| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2004 09:38:11 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Let me turn the question on you... what other lighting can you imagine for the paper currency? |
Spot lighting - just around the face could be lit
Gradient lighting - The top RHS could be darker than the rest
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:49:11 AM · #27 |
I try to stay out of these threads, but this really bothered me:
As Per EddyG:
"The word "entirety" should be referring to the photograph, not the piece of "art". So if the photo is nothing else but somebody else's "art", then it is potentially DQ'able, with this proviso (from the Advanced rules, but not in the Basic rules?):
A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (i.e., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."
So in a basic editing challenge we should have read the ADVANCED Editing rules as well so we would know that in spite of what the BASIC Editing Rules say, we will be DQd based on the Advanced Editing wording?
This is exactly what the Basic Editing Rules state:
"Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork."
That says the entirety of existing work of art and in my opinion means photographing an entire painting, photo, twenty dollar bill, etc, not a part of said "artwork" and focusing on the texture of it.
Perhaps when it was decided to add Eddyg's aforementioned statement to the Advanced editing rules, the same addition should have been added to the basic rules to remedy the poor wording that was previously chosen.
Jen
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:51:25 AM · #28 |
I agree with Shannon's take on this issue, but would like to add one exception: If taking an extreme closeup photo of a recognizable image or work of art allows the viewer to see it in a different way or from a new perspective, then I think a simple reproduction of a part of that image contains artistic merit. For that reason, my opinion is that it was fine for cpurser's image to remain in this challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:53:07 AM · #29 |
So, would this get DQ'd?
 |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:57:05 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by autool:
So, would this get DQ'd?
|
Hey, that's a cool shot!
Chad |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:01:03 AM · #31 |
Chad,
Quick and dirty, in hopes of clarification.
Of course I had to one-up you with a Franklin!
Thanks,
Dick
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 10:02:52. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:07:19 AM · #32 |
How far and wide can this DQ ruling go?
In this challenge, there are many items that are propriety, patented, copy-written, and protected items of intellectual property that could be easily classified and perceived as art in the legal sense.
Here are some examples:
- circuit boards,
- pottery,
- jewelry,
- integrated circuits / chips,
- airplanes,
- camera equipment,
- china and dishes,
- figurines,
- game pieces,
- musical instruments,
- books and newspapers,
- writing instruments,
- hardware,
- toys,
- products,
- watches,
- and of course, currency.
So, where does this issue of ethics and "prior art" begin and end? It can be interpreted in many ways and could realistically impact almost half of the submissions in this challenge.
It is a slippery slope...
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 10:07:38.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:10:42 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by MrsFuzzButt:
Perhaps when it was decided to add Eddyg's aforementioned statement to the Advanced editing rules, the same addition should have been added to the basic rules to remedy the poor wording that was previously chosen. |
First, that wasn't my wording, I was just quoting from the Advanced Editing rules.
Secondly, I agree that the "art" rule should be clarified and be the same between the Basic and Advanced rules to avoid confusion.
Originally posted by ramevi:
so my dear challengers stop shooting cars, buildings, statues, etc. Just shoot flowers, bugs, animals and sunset. |
3D objects (like the "cars, buildings, statues" that you mention) are almost never disqualified because "lighting" (and therefore shadows) are interpreted by most of the SC to have been a "creative decision" on the part of the photographer. FWIW, I personally would vote "no DQ" on jmsetzler's buddha statue and autool's "crumpled dollar bill" shot simply because of the lighting/shadows.
Originally posted by Morgan:
In this challenge, there are many items that are propriety, patented, copy-written, and protected items of intellectual property that could be easily classified and perceived as art in the legal sense. |
Correct. But if they are photographed (1) in such a way that the voter isn't compelled to rate only "the work of art" and (2) aren't the entirety of the photograph (i.e., there are other elements in the picture, such as something as simple as the sky), they aren't very likely to be disqualified, or even recommended for disqualification by somebody.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 10:18:58. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:19:28 AM · #34 |
Never implied it was. Simply stated that it was YOU who added it to this conversation and that I had quoted your addition above in my post.
:-)
Just another log on the fire, but what exactly is considered 3D anyway? It is blatently obvious from cpurser's entry that twenty dollar bills have a texture. Does this not make them 3D objects when the texture is the focus? By the same arguement, could not all photos of paintings, photographs, etc be considered 3D if they highlight the texture of the paper used?
In addition, why are photos of product labels not considered existing artwork?
