This idea was inspired by the disaster this week in southern California.
I took the picture of these ruins in September 2003. It is what remained of our Michigan cabin following an August 2003 fire - NOT arson.
Today, I displayed the picture on my computer and photographed it with the butane lighter in front of the monitor. The smaller flame in the logs is a reflection of the lighter flame.
The rules state it is okay to use existing photographs as long as they are not simply reproduced to get around the date requirement. So I hope this will not be DQed.
Disqualification Details
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.
Statistics
Views since voting: 1098 Comments: 10 Favorites: 0
Sorry about the DQ. I think that rule is very hard to interpret. I'd suggest sending in any ideas that rely on it before voting starts to get an SC opinion or two.
Like others before me, I'm much more sorry about your cabin. Yuck! I know you were just in MI, so did you rebuild or buy a new cabin?
Nice idea. Maybe if printed it out, then you cut out the trees and replaced it with a black studio background. And possibly include part of a dirty hand, of cigarette. Currently it seems about 85-90% of the photo.
The background image looks a little weird. Looks like you took a photo of a photo being set on fire?. Yes, that's it. I had to examine it to figure out what was going on here.
This is a bit odd. It's like you either added the flames in photoshop or the picture of the fire is just that, a picture, and you took a photo of flames in front of it. Not convincing enough for me, sorry.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
