|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2006 11:29:34 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by meanwile:
Originally posted by blemt:
Now there are some differences, but based on that precident, and our general rule at adding 3d elements changes the shot enough, that's why this one was validated. |
-------------------------------
If 3d is really what your rule hinges on, and not whether the photo is a 'creative depiction' of artwork, shouldn't the rule state that as such?? |
The rule states that a "literal representation" is subject to DQ, and that a "creative depiction" is not. It's almost impossible to produce a "literal representation" of a 3D artwork, since photography of 3D artwork almost always includes inherent decisions about angle, composition and lighting.
Rose provided us with a photograph of her setup for her entry. Her setup was not just a simple matter of laying a branch flat on a piece of paper, or taping it to that paper. There were unique and creative decisions made on lighting methods, space between the twig and the background, and other aspects of the photograph. This was a true 3D setup in that if you change the photographer's angle, the illusion created in the photograph quickly breaks down.
According to the 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 (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)." In this instance, having seen photographs of the setup, the photographer made clear and obvious decisions about composition, lighting, and exposure, which were major factors in voters' decisions.
~Terry |
Any artistic decisions made on the composition where made by people in the film industry. Cutting things out of prints and setting up the exact same concepts and composition doesn't make the voter vote on anything but the original artwork. This shot didn't offer any originality on lighting, composition, or creativity. Just clever duplication.
Case in point. A sculptor lost a major copyright suite for sculpting a figure in a painting exactly. A totally different medium, but yes, the rules still applied.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 11:54:04 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Any artistic decisions made on the composition where made by people in the film industry. Cutting things out of prints and setting up the exact same concepts and composition doesn't make the voter vote on anything but the original artwork. This shot didn't offer any originality on lighting, composition, or creativity. Just clever duplication.
Case in point. A sculptor lost a major copyright suite for sculpting a figure in a painting exactly. A totally different medium, but yes, the rules still applied. |
 
I'd hardly call that exact at all.
The Artwork rule addresses the specific piece of artwork photographed. It does not address attempts to duplicate another piece of artwork unless you are photographing that actual work. If it did, we'd have had to disqualify many of the entries in Deja Vu (Challenge 288).
~Terry
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 07:31:35.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 12:07:55 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Any artistic decisions made on the composition where made by people in the film industry. Cutting things out of prints and setting up the exact same concepts and composition doesn't make the voter vote on anything but the original artwork. This shot didn't offer any originality on lighting, composition, or creativity. Just clever duplication.
Case in point. A sculptor lost a major copyright suite for sculpting a figure in a painting exactly. A totally different medium, but yes, the rules still applied. |
I'd hardly call that exact at all.
The Artwork rule addresses the specific piece of artwork photographed. It does not address attempts to duplicate another piece of artwork unless you are photographing that actual work. If it did, we'd have had to qualify many of the entries in Deja Vu (Challenge 288) |
So maybe it is different than the original but then that becomes HER artwork, no (as far as the challenge goes)? The rule seems to include other peoples artwork and your own. The branch doesn't seem like it was added to enhance the photo shoot but rather the art itself hence part of the artwork.
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 00:11:00. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 12:19:17 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So maybe it is different than the original but then that becomes HER artwork, no (as far as the challenge goes)? The rule seems to include other peoples artwork and your own. The branch doesn't seem like it was added to enhance the photo shoot but rather the art itself hence part of the artwork. |
Correct, but the setup was three dimensional. Had it been a two dimensional setup, then the setup itself would be an artwork in and of itself (a collage), and the photograph would have been a literal representation of that artwork.
Where this entry differs is that even if you argue that the setup as a whole is a work of art in itself, that work of art is three-dimensional. The photographer had to make decisions about how best to represent that three-dimensional work in a two-dimensional space. In that respect it's no different in my mind than having a model stand in front of a backdrop.
As I mentioned previously, having seen the original, clear decisions were made by by the photographer, at the time of shooting, as to how best to light and expose her setup (her lighting setup is not at all conventional, nor is it obvious from the end-result photograph), and that makes this a creative depiction rather than a literal representation.
On that note, I'm off to bed. Good night all.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 03:55:41 AM · #30 |
What if "Sensor dust" made the shot 3dimensional? :P
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 09:13:09 AM · #31 |
I am looking for the actual photos I used for the set up, but aside from that, I also read the tutorial where the dollar bill was used for an example of literal artworks and how and why rules can be broken or not broken. A dollar bill by itself is breaking the rule. Crinkle it and it is not because now lighting factors come into play.
