One can see here the same elements in a different composition, lighting and point of view.
A little drama around this image: at some point during voting it was DQ'ed for breaking the artwork rule. Since I believe no rule has been broken I appealed to the SC. The SC was kind enough to reinstate the image and allow it to complete voting while they debate if the DQ is justified.
Mar 22, 2010: entry has been validated and all is well.
Thanks to all for looking, commenting and faving.
Statistics
Place: 6 out of 139 Avg (all users): 6.3379 Avg (commenters): 8.5556 Avg (participants): 6.1818 Avg (non-participants): 6.4059 Views since voting: 2758 Views during voting: 249 Votes: 145 Comments: 19 Favorites: 5 (view)
let's see - by the current definition of the artwork rule: you initially fooled us into believing he really has a shadow..? very clever setup and you're generous to share it.
I didn't initially intended to mess with the artwork rule. It was an accident and a surprise to me. The original idea was to interchange the roles of a real figure and its (unreal) shadow. I hoped to depict it here where the shadow is real and the figure is blatantly not. Also, I didn't invent the technique (of back lighting the cardboard made shadow image), but used it after more obvious techniques miserably failed to work for me.
let's see - by the current definition of the artwork rule: you initially fooled us into believing he really has a shadow..? very clever setup and you're generous to share it.
I vote it's totally original for the shot... The artwork rule should not even be considered for this. It's about the shadow and the balloon making the art something totally new and different.
I almost missed this photo - Just noticed that I had only completed 99% of votes. I'm glad I found it though as this is very clever (I hope you explain how you achieved this). I'm not going to pick on the fact that the sun and shadows don't align ;-). This got an 8 from me - good luck.