I really like abstract photographs, so I'm drawn to these. I think they're beautiful. Actually the second one seemed more appealing to me than the first, and I was curious as to why. The composition of the second one seems to have more balance, I think, and even abstracts need balance. Then I noticed something interesting: as I scrolled down and the top of the first image started to disappear off the screen, the image became immensely more appealing. So my take would be that the first would actually be better (IMHO) if the top were cropped off. The crop that seemed the most pleasing was just above that sort of squiggly thing on the right hand side. That would crop out nearly 1/2 of the image which would severely limit your finished print size, but that's how I see it.

I'm still reeling from the last debate on abstracts bob, so am in two minds whether to chime in or not.

OK then, my problem here is, I see a lot of similar pools where I live, so instantly recognised them as what they are - so that leaves shape, form, colour to make them abstract I guess. It doesn't do that for me as is, but with some heavyish pp could probably be made to - a good starting point I reckon.

Now get yourself prepared for a load more twaddle, a handful or two of cutting remarks, a bit of rudeness - oh, and some occasional help with the subject. Erich survived and took it all well and I'm sure you'll do likewise bob.

The first photo appeals to me. The second does not really make an impact. I am intrigued that you were able to copy these. the colors still see vibrant and nice. Funny how abstracts work. You might see something and think it is wonderful; and then see a similar photo that does not move you at all. I'm not in Billy's boat altogether here. I don't really have to recognize something in an abstract to like it. So, thank you for posting. It gives us an idea what can be done with some of our old prints and, like I said, the first one is really nice; but the second one just doesn't, for some reason, grab me.
Erich

With abstracts I usually have an instant emotional response: oh, how pretty! Or oh, that's intriguing; I want to spend a bit more time examining. Or, oh my eyes hurt

With #1 I am intrigued to look deeper and find slightly different stories from the varied "landscape" you presented. With #2 I take as-is and say, that's pretty cool to know it's a natural abstract and as a nature lover, I wonder about the details, whether mineral, animal, plant.

Enjoyed these very much!

If these qualify as abstract it would lead one to believe the camera can be pointed at anything with the odd bit of color and the obligatory swirl and it qualifies as abstract art. Perhaps to some it does but personally I can only relate to images abstract or not that at least try to represent something and they meant something to the producer of the image so I am not sure what these natural patterns from nature meant to you when you pointed a lens at them. Did they speak to you in a way I cannot see? I cant see the plan to produce abstraction in just a point and shoot exercise.
They are pretty but is that enough?