<<< o >>>Salvadore's horseman 44 comments + add yours

This is a follow-on to yesterday's shot, and in many ways I think I prefer this one. As I mentioned yesterday, there appears to be a lot of noise in these images, but this is a result of the low resolution as presented here. I've posted a 100% crop of a section of the top right of the image which will give you a much better idea about this surface:


As you can see, this is either a pattern or some form of etching on the metal surface. Anyway, as with yesterday's, I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

Oh, and as with yesterday's this is a straight shot, of a reflection ... NOT a shot of someone else's art ;-)

focal length
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter
3.12pm on 5/3/06
Canon 20D
EF 70-200 f/4L USM
122mm (195mm equiv.)
aperture priority
C1 Pro
2x1 + reflections [metal] + abstract
comment by alan at 06:19 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I prefer this one also. Both very interesting images.

comment by Benjamin Riley at 06:38 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I prefer the first image, but both of them are great. Is that a person in the left side of the image. I find myself spending a few minutes looking at this one and the previous to try and decipher what the image is

another great shot

comment by A Visual Journal at 06:59 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

i wish it was more color saturated and i'd prefer to see more of the environment.

comment by djn1 at 07:08 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Benjamin: I'm not entirely sure what's reflected in this one, but I don't think it's a person.

A Visual Journal: why would you wish to see more of the environment? For me, the point of this one is that it's an abstraction from the environment, not a part of it, at least not as such.

comment by GeckoZ at 07:17 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I like the simplicity of this picture here and the way the colours blended with each other.

comment by BigA at 07:29 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Lovely texture. It's almost like skin

comment by Croz at 07:38 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Hey Man!

Lay off the LSD.. I don't see no Dali horseman.. Still a brave and appealing shot

comment by mark at 07:39 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I'm more of a fan of yesterday's but really for no other reason than the colours appeal to me more...oh and I think the scaffolding plays a part too given my recent wanderings. I notice some people have said they don't like the noise type pattern but I actually think it makes these images, it adds a completely different element to a (fairly) straightforward reflection shot. One thing I would say though is that I'd definitely class this as more of an abstraction than yesterday's.

comment by jbuhler at 08:34 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I prefer this composition, too. But both images would be great as part of a bigger series. Very nice!

comment by djn1 at 08:49 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Croz: what do you mean you can't see it, it's as plain as the three noses on my face ;-)

comment by prasoon at 09:03 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

liked both of them - abstractness at its pinnacle here - its tough though to make out anything - i atleast didn't !!

comment by tamONLINE at 09:07 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Great shot. and the 100% crop helped get some interesting perspective to your post. I love the colours much more on this one than yesterdays, as its much warmer. But overall, this image is just more playful, and lets the imagination run a little "free-er".

It took me forever and a day, to adjust my eyes to "see" what it was... and i'm not sure i'm quite there yet.

great stuff, djn

comment by djn1 at 09:13 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

tamONLINE (and everyone else): the great thing about this sort of shot is that you can see whatever you want to see. Following the Dali theme, I see a (Dali's interpretation of a) Spanish (or Latin American) horseman striding (from right to left) along a mountain ledge, the late evening sun casting shadows along the rock face. And perhaps the shadows on the 'ground' (the bottom left of the image) are birds in flight. Then again, maybe it's just a reflection of the Pleasure Beach on Blackpool's south shore.

comment by mark at 09:34 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006



comment by Mark [londonrubbish] at 09:34 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I prefer this one to yesterday's and I think it's because of the colour difference. The muted colours here allow your eye to take in the abstract shapes and details more than yesterday's. I also prefer the wider crop, the waving lines draw your eye through the image.

comment by Viking at 09:41 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I like the idea behind these, but because of the texture at this resolution they come across low-contrasty. I wonder how well it would work if you tried to reduce the "noise"... I just prefer a more contrasty image. As abstracts, these reflections work fantastically!

comment by djn1 at 09:45 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Viking: when I first started chromasia my main focus was the image as posted, not the high res' version. These days I do all my editing on the large image then scale it for presentation here. In this instance, it doesn't translate too well as it looks as though it lacks contrast and saturation. If you look at the crop I linked you'll see that it is a contrasty image. I guess, on occasion, that posting low-res' images is a bit of a compromise.

comment by zztop at 10:02 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

what the fuck you ass why the hell are you being this way

comment by djn1 at 10:14 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Just a quick note to explain zztop's comment: Over the last couple of weeks this person has stopped by and simply left the url of their blog. No discussion, no mention of the image I've put up, just a url. I asked him to stop treating chromasia as a noticeboard on which he could promote his own site, and junked his comments. The 'what the fuck you ass ...' comment is a response. So, given that he's chosen to ignore what seems to me to be a reasonable request, I've now banned his IP address too.

