"Cynicor" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Technically, this is not digital because he took it with 35mm film, but
I can't believe that none of the judges at National Geographic caught
this disaster.

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html


It was in the *viewer's choice* category.

Fair enough. It shouldn't have been accepted into the contest in the first
place, in my opinion.

The photo itself is on the shooter's page:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1443590.html

For some reason, every time someone makes obviously fake photo-art and
calls it a photograph, or uses eight-sided snowflakes, or a number of
other things that seem to bug only me, you get the predictable comments
like this one from his page: "i dont know why people talking abt rule.is
there any rule for art? if there have some rules than i will say
photography is not a art." It's part of the "stop pointing out this sucks,
you hater" rule.



It is a really crap piece of photoshopping and should be a pretty poorly
placed entry in any photographic competition.

It could be described as a manipulated photograph, but whatever descriptor
is applied in front, it is still a photograph.

Roy G