# Goofing around could lead to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



## GuyF (Dec 2, 2012)

For some reason the older I get, the more tolerant I am of abstract works. Must be mellowing in old age 

Anyway, I was just messing about and thought there must be a market for giant "exclusive" prints of this stuff. Either go mass-market and sell zillions via Ikea or print out a couple of 8ft square whoppers to sell to Russian oligarchs for a few million a piece.

Just for fun, what do you think?


----------



## candyman (Dec 2, 2012)

Yep, you are right.
I see this type of "art" in small art-shops where you can buy it as a poster (prox. 30 euro) or printed on canvas (prox. 60 euro)
Regarding the colors....print a color that fits with the seasons popular interior colors and you have a winner to put on the wall. Next season people buy a new one with different color since they come relatively cheap.


----------



## traveller (Dec 2, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Goofing around could lead to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



What, $16? ;D


----------



## GuyF (Dec 2, 2012)

traveller said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > Goofing around could lead to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> ...



Sold! Just send me the money and wait 28 days!


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 2, 2012)

I remember some photo that was heavily photoshopped (and really looked like that too!) and it also sold for a million euro or such ???


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 2, 2012)

This type of photography has been and is quickly being replaced by with CG, simple abstract stuff is easy to render and there's more control over the subject and lighting blah blah. But hey, all the photographer does is carry around nice gear to location so he can click a button for the camera to make magic, right??


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 2, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> I remember some photo that was heavily photoshopped (and really looked like that too!) and it also sold for a million euro or such ???



{Warning, double post}
yeah that one river or something where all people, buildings and objects were removed for a barren landscape?
If it were a physically 'doctored' film photo then I would give praise, but millions for that?? No subject, story, message or anything, what an age of photography we're in. I thought the whole thing might be some weird promotion/advertising for Adobe "Man who meticulously uses photoshop makes tons of $$$, you can too so buy our Creative Suite!"


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 2, 2012)

I see a Mark Rothko comment coming


----------



## Jay Khaos (Dec 2, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> This type of photography has been and is quickly being replaced by with CG, simple abstract stuff is easy to render and there's more control over the subject and lighting blah blah. But hey, all the photographer does is carry around nice gear to location so he can click a button for the camera to make magic, right??



Very true.. 

From the POV of a stock photo shooter (and user... graphic design is my full time gig), I think the most profitable way to judge a photo is looking at it's thumbnail and how attractive it appears alongside others... which translates to bastardizing your photos 99% of the time. 

If you're trying to sell photos, it's true that something like pretty bokeh circles probably sells better than a rare photo of a lion in the wild taken with a $20,000+ setup, 9 times out of 10. But... HDR the shit out of that lion and put pretty bokeh circles behind him and you might have a winner! (jk lol)


----------



## distant.star (Dec 2, 2012)

.
Yep, the older I get the mushier my brain becomes! (And I haven't even added alcohol into that mix, at least not in the last 30 years.)


----------



## GuyF (Dec 2, 2012)

Whilst we're debating the pros and cons of what makes "art", I can't help noticing that in the 7hrs or so since I posted the images, the thread has been read almost 1000 times and the images opened almost 900 times each and yet no one has asked what the images are of. I'd have thought abstract images would have caused at least one person to ask, "what is it?". Maybe they're too obvious. Maybe I'm over-analysing the minds of the people who view this site. Maybe I should get out more.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 3, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> I see a Mark Rothko comment coming



+1
One of his paintings sold this year for $86.9 million USD


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 3, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Whilst we're debating the pros and cons of what makes "art", I can't help noticing that in the 7hrs or so since I posted the images, the thread has been read almost 1000 times and the images opened almost 900 times each and yet no one has asked what the images are of. I'd have thought abstract images would have caused at least one person to ask, "what is it?". Maybe they're too obvious. Maybe I'm over-analysing the minds of the people who view this site. Maybe I should get out more.



I was wondering about the first image.

The other ones look like a close up of a piece of steel rod.

Care to share details?


