This is cool. The texture makes it quite abstract; if not mentioned that it’s the sky, one could say it’s sand or paper or a handprint in snow. Excellent.
Claudia – lol. I never thought of it that way. Yeah, the texture of it does give it that feel. It’s funny what you can get when you crank up the polarizer and point straight up at the heavens.
It seems as though there is a loss in “crispness” from film to digital. You photos of the sky seem to obscure our perceptions of where up and down actually are, and whether the earth is really round.
Ah. I love it. Isn’t the sky magnificent? P.S. Thanks for looking at our blog (nothingrelevant). Perhaps we can continue to inspire each other.
February 17, 2009 at 2:25 AM
This is cool. The texture makes it quite abstract; if not mentioned that it’s the sky, one could say it’s sand or paper or a handprint in snow. Excellent.
February 21, 2009 at 3:26 AM
Agree with the comments above. Rothko even springs to mind. Nice work!
February 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM
This is realy nice.
February 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Chlochels – No problem. Your blog is pretty inspiring. Expect my presence often.
Frank – Thanks. Yeah, it does have a mystery about it.
Adela – Such kind words. Thank you.
Gi – Thank you.
February 25, 2009 at 3:42 AM
It looks like a painting. You took a picture of a painting, didn’t you, Chris? Com’on… Admit it.
February 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Claudia – lol. I never thought of it that way. Yeah, the texture of it does give it that feel. It’s funny what you can get when you crank up the polarizer and point straight up at the heavens.
Chris
February 28, 2009 at 11:05 PM
It seems as though there is a loss in “crispness” from film to digital. You photos of the sky seem to obscure our perceptions of where up and down actually are, and whether the earth is really round.
March 10, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Use – Thank you. Yes, film does have a kind of texture that’s missing in digital capture.
Chris
March 12, 2009 at 3:08 AM