My first try at this scene was one in which I was going to use computer wallpaper, just like some do and put their woody's in front of it. I believe in the fantasy challenge, someone put a woody in front of wallpaper. Scalvert actually had a lightbulb in front of wallpaper for his "night light" shot. So I thought, why not? My reason was because my decoupaged cut out of Elliot was not 3D and the bulb and the woody are. So, I had to think about a 3D element. I went and looked at the actual posters for the movie, and had to depict it so it was recognizable, yet NOT like the original, and using 3D elements or an element. I think I did accomplish this. Some thought it was the actual poster in the comments.
However, I wanted it so everything in the photo was mine, from the moon to the cut out to the lighting to the scene. I accomplished this. It seems obvious to me now that due to only the questions being raised here that that is why it did not win a ribbon. I find this flattering, yet ignorance on the part of the voters as well. You did not take SC's word of validation with respect, and some still voted based on their own "too much like the original and not original enough" stance. You also seem to not have done the research I did on the literal arts rule and most likely thought I just shot a photo of the actual poster. That is really a shame.
Anyway, let me go find photos of the set up.
Rose |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 09:19:45 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
What if "Sensor dust" made the shot 3dimensional? :P |
if your sensor dust is that chunky, i'd say you have bigger problems on your hand than a dq. :P |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 09:41:09 AM · #33 |
Why do you think that the classic "people just don't understand" is the case here Rose? Why not just look at the comments you got (which were all excellent) and go from there? In your reply you say that you're not bitter about not winning a ribbon but then you go on to pretty much say that the top 3 didn't deserve to be there. Now you're saying that your image would've ribboned if people would've voted as if the photo were legal (which it was). Looks to me like they did vote as if it were legal. If they had not you would've received a heck of a lot more one votes than a measly six.
Why do we?
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 09:42:53 AM · #34 |
Here are the photos of setup and original, yadda yadda.
This first one is of the entry I wanted to put in. Isn't it lovely? Yeah, TOO damn lovely. So I asked an "opinion" of council and it got a thumbs down. Nothing 3D. I argued about the past entries I mentioned earlier, but the 3D is what kept those photos alive. So I had to rethink it. Could I just print it out or a photo of any moon and then use it? Nope. I could make my own or print one out and STILL the literal arts rule would be broken. So the following was done....
So I decided I would make my own moon, BUT add more elements other then the cut out. Here is the moon I made in PSP. Not great, but it served the purpose intended.
Ok, so now to the 3D elements. I needed "something" 3D for an added element, and chose a branch from outdoors in my yard. This would make it seem as if a dead tree top was nearby giving the illusion they were up in the air but not too far from the ground.
The rest is history really. But I made many a moon without processing first, and they came out too round or too evenly colored and I couldn't add the texture afterwards because there were no elements in the photo to add the dodge and burn too. Again, I would be breaking another rule. SO I had to come up with making the moon first, and then using it in shot as part of the scene, rather the PP the moon after from the original. There were like 14 takes to making this photo. My toughest to date, without the help of Spielburg. LOL...
  
Ok, so now came the shot. I had to turn off all the lights, and position Elliott on the bulb so that that the best silhouette came through, but didn't show the numbers and watts from the bulb in the photo, as those were shining through the paper. I also was thrilled to see that the ink on the paper was actually giving way to a natural looking nebula. Not something in the original poster, but looked appropriate for a moon. I left it in, BUT could have processed it out. One person commented it was "fuzzy", however, it was purposely left in. It was a nebula and not fuzzy, however, I took a chance someone would look at it that way, and one person did.
Here is the original before processsing and the processing steps are in the comments of the actual entry, in depth, which is clickable from another post on this thread.
In the end, you can see this wasn't all that difficult, just as some get suprised by the works of Scalvert or Joey only to find out later how easy it can be. The only difficult part was meeting rules, and after bothering at least one council member with about 5 different emails and shots, I finally got an "opinion", before challenge, that I thought would hold with all council members once it was asked for a validation. I knew it would be, and so did council, so that is why I saved all the set up shots.
Rose |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 09:51:54 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Why do you think that the classic "people just don't understand" is the case here Rose? Why not just look at the comments you got (which were all excellent) and go from there? In your reply you say that you're not bitter about not winning a ribbon but then you go on to pretty much say that the top 3 didn't deserve to be there. Now you're saying that your image would've ribboned if people would've voted as if the photo were legal (which it was). Looks to me like they did vote as if it were legal. If they had not you would've received a heck of a lot more one votes than a measly six.
