799:... (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; ... and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." I still don't think your suggested attribution is sufficient - I'd just remove it entirely rather than having something inconsistent with the license for others' works.
884:
132:
51:
702:
232:
even more powerful artistically if it looks more real. to the exten that this succeeds as art it is because it sorta looks real...but then wrong also. That is cool and disturbing. I'm actually basically an oppose (I like to force myself to vote one way or the other)...but am just doing neutral since you are such a nice guy, busted your ASS to make this thing, and I don't want to discourage you!
818:
525:
290:
255:. If I was going to support a photomontage for being a photomontage, I'd want it to look real. This one just doesn't- even though, obviously, we know that this has come from a number of different photos, it isn't believable. I don't feel like I'm looking at some strange fantastic landscape, I feel I am looking at a photoshop.
837:
Haha well I used to vote a lot more. Now I'm a constant lurker but vote only if I think a nom is going to go the wrong way. Most things get resolved correctly (IMO at least) without me. :) As I wrote above (in a slightly later edit, so maybe you missed it), I don't think a link to the source page is
231:
I heard that. And please don't jump through hoops for my vote. Follow your artistic instincts and let the chips fall as they do. My only point is...sure it is unrealistic...but I just think to give the reader credit via some subtlety. Not obonk him over the head with "it is wrong". I think it's
899:
The reflection of the plane is too sharp and unrippled. Otherwise, I like the improvements since it last came to commons. I think the aim of an educational photomontage should be to show an unnatural arrangement of objects in as realistic manner as possible, so that the reader is both immediately
614:
I think it should be an obvious photomontage, because that shows the reader, in a picture, what a photomontage is (pictures montaged together). What I find great is the reflections of the objects in the water. The other "earth" is far more aesthetically pleasing. And it's always interesting to have
173:
Is featured prominently in article and seems integrated with text (and is a good illustration of the concept). In terms of photomontage art, I don't know enough to judge it. Not really my sort of thing...although I liked this one a bit better than the others on the page. Do think these sort of
842:
share-alike they must be attributed by name too. You can either put the standard license and let reusers figure that out at their own peril, or you can put a suggested credit that lists them - but your current suggested credit is still not compliant with the license because it does not name the
1023:
And that goes to either version, because this is an excellent example of the photomontage produced by photo-editing. I don't think the purpose was ever to portray the photomontage as realistic, but rather to show the capabilities of photo-editing. The various pictures fit very well, it's a high
696:
What I mean is that photomontage is a technique which is used for a purpose. This image is not demonstrating any purpose, so it has lower EV than any which would. Photomontages can have different purposes, for instance to demonstrate how a proposed building would look like in the cityscape
504:) last year. It has definitely improved, but I'm still not sure about it. I feel like I've looked at it too much to really be able to judge it well anymore. I will say I don't like the Earth image used, it's the element that looks most unreal to me. Something about the colors.
326:)? do you want to make a fictional art work? or does it have to look real and follow some ethical and legal codes? yet, I do agree that fictional art works are better if they look real as much as possible, but being unbelievable is not a bad thing for fictional works.
272:
It is easy to remove some parts and add some other images to make it look more real, although it might have higher value as a photomontage, but IMO that would not be useful for
Knowledge (XXG) articles, this image is only useful in image editing related articles, like
962:
To me the planes reflection looks like it's only just behind the statue, but a long way in front of the clouds, which doesn't match my guess based on it's visual size. But I admit it's not far off, and I haven't done any calculations to test my estimation.
174:
detailed images do better as a painting to stand in front of, rather than on computer. Certainly a substantial work went into the creation (kudos). I'm supporting because we need one photo like this in the FP grab bag and the fellow did so much work.
779:
to force users of derivative works to list all the author(s) of the works which the main work is based on them, a work may be derivative work of many other works, and asking users to list and attribute all the authors would be a very hard restriction.
947:, notice the different between reflections of clouds and the Statue of Liberty and compare it to the plane, because the clouds are in longer distance (depth) and plane is actually between the Statue of Liberty and clouds... what do you think?
285:
and make it more close to a real landscape but then it had less EV in image editing related articles, but now, viewer knows that this is a fictional work in first sight by seeing things somewhere that they don't belong to, like the Earth
838:
sufficient attribution. (There is something in the edit box for text contributions that says a link is enough, but as far as I can tell there's no such click-through agreement when you upload.) Since the photographers have specified
410:
The castle beside the Sydney opera house seems to be much sharper than everything else in the picture. Unfortunately, I'll be without internet for the next week or so, so I guess it doesn't really pay to change this just for me...
