Do you see what I see?

[acparsons62 2]

What do you see?

 

[BrandonSCMedia]

Immature of me to laugh but....

 

[acparsons62 2]

Immature of me to laugh but....

???

 

[BrandonSCMedia]

Immature of me to laugh but....

???

What is it that YOU see?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[acparsons62 2]

An Abstract Photo.

 

[BrandonSCMedia]

I guess i did show a tad bit of immaturity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jenko]

Well, I think your title sets up the viewer to see all sorts of things they would not see otherwise. That's not a bad thing, but also no reason to judge what others may see.

At first I thought the shapes looked like people, then the middle one struck me as phallic. But I can be a pervert sometimes.

 

[gsgary]

Same as i saw in this one

 

[timor]

An Abstract Photo.

If you are calling it so, then Brandon can see whatever imagination brings on his mind. Is clearly visible Brandon needs a women. .
Idea for your picture is good, IMO not everything worked out OK. BG is too busy, there should be no detail at all. Why ? The main motive is very scarce so naturally eye will wander around and notices the lines in BG. Problem is increased by the fact, the lines connects the spikes, and then on the left side is something big and textured. Maybe the problems will be less prominent, if you would exposed this frame properly to show the main subject. Now we have overexposed front and overexposed by so much, that the BG is thrown in zone 3. Two stops shorter exposure would do better job. IMHO.

 

[limr33 3]

Well, I think your title sets up the viewer to see all sorts of things they would not see otherwise. That's not a bad thing, but also no reason to judge what others may see.

At first I thought the shapes looked like people, then the middle one struck me as phallic. But I can be a pervert sometimes.

This is exactly what I saw. It looked like two adults holding hands with a child. Then I realized the "child" also looks like a gentleman's sausage. With, um, eggs on the side.

 

[FocusTester]

Well, I think your title sets up the viewer to see all sorts of things they would not see otherwise. That's not a bad thing, but also no reason to judge what others may see.

At first I thought the shapes looked like people, then the middle one struck me as phallic. But I can be a pervert sometimes.

This is exactly what I saw. It looked like two adults holding hands with a child. Then I realized the "child" also looks like a gentleman's sausage. With, um, eggs on the side.

LOL! Well put!

 

[AlanKlein85 1]

Two adults holding hands with a child.

 

[sm4him]

Well, I think your title sets up the viewer to see all sorts of things they would not see otherwise. That's not a bad thing, but also no reason to judge what others may see.

At first I thought the shapes looked like people, then the middle one struck me as phallic. But I can be a pervert sometimes.

I don't know that the OP was "judging" Brandon's comment--actually, his comment had ME confused as well, and my reply would have been something along the lines of "huh?" because I, too, initially saw a couple holding a small child's hands, and I didn't know why on earth THAT would make someone laugh, or feel immature about laughing.

It was only after realizing that pretty much only ONE thing tends to make people giggle like schoolchildren, then feel immature about it, that I "saw" the phallic symbol in the middle. The rest of you must just have MUCH dirtier minds than I do. :lmao:

Oh, and OP: I wouldn't really call this an abstract. It's an interesting photo, and clearly, different things can be "seen" in it, but it's not really an abstract, imo.

 

[Bossy]

I can tell you I did NOT see the holding hands one

 

[acparsons62 2]

Thanks for the feedback, I definitely did not see the phallic symbol.