You didn't answer the question, Fabio. The question was not what you are fascinated with but rather if you believe that your fascination is conveyed by such images.
I'll be as always sincere, and thus perhaps also appear "hard". But think that we are sitting at some pub in the night in Vienna, and we simply say whatever our mind might produce.
The matter of "enhancement" by "digital duotoning" (or any other technique) is certainly *not* to be done at free will, *provided* of course we still wish to stay in the realms of what we call "natural patterns". (And I couldn't care less about UF's "definitions" - I am a mathematician and not a sweet governess, OK? ;-)) Of course things are completely different if we start *abstracting* from such patterns. Then it is completely free, though I know that it is at the same time a very very good minefield.
But this is exactly my big wondering about your images. What should I think of them, what do you want to do? For abstractions they are too "real" and for "natural patterns" they are too obviously boosted in a completely unnatural way. Do you perhaps... wish to stay in the "space inbetween"? Please tell me!
Sometimes it really looks as if you were trying to "suggest" a "perfect fidelity" of the capture based on the ingnorance of thinking that PS would sharpen anything, and at the same time leave it natural. Is that what you want? If so, and only *if*, then you may convince the beginners with that, but take your images to some professionals and ask them what they think. You will see for yourself.
If on the other hand you are on that abstract path, and again only if, then you are free to do as you will, but then... try at last some real good perspective, some real composition, something additional to the seeminingly always lacking interest for search. For the entire series of images I see in your portfolio in the last months, I can only get the impression... he is shooting something, anything! Any wall and any tree can do. And this would be too cheap for me for what is called an abstract. An abstract is definitely *not* something, anything at all! It is not the usual symbolic nonsense with which many "photographers" here are trying to communicate their "hidden truths", but it is also not the product of no selective, conscious choise of the motive.
So, what is your objective? Nature, abstraction... what???
the term 'patterns in nature' is the straightjacket usefilm uses to classify the many pictures posted here... some of valerij's pictures are very detailed and fine (e.g. the little fungus macro), but others tend in a very awkward, kitschy direction... which in itself may transmit some magic to many usefilmer's, I think (rather fear). I was rather facinated by the lightplay enhancing the patterns of branches and twigs on that huge tree, trying to present it in a better way (for you optical illiterates!:)) via digital duotoning. if anybody is fascinated by a rather simple big tree (and not by the famous sequoias in california, etc) depends on each one and of course nobody is expected or obliged to take a closer look on this...
So let's deal with them exclusively by looking at them and being fascinated by them. Which of course includes simply neglecting absolutely any photograpphy considerations. Lemme follow you, that is! ;-)
The mere fact that you are fascinated by some paricular "natural pattern" certainly implies that I am exactly as fascinated despite the fact... that I didn't see it. I wasn't there when you shot that, unfortunately, and so I must... trust you that it was exciting? And you trust me exactly the same way when I post some image of a "natural pattern", ey? Without having seen the actual pattern but only the *depiction* of the natural pattern on some ofmy images, is that right? Which also means, I could start shooting around and post miserable images which then everybody has to find nice just because some tree somehow recognizable on there? Don't get me wrong here, I don't say that this is valid about this image. I refer to the consequences of what you said up to now. So, should I assume that it is enough to just shoot a tree, anyhow, and automatically assume that its "fascination" was transferred onto the image just like that?
If, and only if, you mean that, then take a look at Valerij's few shots of nature. http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/113162.html
The power of the contours and the sudden changes formlight to shadow are powerfull, Fabio! The tree seems to shine in a ver stnage way over the background, and the strict contours raise the contrast to huge degrees.
But about composition... well, I see once more the same old branches and leaves and all the rest against the sky. And that's all!
un buen ejemplo de belleza de lo oscuro, de lo amenazante, parece un pulpo gigante, un Kraken venido de las profundidades buen duotono y composición Fabio un abrazo....txules
0 
{K:127263} 9/5/2008