Why do we? |
I am not bitter about not winning a ribbon. I am a bit bitter now though as to how people perceived this photo and voted it most likely as such. And no, as for the winners, I don't believe "Kiss" (whose band broke up in 1979) was prudent to win an 80's challenge, although the work done on the photo was very well done and it was most likely voted more on that work then on theme. The second one is nice, but I don't like being chucked the finger, no matter how it associates with the photos theme, so found it a bit offensive. And the third, well, it just wouldn't have been my pic for a ribbon, but then again it is all subjective and just my opinions.
As for the votes, you can see the slides in how my photo was voted. Six ones, something like 15 tens, etc. Votes all over the place. The photo was holding at a 7.0 early on and was dropping like a rock until it was validated. Once validated it began to climb (although votes were then interrupted by the huge duotone challenge). That tells me that validation helped voters later on, and maybe only a small handful went back later to reassess their score. Those that didn't remained with giving it a one for whatever reasons. It is my opinion that had voters just voted on it as if it were legal, then it "may" have pulled out a ribbon. That is the pity, but I am not bitter about no ribbon - only in how the photo was voted on and why during challenge rather than asking questions before then later. My comments were all very good. I have no complaints along those lines, and actually find it flattering that this particular photo has a thread on it :)
Rose |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 09:52:40 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Any artistic decisions made on the composition where made by people in the film industry. Cutting things out of prints and setting up the exact same concepts and composition doesn't make the voter vote on anything but the original artwork. This shot didn't offer any originality on lighting, composition, or creativity. Just clever duplication.
Case in point. A sculptor lost a major copyright suite for sculpting a figure in a painting exactly. A totally different medium, but yes, the rules still applied. |
I'd hardly call that exact at all.
The Artwork rule addresses the specific piece of artwork photographed. It does not address attempts to duplicate another piece of artwork unless you are photographing that actual work. If it did, we'd have had to disqualify many of the entries in Deja Vu (Challenge 288).
~Terry |
If she were to of put that cutout in front of a "real " moon as the backdrop then it would of been a photograph, as it stands now, it's a copy table project. She never even shot a photograph of the moon.
...and with your posted example, I can totally see how they are different...lmao.
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 09:53:33.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 10:08:29 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Any artistic decisions made on the composition where made by people in the film industry. Cutting things out of prints and setting up the exact same concepts and composition doesn't make the voter vote on anything but the original artwork. This shot didn't offer any originality on lighting, composition, or creativity. Just clever duplication.
Case in point. A sculptor lost a major copyright suite for sculpting a figure in a painting exactly. A totally different medium, but yes, the rules still applied. |
I'd hardly call that exact at all.
The Artwork rule addresses the specific piece of artwork photographed. It does not address attempts to duplicate another piece of artwork unless you are photographing that actual work. If it did, we'd have had to disqualify many of the entries in Deja Vu (Challenge 288).
~Terry |
If she were to of put that cutout in front of a "real " moon as the backdrop then it would of been a photograph, as it stands now, it's a copy table project. She never even shot a photograph of the moon.
...and with your posted example, I can totally see how they are different...lmao. |
Ahhh, very astute for you to realize that. OH MY GOD..how I TRIED to get a shot of the moon, and OH did at least one council member know I tried too. The week of the challenge bore nothing but fog here in Florida. For three nights straight I was outside looking for any shot of the moon I could get while still contemplating a plan B in case I couldn't (hence more questions to council on how to still accomplish this without a real photo of moon with Elliot from outside).
I was going to tape Elliott to a large piece of glass and try to get a shot of him at the same time as that of the moon, and I didn't care WHERE he placed in the photo, as long as it was on the moon. LOL...I had it all set to go. Problem was? No moon "was arisen" in my neck of the woods. But I SO wanted to do what you said.
I also knew there would be technical problems. My Elliott, once I opened up my lens to full for a larger shot of the moon, would put Elliot the same size as the moon as well unless my husband held up the glass further from me, at which time I may lose the elements of Elliot. I was also unsure if I had enough power to pull off such a shot with my lense. BUT Oh yeah, this was definately an intention I had, but I just had no moon that week to work with. Actually, I remember it well. The FULL moon, which would have been great and that I saw in the sky pre challenge for 3 straight days, ended being and being seen just before I was about to take my shot. It really pissed me off too. LOL...But yeah, I am with you. I wish I was able to do that, believe me.
