When I began thinking about this image the first real idea that came to my mind was to make a Lego version of that famous picture. My first attempt was not good so I decided to change, but the other ideas was worst than the 'Charles Ebbets' one. So I tried once again and I got this one that really satisfied me, even if I was not sure whether posting it or not.
About the background: it's easy to understand that I don't live in a country with many skyscrapers, so I used a New York image. But I know very well the rules about 'including images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork', so I kept it blurred, cropped and before shooting I altered it in PS, so that no one could say I used a really recognizable and existing image.
The rule say: [the image] must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.
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: 5674 Views during voting: 463 Comments: 65 Favorites: 3 (view)
Did this one get a DQ?
I realize that I probably understand the letter of the rules, but I am totally mistaken about the reasons behind them.
This a creative use of existing imagery and it tries in no way to fool the viewer into anything.
What about photographing passers-by in front of street art, street advertising and so on? Why should this image seen differently rules-wise?
A clever, well developed concept.
I guess I'm a lot smarter than the SC and I was not fooled into thinking you went to the top of a sky scraper to set up Legos. Not a big fan of the artwork rule and how it gets applied some times and this is one of those times. Still this a very well done image and the voters got it right!
I have two DQs in 76 entries in over 6 years. Both DQs contained a picture in a picture !
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Thank you Ryan for your words. I am really disappointed and I disagree with the SC decision. Now I feel disheartened, but the best way to forget all of this was going out at dawn to take pictures and it's what I've done this morning. What hurts me is that is the second time that I get a DQ for being too honest... maybe it's my reward for being like this.
Thank you Ryan for your words. I am really disappointed and I disagree with the SC decision. Now I feel disheartened, but the best way to forget all of this was going out at dawn to take pictures and it's what I've done this morning. What hurts me is that is the second time that I get a DQ for being too honest... maybe it's my reward for being like this.
It's not my place to question the site council's decision. It does however leave me with much more questions and I can honestly say that I did not wish for this to happen. I only became aware of the big debate about this issue late in the discussion and upon reading it feared for the worst. Please don't be disheartened by this. Nobody wants to win or loose a Ribbon in this manner.
I'm just confused by the term "all photos must have been taken by you"
I have a feeling your ribbon will stand. Good luck though!
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Hi Ken, I had seen your case. I don't know if I'll get a DQ for this shot but your situation was pretty different: you got the DQ for not using the image as a texture. I simply used it as a blurred background. It was not the main subject of the photo I shot. But soon we'll have news from SC.
Hi Ken, I had seen your case. I don't know if I'll get a DQ for this shot but your situation was pretty different: you got the DQ for not using the image as a texture. I simply used it as a blurred background. It was not the main subject of the photo I shot. But soon we'll have news from SC.
Nice photo. I read your comments about the photo background. I figured it was a photo back there but couldn't be sure....so I voted as if you really went up to a high-rise and set something up by a window.
I recently got a DQ for this image.
This was an EXPERT editing challenge. I was DQ'd because I used a photo that I did not produce myself - on the face of my model. I got permission from the photographer first.
The DQ reason simply states: All photos used must have been taken by you. If this DQ reason was spread around fairly, then the Pea Pods may be #1.
Oh well, I've been in forum disputes before and all it does is get people ranting and raving ! I'll take my medicine and take the DQ and dream over your ribbon !!
The challenge notes clearly said "colorful little" blocks. Not only is that not a little block, it's NOT IN COLOR! DNMC!!!
Ha! Amazingly clever and such a creative spin on the challenge. Truly stands out among the pack. It's in my top two, and would be an absolute favorite if I were certain that background were real. Though I'll give you a 10 as though it is.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