117:
566:
I can't do anything about the Statue of
Liberty other than replacing it by something else, the Statue of Liberty is needed here and I don't think that's a good idea to change or remove it. I've made another version, using
813:
Do you think it is acceptable now? or should I remove the attribution suggestion? by the way, I'm glad that this FPC and my photomontage has attracted your attention, I understand that you rarely contribute to FPC
988:
I like the concept of having a well-executed scene that is obviously shopped. I notice some minor flaws in the cutouts (boat against the water, mountains against the planet), but these are relatively minor.
517:
I know, the Earth is the most odd thing in the image, I tried it without the Earth too, but IMO somehow it makes the work more interesting, especially that it seems the person on the boat is looking at the
488:
The problems I raised in the PPR last year appear to be fixed and I can't spot any (substantial) new ones. I agree that this should be obviously fake, thus making it clear that the image was shooped.
322:
IMO not always, it depends what are your goals and why are you making it, do you want to make a photomontage to illustrate image editing, photoshopping...? or do you want to deceive the viewer (
664:
IMO to a normal viewer who doesn't have any knowledge of working with image editing programs, this photomontage is an art, and it does illustrate it's purpose to them very well, the purpose of
381:
Is that something we can see by the eye? Or some techie photo thing you see in photoshop? I think we need one weird futuristic image to balance out all the birds and mushrooms and tablefruit.
198:
switching to neutral. I totally heart that we should have one of these images and the work in making it and love the Earth rising and all. Just feel like this thing is too unrealistic.
352:
I'm also kind of on J Milburn's side. I'm not saying I could do any better, but there are heaps of giveaways that this is photoshopped, like different resolution of individual photos.
655:
944:
759:
The suggested attribution violates the terms of the CC licenses for the other photos, which require attribution. A reuser needs to credit all authors, not just MMXX.
636:
I think what's wrong with it is that it only illustrates the technique, but not the purpose (i.e. reconstruction, simulation, art). Thus EV is not sufficient IMO. --
1097:
888:
501:
112:
80:
795:
The license says: "If You
Distribute ... any Adaptations or Collections, You must ... provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the
1087:
773:
I've changed the attribution method, now, the suggested attribution requires users to link to the original source where name of other authors can be found.
659:
395:
I uploaded a new version, please let me know what do you feel when you look at it, is focus on different objects similar with it's surrounding area?
17:
277:, I believe viewer should be able to understand that this is a fictional and manipulated work in one sight. I could only add the mountains, the
568:
143:
1072:
1052:
1033:
1013:
998:
972:
957:
938:
924:
909:
867:
852:
832:
808:
790:
768:
745:
726:
691:
645:
628:
606:
581:
561:
547:
512:
492:
483:
453:
435:
420:
405:
390:
376:
361:
336:
317:
303:
264:
241:
226:
207:
163:
1092:
706:
534:
278:
929:
Yes, that's better. The plane reflection is also in the wrong place (too far down the image) compared to the reflections of the clouds. --
323:
282:
212:
This is a photomontage, a photoshopped work, it's meant to be unrealistic! that's why it have high EV and it's useful for
883:
624:
366:
I tried to even the image as much as possible, please let me know where do you think should be fixed, thank you.
190:
139:
70:
1068:
1048:
681:
Please let me know what kind of manipulated/photoshopped art work will get your support for FP, thank you.
552:
I love the Earth. Some of the other stuff (statue of
Liberty) seems gimmicky. But the planetrise is cool.
178:
131:
994:
848:
804:
764:
449:
416:
357:
83:, this work should not be mistaken with a real landscape and criterion #8 doesn't makes it's EV any less.
615:
something other than a regular photograph-such as an animation, illustration, or this-on the main page.
473:
I've added annotations to the file linking to original images, they make the work more understandable.
50:
1029:
313:
260:
1064:
1044:
213:
95:
990:
844:
800:
760:
731:
So, in your opinion this work doesn't simulate anything? for example a fictional landscape in
620:
445:
412:
353:
274:
103:
79:, digital manipulation is discouraged, but this is a fictional art work and fits very well in
76:
722:
710:
641:
600:
506:
1025:
968:
934:
905:
776:
65:
A photomontage made by compositing 16 freely licensed images, IMO this is one of the best
529:
when looking at the image, I wish people could experience similar amazement feeling that
857:
I have removed the suggested attribution for now, until I could think of a better way.