Jen
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:20:58 AM · #35 |
What it all boils down to, is the photographer needs to add something to the artwork of their own? Be it lighting, texture,other objects, backgrounds, etc.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:39:01 AM · #36 |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:41:35 AM · #37 |
| I think this thread could go on forever about what is what and why. The fact of the matter is that the rule is not clear. The word "entirety" should be referring to the photograph, not the piece of "art" at the very least. As such, and until the rule is reworded to express what it is really meant to, no DQs should have taken place on such grounds. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:48:03 AM · #38 |
| I personally would not have requested this photograph to be DQ̢۪ed because it is a great work of microphotography. I cannot see a single pixel out of focus, amazing work. Now as far as the rules go I can see how the SC chooses to DQ it. Yes there is texture and shading, but all come from the artist rendering. Basically I think it comes down to that this is a flat image of artwork. I personally think that since the complete piece of art was not represented, this micro shot should have been validated. I can see both sides of the debate but wish this photo would not of been DO̢۪ed. I would have voted it a 9 or 10. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:00:51 AM · #39 |
| If it was a "creative decision" to choose flat lighting over the other alternatives suggested above, is this any less valid? |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:03:27 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by MrsFuzzButt:
Perhaps when it was decided to add Eddyg's aforementioned statement to the Advanced editing rules, the same addition should have been added to the basic rules to remedy the poor wording that was previously chosen. |
First, that wasn't my wording, I was just quoting from the Advanced Editing rules.
Secondly, I agree that the "art" rule should be clarified and be the same between the Basic and Advanced rules to avoid confusion.
Originally posted by ramevi:
so my dear challengers stop shooting cars, buildings, statues, etc. Just shoot flowers, bugs, animals and sunset. |
3D objects (like the "cars, buildings, statues" that you mention) are almost never disqualified because "lighting" (and therefore shadows) are interpreted by most of the SC to have been a "creative decision" on the part of the photographer. FWIW, I personally would vote "no DQ" on jmsetzler's buddha statue and autool's "crumpled dollar bill" shot simply because of the lighting/shadows.
Originally posted by Morgan:
In this challenge, there are many items that are propriety, patented, copy-written, and protected items of intellectual property that could be easily classified and perceived as art in the legal sense. |
Correct. But if they are photographed (1) in such a way that the voter isn't compelled to rate only "the work of art" and (2) aren't the entirety of the photograph (i.e., there are other elements in the picture, such as something as simple as the sky), they aren't very likely to be disqualified, or even recommended for disqualification by somebody. |
EddyG's response here conveniently did not address the fact that the Basic rules (under which this challenge falls) clearly state that "Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art" are going to be DQ'd. Even if it's changed in the Advanced rules, the basic rules make no question that it is the entirety of the existing work of art that is illegal. The shot in question is not the entirety, it is composed creatively. Would any SC like to specifically address that part that was conveniently glazed over?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:15:20 AM · #41 |
There is currently a SC discussion on this, but it's not seeing much action at the moment... I suspect that actual paying work may be interfering.
I've previously posted my opinion, but that does not change the situation. There are shots in this challenge that are stright-out depictions of artwork, with no siginificant "interpretation", but there are others, including the one posted by the thread originator, that are not, *IMO*. Obviously my opinion was in the minority.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:21:39 AM · #42 |
Dang! I didn't want to jump back in here, but...
For the sake of simplicity, consider that any image just as easily replicated with a flatbed scanner will be DQ'd. That means any existing 2D material shot more or less straight-on with fairly even lighting. Chad's best argument for avoiding a DQ was the slight angle of the shot. If he had used even more of an angle (for dimension) and dramatic lighting (spot, gradient, whatever...), then the photo probably would not have been DQ'd.
Regarding the word "entirety"... sure, I think that could be clarified, but it should still be obvious that cropping alone isn't enough to claim an image as your own. The intent of the rule is that your entire image should show something more than existing artwork as it would normally be viewed. You have to add something significant (unusual lighting or point of view, another physical element, additional environment, etc.) in order to create a composition that's uniquely yours. This is just common sense.
Hope that helps.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 11:43:50. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:22:09 AM · #43 |
Ok. I've been thinking and have finally formed my opinions.
It seems that there are 3 questions here that I needed to separate in order to come to this point.
1. What should the SC have done? Should the photo in question have been dq'd? In my opinion, no, this photo should not have been dq'd because there has been no rule violation.
