DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> DQ on a pic in a challenge that is over
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 77, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/17/2005 01:05:57 PM · #26
I personally think the rule was designed for this purpose;

Example 1 - you have the Mona Lisa hanging on the wall of a museum under the building lighting. The photography squares in around the picture at any angle and takes a shot. Post processes the image for clarity and composition and submits.

Example 2 - you have the Mona Lisa repleca at home hanging on your wall. You take the image and artistically put it in a setting where a male model is position above the picture in the missionary position. There are additional lights in the room, a set, tripod, etc.

In the first image the photographer is taking credit for someone else's work and has added nothing to the image. In the second the photographer is taking an art piece and using it to create their own image and art.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using artwork in your own art as long as elements of the art are strongly enhanced upon from the original.

I do think in this instance a reference to the original piece's painter would be the right thing to do, but I don't believe it would be required to do so per example 2's setting. In example 1 it would absolutely be necessary.
 08/17/2005 01:08:15 PM · #27
Originally posted by lnede:

If this picture should be DQ'd than my picture in the Wood challenge should be DQ'd as well.


It was deemed by a majority of the SC that your photo was NOT a photo of literal artwork. :) (yes, it was one of the 31 requests we got). Neither is the photo of the inverted house thing. (which by the way, has been entered into challenges before)
 08/17/2005 01:16:16 PM · #28

08/17/2005 01:58:15 PM · #29
It was I who suggested it so we could have a public discussion about the artwork rule. I appreciate Alienyst's interest in the rule and how it is to be applied. I think the explanations that have come forth are helpful and do provide some guidelines on how the rule is to be interpreted. :) Thanks alienyst!

Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by mk:
You already requested a DQ on that photo during the challenge.


yes, but all I put for the reason was I knew I had seen the pic before. So I figured since they could probably produce the original with exif it wasn't DQ'ed. Now I have the reason - it is literally the artwork and the site to show.
08/17/2005 02:12:54 PM · #30


Why was this not DQ'd?
Paper money has been DQ'd in the past. 2D artwork rule.
I think it was Macro without bugs and flowers -3 or 4 money shots were kicked for this reason.
 08/17/2005 02:26:54 PM · #31
Originally posted by naldslc:

Mmmmm popcorn. LOL

I also appreciate Alienyst bringing this up because I sat here and struggled with that image during and after the challenge. My personal opinion is that there was nothing special added to the artwork by the photographer - it looked pretty literal to me. But as is the case in at least a few posts in this thread, God forbid you should bring it up for discussion, lest ye be attacked and called "classless".

I must say I really don't care if it is, was, or will be DQ'd but for crying out loud is it not reasonable to have the discussion????? Not for the sake of grilling the photographer or putting them on trial but for the sake of clarification and reducing the ambiguity in the rules - an unlikely goal, apparently.

In threads like these I just think everyone who feels like it should state their feelings or opinions about the SUBJECT and debate those ideas without malice toward the person who raised the issue.

On that note, I just submitted my original for validation because someone clicked the link on me. I wanna know who it was so I can burn their village! LOL - just kidding! I love having that red "This photo has been validated" under my entry. Just makes it seem more impressive.

Thanks again, Alienyst for bringing this up regardless of the decisions made or not made - the discussion is still beneficial, IMO.
 08/17/2005 02:48:51 PM · #32
Maybe because it was more of a collage rather than a single piece of art? Good question tho...

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:


Why was this not DQ'd?
Paper money has been DQ'd in the past. 2D artwork rule.
I think it was Macro without bugs and flowers -3 or 4 money shots were kicked for this reason.

08/17/2005 02:58:49 PM · #33
This is all very subjective.... But I think it's healthy to discuss it and clarify points of view.
I'd consider artwork any creative design, either 2D or 3D. That would include not only statues but buildings as well, and we've all seen photos depicting architectural artwork in this site.
So, I guess that as long as there is an angle provided by the photographer as an interpretation of that artwork (not only depicting it) it would be ok... Am I right?
 08/17/2005 03:05:40 PM · #34
Originally posted by naldslc:


LOL...I was just thinking the same thing...(hhmm, need some popcorn)

08/17/2005 03:13:38 PM · #35

Personally, I did not think the photo was overly interesting, and gave it a 5. I was shocked and amazed to see how well the photo did. I wondered if people were voting more on the "coolness" of the subject, and not the quality of it, like lighting, composition, etc. Personally, this challenge was to "create" an illusion, and to me, this person did not create this, they snapped the photo. They did not add to it, adjust it, include anything ... nothing. I would like to know why it was rated so highly by everyone, when (like I said) as a photo it wasn't very exciting.


OK ... my $.02! :)
 08/17/2005 04:40:11 PM · #36
Originally posted by kpriest:

I also appreciate Alienyst bringing this up because I sat here and struggled with that image during and after the challenge. My personal opinion is that there was nothing special added to the artwork by the photographer - it looked pretty literal to me. But as is the case in at least a few posts in this thread, God forbid you should bring it up for discussion, lest ye be attacked and called "classless".


