Two shots of the same scene - one focused on the foreground (Navel orange) and one focused on background (branch of Kumquat). Combined in PS.
**************
oops... a scarlet ribbon...
For clarification:
The orange was about 6" from the camera and the branch was about 50' behind the orange. Under the "multiple exposures to increase the DOF " clause in Advanced Editing, one shot was taken while focused on the orange, and one shot was taken focused on the branch. In PS the two exposures were lined up (in register) and then selectively masked to make it appear the branch was growing within the orange.
It is my understanding that this "probably" would have been legal if I had edited it to have the branch appear to be "behind" the orange (it's actual location), instead of "within" the orange.
I would say, as a guide, you probably shouldn't use multiple exposures to create a photo that appears to be something it isn't...
Thanks to SC for the explanation of their consensus.
Thanks for the comments and favs during the brief time this was in play.
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: 939 Views during voting: 168 Comments: 15 Favorites: 3 (view)
I would still like to know your explanation for the title as i indicated in my comment during voting.
I prefer your interpretation, mine was not as thoughtful.
I was referring to the recursion of a computer program where a function calls upon itself within it's own definition. In this case, if you were able to look, up close, at one of the oranges on the branch, you would find a duplication of the scene in this photo. A shallow, but infinite, recursion...
Not really recursive in the way I visualize recursive to be portrayed. I don't see a repeating pattern in this image. Unless you interpret the navel orange coming forth from the navel orange tree and the navel orange's seed resulting in more trees which produce more navels ad infinitum. Why no color orange but instead black & white or lack of color? Because nothing is black & white? The challenge description does make it clear that it is about the color orange. I will give you a 6 for aesthetics and execution and for in case I missed the entire point. Benefit of the doubt you might say. Looking forward to reading your interpretation of this.
Really inventive and creative shot! Love the out of the box thinking on this shot! Love the focus, and DOF as well. Now, if only you'd put a couple of dabs of orange on the little tree, voters wouldn't be forced to say..."there's no ORANGE in it" ROFL!!! 10 from me!
I dont understand why you allows this excellent image falling down, uploaded in a challenge about color. Ok, this is an orange..but what are you trying to prove? Clearly, they refer to the color, not to the fruit
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