1. What should the SC do now? Should the other photos of a similar nature be dq'd? In my opinion, no, one unfair dq is bad enough, there's no need to compound it.
3. What should the SC do in the future? Should the Basic editing rules be revised for clarification? In my opinion, yes, the rules are not consistent between Basic and Advanced, though they should be. Also, if the intent is to preserve "photographic integrity" then more clarity is called for. It's only fair to entrants and voters alike that we have clear and understandable guidelines. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:26:17 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Regarding the word "entirety"... sure, I think that could be clarified, but it should still be obvious that cropping alone isn't enough to claim an image as your own. The rule is that your entire frame shouldn't be filled with the existing artwork essentially as-is. You have to add something significant (unusual lighting or point of view, another physical element, additional environment, etc.) in order to create a composition that's uniquely yours. This is just common sense.
Hope that helps. |
Unfortunately, that is not the rule in the Basic rules. They need to be updated, but my point is that they have not been updated. The rule is that you shouldn't take pictures of someone else's art in it's entirety, not that your frame shouldn't be filled with someone else's art. The crop of the picture is a big part of the composition, and the shot in question does not show someone else's art in it's entirety. In fact, I suspect it was a major decision to decide what angle to show, and how much of the face to cut off. Those decisions were not made by the guy who drew the $20 bill, but rather by the photog. And under the current Basic rules, this shot should not have been DQ'd.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 11:38:43.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:30:28 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
What about this shot?
Apart from the black space is this the same as the shot above?
(Sorry Setz. :) ) |
Nothing 3D ever gets disqualified as a literal representation of art. At least I have never seen it happen. The 2D stuff is subjective and I don't fully understand it either, because the disqualification of those is inconsistent. You will have to get feedback from the entire site council to understand why it got disqualified.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:31:02 AM · #46 |
FWIW- The shot is question is on the borderline to me. Cropping alone may not be enough to claim originality, but there's also JUUUUST enough of a 3D angle to show some creative decision on the part of the photographer, so I probably would have let it slide. Had there been part of another bill or coin shown, or a shadow included in the composition, then this whole discussion might have been avoided.
When shooting a subject like this, the acid test should be, "Could I reasonably sign my name to this image and call it my own original work?"
EDIT: StevePax, as noted above, I agree with you.
RE-EDIT: Setz, while it hasn't happended yet, I'm betting that a face-on, eye-level shot of a statue with flat lighting and a featureless background stands a good chance of getting canned.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 11:48:44. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 11:34:35 AM · #47 |
uh, edited to say nevermind
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 11:35:52. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 01:23:09 PM · #48 |
OK, imagine this statue (sorry to pick on you again John!) was in a room and had been lit by somebody other than the photographer, lets say the creator had placed it and lit it himself. Then somebody comes along and takes a photograph of it. Would that shot then be DQ'd, because non of the shadows and lighting had been set up by the photographer?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 01:24:38 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
OK, imagine this statue (sorry to pick on you again John!) was in a room and had been lit by somebody other than the photographer, lets say the creator had placed it and lit it himself. Then somebody comes along and takes a photograph of it. Would that shot then be DQ'd, because non of the shadows and lighting had been set up by the photographer?
|
Like I said, I have no idea. This would be similar to shooting a statue or 3D art object outdoors. The photogrpaher didn't setup that light either.. he/she just chose the angle.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 01:32:20 PM · #50 |
was my entry - also DQd. For the same reason as Gauti's and others.
I have had issue with the SC's interpretation of 'literal representation of artwork' rule before. Mostly entries that, to me anyway, are not much more than simple photos of statues or other artwork. the SC defense of not DQing them was usually 'they showed something beyond the item itslef, as in background, sky etc'. Well, yeah, unless you carry a backdrop with you it is pretty difficult to take a pic of outdoor artwork and NOT get something in the background! If one's chice of angle etc is considered interpretaion, then most any shot, inlcuding mine and Gauti's are also interpretation. I intentially went in tight crop wise to show the dots and texture.
Apparently had i tweaked the colors or perhaps rotated it 180 degrees it might have been acceptable? If paper currency is art work, so most certainly are coins.
My entry was not doing that well and had no comments, but i am kinda of peeved for 2 reasons - I have had NO DQ's of my entries in a year as a non-member. I joined about 2 seeks back, and NOW get a DQ! The other is the fluctuating and inconsistent interpretation of the artwork rule. |
|
