|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/03/2002 01:46:38 PM · #1 |
The site has a rule about "literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable". I have been having an "internal debate" about this for several weeks and decided to invite you all to add input.
Some photos in the challenges are of somebody else's art, while other's use other people's art and "tweek" it ever so slightly. Where does one draw the line? How about this? I want to show you four moods of my cat. So I take four different shot of the poor thing, happy, playful, mad and sleepy (always!), then print them nicely, position them in a pattern and take another shot of the whole thing. Is that cheating? Even if I take all the shots in the same week? Let's take another extreme example: The Spaceneedle is a piece of artwork (really it is), but if I take a really cool shot of it at sunset, (let's assume the challenge was sunset) is that cheating?
I could go on forever with examples, but I think I have made the point.
What do you think? (have fun with this one!)
|
|
|
|
07/03/2002 02:35:45 PM · #2 |
I've thought similar things but not from this site, but from photosig. I've seen a lot of Chihuly pieces on there that are just snapshots of his glasswork. Personally, I think it's fine as a snapshot.. something to show friends "oh we saw this great piece of artwork, here it is"... but i think if someone here "tweaks" something, then they've kind of made it their own. Just as long as they give notice to where the original is.. or their inspiration.. etc.
Now, the SpaceNeedle thing with a sunset example, I think thats photography/artistic/creative etc. That's the nature of photography, to take a picture of something that already exsists and show it in a different aspect. Or it's true form.. etc etc.
As for the take 3 pictures, print them out, and then arrange them - and take a new picture of all 3 and submit that. I think that is just fine and should be ok to do. Why? Because for the On The Road challenge, Asphalt Mirage was a combination of photograph and new object.. I think it was a great idea. (although i was confused until the challenge was over ;))
I think as long as a) you aren't just taking a photograph of a photograph and b) literally copying someone elses work with nothing of your own to add... then it should be ok.
It'll be up to the voters too. If it just seems to fishy, it won't get high marks.
There ya go, my $0.02 :)
- Jen
|
|
|
|
07/05/2002 10:08:03 AM · #3 |
I'll buy that for a dollar.
Except for the taking 3 pictures printing them out and taking pictures of the three pictures. This is just a sidestep to takeing three pictures and putting them into one picture in photoshop, which as far as I know is against the challenge. The challenge is to take one picture that fits the theme for the week. Any picture of a picture should be looked at as if the picture in the picture were blank in my opinion. So I would look at your picture as a picture of 3 sheets of paper and that wouldn't very a nice image now would it?
Originally posted by Jenguin:
I've thought similar things but not from this site, but from photosig. I've seen a lot of Chihuly pieces on there that are just snapshots of his glasswork. Personally, I think it's fine as a snapshot.. something to show friends "oh we saw this great piece of artwork, here it is"... but i think if someone here "tweaks" something, then they've kind of made it their own. Just as long as they give notice to where the original is.. or their inspiration.. etc.
Now, the SpaceNeedle thing with a sunset example, I think thats photography/artistic/creative etc. That's the nature of photography, to take a picture of something that already exsists and show it in a different aspect. Or it's true form.. etc etc.
As for the take 3 pictures, print them out, and then arrange them - and take a new picture of all 3 and submit that. I think that is just fine and should be ok to do. Why? Because for the On The Road challenge, Asphalt Mirage was a combination of photograph and new object.. I think it was a great idea. (although i was confused until the challenge was over ;))
I think as long as a) you aren't just taking a photograph of a photograph and b) literally copying someone elses work with nothing of your own to add... then it should be ok.
It'll be up to the voters too. If it just seems to fishy, it won't get high marks.
There ya go, my $0.02 :)
- Jen
|
|
|
|
07/05/2002 12:05:25 PM · #4 |
Well see, what I meant though is that there is something changed from it. Hmm.. OK for example. Let's say I took my The Park Between photo from the city life challenge. I printed it out, then I cut out all the people/grass etc. So to just have the purple flowers and sidewalk. Then I went to um.. the mall. I hold up the little cut out sidewalk piece just in frame, so that through my viewfinder I see the sidewalk and some angle of the mall, maybe the middle walkway with the stores on each side of the flowers/sidewalk.
then i take the photo.
Now.. does that count? See, thats what I mean. Do something other than just taking a photo of your photos and or laying them out next to each other.
:)
- Jen
Originally posted by chariot:
I'll buy that for a dollar.
Except for the taking 3 pictures printing them out and taking pictures of the three pictures. This is just a sidestep to takeing three pictures and putting them into one picture in photoshop, which as far as I know is against the challenge. The challenge is to take one picture that fits the theme for the week. Any picture of a picture should be looked at as if the picture in the picture were blank in my opinion. So I would look at your picture as a picture of 3 sheets of paper and that wouldn't very a nice image now would it?