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

distant.star said:


> .
> Yep, the older I get the mushier my brain becomes! (And I haven't even added alcohol into that mix, at least not in the last 30 years.)


No wonder it is getting mushy! You have to clean all the mold out with spirit on a weekly basis! Shock and Awww man! And I am not talking Beers or Wines...


----------



## iris chrome (Dec 3, 2012)

GuyF said:


> Whilst we're debating the pros and cons of what makes "art", I can't help noticing that in the 7hrs or so since I posted the images, the thread has been read almost 1000 times and the images opened almost 900 times each and yet no one has asked what the images are of. I'd have thought abstract images would have caused at least one person to ask, "what is it?". Maybe they're too obvious. Maybe I'm over-analysing the minds of the people who view this site. Maybe I should get out more.



Well, the first one is obviously some sort of light source but I don't know what.

The second one looks to me like a macro close-up of the head of a nail.


----------



## Murdy (Dec 3, 2012)

and yet no one has asked what the images are of. I'd have thought abstract images would have caused at least one person to ask, "what is it?"


Are you joking? Who cares?


----------



## Zv (Dec 3, 2012)

No one wants to buy nice photos anymore, the stock companies seem to do well with patterns and backgrounds for their desktops. That stuff can be done on photoshop, seems like graphic design is where the $$$$ are not abstract photography. I've given up on stock. It'salways licence this and licence that. Frikkin annoying.


----------



## smithy (Dec 3, 2012)

The first one looks like street lights shining through a wet window (it definitely looks like something wet). The second one looks to me like a cork (from a wine or beer bottle), although someone mentioned a nail head, which is also a good guess.


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

smithy said:


> The first one looks like street lights shining through a wet window (it definitely looks like something wet). The second one looks to me like a cork (from a wine or beer bottle), although someone mentioned a nail head, which is also a good guess.


I thought cork too... May be I should shoot a nail head and see...


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 3, 2012)

serendipidy said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > I see a Mark Rothko comment coming
> ...



I think its a little different about him because he always paints like "that". I also think it looks more "natural" cuz he has to paint everything himself, choose the colors, the canvas etc.
Ive never seen his paintings in real but i know a lot of famous art pieces just have something special about them thats hard to put in words. Its that magic what makes an artist, the magic that awakes emotions in your hear and puts thoughts in ur brain. Drawings from "Miro" also look easy to make but thats not whats its all about. And its like 100% handcraft.

About abstract photography i think in way too many cases it just looks like somebody clicked randomly around added a lot of scripts or such to get a random final resul that just "looks so damn artsy".

If u just randomly paint around on a canvas im quite sure u wont suddenly come up with a miro or rothko or kandinsky or whatever abstract piece. Digital work doesnt include 100% handcraft imho but a lot of things u can just tell the computer to do and then it will do it. Thats why i think it cant ever be as cool as "real abstract art".

Ive more respect for people creating something so simple i always wonder "omg mr. rothko why didnt i come up with this for the past years??"  

But sorry that picture i mentioned earlier look totally like a douchebag photoshop job and you could buy lot of leicas for the price it sold for....


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 3, 2012)

Try your hand at film. The entire process. THAT is an art and a craft. Any fool can press a button, move a mouse and a slider. I know because I can do it  (Both film user and self acclaimed digital fool)


----------



## iris chrome (Dec 3, 2012)

smithy said:


> The first one looks like street lights shining through a wet window (it definitely looks like something wet). The second one looks to me like a cork (from a wine or beer bottle), although someone mentioned a nail head, which is also a good guess.



Now that you mention it, it does like like a cork.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Dec 3, 2012)

What are they?