And as for your laughter, you are damn straight they are different. My moon SUCKS by comparison, and I don't even like it. But you know what? LOL..Since nudes are so prevalent around here, maybe had I taped Elliott to my ass it would have lent a more humorous "moon shot", and definately would have been more 3D! LMAO! Probably would have even gotten more votes, like most nudes do :)
AND to dudephil, I knew your thread link and that your original post opening for that thread pertained to me. Too bad. Those are my opinions. But I also participated on that thread. I am very happy with the comments on my entry, and I am very pleased with how I presented it in final, and my only regret is not having a better moon shot. Some people prefer comments over scores. Some prefer having it picked as a favorite over a ribbon. I don't particularly care for comments, and I do care for scores more as I have stated many times. However, to have a photo I took at a site like DPC cause this much controversy is what I find the highest form of flattery over a ribbon. With that, I am pleased.
Unfortunately, for those that are not happy with the entry, the bottom line is no matter how YOU think I should have done the shot, or not done the shot, it was entered with a lot of work, with much research prior, and did meet all rules of this site. So question it all you want, but the bottom line is, in that regard and to me it is a winning photo, and that is how I look at it. :)
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 10:30:27. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 10:47:12 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
And no, as for the winners, I don't believe "Kiss" (whose band broke up in 1979) was prudent to win an 80's challenge |
Kiss didn't break up in 1979. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 10:50:58 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
And no, as for the winners, I don't believe "Kiss" (whose band broke up in 1979) was prudent to win an 80's challenge |
Kiss didn't break up in 1979. |
No. It didn't. And according to this source wikipedia entry is still a band. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 11:04:19 AM · #40 |
Peter Cris, the drummer, left KISS in late 1979 (some say 1980), which did in fact account for the 'breaking of the band'. They then took on another, but did a huge tour overseas in the 80's. They were not as relevant here in the 80's, but were overseas for some time. They then did lose several other band members due to illness or whatever reason, then reunited and reunited and still reunite even today - but in the in the USA the band was more known in the 70's then for the 80's. Yes, they still tour today, but my opinion is (and I am not alone according to comments given during voting), it is really a 70's era and not an 80's era band. The 80's brought in those like Olivia Newton John and other such artists that were more down to earth and moving towards health and no drugs, etc. Not really a heavy metal type era. Then again, like I said, it is all subjective as to what one thinks during challenge, just as with my own entry. We all have our own thoughts on the matter. I just happen to remember the 80's my way. I was in my 20's during the eighties and very much into music. KISS was not anywhere near my lips (pun intended..LOL) or anyone else I knew in the 80's. It was a band from the past to us.
Sort of reminds me of the Elton John saga. LOL...I remember when Elton John stated he was doing his "last concert ever" in the states. I SO wanted a ticket. It was mega bucks back then. It was an outdoor concert somewhere, I forget now. I never got to go. BUT, no biggy right? Elton never did have his last concert tour, and still goes about today. LOL...Publicity stunts. Gotta lovem'!
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 11:08:03. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 11:07:16 AM · #41 |
I liked it Rose. I can also appreciate the work that you put into it. I also agree that if you taped it to your ass it might have done better as it would've even been more creative and satirical AND natural. However, the theory of the score dropping before validation just doesn't add up. If this were the case then it wouldn't have started out in the sevens. It would've started out in the ones then would've risen after validation, correct?
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 11:10:33 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
The 80's brought in those like Olivia Newton John and other such artists that were more down to earth and moving towards health and no drugs, etc. Not really a heavy metal type era. |
No drugs? No heavy metal? Wow...different '80s than those that I know about.
Regardless...this is a pointless discussion. Look at the Singled Out challenge where we were told to use shallow DOF, but the winner used deep DOF...it was a good photo, the best according to the voters, and subsequently it won. Won a digital ribbon and a week's worth of homepage space. Big whoop.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 11:13:10 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I liked it Rose. I can also appreciate the work that you put into it. I also agree that if you taped it to your ass it might have done better as it would've even been more creative and satirical AND natural. However, the theory of the score dropping before validation just doesn't add up. If this were the case then it wouldn't have started out in the sevens. It would've started out in the ones then would've risen after validation, correct? |
Mmmm, I don't think so. It was a 7.0 the morning I woke up and looked in between my fingers at the score..LOL I was excited to see how it would do. Seems the first voters were really enamored with it and were "wow"'ed over it. Then came the "I wonder how this was done" questions. Within hours that same day it dropped to the mid 5's. THEN I saw the little red letters "your photo needs to be validated" under the photo. I said THANK GOD! LOL...So I sent it in, and asked it be said it was validated on the photo. Within hours of that happening it went up to over a 6, however, near the same time in came duotone. We all know that when a big challenge hits, some do complain the votes drop on the smaller challenge as some are busy voting on the larger one. This is what I believe happened in my case. I do believe the validation gave way for the higher voting later on. THEN it wasn't a matter of not knowing and voting it down, but just wondering. I believe this helped, but had those one voters reassessed their scores after validation, it may have changed the outcome. Then again, I don't know why it got ones. Some never say. :)
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 11:14:32. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 11:14:52 AM · #44 |
A gentle reminder to keep this on topic. If y'all feel the need to discuss the life and times of Kiss, I'm pretty sure that we have an 80s score thread floating around. :)
Thanks gang! |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 11:19:04 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Not really a heavy metal type era. Then again, like I said, it is all subjective as to what one thinks during challenge, just as with my own entry. We all have our own thoughts on the matter. I just happen to remember the 80's my way.
