I did not misunderstand, kokabeel.  For our purposes here, the technicalities of what is done is not as relavent as what does the finished product look like.  That is how we determine what goes in 2D. A photo of a painting is a photo. But it can also be 2D if the frame is not included in the photo. We can ask for the EXIF data if we feel it is necessary, but in most cases, we ask for 6-10 people to look at theimage and tell us if it looks like a photo or like 2D. The majority opinion tells us what it looks like to the majority of people.  Regardless of how it was done, it will look like a flat image or a 3D image. :-)

This thread was meant to help members understand how we classify 2D images. It has always been done this way but some new members are not aware of the 2D gallery and I was hoping this would introduce them to that option.

It's also worthy to note that if an image is moved to ANY gallery and the artist feels strongly enough in opposition, we will listen carefully to their objection and if we are shown to be wrong, we will galdly correct our error. :-)

Flannel Knight's Photos
MrsLubner
Forum Moderator
______________________
"It please me to take amateur photographs of my garden,
and it pleases my garden to make my photographs look
professional."
                                          Robert Brault