309:
256:
698:
1081:
186:
99:
714:
675:
616:
530:
90:
66:
718:
637:
654:(i.e. reconstruction, simulation, art)? do you prefer a side-by-side work like
964:
930:
901:
489:
1006:
950:
917:
860:
825:
783:
738:
684:
574:
540:
519:
476:
428:
398:
369:
329:
296:
219:
156:
125:
650:
Would you please explain more about your comment? and your meaning of the
557:
553:
537:, I'll try to change the Earth with another image with more real colors.
386:
382:
237:
233:
203:
199:
182:
943:
The plane seems to be in the correct distance and location, please see
732:
308:
Surely, a photomontage is a "better" photomontage if it looks real?
882:
130:
49:
914:
Thank you for your comment, I've fixed the reflections (alt).
598:
better with the Earth image replaced, imo. I'm liking it.
891:
to demonstrate distance of objects and their reflections.
900:
aware of the hoax, but also convinced of its realism. --
1061:
Promoted File:Photomontage (Forggensee
Panorama) -2.jpg
57:- Photomontage made by compositing 16 different photos.
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
670:
to what extent and how, one can manipulate the images
1041:
Promoted File:Photomontage (Forggensee
Panorama).jpg
775:I must add that I don't see any specific terms in
709:), to illustrate something otherwise not visible (
666:showing what can be done in image editing programs
843:photographers as required (like I pasted above).
889:File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
69:available and have very high value. (see
1098:Featured picture nominations/July 2011
7:
815:
522:
287:
86:Articles in which this image appears
1088:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
1003:Fixed the boat in alt version.
816:
571:which is closer to real colors.
523:
288:
113:Featured pictures/Artwork/Others
1:
822:thank you for your comments.
533:felt when they were taking a
500:I reviewed the image at PPR (
1093:Featured picture nominations
193:) 18:14, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
1024:quality picture overall. --
797:name of the Original Author
1114:
1073:22:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
1053:22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
108:FP category for this image
1034:16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
1014:18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
999:16:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
973:05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
958:11:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
939:06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
925:06:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
910:23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
868:20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
853:19:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
833:18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
809:17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
791:17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
769:16:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
746:12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
735:? or it is not an art?!
727:09:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
692:15:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
646:13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
629:08:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
607:19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
582:19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
562:18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
548:18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
513:17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
493:13:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
484:17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
454:05:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
436:21:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
421:21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
406:19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
391:16:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
377:16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
362:15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
337:12:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
318:10:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
304:03:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
265:21:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
242:12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
227:11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
208:10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
164:16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
140:File:Nasa blue marble.jpg
71:Photomontages in Commons
118:Photographic techniques
892:
440:OK, OK, you've got my
146:
75:Although according to
58:
39:Voting period ends on
1059:Oops. I meant to say
886:
134:
53:
777:CC BY-SA 3.0 license
535:picture of earthrise
151:Support as nominator
136:Alternative version,
893:
214:photo manipulation
147:
96:Photo manipulation
59:
713:), or simply for
444:now. Good stuff.
283:Mont Saint-Michel
275:photoshop contest
195:
181:comment added by
104:Photoshop contest
81:artworks category
47:
1105:
1012:
1009:
956:
953:
923:
920:
866:
863:
831:
828:
821:
820:
819:
789:
786:
744:
741:
690:
687:
603:
580:
577:
546:
543:
528:
527:
526:
509:
482:
479:
434:
431:
404:
401:
375:
372:
335:
332:
302:
299:
293:
292:
291:
225:
222:
194:
175:
162:
159:
38:
36:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1078:
1077:
1007:
1004:
951:
948:
918:
915:
861:
858:
826:
823:
817:
784:
781:
739:
736:
707:another example
703:another example
685:
682:
674:the concept of
601:
575:
572:
569:the Blue Marble
541:
538:
524:
507:
477:
474:
429:
426:
425:How is it now?
