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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> the art of deception , a photograph & a DQ (long)
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 237, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/15/2007 02:22:20 PM · #51
Bingo. Thank you.

Originally posted by soup:
that ET shot is more mimicing the original freeze frame, in a fairly creative manner. alot different than using a verbatum piece of work and putting something in front of it.
10/15/2007 02:22:56 PM · #52
you're welcome ;}

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 14:23:14.
 10/15/2007 02:23:09 PM · #53
I understand you're upset, Karen (read your other thread as well), but you can't accuse the SC of being inconsistent using an image that doesn't fall within the rules set that you're referring too.

Is there an image since January of 2007 that you feel was inconsistently judged compared to another image submitted sinc Jan. '07?

(not trying to feed fire, just keep the debate on level ground)

Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Oh, so it's just photos on monitors that are not ok now?
10/15/2007 03:11:19 PM · #54
I'd actually like clarification of the rule on this shot of mine, entered in a challenge in May 2007, well after the introduction of the new rule.



The flared starry background was a digital image I created, projected onto a sheet hung in front of me with a projector. I wasn't aware of the rule change (no excuse, I know), but I do wonder if my shot should be DQ'd, too, for the sake of consistency? I'm happy to go along with the consensus of the SC on this; I don't want to hold on to a score that isn't rightfully mine.

Edited to add: ironically, I see that I received a validation request for this image at the time of the challenge -- and passed!


Message edited by author 2007-10-15 15:13:12.
 10/15/2007 03:24:14 PM · #55
Originally posted by cmeier:
I see that I received a validation request for this image at the time of the challenge -- and passed!


I guess there's your answer! :)
 10/15/2007 03:28:45 PM · #56
Here here!!!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have always been for the complete banning of printed photos/computer backgrounds within the picture submitted. If/when we ever do a new rules update, I will continue to campaign for such a rule.
10/15/2007 03:34:14 PM · #57
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have always been for the complete banning of printed photos/computer backgrounds within the picture submitted. If/when we ever do a new rules update, I will continue to campaign for such a rule.


That's just because Shannon has more ribbons than you do ;)
 10/15/2007 03:37:12 PM · #58
Originally posted by alanfreed:
That's where I've got a bug up my butt :)


That would have made a shocking macro shot!
 10/15/2007 03:38:09 PM · #59
Originally posted by cmeier:
I'd actually like clarification of the rule on this shot of mine, entered in a challenge in May 2007, well after the introduction of the new rule.



The flared starry background was a digital image I created, projected onto a sheet hung in front of me with a projector. I wasn't aware of the rule change (no excuse, I know), but I do wonder if my shot should be DQ'd, too, for the sake of consistency? I'm happy to go along with the consensus of the SC on this; I don't want to hold on to a score that isn't rightfully mine.

Edited to add: ironically, I see that I received a validation request for this image at the time of the challenge -- and passed!


If this is allowed and the owl is not, I'd like to know the reasoning for it. Are you splitting hairs to say the figure is clearly the "subject" here, but the binoculars are not in the other?

R.
 10/15/2007 03:38:22 PM · #60
I'm naturally just one voice, but I have always felt that the more clearcut the rules, the better we are. Banning the entire "trick" keeps us from having to worry about this stuff as well as things like using advanced tools on a background for a basic shot etc.

There are cool effects and shots that can be had with this technique and a little part of me would be sad to see them go, but I'd be willing to give that up if it means clearing up the rules. If I were to allow monitors and such, it would be in a shot where the monitor is clearly a monitor, such as Kiwiness' great shot Samara:



Personally I think the difference between the owl/binoculars shot and Shannon's magic carpet is simply semantics.

Just off the top of my head Shannon, I'd say traditional backdrops are things like sheets or muslins or cardstock or whatever. Generally they provide a solid background or a gradient or a texture. They do not provide an object or subject or interact with the rest of the picture.
 10/15/2007 03:42:20 PM · #61
for once I agree with the Doc
 10/15/2007 03:44:48 PM · #62
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If this is allowed and the owl is not, I'd like to know the reasoning for it. Are you splitting hairs to say the figure is clearly the "subject" here, but the binoculars are not in the other?

