Browse Responses
‹ Newer | Up | Older ›

Response to Seeing Double (Response #36)

Uploaded 272 Days Ago by rdavs - 23 comments

Photo © rdavs (Rhonda) - rhondaspencer.com
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

Ana said 272 days ago:

well, it's for sure the same butterfly, twice.
I'm thinking clone/mirrored?

Montage said 272 days ago:

Excellent! I've never managed to catch one butterfly, so to get two in one shot great, to me.

Montage said 272 days ago:

I think I've been fooled.

Ana said 272 days ago:

Yes, two with exactly the same markings and tear on it's wing! amazing!

Beamer said 272 days ago:

Great shot, homepage I guess!! Very nice...

Beamer said 272 days ago:

Oops, I was fooled too...Naughty!!

xose said 272 days ago:

The butterfly is cloned.

xose said 272 days ago:

I think next week the theme would be "Seeing Double (Cloned Allowed)" ;)

pete said 272 days ago:

lovely :)

photografiado said 272 days ago:

Very very good photo, but cloned...

Ana said 272 days ago:

here's the original, if anyone is interested. It's a cool cloning job, I must say. But you can see where the feet areas are exactly the same, and the feeler that had to be removed when flipped to the other side.
http://rhondaspencer.com/index.php?showimage=46

rdavs said 272 days ago:

Didn’t mean to get anyone into a double dander! *Grin*. The shot was flipped (to mirror the image) and then cloned, but I didn’t change color or repair wing of the clone intentionally because I wanted to twin the first butterfly. I actually created this a couple of months ago just for fun.

Ana said 272 days ago:

It's a cool piece of work, but the theme did state "no cloning."
You might just fool enough folks to get featured.

rdavs said 272 days ago:

I just caught this remark on another photo…

mooch said 1 day ago:
We're all for it, this is cloning and it's been specifically requested we not do this.

I honestly missed the request; all I checked before posting was the posting rules...

We only really have two rules:
1. You need to have taken the image and own the copyright.
2. You can't put your name on the image or otherwise mark it, because that will destroy the anonymity.

Sorry- honest mistake- I won’t do it again! Promise!

Ana said 272 days ago:

Usually the theme has a description. This one says, "This week's suggestion comes from Ana who says:Two of something similar. Two children playing in the sand, two ladies with similar hats, two leaves with the same colours, two buildings with the same roof. Two things that look very much the same. Great photography, no cloning please."

It's really good to look at the theme description before posting. Usually it's helpful in staying relevant.
No worries.

rdavs said 271 days ago:

Thank you Ana, I will be more careful next time.

flipthom said 271 days ago:

Beautiful colors you've captured. The butterfly looks EXACTLY the same though, so I'm wondering about the manipulation factor. Nicely done though.

flipthom said 271 days ago:

I figured with 16 comments, there must be SOMETHING going on.

No worries, I gave you good marks on everything else...because like most guys, I love pretty colors and butterflies ; )

Dave_Mac said 271 days ago:

I love this photo, but it is clearly a clone and therefore not relevant.

nattfodd said 271 days ago:

I'm sure this is a setup, you hired the two butterflies to look at each other like that! Seriously, absolutely amazing, and so much detail... All 5s from me, I hope (and expect) this makes frontpage.

nattfodd said 271 days ago:

Dammit, I got fooled too :) But it's a great image nonetheless.

panadero said 271 days ago:

like the colors very well

mtmartini said 270 days ago:

very nice but I beleive that this is the same butterfly flipped - a suspicious notch in one wing tells me this.

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.