| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2005 07:35:56 PM · #1 |
I kinda figured it would be DQ'd, but oh well, i thought it was a humorous poke at the "stat padding" conspiracy theory on the forums. :P
 |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 07:44:20 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by esdarby:
I kinda figured it would be DQ'd ... |
I wasn't so sure when I requested the inquiry.
I could see it being argued as you adding your own interpretation by placing the cursor where you wanted it -- and also the arguement that it would only make it your own artwork.
No hard feelings I hope -- I was still laughing when I submitted the request, it fit the challenge perfectly.
David
Message edited by author 2005-09-18 19:48:48.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:05:16 PM · #3 |
| no worries...i was just being silly when i submitted it...thought it would give the voters a chuckle. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:36:46 PM · #4 |
.
Message edited by author 2005-09-23 18:30:24.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:42:53 PM · #5 |
I notice there has been another image no longer in the entires either - so we have at least 2 DQ'd |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:43:43 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
I could see it being argued as you adding your own interpretation by placing the cursor where you wanted it -- and also the arguement that it would only make it your own artwork. |
Neither would have changed the DQ. See the Literal Artwork tutorial for examples. Your best bet in this case would be to show a hand on a mouse in addition to the screen. |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:51:46 PM · #7 |
Hey! That looks a lot like my only DQ from the Chaos Challenge....and I can't find it anywhere in my entry portfolio! This reeks of conspiracy!
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:54:36 PM · #8 |
Ouch! I just bit my tongue!
Originally posted by azoychka:
It seems to be a pretty silly thing to do, to request this being DQ'd! Must be better things to be doing....... |
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 08:59:27 PM · #9 |
.
Message edited by author 2005-09-23 18:29:53.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 09:03:32 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
I notice there has been another image no longer in the entires either - so we have at least 2 DQ'd |
yup yup...I noticed one just after it started that was exactly the same as one I saw on google images, and now its not there.
~SiSi
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 09:07:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by okiesisi:
I notice there has been another image no longer in the entires either - so we have at least 2 DQ'd |
Don't worry... we'll try to DQ the rest of them by the end of the week. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 09:14:25 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by okiesisi:
I notice there has been another image no longer in the entires either - so we have at least 2 DQ'd |
Don't worry... we'll try to DQ the rest of them by the end of the week. ;-) |
NICE.... ;0) |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 11:23:07 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by azoychka:
For a voter to request DQ still to me seems silly and frivolous...... |
So for entries that don't get a ribbon, rules should not apply?
|
|
|
|
09/19/2005 12:09:03 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Britannica:
I could see it being argued as you adding your own interpretation by placing the cursor where you wanted it -- and also the arguement that it would only make it your own artwork. |
Neither would have changed the DQ. See the Literal Artwork tutorial for examples. Your best bet in this case would be to show a hand on a mouse in addition to the screen. |
Actually, it doesn't clear things up at all. Shane made his presence and choice of subject placement very obvious by moving the cursor into the position it is in. The original artwork being a closeup of DPC's vote screen -- but, with an added element of the cursor. Adding a hand (his or someone elses) would have made it valid because the element is 3D. However, the screen was obviously not shot straight on -- so, even though it is a flat surface, it is 3-D in the image.
Most any still-life photography can easily be defined as a literal representation of the photographer's own artwork. For instance, in my entry for the Hope challenge I meticulously arranged the flowers, candy and other objects, very carefully lit them and put a great deal of effort in creating a scene designed to be viewed from a specific point in space. Now, I personally would not go so far as to call it art, but it is my creation, and it was intended from the start to be viewed only from that one position and only when lit in a certain way. I then, after creating it exactly how I wanted it, placed my camera in the position I had created the scene to be viewed from and made a literal representation of it. There is not a single element that was added by my being the photographer of the scene -- it was all arrange precisely before clicking the shutter.
It was not a clear fore-gone conclussion that Shane's entry would fall into the literal artwork rule -- and my apologies again for using it to test and see how the ruling would go. The rule seems to be less about literal representations of artwork and more about whether or not the subject is 2D or 3D. I wonder if it wouldn't be more clear if it was called the '2D rule': 2D subjec ==> BAD, 3D subject ==> GOOD. Much easier to understand.
David
|
|
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: 08/25/2025 04:37:25 PM EDT.