comment by Roy at 10:20 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

I prefer this to yesterday's, partly because the seams are not as visible and partly because the colours seem more Dali-esque.
It's also interesting that I think it ceases to matter whether this is a photograph or not, in fact it looks more like art rendered in some other media. We are looking at it purely as an abstraction and judging it on those merits, as perhaps we should more often with other images also.

comment by Brian Ritchie at 10:37 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

Astonishing. The instant I saw this, it reminded me of the sleeve of a Steve Roach album, Well of Souls (see here). (Hmm, your view of this link may vary.) But not when you see it in high-res :-)

It would be nice to see a wider shot that puts this surface into perspective - if only to give me a chance to see how I might've spotted a shot like this too :-)

comment by A Visual Journal at 11:06 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

"why would you wish to see more of the environment?"

because that would give more perspective and context, something this image lacks.

comment by A Visual Journal at 11:10 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

"I asked him to stop treating chromasia as a noticeboard on which he could promote his own site,"

hate to say it, but this is largely what the comments section of chromasia is/has become. i think people largely just try to post comments here so they can try to get hits to their own photoblogs.

comment by djn1 at 11:16 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

A Visual Journal: it's lack of perspective and context is intentional. As for your next comment: you're a cynic, at least in pac. Many of the people who stop by have been visiting for quite a while, a good few I'd class among my friends, and a small number I know personally. None of these comment purely to attract comments to their own site. Sure, there may be some who do this, but zztop stepped over the line.

comment by A Visual Journal at 11:23 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

i would prefer the image if you had not left out the context and perspective, intentional or not. i feel that if most of your images here had more environmental context and perspective, they would be better.

in other words, a visual puzzle is fine if i can eventually figure out what i'm looking at. but a puzzle just for the sake of doing a puzzle seems contrived.

comment by djn1 at 11:30 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

A Visual Journal: it's not a puzzle, it's an abstraction, of which you can make what you will ... or not. I guess my own view is that photography is never truly representational, but if that's what you prefer – a 'true' record or a scene – then I can see why you think my photographs would be better if they were more adequately contextualised. I guess though that this is a question of taste as much as anything else.

comment by A Visual Journal at 11:37 PM (GMT) on 9 March, 2006

i agree. i'm not right and you are not wrong, it's a matter of personal taste. my opinion is mine and may not be shared by you or others.

i'll add though that all photographs are about something. here it seems more about the technique of being 'abstract. the challenge is to try to have context and yet still be abstract. '

comment by djn1 at 12:12 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

"all photographs are about something"

No, I don't think they are, at least I don't think they need be. Photographs can evoke feelings or portray a mood without necessarily being about anything at all. In this case though, this is a 'photograph about something' – it's a reflection of an external scene in etched metal. That you can't entirely comprehend the scene beyond the reflection needn't be an issue. Again though, I think this is more to do with preference than anything else.

On which note, it's after midnight so I'm going to turn in.

comment by A Visual Journal at 12:47 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

that may be what it is, but you are not saying what it's 'about'.

an image where the subject matter is indiscernable to the viewer without explaination from the artist ends up only serving to call attention to itself and that's what it becomes being about instead.

comment by djn1 at 01:55 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

"an image where the subject matter is indiscernable to the viewer without explaination from the artist ends up only serving to call attention to itself and that's what it becomes being about instead".

Yes, but isn't that true of all abstract art? I can see what you're saying, but I'm not sure where that takes us. For example, if I look back through your recent shots a good proportion of them were either shot with a tilt/shift lens, or the tilt/shift affect was added during post-processing (I'm not familiar enough with that type of shot to be able to tell). But what are those shots about? Are they about the application of a technique? Are they about the isolation of detail through the use of selective focus? Or are they about something else? Sure, I can see the context – I understand the literal nature of the objects and scenes you've photographed – but what are they about?

Ultimately though, I don't think it matters; not because issues of meaning aren't important, but because it's the interpretive effort a viewer expends that brings meaning to an image, not our intention in producing it. And that's what abstract shots are about. They work to the extent that they can be viewed in their own right, not as part of something else. In other words, it doesn't matter that the original subject matter is indiscernable to the viewer – it makes no difference. Well, clearly it does, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, but you know what I mean (I hope).

comment by Robert at 03:06 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

Since I comment when I like them, I suppose I shoud when I don't too. This is probably one of my least favorites ever for some reason. I think some are right that if I saw or knew the context perhaps I could appreciate it on another level. As is I don't personally think it works as an abstract either, but I regret I am not able to articulate why. My sense it that it is not abstract enough. You can tell it is a picture of something else so its not abstract enough...does that make sense?

comment by Sharla at 05:10 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

An interesting and unusually revealing discussion. I guess I drop by daily because I share virtually all your statements. (Visual Journal: thought I recognized the Gorge in that 03/06 shot.)