R.


Gotta agree with Bear and others on this one. I'm wondering how small the figure would have to be in this image before the starry background becomes "the subject"? Where do you draw the line?

I'd much rather have clarity than anything else.

10/15/2007 03:48:16 PM · #63
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If this is allowed and the owl is not, I'd like to know the reasoning for it. Are you splitting hairs to say the figure is clearly the "subject" here, but the binoculars are not in the other?


I also agree with questions that Robert and others have raised. There a multitude of examples in the new rules set that have allowed background objects (star fields, etc) with significant impact on the image to be allowed and validated. I don't feel there is anything different between the owl and the starfield - both are the main subject IMO.
 10/15/2007 03:49:35 PM · #64
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just off the top of my head Shannon, I'd say traditional backdrops are things like sheets or muslins or cardstock or whatever. Generally they provide a solid background or a gradient or a texture. They do not provide an object or subject or interact with the rest of the picture.


The backdrop I linked WAS a commercial muslin. Are you saying muslins that look like sky shouldn't be allowed, but cloudy blue texture muslins should? What about a photo taken in front of a billboard or graffiti?
 10/15/2007 03:50:27 PM · #65
I'm in agreement with the Doc also. Way back when, I used to vociferously "discuss" the inconsistencies of the rules as they related to preexisting artwork. I never thought a shot like Shannon's moonbulb ought to be legal at all.

As a digression, I also feel DeSousa's origami swan on top of sheet music should not be legal. There he took a photo (or scan) of sheet music, manipulated it in the computer in a way that would be illegal under all but expert editing rules if it were the actual image being submitted, then used this manipulated image as an integral component of the metaphor of the submitted image. In other words, if I shot the swan on the music, then distorted the music in the single image, that's illegal. But distort the music in the exact same way, print it out, then put the swan on THAT, and it's kosher...

Not to cast any aspersions on DeSousa, btw; there is ample precedent that the image IS legal; I'm just saying I don;'t think it should be...

But this is a whole other problem with inconsistency in the artwork rules...

R.

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 15:52:14.
 10/15/2007 03:54:18 PM · #66
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As a digression, I also feel DeSousa's origami swan on top of sheet music should not be legal. There he took a photo (or scan) of sheet music, manipulated it in the computer in a way that would be illegal under all but expert editing rules if it were the actual image being submitted, then used this manipulated image as an integral component of the metaphor of the submitted image. In other words, if I shot the swan on the music, then distorted the music in the single image, that's illegal. But distort the music in the exact same way, print it out, then put the swan on THAT, and it's kosher...


If you had shot this woody on a solid background and added the texture in Basic, that would be illegal, too. Should that be our guideline?

10/15/2007 03:58:16 PM · #67
I see that I didn't vote on this particular one; I believe I was away when that one came up... so I may not be the best person to answer to it since I wasn't part of validating it.

This is obviously more of a borderline kind of shot, since the background plays a big part in it. To be honest, I'd have to give it some more thought to say for sure how I'd vote, but I'd probably lean toward no DQ because the actual subject is the guy, and with the lens flare and everything, I wouldn't think that people would be tricked into thinking this was a "live" shot of the evening sky.

Originally posted by cmeier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If this is allowed and the owl is not, I'd like to know the reasoning for it. Are you splitting hairs to say the figure is clearly the "subject" here, but the binoculars are not in the other?

R.


Gotta agree with Bear and others on this one. I'm wondering how small the figure would have to be in this image before the starry background becomes "the subject"? Where do you draw the line?

I'd much rather have clarity than anything else.
10/15/2007 04:02:46 PM · #68
Heh, leave it to Shannon to argue about a rule that doesn't even exist yet. :)

Your traditional muslin, I think, would still qualify as a print or artwork or an object since the basketball hoop would likely be interacting with whatever the subject was.

