This IS an actual photograph. It is obviusly not a real diver, but a miniature cut-out of a diver. Water and ripples are real. Nothing has been added in PS or any other software.
The only thing I did in PS was to clone out three minor imperfections: 1)the thin wire holding the cut-out in place; 2)cut-out imperfections in its silouette; 3)two drops of water. I was disqualified because the SC has decided that cloning out those things has changed the way a "typical viewer" would describe the photo. According to them the original image could have been described as *a minidiver cutout, held by a wire, on top of the center of water ripples*, and the description of the edited image would have been *a minidiver entering in the middle of water ripples"*
I considered it VERY UNFAIR not only because it took NINE days for the SC to respond after I sent my original and edited photos for approval (I did it on my own, prior to submision deadline), but mainly because the SC is enforcing the same rule in a different and discriminatory manner: I did what I did bearing in mind an interpretation of the AE rules, in regards to the extent of cloning out things, based in what I saw in IMAGE ID= 450020: which won the yellow ribbon in the "Song Titles 2006" challenge 2 months ago, and its original photo posted by author as IMAGE ID 454356: . In that case the floating effect of the wooden frame was obtained by cloning out things in the foreground: both poles (each pole must be about 8 inches thick); the lettering on top of the frame (even bigger actual size); other wooden objects and people; the thick hard shadow projected on the sand. But the edited, and awarded, photo was not disqualified even though one could say the original description, coming from SAME "typical viewers", would have been "a thick wooden frame standing on two poles in the sand of a beach with people", and description of edited image would have been "a thick wooden frame floating on a beach without people". If accepting that edited photo, under AE rules, was a correct decission (I think it was), mine should had also been accepted, unless "typical viewers" change the way they see things every month.
You judge.
Disqualification Details
You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.
Statistics
Views since voting: 1330 Views during voting: 377 Comments: 21 Favorites: 1 (view)
This IS an actual photograph. Please read the additional description posted under "Photographer's Comments", where it is also explained why I think this photo should have not been dqfd.
Nice image if not a bit unnatural (not that it has to be). I'm trying to figure this one out. It's too early in the water impact to create those rings and it wouldn't do that anyway. I hope you explain it when it's all over.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
