focus and resolution . . . cute :))

    Here is the image before using the Elements 11 Ocean Ripple filter.

    DSC_1009a
Sign In or Register to comment.