| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2007 04:46:31 PM · #76 |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:48:23 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by cmeier:
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? |
It'd have to be small enough that more than 50% of the SC would vote to DQ it.
Look, it's just like a million things around here. There are no bright lines. Witness Scalvert and DrAchoo's discussion of muslin backgrounds.
That's why we have an SC, and why a majority decides things.
If you want clarity, here ya go: don't fake things. If you don't fake anything, you'll never come close to a DQ. Here's another one: Take a picture of a picture, and you're guaranteed a DQ if you're caught.
In between, here's clarity: you're taking a risk that 50% of the SC might vote to DQ you.
Perfect clarity, and an all-encompassing, automatic ruleset is impossible.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 04:55:46 PM · #78 |
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. |
Hmmm...so I guess...that if altering 'what was' is illegal...that is, tricking the viewers into thinking something is real, then putting make up on a model to make her look pretty should also be classed as illegal. I would be adding something to an image that wasn't there originally...aren't I? AND....it would be considered artwork!!
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 16:56:11.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:07:19 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Interesting. So a Wescott muslin cloud texture would be OK? |
Good point, and I don't know what the answer would be. I'm striving for a rule that is simple and easily interpreted and enforced rather than looking at what the outcome of the rule would be picturewise.
I guess as I originally phrased it, it would come down to the gray line of whether SC considered the clouds to be objects or textures and how it interacted with the rest of the picture. If it was merely a backdrop for a portrait or other subject, then it may be ok, if it were put below your daughter on her flying carpet, then maybe not.
I do want to reemphasize that I think some of these pictures are great. Nightbulb is classic and Rikki was the master of the fractal in front of glasses genre, but I think you either let it all in or don't let any of it in instead of trying to pick and choose what is kosher and what isn't. The latter method leads to ill feelings and that's what I think we have too much of around here these days. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:10:45 PM · #80 |
This is silly. If you are going to ban prints used as backgrounds you better ban all backgrounds to be consistent so I guess all we will have is fill the frame challenges. Woopee!
You should be able to use any background print, monitor, projection, fabric or whatever you want so long as it functions as the background and not the subject. Why are we making this so difficult?
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 17:12:36.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:13:23 PM · #81 |
Just to help draw the line in the sand, should THIS have been DQ'd? iPhones don't REALLY do x-rays, the X-ray IS the subject, not background...
(thanks doc)
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 17:21:51. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:18:12 PM · #82 |
| take out the IMAGE_ID= part. leave just the number. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:20:52 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[I'm striving for a rule that is simple and easily interpreted and enforced rather than looking at what the outcome of the rule would be picturewise. |
We're all ears.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If it was merely a backdrop for a portrait or other subject, then it may be ok, if it were put below your daughter on her flying carpet, then maybe not. |
What's the difference? Both backdrops put a model amid the context of clouds. Likewise, I could use a printed background of grass, a section of astroturf or real grass. Why should it matter which one I use? Astroturf is arguably as fake as the print. FWIW, I haven't used an artwork background of any kind in, uh... the last 14 ribbons, and I've actually proposed banning them on several occasions. It's just not quite as simple as you might think. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:26:42 PM · #84 |
Aye carumba.
Why is it that when something relatively straight forward is being discussed, things come out of the blue from waaaaaaaay out in left field...? Did you read the rest of the thread...? This is nowhere near what I've argued against. I would think that this should be rather obvious as a no-DQ.
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Just to help draw the line in the sand, should THIS have been DQ'd? iPhones don't REALLY do x-rays, the X-ray IS the subject, not background...
(thanks doc) |
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:29:04 PM · #85 |
| I must agree with Alan, that I find this rule a VERY easy rule to understand and it has worked much better for us than any previous incarnation of the "artwork" rule. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:31:51 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[I'm striving for a rule that is simple and easily interpreted and enforced rather than looking at what the outcome of the rule would be picturewise. |
We're all ears.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If it was merely a backdrop for a portrait or other subject, then it may be ok, if it were put below your daughter on her flying carpet, then maybe not. |
What's the difference? Both backdrops put a model amid the context of clouds. Likewise, I could use a printed background of grass, a section of astroturf or real grass. Why should it matter which one I use? Astroturf is arguably as fake as the print. FWIW, I haven't used an artwork background of any kind in, uh... the last 14 ribbons, and I've actually proposed banning them on several occasions. It's just not quite as simple as you might think. |
I don't get the difference either. Perhaps maybe the line should be drawn as to when it deceives. If it looks real and it's not, it should be DQed. Since magic carpets are clearly not real people knew it was a trick and those clouds weren't real. Same goes for those cheesy portrait backgrounds that have a scene behind them.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:36:35 PM · #87 |
Yes, I did read the rest of the thread, and originally it began debating how much previous 'artwork' was allowable. I feel that my image is very close to what this thread is discussing, which has includedthe use of computer monitors.
And Scalvert, are you really comparing your image of a child sitting above a city to somebody using a picture of grass for a background? Then why didn't you have the 'flying carpet' on the grass? because you were trying to fool the voters. You were trying to make it APPEAR that the rug was flying over a city, the same way the OP was trying to make it APPEAR that an owl was wearing glasses.
Yanko, are you telling us that owls wearing binoculars is more believable than flying carpets?