The woody background is merely a texture and so I'd be inclined to let it go (although if the person said it was printed in his/her comments, then you nail them on the letter of the law like people who admit to creating extra layers in basic even though the layers do not effectively change anything.)
 10/15/2007 04:08:06 PM · #69
Another side of the argument, or at least another way to look at this, talking about images such as De Sousa's and scalvert's:

If all these ways of making images are banned, made "illegal", then we wouldn't be able to see these beautiful images here at DPC. They are photography. They're creative and beautiful, well done, and often inspiring. They may not be "fine art", but they serve to stretch our thinking on what can be done. I would be very sad if we lost them too. Why ban more and more stuff? Why not find a way to incorporate these methods instead, so that we can have a wide variety of images and ways to make images without having to constantly worry about more and more rules that more and more hamper creativity, fun, and interest.

If it is a "deception", so what? It's also storytelling, imagination, beauty. It doesn't matter how it was achieved so much as if it is convincing.

10/15/2007 04:13:46 PM · #70
Originally posted by ursula:

If it is a "deception", so what? It's also storytelling, imagination, beauty. It doesn't matter how it was achieved so much as if it is convincing.


excattalllyy ..
i enjoy the 'deception' part of photography - which is part of why i conceived the title of this thread & possibly why i thought of the image at all ..

why restrict ? why not fool the viewer ? force the spectator to say WTF??
10/15/2007 04:13:50 PM · #71
yeah an my paper swan shot entered in the paper challenge was a bomb...

no digital BG for mine... ;}

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
'm in agreement with the Doc also. Way back when, I used to vociferously "discuss" the inconsistencies of the rules as they related to preexisting artwork. I never thought a shot like Shannon's moonbulb ought to be legal at all.

As a digression, I also feel DeSousa's origami swan on top of sheet music should not be legal. There he took a photo (or scan) of sheet music, manipulated it in the computer in a way that would be illegal under all but expert editing rules if it were the actual image being submitted, then used this manipulated image as an integral component of the metaphor of the submitted image. In other words, if I shot the swan on the music, then distorted the music in the single image, that's illegal. But distort the music in the exact same way, print it out, then put the swan on THAT, and it's kosher...

Not to cast any aspersions on DeSousa, btw; there is ample precedent that the image IS legal; I'm just saying I don;'t think it should be...

But this is a whole other problem with inconsistency in the artwork rules...

R.


 10/15/2007 04:15:57 PM · #72
In the time I've been participating here, I've found the rules & rule-sets have become progressively more confusing to me. Maybe I'm just getting senile. :-/

To be more specific, it's keeping track of what is and isn't legal in all the different rule-sets. I've found myself reviewing the rules before submitting for challenges. Probably just my own small brain. ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 16:17:55.
 10/15/2007 04:20:50 PM · #73
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh, leave it to Shannon to argue about a rule that doesn't even exist yet. :)


And here I thought I was only questioning your proposal. Silly me!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your traditional muslin, I think, would still qualify as a print or artwork or an object since the basketball hoop would likely be interacting with whatever the subject was.


Interesting. So a Wescott muslin cloud texture would be OK?
 10/15/2007 04:32:21 PM · #74
Originally posted by ursula:
If it is a "deception", so what? It's also storytelling, imagination, beauty. It doesn't matter how it was achieved so much as if it is convincing.


It's also plagiarism, in many cases. I would gladly live out my life without seeing another photo of a wineglass in front of a fractal design on a computer monitor.
 10/15/2007 04:44:09 PM · #75
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ursula:
If it is a "deception", so what? It's also storytelling, imagination, beauty. It doesn't matter how it was achieved so much as if it is convincing.


It's also plagiarism, in many cases. I would gladly live out my life without seeing another photo of a wineglass in front of a fractal design on a computer monitor.


Why? Because you consider it plagiarism or because you don't like them?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 06:01:51 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 © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 06:01:51 PM EDT.