Forum

congratulations to all winners! :) thank you for the contest.

no comments, bez kitu

congrats :)

They give price for image were PhotoShop is 5%... really no coments...

congrats to the winner!!!  i really enjoyed looking for the details...

and

Thanks Crestock!

ja tez NO COMMENT :) jednak gratulacje :)

i just cant believe how the second place wasn't first?
......

Nice one guys, congratulations, and thanks for the contest.

And I thought this was a photoshop contest ...

How was the final weight of the people x judge votes ?

I like the winning image to some extent, because it sort of went the route I did in week 1 (and lost), but photoreal instead of surreal.  I feel like using all of the images creatively together in a complete composition should be rewarded if pulled off well.  Whether I managed that in week 1 is opinion.

However, not to spoil the fun, I basically do not see how this image isn't disqualified given that it is based on a previously created work/photo (which others have submitted their precreated design/artwork as the center, which shouldn't be considered differently from this), but not only that, I highly doubt Warner Brothers decided to give up their copyrights on Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd.

If this gets disqualified, then surely Crestock knew it would be disqualified and just wanted to let it stand out a bit before fading away, as it is decent work.  Maybe I'm wrong?

-Crache

LOL, My first reaction was "WHAT!", but upon looking closely, It really makes sense. Great contest! Congratulations to the Winners!

What's Next???? :cool:

Sooo, all the guy did was make each picture we were given into another picture! Oh , but the pictures were in a room! The camera remains... a camera. The ostrich head wasn't, in fact the photo itself, but used as REFERENCE for a cartoon drawing of the head - it wasn't manipulated at all in Photoshop (unless of course it was traced in PS... but it's still not the photo itself). The only real creative implementation was the cracked dirt texture used on the couch.

How on earth did Pekka's painting come second to that???

Crache (12/22/2006)

---

I like the winning image to some extent, because it sort of went the route I did in week 1 (and lost), but photoreal instead of surreal. I feel like using all of the images creatively together in a complete composition should be rewarded if pulled off well. Whether I managed that in week 1 is opinion.

However, not to spoil the fun, I basically do not see how this image isn't disqualified given that it is based on a previously created work/photo (which others have submitted their precreated design/artwork as the center, which shouldn't be considered differently from this), but not only that, I highly doubt Warner Brothers decided to give up their copyrights on Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd.

If this gets disqualified, then surely Crestock knew it would be disqualified and just wanted to let it stand out a bit before fading away, as it is decent work. Maybe I'm wrong?

-Crache

Great comment. If this remains the winner, than there will be a lot of disgruntled contestants out there. Get on the phone to Warner Brothers, Crestock!!

oh my oh my. I would switch 2nd place entry with 1st place entry any day (:
i doubt that livingroom picture took more than 30min to make.. there were a lot of better works. but yea. im not on the judge stool

I think we all have our favorites. I do appreciate that the winner incorporated all 5 images, not a prerequisite for entry, but do question the use of Looney Tunes copyrighted material within the television/image. I know Big Brother Disney would already have a lawsuit drafted (remember when they sued the daycare for painting Mickey Mouse on the playground wall?). My only other comment is that the camera and photo do not even look like they are in the room but, rather, in front of it.

And there are some entries, in my opinion, which I cannot believe were passed over. Perhaps guilty of vote-rigging. Who knows? Some choices I completely agree with, so all of this is neither here nor there.

In the end, I go home to the same blue iMac I bought in '99, and will continue to do what I do, and not worry too much about others think of my work: http://www.crestock.com/uploads/competition/entries/633019699756250000.jpg.

Thanks, Crestock, judges, and anyone else who help put this on. It was fun, definitely spirited, only sorry that I didn't at least "show" with any of my entries.

On that note, off to watch my countrymen further bastardize the true meaning of the holidays. So is life in the States. And, NO, I did not vote for that dodo.

Where is this amazing work?

http://www.crestock.com/uploads/competition/entries/633021471979218750-thumb.jpg

I don't believe that it don't take any point from judging. Something is wrong here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The briefcase is beside the TV! I didn't even notice that. I really do enjoy this piece and I think it was done well. However, the level of creativity and ingenuity displayed in several other pieces (not to mention technical skill) deserves to be rewarded over this one. Taking a 2D stock photo and placing it into an environment as a flat plane on top of a couch or used as a photo (as easy as pressing cmd+T and matching the corners up), or just cutting it out and pasting it on in a place where the perspective doesn't even match (so it looks like the camera is distorted) doesn't qualify as a $10000 piece to me. But, like Stu, I did enjoy the contest and I have a new piece for my portfolio. I'm sorry it didn't get up there with at least the runners up as well.

http://www.crestock.com/uploads/competition/entries/633021589821562500.jpg

I still think it's at the very LEAST as good or better than the runners up the judges picked... along with a whole host of others that got passed up.

I was planning to give you my psd, when all this thing is over. http://www.ecoart.hu/petersantha/contest/

Maybe winner is from poland...? it explains a lot:)

Harley may own the photograph taken of that room, but WB owns the image on the TV.  Same rules apply if you take a picture of someone and intend to sell it as a stock photo, you simply don't own the image of them unless they say so.  It is my opinion though, that even without that, none of the contest images are the focal point of this image.  They are placed carefully, but only thinly connected other than the camera and photo on the floor.

The 2nd place image also relies a bit on a background image, but the scene with the robot camera and egg are the clear focal point.  I'm in no place to know how much of the 2nd place work was already created, but assuming most of it already was, the work that would be required for this is limited and is probably borderline disqualifiable if there were proof of the original image somewhere.  In that case, one of the other robotic camera images should be in 2nd place instead of this one.  I don't mind either way since this contest has been a little FUBAR since day 1 (I think the text explaining the contest is fundamentally flawed), but it is a good image without any doubt when viewed objectively outside of any contest or other context.

The 3rd place image is my favorite of the top 3 and probably the only one of them that left an impression.  Outside of this contest I don't think I would consider it as striking, but with everything required of the contest and the images provided, I agree it's near perfect and beautifully executed.

Given all that, I'm pretty sure there are several images that project more excellence, vision and effort than the top 2 or some of the runners up.  I'd point some out, but I don't feel like going through 16 pages of them.

And Jurch: The winner is from New York, the other top 2 are from Finland.

-Crache