sunset photo + PS Motion blur = DD? This piece communicates a certain mood very effectively, but I think the DD description is a little over the top, as are some of the comments. Just My Humble Opinion.
yes there is also motion blur.... but no it is not a sunset.
The idea is to illustrate a feeling, an atmosphere via the technique (which looks minimalistic in a way, but do not reduice my process only to motion blur, thanks ). I understand that you may find it too technicly simple for a DD, even though I'm thankfully happy it did. Anyway I'm glad the mood still managed to reach you...
Point 1) I asked a question. As can be seen from the question marks.
Point 2) Lighting causes me to conclude that this was a sunset, rather than a sunrise...Also, the location is typed in the artist's original description. However, I was asking, as stated above.
Point 3) Oh, It's GIMP motion blur instead? Seriously, that's odd that you say its not motion blur. GIMP yields similar results with motion blur on similar (sunrise / set) photos, after a little aggressive level adjustment. So, similar question back at you. How do you know it's not?
Point 4) I was NOT tearing down the artist's work. I actually find the piece to be rather nice, and was (more than anything,) musing about the simplicity of the techniques involved. I just think the DD blurb is over the top. The sad emoticon is because I was unaware you could only choose one per reply.
1. The format of your question causes the question to actually be, "Does posting a sunset photo with motion blur applied warrant a daily deviation?" That's not asking anything about the motion blur, it's questioning the actions of the community leader who chose the photo. Which is fine, you can certainly do that. I simply provided my evidence to support the choice of the CV. It was not intended to be hostile, and there was nothing to insinuate that it was. I disagreed with you simply, and without comment.
2. Here's the thing, though. It's an abstract. You don't know that it was even a horizon. It could be literally anything. The title seems to imply the origin, yes, but abstract photography is not about assumptions. It's about impressions. Your assumption that it is a sunset is perfectly acceptable; however, I'm questioning that assumption because that's what being abstract is about. Questioning reality. I'm trying to help you think outside the box.
3. I didn't say it wasn't motion blur. I said it wasn't done in Photoshop. You can tell based on the pixel patterns that it is not post-production blur. It was done by panning the camera during a long exposure. Not only that, had he blurred the image that significantly in post-processing, it would have been placed in the Photomanipulation category, not photography.
4. I never said you were. I simply disagreed with your opinion and provided a question to point you toward my own opinion. You are free to question other people's opinions, of course. And they will be free to question in return, as I have done here. I didn't notice the emoticon, I was just responding to your words.
I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion; I just questioned it.
1.Yeah, I realised that after the fact. I should have been more verbose and split both of those into separate questions. That's faulty communication on my part. I did wind up taking your words as hostile, largely because of the brevity, and the lack of tone and inflection on the net. That's not your fault, that's mine, for misinterpreting things.
As I have said repeatedly, I don't actually disagree with the choice of this as a DD. I LIKE this piece. I simply disagree (strongly) with the over the top language of the CV.
2.Thank you for the clarification on that. I misunderstood your intent, and interpreted your tone as sarcastic.
3.You make a good point about the category. So, fine, I accept that this was not post-production motion blur. I still disagree with you about the difference in pixel patterns between long-exposure pan and post-pro motion blur. Looking at examples of both, I have not seen any visible difference. I admit to not being a photographer. However, as a CG artist, I have done a lot of post-pro work, and a lot of analysis of images to see if they are fake or not (largely examination of UFO images--Yecch!) and gotten fairly familiar with both blur sources. As I said though, you do make a good point about the category this was placed in, so I am conceding the point.
Regarding the point by point thing, I do that simply to keep things organised.
To sum this up, and hopefully put a stake in the heart of this issue, I had no ill intent. I simply kriffed up the wording of something I posted, and (right or wrong) felt rather stepped on by a couple of people. For miswording things, I apologise.
As it stands, it's probably going to be a cold day in Alice Springs before I post in another Photography thread.