Come on then, let's have some properly clever (or just good) photos

I'll start with these that I just found
http://www.thephotoargus.com/inspiration/35-extraordinarily-clever-examples-of-toy-photography/

No Nicolai. No bloke in a judo suit.

FAIL.

unpossible

eth3er, i like that!

AAAAAAGH!!!! That pic of eth3r's is doing my head in!!!!

djglover – Member

Short term ban coming your way me thinks. 😯

a ban for that?? are you taking the pi$$

It's just not right is it, proper headache inducing.

Oh fug, it gets even worse, eth3r…

… I've just spotted (ok, I'm slow) that it's all the same guy, right…? Or two guys?

same guy.

same guy.

aw fvck!!!!! no!!!! seriously!!!!!! my head!!!!!! kabooooommmmm!!!!!

same guy

How do you know ? I can't tell the difference.

Take a closer look at the photo he is holding, frankly I think it's alchemy.

Cheesyfeet,

Sorry to be a pedantic c*nt but these aren't photographs.

Define your terms – clever or lucky? And for it to be a photo, it has to have been captured by a camera by a photographer rather than drawn by a graphic artist.

Sorry to be a pedantic c*nt but these aren't photographs.

So the claim that : toy photography provides great opportunities for clever composition, creative lighting and a chance to really have some fun. When done right a photographer can breath life and personality into the inanimate objects being shot …….. is just bollox then ?

For starters. Photographs by photographers with wit and vision using just a camera and film.

Ernie – not bollox.

I'm differentiating between photography and digital imaging. Simple distinction, no?

Simple distinction, no?

I'm not disputing it. But if those aren't really photos of toys in "clever compositions" and using "creative lighting", then the claims on that link are clearly nonsense. I was asking really – I hadn't figured out that they weren't real objects.

Oh – I just read the original article.

They are photos.

Don't I look a bit silly…

Is this clever?

Clever. Always a delight!