Thanks for the support Ken and frisca. I was beginning to wonder about this place. I have only been here a few months and already I have been told I have a manky finger, my pictures would be better if I was a monkey, and I am classless. Gives you a real warm and fuzzy doesn't it?

I kept all my personal opinions about the pic out of it although I agree with LadeeM. My problem was I recognized it immediately as someone's artwork and not an original photo or interpretation in any way. If you look at the linked site above, the very last picture on the page is almost identical to the one entered (without the Open House sign of course) but from almost the exact same spot...by a few feet I suppose.

EDIT: While preparing the worlds best lasagna I thought of this - the photographer would not be able to sell a print of this since it is not his work and I bet he would be challenged on it by the artists. Perhaps that should be considered in the allowed use of artwork in your photo. If you can't sell the print because it clearly shows someone elses artwork of whatever type, it can't be used in a challenge here.

Message edited by author 2005-08-17 17:19:09.
 08/17/2005 04:49:09 PM · #37
i wrote my opinion in the comment its there for all to see.
I didnt find it at all original - i have seen photos of this art project taken from exactly the same angle (you have take it at this angle because there is a tree directly to the left edge of the frame which would ruin the picture) with the same bit of roof and the same sky - so much so that i looked at another photo i had seen of the house cropped it and the two seemed identical to me. Had he added someone jumping out of the votex or an extra element of his own divising (like some of the photos on the site) i would have seen it as original. This didn't cut it for me (and thus i also requested a dq during the challenge on the basis of literal artwork) but im not SC and all i have is my own humble opinion
 08/17/2005 05:16:16 PM · #38
How many "original" photos of the Eiffel Tower have you seen? Or the Golden Gate Bridge (I have one). Most pictures, especially of common/famous things, have likely been "done before" by someone. But the person who submits it here may well have not seen either the item or prior photos of it -- for them, it may be a completely new and original experience.

I am constantantly astounded at the lengths people seem to go to to find reasons to put down or exclude photos which don't meet their partictular interpretation of what constitutes a "proper" subject for this site.

I have no problem with lowering a vote based on either the subject matter or the presentation made by the photographer, but I have a real problem saying they are not proper submissions.

In the example of the currency shot previously posted, it is a simple and clever representation of a style of art completely emblematic of a particular era in American/Western culture. That style itself, as exemplified by some of Andy Warhol's most famous pieces, was dependent on the repetitive use of existing common objects. This style could not have been represented by the use of 3-D art or clever angling/perspective -- that would defeat the whole point.
 08/17/2005 05:21:59 PM · #39
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Maybe because it was more of a collage rather than a single piece of art? Good question tho...

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:


Why was this not DQ'd?
Paper money has been DQ'd in the past. 2D artwork rule.
I think it was Macro without bugs and flowers -3 or 4 money shots were kicked for this reason.


I think I requested a DQ on this one.
 08/17/2005 05:25:46 PM · #40
Are none of you familiar with the work of Andy Warhol?



Message edited by author 2005-08-17 17:27:40.
 08/17/2005 05:27:25 PM · #41
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Are none of you familiar with the work of Andy Warhol?

Did he not actually use a brush and paint to render his Campbell's Soup can? (Or was that a Xerox copier he had in his studio?)

Edit: Thanks for the edit to add the illustration, GeneralE.

Message edited by author 2005-08-17 17:34:07.
 08/17/2005 05:29:52 PM · #42
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Are none of you familiar with the work of Andy Warhol?

Did he not actually use a brush and paint to render his Campbell's Soup can? (Or was that a Xerox copier he had in his studio?)

So what, this is a photography contest. I see nothing wrong with using props (made of whatever repeating objects you want) to create an image in the style of Warhol. Using money is perhaps an added bit of editorial commentary on the crassly commercial nature of the "art world."

As a photo signifying a particular time period it is excellent.

Message edited by author 2005-08-17 17:30:54.
 08/17/2005 05:46:01 PM · #43
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Are none of you familiar with the work of Andy Warhol?

Did he not actually use a brush and paint to render his Campbell's Soup can? (Or was that a Xerox copier he had in his studio?)

So what, this is a photography contest. I see nothing wrong with using props (made of whatever repeating objects you want) to create an image in the style of Warhol. Using money is perhaps an added bit of editorial commentary on the crassly commercial nature of the "art world."

As a photo signifying a particular time period it is excellent.


And I'm not disagreeing with you.
In the past, SC members have said that a "rule of thumb" for the literal artwork DQ's has been whether or not there is something more for the viewer to judge than original artist's work. (See Mona Lisa examples above.)

The problem with anything three dimensional (read: sculpture, building, etc.) is that there is always a choice of angle, lighting (time of day), focal length, and so on. So there seems to be no way to draw a line on these items.

The voters can decide if the shot is just another mundane snapshot or not in these cases.

The problem seems to be, for some, that some people may not be familiar with a particular art piece and just be wowed by the art. That may have been the case in the example presented here. In other words, most of us have seen photos of the Eiffel Tower and can appraise the skill of the photographer with those examples in mind. But few may have seen this work and just be blown away (no pun intended) by the awesomeness of the installation.

