| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2007 05:56:13 AM · #1 |
My Self Portrait raised a lot of comments and questions...
here it is:
I took a series of different photos that represented different aspects of my life, printed them, cut them out, put a little foam stand behind them and placed them in front of me...like so:
I received a few 1, 2, 3 votes because people must have thought I cut and pasted them in and that it was all photoshop.
I am sure this idea will take off... :-) |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 05:57:57 AM · #2 |
How nice you are to share this idea.
Believe me you won't see me doing it anytime soon (well as a self portrait - GRIN!)
I do SO admire your patience - GRIN!
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 06:00:28 AM · #3 |
| That was a great idea, and like you said in your comments about the photo - the blured giant you is a vrey nice touch. Also, the title was very fitting as well (sometimes the title DOES matter). |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 06:08:48 AM · #4 |
| That's how I thought you did it. Clever idea. ;-Þ |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 06:19:09 AM · #5 |
I'm not sure that i don't also consider this cheating. I gave your SP an 8, and knowing that its mainly a picture of, well, pictures, i wouldn't have. Isn't this like the picture of the owl wearing glasses?
You May: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
So the image doesn't ENTIRELY consist of a pre-existing photograph, but it (more than?) 50% does. I also think that you 'appear' the be circumventing the editing rules. (using more than one capture, which you admit you think some people thought you did.) |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 06:59:18 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I'm not sure that i don't also consider this cheating. I gave your SP an 8, and knowing that its mainly a picture of, well, pictures, i wouldn't have. Isn't this like the picture of the owl wearing glasses?
|
Well, I've been here a couple of years so I can say that this is a common technique. There was only one capture. I don't think this one could have been done any other way under advanced rules and look this nice. Under expert rules it would be trivial. I'd hate to think how many 10's of megabytes of image data would have to be sent to SC if validation were requested. LOL |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 07:26:37 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I'm not sure that i don't also consider this cheating. I gave your SP an 8, and knowing that its mainly a picture of, well, pictures, i wouldn't have. Isn't this like the picture of the owl wearing glasses?
|
Well, I've been here a couple of years so I can say that this is a common technique. There was only one capture. I don't think this one could have been done any other way under advanced rules and look this nice. Under expert rules it would be trivial. I'd hate to think how many 10's of megabytes of image data would have to be sent to SC if validation were requested. LOL |
Thank you  fir3bird |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 08:00:55 AM · #8 |
Nevermind.... its irrelevant. I've learned my lesson. Push the rules as hard as you can, and maybe nobody will care.
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 08:03:56. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 08:43:17 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Nevermind.... its irrelevant. I've learned my lesson. Push the rules as hard as you can, and maybe nobody will care. |
I do care - A very creative and well-done entry. Definitely thinking outside of the box, and imho, nothing questionable about it. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 08:59:10 AM · #10 |
Actually, it is worth mentioning that this IS strongly nudging the boundaries of the rules, specifically:
You may... include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
This shot did come up under SC review, and it was not a shoe-in for validation by any means.
Originally posted by Nobody:
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Nevermind.... its irrelevant. I've learned my lesson. Push the rules as hard as you can, and maybe nobody will care. |
I do care - A very creative and well-done entry. Definitely thinking outside of the box, and imho, nothing questionable about it. |
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 09:18:29 AM · #11 |
[quote=alanfreed] Actually, it is worth mentioning that this IS strongly nudging the boundaries of the rules, specifically:
You may... include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
This shot did come up under SC review, and it was not a shoe-in for validation by any means.
YIKES! Is that why it took so long to validate? |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 09:23:42 AM · #12 |
The ones that aren't straight-forward validations definitely take longer than ones where all of the SC folks aren't in agreement, indeed!
Originally posted by hotpasta:
YIKES! Is that why it took so long to validate? |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 11:02:41 AM EDT.
