| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2007 08:54:50 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
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. |
This change of wording -- which has been in place for the majority of a year without anyone really bringing it up in any sort of debate, mind you -- actually does make it less restrictive in most instances. For example, you can now photograph straight-on shots of currency and not get DQ'd like the old days.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
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? |
Good Lord, no, it does not mean that. Undoubtedly there are some that have slipped by us. This kind of thing normally comes up when someone requests a DQ on an image for looking "suspicious" in some form, and then we later learn that this is why it was suspicious.
Please let us keep in mind here that we're talking about an issue that comes up what, maybe 3 times a year, total...? Case in point, this is probably the first DQ on this rule since January when the new version of the rule went into effect. There's really not a big need to dwell upon this as though the world is coming to an end or something. Seems like waaaaay too much thought is being put into this, as if there are DQs flying around because of it in every challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 20:56:01. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 09:00:05 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
[quote=cloudsme] 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. |
This change of wording -- which has been in place for the majority of a year without anyone really bringing it up in any sort of debate, mind you -- actually does make it less restrictive in most instances. For example, you can now photograph straight-on shots of currency and not get DQ'd like the old days.
Okay, so you can take a straight-on shot of currency and you're legal. But if you take a straight on shot of currency, put it on a monitor with some sunglasses in front of George, you're not? |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 09:19:29 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Okay, so you can take a straight-on shot of currency and you're legal. But if you take a straight on shot of currency, put it on a monitor with some sunglasses in front of George, you're not? |
Still legal. Nobody will assume George was sitting there modeling for you. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 09:26:12 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Still legal. Nobody will assume George was sitting there modeling for you. |
I agree... his modeling fees are outrageous. He's got a thing for Benjamins.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 09:32:59 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Still legal. Nobody will assume George was sitting there modeling for you. |
Which brings us back to the original question: Did anyone REALLY believe that Ralph's owl was wearing binoculars?
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 21:33:37.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 09:35:34 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
Did anyone REALLY believe that Ralph's owl was wearing binoculars? |
At least one person thought the binoculars were the artwork, and it certainly wouldn't be difficult to get such a shot if the owl was stuffed. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 09:36:16 PM · #107 |
its quite possible that the owl was a few feet back from the binoculars, & fake eyes just pasted to the front of them.
I full agree with the DQ, voters were voting on how well the owl was presented, not just the binoculars. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 09:50:58 PM · #108 |
I generally take silence as agreement on the net. I posted a possible new version of the rule and nobody comments on it in eight posts?
Is it that good? |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 10:09:55 PM · #109 |
Deleted. I don't want to purposely make any issues confusing and convoluted.
I also don't want to create confusion and tension where it's not necessary.
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 21:28:43. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 10:28:40 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by larryslights:
Did anyone REALLY believe that Ralph's owl was wearing binoculars? |
At least one person thought the binoculars were the artwork, and it certainly wouldn't be difficult to get such a shot if the owl was stuffed. |
i really wish i could have found a stuffed owl on short notice ;)
|
|
|
|
10/15/2007 11:28:25 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by ursula:
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? |
Both. The photographer had nothing to do with creating that fractal.Just like the photographer who had nothing to do with taking a picture of the earth from space (should be DQ'd) or the beautiful clouds in the sky (should be DQ'd). I don't care if it's subject or background. It's a big part of the photo and people are fooled into considering its quality in their vote. |
|
|
|
10/15/2007 11:57:47 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The photographer had nothing to do with creating that fractal. Just like the photographer who had nothing to do with taking a picture of the earth from space (should be DQ'd) or the beautiful clouds in the sky (should be DQ'd). I don't care if it's subject or background. It's a big part of the photo and people are fooled into considering its quality in their vote. |
Actually, I DID take the photo of the clouds, and use of the space background was expressly permitted by the author, so no plagiarism involved. Also, the rules at the time only required a significant "real" object be present in the shot and fooling the voters wasn't an issue.
Message edited by author 2007-10-15 23:58:31. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:25:18 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...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. |
I tend to agree with you Doc - but there will always be a grey zone. What about billboards? Two of three ribboners in the last street photography challenge used billboards as very effective backdrops. Example:
In my opinion the interaction between the background and the subject is what makes this picture work... |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:42:59 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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?
 |
I don't understand this. First, this is a straight shot, no photomanipulation beyond Raw editing.Second, adding texture is always illegal in basic anyway. Does your post say what you intended it to? Am I missing something?
R.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:50:15 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by ursula:
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. |
Well, speaking for myself I'm more concerned with inconsistency than anything else. It seems to me the image that sparked this thread was unreasonably DQ'd, based on other validations.
I quite agree with you it would be wonderful to continue to benefit from the creativity of such as deSousa and Scalvert, no question about it.
I just wonder what's the POINT in running a DIGITAL photography site and allowing elaborate, time-consuming, and sometimes expensive (try pricing out a print the size of the one Shannon used in the magic carpet shot; HE has access to a large-format plotter, fortunately) workarounds for creating images that could easily be accomplished in a fraction of the time in Photoshop through the magic of image-merging.