Or maybe more importantly: Does it matter? In fact, the way that you can't tell is what makes you think... and it allows people to interpret it how they want. It's almost more powerful not knowing what it is. Because once you do (if youre anything like me), is you're going to overanalyze how it was created and imagine how you could recreate it--and you probably can. And then it loses value to you. But would you have thought to create it in the first place?... just some random thoughts

It's ironic to me how many "its not the gear, its the photographer" people there around the internet who ALSO shun anything that isn't a product of accurate exposure and white balance as unartistic... Technique isnt necessarily correlated with receiving attention. It's more effective to put aside your pride and appeal to the public as opposed to pixel peeping photogs. If it's your goal to make photography a career, it couldn't hurt you to embrace that idea. You don't have to agree with or believe me... but if it helps my point, I upgraded from a t2i to a 5d3 w/ $8000 worth of lenses and lighting gear about year after starting (just doing photography on the side along with other things) and never shot a wedding in my life

But... if it's your goal to become a guru-level contributor on CR or doing gear reviews, youre probably better off ignoring that advice haha


----------



## Jay Khaos (Dec 3, 2012)

The fact that this has been viewed almost 1700 times should be a testament to that concept. If you had opened the thread by announcing what the photos were, half of this activity wouldnt have existed..


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 3, 2012)

GuyF said:


> For some reason the older I get, the more tolerant I am of abstract works. Must be mellowing in old age
> 
> Anyway, I was just messing about and thought there must be a market for giant "exclusive" prints of this stuff. Either go mass-market and sell zillions via Ikea or print out a couple of 8ft square whoppers to sell to Russian oligarchs for a few million a piece.
> 
> Just for fun, what do you think?



I need to get myself a macro lens soon.... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## AmbientLight (Dec 3, 2012)

Jay Khaos said:


> The fact that this has been viewed almost 1700 times should be a testament to that concept. If you had opened the thread by announcing what the photos were, half of this activity wouldnt have existed..



Now the question remains unanswered, if people were looking for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ or more interested in goofing around. I was just looking for people goofing around and am quite satified with the result .


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 3, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Try your hand at film. The entire process. THAT is an art and a craft. Any fool can press a button, move a mouse and a slider. I know because I can do it  (Both film user and self acclaimed digital fool)



Im also shooting film just dont develop it myself (i guess that was ur point). But i think its a challenge since i cant just post process the hell out of it as easy as with digital.


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> GuyF said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason the older I get, the more tolerant I am of abstract works. Must be mellowing in old age
> ...


Oh! Do it! Get the 100L. You will not regret it. Unless you want manual focus 5x magnification...


----------



## smithy (Dec 4, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Try your hand at film. The entire process. THAT is an art and a craft. Any fool can press a button, move a mouse and a slider. I know because I can do it  (Both film user and self acclaimed digital fool)


+1 to that! I develop black and white film on the floor of my bathroom, and every time it's finished I'm thrilled with the results. It's true that I don't look dignified while I'm doing it though...


----------



## GuyF (Dec 4, 2012)

So now for the big reveal....

First shot is cropped image from 5D3 and Sigma 85mm at f1.4 very de-focused looking at Christmas tree lights. No Photoshop nonsense going on.

Other shot is 5D3 and Tamron 90mm macro looking at the business-end of a hammer. Some points go to those who thought it was a nail. Good guess. No major Photoshopping going on - just convert to B&W and tinted (hardly a quantum leap from what many have done in the darkroom but I did it without spilling chemicals all over the place ).

Since this is the abstract forum I expected to see more truly abstract works. Come on people, give us more than an apple core (how abstract was the first post in this forum??) and shots with nothing more than a wonky horizon.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 4, 2012)

OK...I'll bite. Don't know if this counts as abstract or not ???

Rebel XSi, kit 18-55mm @ 18mm; ISO 200; f/5.0 1/160s. Camera jpg altered in Canon's Image Browser.


----------



## smithy (Dec 5, 2012)

serendipidy said:


> OK...I'll bite. Don't know if this counts as abstract or not ???
> 
> Rebel XSi, kit 18-55mm @ 18mm; ISO 200; f/5.0 1/160s. Camera jpg altered in Canon's Image Browser.


It doesn't quite fit the definition of abstract art, in that it needs to be something that's not really recognisable for what it is. But as long as we're all having fun I suppose it doesn't matter how you want to define it.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 5, 2012)

Thanks Smithy ;D


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 5, 2012)

You want abstract? Next time you send your tiff files to the lab send them 16 bit instead of 8. Acid flashback!


----------

