HOME | DD
TomazKlemensak β
One way
by-nc-nd
Published: 2013-04-07 16:56:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 13539; Favourites: 531; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 80
I love the effect in this photo- nicely done!
π: 0 β©: 0
The clipping near the trafic sign is quite obvious. I don't really like the blur-effect and the execution, but I like the idea behind it, sometimes theres only one way to choose.
π: 0 β©: 0
Our facebook page at work is overflowed with bad examples of camerashake! I really want to show your work to them, as an example of how it really should be made!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes you can, it's no problem for me.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you! And great picture, by the way!
π: 0 β©: 0
It's another example of photomanipulation.
π: 0 β©: 0
Whoa! Β That really messes with my brain! Β Makes me feel like I'm falling!
π: 0 β©: 0
Congratulations on your well-deserved DD!!!
π: 0 β©: 1
The jarring effect of the -- hard edit where the buildings meet the ground is likely what the artist wanted. Makes me think of the nature of urban/municipal "progress": Ad nauseam; ad infinitum. Along the walkway in the bottom right of the image, there is what looks like great care taken to apply the motion effect to the building without including the walkway. I haven't viewed it closely, yet, but I doubt a closer look will change that perception.
What about the area behind the road sign? If there is a building or building-like structure that extends to the curb, the motion effect makes sense but that area could benefit from some clarification of what's supposed to be blurred and what isn't.
I could SO dedicate a wall and some lighting to this one photo. Well done!
π: 0 β©: 0
Well considering this isn't even possible without editing, shouldn't this be categorized as a photomanipulation? And, I don't know, NOT be a DD?
π: 0 β©: 4
I don't know if it was edited, but even if so, it still belongs in the photography category.
dA defines photomanipulation as the composition of two or moreΒ photographic elements to create something entirely new. This piece doesn't fulfill the criteria!
Besides, editing is a part of the art of photography and should not disqualify anyone from receiving a DD. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if majority of photography DDs were edited in some way or another.
π: 0 β©: 0
lmao if you honestly thinking something being edited means it's not worth a DD
do you understand photography at allΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
he took the picture
it's his picture and art -- just because you edit things doesn't make them not artΒ
in order to make it in the photography industry you need to edit your pictures, so don't say that it isn't deserving of a DD because it's powerful and he executed his vision very well
π: 0 β©: 0
What does it matter? it is still a photo. was it edited? yes. should it be put in a different category? yes. But why the heck should it not be a DD just for it being put in a wrong category?
π: 0 β©: 0
I love it really good like that it's blurred and not at the same time
π: 0 β©: 1
Congrats on the DD
It's a very interesting photo, however the contrast between the blurred area and where you masked it off is a little unsettling.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Reminds me of the adventure time episode where Fin is yelling "MY WAY!"
π: 0 β©: 0
Take photo, select the buildings and sky, click motion blur in Photoshop. Done.
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
Well put. This shouldn't be a DD.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you.
π: 0 β©: 0
Great effort, I like the combination of the sense of movement in one part and the stillness of the road and sign in the other part
π: 0 β©: 1
Is this what video game characters see when they encounter invisible walls?
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>