Playing around with the 'Adamski' effect, looks interesting and worth exploring
What is the Adamski effect?
What is the Adamski effect?
Its where the horizon or back bit of the photo is deliberately blurred
[And I had to look it up - not something I'd come across.]
Indeed, for those on Facebook search for Josh Adamski. Some is quite good, apparently it sells well, can be over done though. It works best I think when it's subtle rather than in your face
@AlanSh has written:Its where the horizon or back bit of the photo is deliberately blurred
[And I had to look it up - not something I'd come across.]
Quoted message:The Adamski effect is a photo editing technique that combines a sharp subject with a motion blurred background. It's named after Josh Adamski, an impressionist photographer who popularized the technique.
Indeed, for those on Facebook search for Josh Adamski. Some is quite good, apparently it sells well, can be over done though. It works best I think when it's subtle rather than in your face
It's pretty much an identified (not always sharp) subject - and motion-blurred everything else. Not just backgrounds.
A personal style that, of course, has been pounced on by everyone and over done. In true Internet fashion.
In landscapes/seascapes, it's still good form to keep horizons straight, no matter the "special treatment."
đ
Rich
A personal style that, of course, has been pounced on by everyone and over done. In true Internet fashion.
In landscapes/seascapes, it's still good form to keep horizons straight, no matter the "special treatment."
đ
Rich
And yet, me and the others commenting obviously hadn't seen it, and really was the last comment necessary?
@Rich42 has written:A personal style that, of course, has been pounced on by everyone and over done. In true Internet fashion.
In landscapes/seascapes, it's still good form to keep horizons straight, no matter the "special treatment."
đ
Rich
And yet, me and the others commenting obviously hadn't seen it, and really was the last comment necessary?
??. What's with the sensitivity?
I was just making an honest observation. I'm used to easy flow of comments here and honest exchange of opinions. After all, it is a site about images.
As I said, among photographers, a straight horizon is considered important in landscape shots. The most frequent response when a crooked horizon is pointed out, is a good-natured, "oops."
Sorry you have such a thin skin.
Rest assured, I'll just ignore any future image posts of yours.
Rich
Calm down, both of you.
Thank you
Alan
Calm down, both of you.
đ
I'm perfectly calm. Sometimes we make editing mistakes... bet I'm not the first or last one to do that when we use mobile platforms, sorry
@AndyG has written: @Rich42 has written:A personal style that, of course, has been pounced on by everyone and over done. In true Internet fashion.
In landscapes/seascapes, it's still good form to keep horizons straight, no matter the "special treatment."
đ
Rich
And yet, me and the others commenting obviously hadn't seen it, and really was the last comment necessary?
??. What's with the sensitivity?
I was just making an honest observation. I'm used to easy flow of comments here and honest exchange of opinions. After all, it is a site about images.
As I said, among photographers, a straight horizon is considered important in landscape shots. The most frequent response when a crooked horizon is pointed out, is a good-natured, "oops."
Sorry you have such a thin skin.
Rest assured, I'll just ignore any future image posts of yours.
Rich
No problem đ
Nice lines. My 2c would have been a tighter crop for a bigger "floating human".
Nice lines. My 2c would have been a tighter crop for a bigger "floating human".
Like this? I'm probably too invested in the original to have taken that step, in as much as I saw the person and the image was what it was and I kind of like the proportions, but I get what you are saying
Yeah, pretty much.
I left the bottom alone because the lines contribute and hit the sides and top.
What you need now is some metallic brushes for that Robot sheen !
@RonP has written:Nice lines. My 2c would have been a tighter crop for a bigger "floating human".
Like this? I'm probably too invested in the original to have taken that step, in as much as I saw the person and the image was what it was and I kind of like the proportions, but I get what you are saying
I like this cropped version better.
It demonstrates the Adamski effect more clearly.
Thanks for this OP , I'd never heard of that effect before, always good to learn new things :-)
@AndyG has written: @RonP has written:Nice lines. My 2c would have been a tighter crop for a bigger "floating human".
Like this? I'm probably too invested in the original to have taken that step, in as much as I saw the person and the image was what it was and I kind of like the proportions, but I get what you are saying
I like this cropped version better.
It demonstrates the Adamski effect more clearly.Thanks for this OP , I'd never heard of that effect before, always good to learn new things :-)
đ