Originally posted by Jenguin:
[i]I've thought similar things but not from this site, but from photosig. I've seen a lot of Chihuly pieces on there that are just snapshots of his glasswork. Personally, I think it's fine as a snapshot.. something to show friends "oh we saw this great piece of artwork, here it is"... but i think if someone here "tweaks" something, then they've kind of made it their own. Just as long as they give notice to where the original is.. or their inspiration.. etc.
Now, the SpaceNeedle thing with a sunset example, I think thats photography/artistic/creative etc. That's the nature of photography, to take a picture of something that already exsists and show it in a different aspect. Or it's true form.. etc etc.
As for the take 3 pictures, print them out, and then arrange them - and take a new picture of all 3 and submit that. I think that is just fine and should be ok to do. Why? Because for the On The Road challenge, Asphalt Mirage was a combination of photograph and new object.. I think it was a great idea. (although i was confused until the challenge was over ;))
I think as long as a) you aren't just taking a photograph of a photograph and b) literally copying someone elses work with nothing of your own to add... then it should be ok.
It'll be up to the voters too. If it just seems to fishy, it won't get high marks.
There ya go, my $0.02 :)
- Jen
[/i]
|
|
|
|
07/05/2002 12:28:10 PM · #5 |
O.K., this is great.
Chariot - the group of pictures to bundle a concept was more of a "to the farther extreme" example more than anything.
Jenquin - thanks for helping start this off. Both your examples, to me are right on. Asphalt Mirage and your Mall idea would be, to me, acceptable.
I''m more comfortable trashing my own stuff, so, let''s try this example.
In the Shadows challenge, I went out and bought a nice garden cut out to create my elves'' shadow. What if I had chosen to just hold up the cut out and used the silhoulette against the sky. Many other photographers "got away" with silhoulette use (wish I had thought of it sooner). Wouldn''t I be using the existing works of art of somebody else? (Whom I wouldn''t have even been able to "give credit" to, as I would never know who originally designed the elves in the first place.)
How about this? (being silly) Print one of the poorest shots ever from the challenge, have somebody look at it horrified. (FeAr) Would that be against the rules? (other than being rudely mean)
Oh yeah, another side issue question....If you were to use somebody else''s work, would it be more acceptable if you gave them credit, say in your title, etc.?
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 12:28:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2002 01:03:23 PM · #6 |
As a photographer who has used art more than once in thier photos I'll say this.
If you created the final photo image with your camera THAT is the purpose I think of this site. To let you go at each other with cameras, not darkroom technique.
My thought is this...If someone is great at tatoo and body peircing art or sculpture or painting or glasswork..why is that different than someone who is good at computer generated art and incorporating that in their photos?
I say this because I am a traditionally trained artist. I can paint and sculpt and work with glass and I see no difference in that and in computer art. None. Zero.
If I do a body painting or if I take a slide of a piece of art and project it onto a nude and then photograph that then that is just as legitimate as any "straight" photo.
I think if we read the restrictions on photoshop as anything more than trying to keep the playing field even for darkroom manipulation we risk missing out on some very cool photographs. |
|
|
|
07/05/2002 01:26:52 PM · #7 |
Swash, I think you're saying two things here. If you were to submit a straight re-photographed four cat prints, that would in my mind be seen as a way to get around the rule forbiding Photoshop manipulation as chariot said. I do think that if the prints were changed however, say tear the edges and arange them in a visually unexpected way in front of some background, and your composition ties in with the challange, then I would say that you had created a new work of art. That would be analogous (note to moderator: how about a spell checker?) to Asphalt Mirage that Jenguin quoted, which was accepted by most everyone.
As for your example of the Space Needle, if you saw someone's great picture of it against a sunset, and went out and shot it at the exact same angle with the same type of sunset at the same time, it would still be your own work of art. If you downloaded someone's picture of it and put your name on it though, well..... The idea in my mind is that you've put something of yourself in it, so it's your creation.
There seems to be a current of extreem literalily in interpertation in this site, but in the are world at large, as far back in history as you wish to go, there have been artists in all mediums that have borrowed from themselves and others, but have added a bit of their own souls to the works and thus made them something new. Also, I fail to see the necessity to always address a challenge in the most literal, head on way. I think sometimes it's more fun, and says more if you use can make your photo an analogy of the challenge topic. When I have done that however, or when like this week I met the challenge but not in the most direct way, I've gotten nailed to the wall. Sigh....:) |
|
|
|
07/05/2002 03:08:46 PM · #8 |
Reference using photos in shadows, My image "hunter" was in actual fact a cardboard cutout of a cat taken from a photo of my cat. Suprisingly, not many people noticed, if any. We all use props, be they people, lighting, etc. The way I see it is that as long as you don''t physically take a photo of the "Mona Lisa" then submit it, then why not adapt, improvise and overcome. There was a photo a few challenges back where the photographer took several pictures of his eyes, put them together using PS then cut out the middle and took a photo showing his real eyes through the gap. I scored it highly. It was a good photo and highly imaginative :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/5/2002 3:09:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:32:21 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:32:21 PM EDT.
|