399:
396:
370:
367:
330:
327:
297:
294:
289:
220:
217:
176:
157:
154:
144:the Blue Marble
77:FP criterion #8
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1111:
1109:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1090:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1037:
1036:
1018:
1017:
1016:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
774:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
711:reconstruction
680:
663:
631:
609:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
558:reviews needed
495:
486:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
387:reviews needed
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
238:reviews needed
204:reviews needed
166:
129:
128:
123:
120:
109:
106:
87:
84:
74:
63:
45:16:37:51 (UTC)
33:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1110:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:Makeemlighter
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:Makeemlighter
1042:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
987:
984:
974:
970:
966:
961:
960:
959:
955:
954:
946:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
928:
927:
926:
922:
921:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
898:
895:
894:
890:
885:
869:
865:
864:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
841:
836:
835:
834:
830:
829:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
793:
792:
788:
787:
778:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
747:
743:
742:
734:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
697:(simulation:
695:
694:
693:
689:
688:
678:
677:
671:
667:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
643:
639:
635:
632:
630:
626:
622:
618:
613:
610:
608:
605:
604:
597:
594:
591:
583:
579:
578:
570:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
545:
544:
536:
532:
521:
516:
515:
514:
511:
510:
503:
499:
496:
494:
491:
487:
485:
481:
480:
472:
469:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
433:
432:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
409:
408:
407:
403:
402:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
379:
378:
374:
373:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:
346:
338:
334:
333:
325:
321:
320:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
305:
301:
300:
284:
280:
276:
271:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
228:
224:
223:
215:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
172:
171:
167:
165:
161:
160:
152:
149:
148:
145:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
121:
119:
115:
114:
110:
107:
105:
101:
100:Image editing
97:
93:
92:
88:
85:
82:
78:
72:
68:
67:photomontages
64:
61:
60:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
26:
19:
1060:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1020:
1005:
991:Calliopejen1
986:Weak support
985:
949:
916:
896:
859:
845:Calliopejen1
839:
824:
801:Calliopejen1
796:
782:
761:Calliopejen1
756:
737:
683:
676:photomontage
673:
669:
665:
651:
633:
612:Support edit
611:
599:
595:
592:
573:
539:
531:Frank Borman
505:
497:
475:
470:
446:Aaadddaaammm
441:
427:
413:Aaadddaaammm
397:
368:
354:Aaadddaaammm
348:
347:
328:
295:
269:
252:
218:
216:articles...
177:— Preceding
169:
168:
155:
150:
135:
111:
91:Photomontage
89:
54:
44:
40:
32:
28:Photomontage
27:
840:attribution
602:Jujutacular
593:Support alt
508:Jujutacular
41:29 Jul 2011
1082:Categories
1026:Sherif9282
668:, showing
281:and maybe
945:this demo
520:earthrise
324:like this
310:J Milburn
257:J Milburn
138:replaced
887:Part of
660:this one
471:Comment:
270:Comment:
191:contribs
179:unsigned
55:Original
1021:Support
1008:■ MMXX
952:■ MMXX
919:■ MMXX
897:Comment
862:■ MMXX
827:■ MMXX
785:■ MMXX
757:Comment
740:■ MMXX
733:Bavaria
699:example
686:■ MMXX
652:purpose
617:Puchiko
576:■ MMXX
542:■ MMXX
498:Neutral
478:■ MMXX
442:support
430:■ MMXX
400:■ MMXX
371:■ MMXX
331:■ MMXX
298:■ MMXX
221:■ MMXX
170:Support
158:■ MMXX
122:Creator
719:Elekhh
662:as FP?
638:Elekhh
634:Oppose
349:Oppose
253:Oppose
62:Reason
965:99of9
931:99of9
902:99of9
625:email
490:MER-C
142:with
16:<
1069:talk
1049:talk
1030:talk
995:talk
969:talk
935:talk
906:talk
849:talk
805:talk
765:talk
723:talk
717:. --
705:and
672:and
656:this
642:talk
621:Talk
596:Much
502:link
450:talk
417:talk
358:talk
314:talk
279:boat
261:talk
187:talk
126:Mmxx
715:art
658:or
560:)
554:TCO
389:)
383:TCO
240:)
234:TCO
206:)
200:TCO
183:TCO
43:at
1084::
1071:)
1063:--
1051:)
1043:--
1032:)
997:)
971:)
963:--
937:)
908:)
851:)
807:)
767:)
725:)
701:,
644:)
627:)
452:)
419:)
360:)
316:)
263:)
189:•
153:--
116:,
102:,
98:,
94:,
1067:(
1047:(
1028:(
993:(
967:(
933:(
904:(
847:(
803:(
763:(
721:(
679:.
640:(
623:-
619:(
556:(
448:(
415:(
385:(
356:(
312:(
259:(
236:(
202:(
185:(
73:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