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 17:38:02. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:39:18 PM · #88 |
i painted my walls specific colors using my artistic background as guidance. i use those walls in most of my indoor photos. i guess i'll have to buy some roll out BG paper instead... i sure don't want to get DQ'd for pushing the limits ;}
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:50:07 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by soup:
i painted my walls specific colors using my artistic background as guidance. i use those walls in most of my indoor photos. i guess i'll have to buy some roll out BG paper instead... i sure don't want to get DQ'd for pushing the limits ;} |
I note your smiley, but I think this post really convolutes the issue and promotes confusion. Painted walls are not the issue, and have never been the issue. Nor have the use of fabric or paper backdrops. The issue is whether the subject of the photo is pre-existing artwork. Ralph disagrees that with us that many would be fooled into thinking the owl in his photo is not real, but the point remains that a majority of site council felt differently. That is ALL. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 05:56:17 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Yanko, are you telling us that owls wearing binoculars is more believable than flying carpets? |
No. I'm saying neither should convince the viewer it's real. Scalvert tried to show something impossible and made it look fairly convincing but in the end it didn't convince anybody it was real because magic carpets aren't real and we know that going in. As for Ralph, he shot something that is indeed possible but his execution wasn't strong enough to convince that it was real. No offense to Ralph but the quality of that picture isn't that good. In addition to the photo appearing soft the lighting is inconsistent to say the least. Nobody should have been convinced that was a real owl standing there nor should anybody have thought Scalvert captured an actual flying carpet up in the sky.
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 17:57:35.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:09:30 PM · #91 |
i guess i should have used those tags... no harm meant.
though i was sort of bringing the topic to it's most primitive level. in a sarcastic sort of way.
why isn't my artistic application of paint being taken seriously as art?
Originally posted by frisca:
I note your smiley, but I think this post really convolutes the issue and promotes confusion. Painted walls are not the issue, and have never been the issue. Nor have the use of fabric or paper backdrops. The issue is whether the subject of the photo is pre-existing artwork. Ralph disagrees that with us that many would be fooled into thinking the owl in his photo is not real, but the point remains that a majority of site council felt differently. That is ALL. |
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:12:39 PM · #92 |
no offense taken (it was sitting at 5.75 when taken down )
it was a last min. effort & deserved as much ..
i have already resolved the issue internally (took a couple of days)
but wanted to know what the general populous thought ..
the opening blurb was written (mostly) 4+ days ago ..
in the bigger picture - this needed to be aired -
i do disagree because mainly because i believe nothing (composition wise) should be off limits - within the rules -
- if i feel the need to include an albatross in my image & don't have one handy - i have a choice of painting / drawing/ projecting / cutouts/ stuffed / costumes ... etc etc etc ..
why limit yourself ?
why are you limiting your creativity ?
obviously others think differently ..
though it's a rule .. & i got burnt .. won't happen again .. probably ;)
(not this rule anyway .. directly ;)
(i'll bet i could sneak into the natural history museum in town & paste a pair of paper binoculars onto the glass in front of snowy owl near closing ... & get kicked out ;)
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:40:10 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by ralph:
- if i feel the need to include an albatross in my image & don't have one handy - i have a choice of painting / drawing/ projecting / cutouts/ stuffed / costumes ... etc etc etc ..
why limit yourself ?
why are you limiting your creativity ?
obviously others think differently ..
|
Taking your argument further...don't all rules on this site limit yourself creatively?
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:40:56 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
And Scalvert, are you really comparing your image of a child sitting above a city to somebody using a picture of grass for a background? |
No, I was comparing a grass background to a cloud/sky background. The issue appeared to be whether a background contained recognizable objects or a scene (as opposed to an abstract texture). So if I were to take, say, an image of boulders hovering over grass... should it matter if the grass was real, astroturf or a printed background?
You might say, yeah, but the flying carpet or kid is different because it's an "impossible" situation. Alrighty then... what if I did a handstand on the roof of a car with astroturf or a printed background of grass at my feet and flipped the image so it looked like I was holding up the car. Would you consider the astroturf a clever setup and the print cheating? What's the difference?
(Nevermind that me doing a respectable handstand is probably still an impossible situation). ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 18:41:44. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:45:22 PM · #95 |
This type shot would still be allowed, right?
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:47:21 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by yanko:
This is silly. If you are going to ban prints used as backgrounds you better ban all backgrounds to be consistent so I guess all we will have is fill the frame challenges. Woopee!
You should be able to use any background print, monitor, projection, fabric or whatever you want so long as it functions as the background and not the subject. Why are we making this so difficult? |
I tend to agree with  yanko (emphasis mine in the above quote).
It is a nuisance being fooled again and again by subject matter being presented as a difficult capture, only to find out it was faked in one way or another. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 06:48:13 PM · #97 |
Tis fine!
Originally posted by Marjo:
This type shot would still be allowed, right? |
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 08:29:04 PM · #98 |
| WOW. I've learned lots about cheating on this thread! |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 08:42:00 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[I'm striving for a rule that is simple and easily interpreted and enforced rather than looking at what the outcome of the rule would be picturewise. |
We're all ears.
|
You may use a printed representation or video representation of another photograph as a backdrop if it effectively acts as a solid background, a gradient, or a texture.
You may not use a printed representation or video representation of another photograph as an object, subject, or contextual background in your photograph unless it is obvious the object, subject or background is a photograph.
That's my first go at it. I'm sure it can be improved, but I think it's a good start. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 08:45:10 PM · #100 |
I thought the new existing art rules were changed to make the rules more liberal and not more restrictive. I think this DQ sets us back to before the rule change.
Another thought...What if Ralph didn't say how he took his image. Will SC study all images submitted looking for signs of monitor use? |
|
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 01:53:43 PM EDT.
