> ...As with "photo" backgrounds, I strongly believe that how it > should be handled should depend on presentation. If the > "fake" is done so carefully that it can't be detected by the judges, > then what difference does it really make...If we're talking about > a photo background, does it add or detract from the overall look > of the tank? I the case of entry #4, IMO it was distracting and > lessened the impact of the aquascape. I marked it accordingly. > Others disagreed, and marked it accordingly. If this wasn't > subjective, we wouldn't need judges at all.<g> Ah, see - the perfect illustration in action. OK, OK - I was fooled by this one, and after reading Karen's comments I had to go back and look again. Even on my own 17" monitor it wasn't until I picked up on the visual cue presented by the placement of the power filter in the second photo that I could see what she was referring to... I *do* have photographic experience and *was* taken in by this one anyway. It wasn't until I was jarred into looking to separate the tank from the background that I picked up on the presence of a *photo background*. (Gee, I don't think I'll mention which judge it was that lusted after the "rock" in the background - especially since it now appears as a driftwood arrangement within the photo BG!) So, I'm afraid I have to sheepishly throw my hat into the "handle it if it's obvious, don't sweat it too much if it's not" ring - an *intentionally* doctored photo may have every chance of being fully accepted without anyone's knowledge. -Y- David A. Youngker nestor10@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~nestor10 ------------------ To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message. To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest" in the same message. Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest