Your opinion? Discerning Perception

Yohanna_D said:

Now when I see these 2 photos they are different and the abstract vision is lot more researched than the first one, because of the bubbled bokeh and the colors are well handled;
the one with the dragonfly is different because indeed it looks more realistic than the other one; however the second image is not extremely abstract as it still shows real sharp shapes like a blade of grass. But these 2 compositions speak to me lot more than the first one - it's just a matter of taste

Click to expand...

Yes Yohanna!
You are right. It is not an absolutely abstract image the 2nd one. But I wanted to be as fare as I could in the comparison choosing an as similar image as possible.

I love close up and macro but in another way.... I was never interested in 'purist' photography as modern photographers call it. I'm not interest in reproducing reality as it is because in photography I like to represent images that I see with the feelings that I have or the notion of things as I percieve them with my feelings.

When I look at something I see beyond the realistic image that is in front of me and with photography I try to reproduce it. When I look at things I see shapes, colours, things that I feel and photography is my expression. There are things that do not work expressionistic in my mind and in my photos.

Like i.e. people or in macro photography bugs or insects.
Although I do not like them I enjoy and admire other people works, like yours and of many other friends here! But i wouldn't shoot something with bugs or insects.

The only insect I would like to photograph are butterflies!
I haven't tried it yet but I might do it.

I'm always very selective with flora. In example I'm not intereste in photographing roses or other flowers. I prefer leaves, tiny flowers and unusual flora. I would also love to do mushroom pnotography at some point.

Jack said:

I do agree with you, adding an other subject into the frame will make it interesting however this is not an abstract . However, the second one, is way more closer to an abstract photo then first one . And I love these flares and bokeh

Click to expand...

Hello Jack.
You understand my point well.
As about the flares and bokeh, I do love them a lot and they 'add' to the scene. This is why I'm stacked with my helios 81n lens!
My dream is buyng a trioplan lens with which I believe that I would do beautiful things but they ary bloody expensive. I have spent a lot of money until now for my cameras and it's time to go forward and expand my lens gear.

Yohanna_D said:

panos_adgr I totally agree with you and I totally see what you mean by photography as form of art and not necessarily representing the real world;
through my shots I never look for a real up close insect to show its realistic features; on the contrary, what I am looking for is telling a story, making it a piece of art; that's why i have so few photos of close ups insects purely macro that are descriptive;
Now don't get me wrong: a pure magnifying macro is gorgeous especially when it's well done, like ZAMIR PENA does; but it's still not my style and it does not correspond to my approach on macro photography.
So yes, I totally understand your vision on photography and I am 100% behind your outlook.

Click to expand...

Dear Yohanna

I would never get you wrong.
Photography and expression through art is something personal and has to do with psycosynthesis, personal aesthetics, beliefs and expression of its creator! The problem is that people most of the times cannot understand it. In the contrary here through discussions, with you and many other members, I can discuss with joy.