Does this site (and the SC) need to work against our potentially limited experience? Not in my opinion. But that won't stop it from coming up time and again.

I think the intent of these discussions is important to our understanding of our art form, photography. This is a learning ground for the craft, the philosophy, the ethics and, ultimately, our own personal visions. Without such critical arguments we should just retreat to our portfolios and paste linkies to them in the forums.

(Damn! How I love it here!)
 08/17/2005 05:47:32 PM · #44
You guys realize were playing for virtual ribbons, right. I know many people are ultra competitive and can't stand loosing at anything, but for many of use this site represents a place to learn, open ourselves to other worlds and ideas. I have never, and will never, request a DQ, it's not in my nature, besides what's a place or two. I just won a ribbon in the last challenge and no, you couldn't wipe the smile off my face, but my goal here is not to win ribbons, it's to become a better photographer and requesting DQ's isn't going to make that happen for me. I hope it’s working for you guys.
 08/17/2005 05:51:16 PM · #45
Originally posted by jrtodd:
You guys realize were playing for virtual ribbons, right. I know many people are ultra competitive and can't stand loosing at anything, but for many of use this site represents a place to learn, open ourselves to other worlds and ideas. I have never, and will never, request a DQ, it's not in my nature, besides what's a place or two. I just won a ribbon in the last challenge and no, you couldn't wipe the smile off my face, but my goal here is not to win ribbons, it's to become a better photographer and requesting DQ's isn't going to make that happen for me. I hope it’s working for you guys.


I have, and will continue to, request DQ's for images I think violate the challenge rules because it helps to share the burden of the unpaid SC, it helps to maintain the integrity of the site, it serves to train my critical eye, and it has the potential to improve the work of the submitter.
 08/17/2005 05:59:29 PM · #46
I agree with KaDi. Filling the frame with multiple pieces of art doesn't make it any less art (it just changes who the artist is). If there's nothing but the artwork to react to (no matter who created it), then you are simply submitting the pre-existing artwork itself for judgement. That's not allowed.
 08/17/2005 06:03:35 PM · #47
Originally posted by scalvert:
I agree with KaDi. Filling the frame with multiple pieces of art doesn't make it any less art (it just changes who the artist is). If there's nothing but the artwork to react to (no matter who created it), then you are simply submitting the pre-existing artwork itself for judgement. That's not allowed.


Did I say that?

(By the way, thanks for letting me slip by having ripped off your photo for my profile pic. I do intend to put the appropriate attribution on my page.)

Edit: Attribution in place.

Message edited by author 2005-08-17 18:07:38.
 08/17/2005 06:08:43 PM · #48
Originally posted by KaDi:
Did I say that?


The conclusion I drew from your "Did he not use a brush and paint..." comment was that it's still artwork.

Originally posted by KaDi:
(By the way, thanks for letting me slip by having ripped off your photo for my profile pic. I do intend to put the appropriate attribution on my page.)


No need. The photo is of far more use to you than me. ;-)
 08/17/2005 06:10:51 PM · #49
Originally posted by Alienyst:

So why would a photo of a piece of art, with no interpretation by the photographer, just a straight shot of the artwork, NOT be DQ'ed?


Because a 3-dimensional sculpture can be taken from various angles so as to adjust imagery. Where as photographing a 2-dimensional image from a 2-dimensional standpoint does not really represent the photographer in any way as much as it represents the original artist.

Where as say a foto of the statue of "David" can be a re-interpretive art.
 08/17/2005 06:17:57 PM · #50
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How many "original" photos of the Eiffel Tower have you seen? Or the Golden Gate Bridge (I have one).

I've seen a staggering amount - always different lighting colors, weather, etc. It is those additional elements that make those shots unique. (Arpita's ribbon winner comes to mind along with many others).

In this specific instance, the "Illusion" was not created by the taking of the photograph. Clearly doesn't meet the spirit of the challenge, IMO. However I am satisfied with it not being DQ'd after having been reviewed by the SC.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I am constantantly astounded at the lengths people seem to go to to find reasons to put down or exclude photos which don't meet their partictular interpretation of what constitutes a "proper" subject for this site.

You're missing the point and a bit out of line here, GE. My interest in this issue is simply clarification or reducing the subjectivity in this specific rule. You are generalizing that this thread was an attempt to "find reasons to put down or exclude..."

There doesn't even seem to be concensus within the site council, so I think it is always a fair topic to discuss without getting uppety.

What might be very helpful for this, and other rules is to have EXAMPLES of what would be considered legal and what would be illegal. Of course we could go to the archives and pull up DQ's and non DQ's as well. I have no doubt we will find perfect consistency in the application of the rules. ;-)

to jrtodd: Congrats on your ribbon, but you are missing the point as well. Nobody in this discussion is trying to gain positioning by DQ'ing other entries - that is an absurd accusation.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/15/2026 06:01:14 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/15/2026 06:01:14 PM EST.