"Fragments"

The idea is - an image that is beautiful or powerful or important or true and which only captures a fragment of the whole. A challenge to photographers and digital artists alike, present to us only a portion of a whole thing, but present it in such a way that we see it in a new way. Present it so that even AS a fragment the small part calls out to our whole soul, our deep self, our core truth. Do you have the courage to accept the challenge? Can you give us a fragment with power, grace or truth?

'Funny looking animals': I suppose that could include self portraits...

I like Mikel's idea of "Fragments". I can envision a simple image, but bold & powerful too.

I added another topic as 'a food for thought' ... if not this contest go-a-round then hopefully for a future contest.

Creative Manipulation ... Manipulating an image (photo, CGI, etc) or manipulating the combination of several images to create something unique, unusual, pleasant, striking, & so on.

About Minimalism :

The Art of Less: Minimalism also in Photography . and Examples of Minimalist Photography .

Great idea, Susie. My vote is yours. :)

Infants and children...

Because the futur is in their eyes !!

I want to see real photography and not so much editing. Sometimes I feel that the images that are posted have been so tweaked and edited that I'm not seeing the real thing. Whose up to the challenge?

I like "the way i saw it". Lets see some photos without editing! :)

While I truly enjoy "Minimalism" I would like to understand if there is a perceived difference here from the topic Simplicity that we had last Autumn? Or do you mean a much more scaled down subject matter than even those? Extreme Simplicity?

The way I saw it... let's see what everyone want to express...

My vote goes to 'fragments'. I think it would be a fun creative challenge!

**

Elizabeth:

What I mean with minimalism is explained in the links I posted before. Minimalism and simplicity can be a component present to each one, but they are not the same, seems similar but they are not.

"Minimalism is an ideology - a deliberate movement towards less.
Simplicity is a state of mind - the nature of uncomplication."

What to do, what to do....I like about 6 of them so it's rock, paper scissors I guess !!! :o)

A fragmented Lauren. :-)

"While I truly enjoy "Minimalism" I would like to understand if there is a perceived difference here from the topic Simplicity that we had last Autumn? Or do you mean a much more scaled down subject matter than even those? Extreme Simplicity?As for simplicity as a "subject" I don't think it means simple as in not trying, I feel it is meant to convey uncomplicated less cluttered yet high quality images...(?)"

I think you answered your own observation last autum. Susie's link is very informative by the way !!

Came across Symmetry. while surfing some will say a lot like the contest balance but check out the link. Was also done 2009 but the link gives me different ideas.

**

Here you can see over 25,000 MINIMALIST PHOTOS .

"What I mean with minimalism is explained in the links I posted before. Minimalism and simplicity can be a component present to each one, but they are not the same, seems similar but they are not.

"Minimalism is an ideology - a deliberate movement towards less.
Simplicity is a state of mind - the nature of uncomplication.""


I do understand the distinction you are making. Minimalism being a "style" or form of simplistic vision...


I just hoped the voters noted the contest similarity/ or difference(?) when making a choice.

My first choice would be "Fragments" and my second would be "The Way I Saw It". A true challenge especially for me who does so much abstract but has had some experience with photography as well:) Let's go!!

"...not seeing the real thing..." Of course you're not seeing the real thing, nor will you, in any photograph ever. Put aside the physics question of what is the "real" thing or the philosophical quandary of defining "real", let alone, "thing" and simply consider that when you are looking at a scene the image you are seeing in your head is a composite put together by the hardware and software in your brain as your (Stereoscopic) eyes roam over a scene, focusing here and there, blurring out what you are not focused on at any given moment, but you don't even notice how much of the scene is out of focus most of the time, that's not what your camera captures, it's an entirely different process. Secondly, if your camera is set on full auto it's making lots of "manipulations" of the final result, choosing an fstop which affects depth of focus, choosing a white balance, choosing a focus point, adding noise filtering, probably has a deliberately biased colour balance, most manufacturers do. If you are working fully manual, that and more is all true but YOU chose the manipulations before the file was created, that makes them no less impositions on "the real" than something done in the digital darkroom later on. All that logic aside - how could we know that each image was in fact unworked? What about fractalists and digital artists? How does one judge how much "work" they can do on image before it's not "real" any longer? I can't see how that idea is workable here. If we were all in a face to face camera club, all went out on a field trip, all brought our cameras back to the clubrooms and submitted one shot straight out of our cameras, that would be about as close as one could get but it still would not change the fact that every image submitted was NOT 'what was really there'.