I very much like the abstact nature of today's shot, still loving that crop, and can enjoy it fine in this format.

But I am a bit saddened that some much is lost from the hi-res version and not enough is lost compared to the simple thumbnail. It's like there is a quality arc between the thumbnail and the hi-res with this size being at the bottom.

Time for everyone to get a 'mongus monitor and you to post in hi-res?

comment by dave at 06:09 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

Love the texture of the photo.

comment by Dan at 07:40 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

I ike yesterdays better, and I still don't like the natural noise, actually I like the portion of it that looks like rusty orange spots. Actually looking back at it, trying not to focus on it too much it reminds me of noise you get on a bad analogue television signal :) and yes now...I'm beginning to like it. funny when that happens :)

comment by patrick at 07:48 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

here some figuative element appears (or appears in the mind of the visitor), and it works better than the yesterday shot.

you learn very fast David... All the genious learn very fast, but are you ?

Who knows ?
Pat (not a genious at all...)

comment by AVisualJournal at 07:56 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

"it doesn't matter that the original subject matter is indiscernable to the viewer – it makes no difference."

then you may as well put up a pure white rectangular box.

as far as my images, at www.avisualjournal.com, it is quite clear in most if not all of them exactly what you are seeing. they are about the subject matter, which the viewer can discern because there is a subject matter present. any technique(s) become ancillary to the subject depicted, not the other way around.

maybe i'm the opposite-perhaps my images aren't abstract enough. but i'd rather err on that side than turn my images, which obviously depiect some subject, into something needlessly abstract and subjectless just for the sake of being abstract.

comment by Lito at 08:01 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

i like this shot. And i prefer the first image (not the crop). The reflection on the bottom left looks like the body of a woman :-)

By the way, can you please explain: "Why the name: CHROMASIA".
I asked myself a few times.

comment by Ellie at 08:27 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

I prefer the last one, because there was a (vaguely) distinguishable figure, the tower in scaffolding. I love the grain the surface gives.

comment by Deb at 08:29 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

This is my kind of image. I love the limited palette (that's the interior designer in me elbowing it's way to the surface). I can certainly see the "Salvadore" bit (organic flow, melty stuff)....I can even see his curly moutasche in the wrought iron, but for me, it's pure "physics fusion". I saw it, and a "time" and space" themed popped out. Distortion and decay of "reality" misted through time's veil. Thus for me, it's not "Salvadore's Horseman" but "Newton's Nemesis"

"then you may as well put up a pure white rectangular box"
I take it that "A Visual Journal" isn't a big fan of the Turner Prize.....or Derek Jarman.

The discussion between you two affirmed the proposition that is painted over the door of the art room at my son's school: "Art is Never Wrong". That's why art is so liberating. Great, innit? :)

(Off to work.....which isn't very liberating)

comment by Carol at 08:32 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

Hi everyone,

I come to Chromasia almost daily to see David's work, nothing more, NOT to promote my own work - I don't have any!

I found out about Chromasia via the bbc, ie, his work had been recognised for it's merit - not promoted by piggy backing on another site.

Interesting image today, find it very feminine, all those curves!

comment by Darren at 09:32 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

Neither yesterdays or todays images really do anything for me. Not sure why exactly. Maybe they're just a bit too abstract and wishy washy.

comment by DavidG at 09:41 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

djn1 said, "it's the interpretive effort a viewer expends that brings meaning to an image, not our intention in producing it"

But if intent isn't important, that suggests to me that an image doesn't need to be deliberately created to have meaning. Then what's the point?

I would like to think that an artist is doing something specific, and it doesn't succeed unless the viewer's response in some way relates to the artist's intention. I accept that this means that I (with limited understanding of art) can't access quite a lot of work, and I suppose such work is not art "to me". So maybe there's "art that works", "art that works for some people", and "art that doesn't work" depending on how much of your audience "gets it". And "it" relates to intent, I hope.

PS I also have some photos on the web somewhere, but I'm too shy to advertise here since anyone clicking through would probably be bored after Chromasia. Keep up your good work (even the stuff that's not art to me).

comment by djn1 at 09:51 AM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

"then you may as well put up a pure white rectangular box"

No, what I meant was that it isn't always necessary to include the literal context of a shot, in this case, maybe a bit of sky, or a wall. You know what this shot is, it's a reflection, and that might well have been obvious even if I hadn't mentioned. In this sense, there is a "subject matter present", it's just one that you can't immediately recognise. I guess that we probably just need to differ on this one.

DavidG: yes, ideally there's some sort of marriage between an artist's intention and the viewer's response, but I don't think it's always necessary, nor is it ever entirely possible.

comment by djn1 at 08:40 PM (GMT) on 10 March, 2006

Thanks everyone, and my apologies for monopolising the comments on this one. The moral then, is that some people like abstract shots, and some people don't ;-)