So, my entry for today was removed for being "inappropriate".

Really.

So...I can't use another photo of my kids...to put on top of the source for today...which just happens to be a photo...of MY kids?

So...by that logic...then this entry should be removed as well:
http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/107507/votes.html

I mean...it's not like EVERYONE has access to a 3D program to render a rear view.

And it's not like people here haven't done the same thing I did before.

I need to know exactly WHY it was so inappropriate.

Had I used a front view, would that have been taken down as well?

Couldn't someone have asked me to replace it or remove it?

So, Alex...according to your logic in chat...Beet had an unfair advantage when he posted a rear view of Gordonk. And I'm not picking on ya Beet, I'm just trying to make a point.

I guess he did, yeah. I give you that... I would've said the same thing.

wait, I don't get it, he USED the source picture, and blended another source into it! so there are the source kids, and 2 more kids which he photoshoped into the source (which happened to be the same two kids but in a different position) and thats wrong somehow? I guess I don't understand the problem here.

I could understand if he used a completely different picture, but he didn't, he USED the source provided here, and an outside source. This is sooo completely wrong. Shouldn't have been pulled IMPO.

So If I google a fighter plane when we have a fighter plane source, and blend it into the source fighter plane scene and it just so happens to be the same exact model as the source... is that going to get pulled too?

link to the original ifin ya can?

Removing was maybe a bit to harsh ...

maybe because 99% of voters don't even know who submitted the photo and might assume that the second pair of kids were an awesome piece of chopping/manipulation of the actual source kids and therefore feel obliged to vote for it, maybe, kinda ?

A BIT?

A LOT HARSH! He didn't do anything technically wrong! HE USED THE SOURCE PROVIDED! and a perfect outside source, he didn't just use the other outside source and call it a day people GEEZ

the only wrong doing here (if there is any) is not listing the other source, which almost NOONE does now. but still, he used the source! and it isnt like that one jail cell contest where some asshat found the exact same building we were using, just entered the new perspective and called it his new creation....

Should not have been pulled. Who cares if he had another view of the same kids? Like Sean said; he used the source and it was blatantly obvious that the external was just another shot of the kids from a different angle/time-frame.

Nobody really complained about Sean's usage of a different angle of the source that he took (http://photoshopcontest.com/view-entry/94026/crusades-action-figures.html).

Put it back.

Fight !!! Fight !!! I don't understand a bit of this discussion, but I'm ready to watch from the sidelines - GO FOR IT !!!

The outside source you're talking about... he is the only one in the world who can have/take it. So that's unfair. Got it? I can't google digitalpharaoh kids... I tried.

But the photo's submitter is shown on the entries page! It flat-out says "submitted by digitalpharaoh".

Submit it again DP and I'll vote for it again.

It's a matter of ethics. Your intention probably was not to deceive people into thinking you did the photoshop work to make their arms be hanging down instead of stuck out, or for the change in head angles, but there will some people who did not realize this and will give you votes thinking you did spectacular, very authentic looking ps work. And the bottom line is not that it was any particular outside source that you integrated (we all remember claudio's watermelon sculpture, though not his own work, was a source that anyone could have found) This is one that you took of an alternate angle of your very own source image and that gives you a unique, unfair advantage in that respect. If it was ok to do that, then why wouldn't most source photographers take advantage of that? It's because they know it's wrong and I'm not sure that it's written anywhere, but it has always been an unwritten mod rule that we should enforce this, if any source photographer were to try to get by with it. If we weren't consistent enough with this duty in the past, I apologize...

so great, I get your point, he does have an advantage there, didn't bother me. & he wasn't even close to first place with 5 votes.


And I get what Billtv is saying too. just seems rather unfair to pull it like he's some sort of criminal