Don't get me wrong, I actually DO understand the "slippery slope" problem if we start allowing these digital composites and thereby degenerate (or so some think) into a photomanipulation site. It's just that the inconsistencies of it bug me, and the more so when such a niggling line is drawn as to result in the DQ of the owl shot...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 03:56:57 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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?
|
I don't understand this. First, this is a straight shot, no photomanipulation beyond Raw editing.Second, adding texture is always illegal in basic anyway. Does your post say what you intended it to? Am I missing something?
R. |
I'm not sure what Shannon is getting at but perhaps he's comparing the material you used underneath the woody with the music sheet you're referring to. Suppose you wrinkled up that fabric beforehand how is that any different than Jorge "wrinkling" up the music notes in photoshop? Had Jorge painted the notes on a blank piece of paper and smudged it by hand would that have been kosher?
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 03:57:52.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 04:08:54 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'm not sure what Shannon is getting at but perhaps he's comparing the material you used underneath the woody with the music sheet you're referring to. Suppose you wrinkled up that fabric beforehand how is that any different than Jorge "wrinkling" up the music notes in photoshop? Had Jorge painted the notes on a blank piece of paper and smudged it by hand would that have been kosher? |
It's just a weird anomaly. For example, consider this: I can legally shoot the swan on a normal piece of sheet music, then I can select the swan only and copy it to a new layer. Then I can make any (legal) alterations I want to the base layer and the swan-only layer will register above that and be unaltered.
However, I cannot legally use the liquefy filter to alter the sheet music on the underlying layer the way it has been altered here. So Jorge's solution was to make an image of the sheet music, alter it with the liquefy filter (illegal alteration if part of the actual image), then print it out, pose the swan on it, and shoot the whole thing.
Now I definitely DO understand that if we said Jorge couldn't do that, then we'd have to look askance at, say, crumpling-up of paper that is to be used in a setup, etc etc. Clearly this is silly.
My only point is that the rules have these weird anomalies in them in the sense that you can do absolutely any sort of photomanipulation you wish to components of your image if they then are either printed out, projected, or displayed on a monitor and so incorporated as elements in a new, "composite" image shot on a single frame.
I'm not sure there IS any way around the anomaly, actually. But it's still strange, don't you think? Philosophers could have a ball with this distinction...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 09:16:17 AM · #118 |
Is the burger not the subject in this "Fast Food" challenge photo? (sorry Briana)
Would this photo have as much impact without the fish? (sorry Shannon)
Without the printed fish, it's just a fishbowl. (sorry Rob)
These are all ribbon winners from after January, 2007, after the rule changed. All used printed props to fool the voters. Where is the consistancy?
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 09:16:37 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Actually, I DID take the photo of the clouds, |
ok, but did that have anything to do with whether or not you were DQ'd?
Originally posted by scalvert:
and use of the space background was expressly permitted by the author, so no plagiarism involved. |
Getting permission doesn't change the fact that one is using someone else's photo as a major element (or "feature") of one's own photo, with no way for the voter to know. After all, there are no restrictions against astronauts using this site, last I checked.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Also, the rules at the time only required a significant "real" object be present in the shot and fooling the voters wasn't an issue. |
I'm not talking about the rules as they are or as they were, but rather as they could be. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 09:26:36 AM · #120 |
| After reading this whole thread, I could only say that my this months free study entry has just went to dustbin. I got to think something else now. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:06:29 PM · #121 |
I'm going to post this again because it got so little response as a potential rewording for the current rule:
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.
And silverscreen, I did see your post and agree it would be tough. I guess that shot would get a DQ (although I think it's an excellent shot), but the other ribbon in street photog would not because it is obviously a billboard (where it isn't obvious in your example).
Message edited by author 2007-10-16 12:07:43.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:29:27 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And silverscreen, I did see your post and agree it would be tough. I guess that shot would get a DQ (although I think it's an excellent shot), but the other ribbon in street photog would not because it is obviously a billboard (where it isn't obvious in your example). |
So it's not obvious to you that this is a billboard? ;
You think there's a danger people might see it as a giant woman instead? |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:32:43 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And silverscreen, I did see your post and agree it would be tough. I guess that shot would get a DQ (although I think it's an excellent shot), but the other ribbon in street photog would not because it is obviously a billboard (where it isn't obvious in your example).
|
So you think Hotpasta found the 50 foot woman and had her lay there while people walk by?! That is absolutly crazy. Any rule that would DQ the shot Silverscreen posted is just a flat out stupid rule and discourages good photography. I can't possibly see how you think the woman's head that is 3 times bigger than the entire person in that shot isn't obviously a photo. I guess I have never met a northwestern woman. your practice's building must be huge to let the giants in. how much does it cost to heat that place in the winter?
And no your rule is no better becasue it still allows subjective interpratation in what is "obvious". |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:42:06 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
So you think Hotpasta found the 50 foot woman and had her lay there while people walk by?! That is absolutly crazy. |
The other interpretation is that he found a normal size woman and got a 6-inch tall man to stand on her pillow. |
|
|
|
10/16/2007 12:46:30 PM · #125 |
No, the other interpretation is that he had access to his own giant printer and printed a picture for the background himself. Perhaps SC would rule it was obviously a billboard due to the obvious size of the picture. (although couldn't the man be a cutout in front of a normal woman?)
I agree, it reveals the gray zone of this possible wording, but I think the zone is much, much smaller than current and while this excellent picture would unfortunately not meet the standard, it would prevent lots of other shenanigans out there.
|
|