|
You're exactly right, but subjectivity is being preached but not practiced in this case. Look at it this way; while the movie E.T. was filmed in that decade, does it really scream "80's" to most people? I don't think so. While the band KISS doesn't really scream 80's to me either, the red and yellow ribbon winners certainly do and deserve any ribbon they got. The KISS entry was so well done that, even though they didn't define the 80's but were as much a part of defining the 80's as ET, it was voted high.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 12:28:43 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by w24x192:
Regardless...this is a pointless discussion. Look at the Singled Out challenge where we were told to use shallow DOF, but the winner used deep DOF...it was a good photo, the best according to the voters, and subsequently it won. Won a digital ribbon and a week's worth of homepage space. Big whoop. |
The way that I read that challenge, using shallow depth of field wasn't a requirement:Use minimal depth-of-field to your advantage to help isolate your subject, and as always, be creative.
Use it to your advantage sounds like a helpful hint rather than a requirement (to me of course). The fact that he didn't use shallow DOF and still made one person among that many seem singled out is a testimony to how creative and great the deserving blue ribbon winner is.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 12:46:30 PM · #47 |
I think Rose's technique was certainly creative, but the idea for the shot and the image itself are just a rip-off of the movie image, regardless of claims to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 12:56:33 PM · #48 |
My opinions: Kiss is 70's, E.T. is 80's, and the picture would have been better on her ass.
but if Elliott were tattooed on her ass, would that be a literal representation of an artwork? hahahahaha I have an answer for that question but not fit for a family-oriented site.... |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 01:05:01 PM · #49 |
I will make no comment about wide angle lens.
I will make no comment about wide angle lens.
I will make no comment about wide angle lens.
I will make no comment about wide angle lens.
I will make no comment about wide angle lens.
I will make no comment about wide angle lens.
I will make no comment about wide angle lens.
Whewww...
That was close......
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 01:31:30 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
My opinions: Kiss is 70's, E.T. is 80's, and the picture would have been better on her ass.
but if Elliott were tattooed on her ass, would that be a literal representation of an artwork? hahahahaha I have an answer for that question but not fit for a family-oriented site.... |
LOL...Let me tell you right now, I would paste Elliott to my ass for the shot, but no way in hell would I have tattooed it for any challenge anywhere, and not even for any amount of cash! Well, maybe a million..LOL..as my ass is worth that much at least :) And no, tatooing wouldn't break the literal arts rule because my ass and the lighting used would have been 3D. However, it wouldn't have been very appealing I don't think. :/
In any case, I totally agree with you about the 70's and 80's.
And yes, ET screams the 80's. it was a 1982 block buster hit movie that was talked about for years later. There were a lot of things portrayed that didn't scream 80's in the challenge, if that is how one wants to define it as "scream", but it is ALL subjective as to how one remembers and lived their 80's life at the time, be it music or whathaveyou.
A wide angle lense may have been appropriate for my ass. LOL..You are correct! LOL...
And spaz, you can look at that way, but gosh, in the fantasy challenge alone there are rip offs of other images (can we say Cyborg or Star Wars?). Your argument is really nill. Good try though, but spaz, let me tell you something. On several threads now you have tried to incite me once again like you did in January. It worked then. It won't work again. I just find you a bit funny now and I don't take a lot of things in the forums or what others say with as much seriousness as I once did. :) I also have more respect for council now after watching a few things happen in my month's absence.
Speaking of that, I do believe Blemt is right. We need to keep this off of the Kiss subject and on track as to literal arts rules. I believe I am correct in the assumption that a tatoo on an ass won't break the rules as the ass is the 3D element? A humorous question at best, but actually may need to be clarified by council for the sake of a real true answer.
Rose
Rose |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/17/2025 03:23:34 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: 07/17/2025 03:23:34 PM EDT.
|
