| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/18/2007 10:38:06 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Good Grief. This is only such a confusing and convoluted issue because so many of you are making it into one. |
Poor Charlie Brown. Lucy's in the outfield picking dandelions. Linus won't let go of his blanket. Snoopy... what's a dog doing on the field?? All these ... people... with minds... with their own opinions... confusing and convoluting the simplicity of top-down decision-making... and now you're pitching a fastball right down the middle to Peppermint Patty... AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHH!!!! |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 11:42:27 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
no reasonable person would expect that a 50-foot tall Amazon woman was lying in the street |
A man can dream, you insensitive bastard. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 01:20:35 AM · #203 |
My main point is that it seems each photo that is legal is legal for a specific reason that only that photo qualifies under. Each photo that gets a DQ gets it for a similarly specific reason. From this side, there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason. I certainly know enough to know you guys are trying your best, but what happens is bad choices get made and then new choices are forced from the precedent of the previous bad choices. Finally someone tries to break the chain and then people cry foul because there is no consistency.
I don't know the answer (although I proposed one). I'm hip enough to realize that not everybody may share my vision.
Here's a basic visual representation of why I'm arguing the position I have:
 
One fish is real. One is a print. Can you tell which is which? Does one photo seem less deserving somehow than the other? Once I know one of those fish is real (and one is, I assure you), the other picture pales in comparison. What if both these pictures were in the same challenge? I would feel I cheated the entrant of the real fish if I voted the other higher or as high assuming it was real as well. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:11:39 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by tase:
the owl AND the binoculars have to be present to drive home the message. |
This image is older and was ok with the rules at the time but the background in it is there to drive home the message. Without it I think all context is lost yet its obviously just a background. And printed out and not my artwork. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:33:38 AM · #205 |
| The problem I have is where is the line drawn? It seems so subjective to change at any time. The whole take a picture in front of your monitor, with wine glasses, etc, was a staple of this site for so long.. But now, well, that subjective changed. After all isn't this a photography contest website? Why ever even allow previous artworks to be included? Not that Im not guilty of the same, but the rules changed... I guess its for the better... |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 02:35:30 AM · #206 |
 MQuinn, long time no see... welcome back.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 05:36:02 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
no reasonable person would expect that a 50-foot tall Amazon woman was lying in the street |
A man can dream, you insensitive bastard. |
so now you want a 50-foot girl kissing girls challenge? |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 06:10:48 AM · #208 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My main point is that it seems each photo that is legal is legal for a specific reason that only that photo qualifies under. Each photo that gets a DQ gets it for a similarly specific reason. From this side, there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason. I certainly know enough to know you guys are trying your best, but what happens is bad choices get made and then new choices are forced from the precedent of the previous bad choices. Finally someone tries to break the chain and then people cry foul because there is no consistency.
I don't know the answer (although I proposed one). I'm hip enough to realize that not everybody may share my vision.
Here's a basic visual representation of why I'm arguing the position I have:
One fish is real. One is a print. Can you tell which is which? Does one photo seem less deserving somehow than the other? Once I know one of those fish is real (and one is, I assure you), the other picture pales in comparison. What if both these pictures were in the same challenge? I would feel I cheated the entrant of the real fish if I voted the other higher or as high assuming it was real as well. |
Well both wouldn't be in the same challenge because it seems one copied the other. :) Jorge's shot is defintely better executed and has the added appeal with the real fish and as you say people might not have noticed it was a real fish and didn't vote as high as they would knowing that. However, I'm pretty sure he got plenty of favorable votes from people thinking this was a great idea that he authored when it apparently wasn't the case. The two kind of cancel out don't you think?
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 06:13:17. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 06:25:34 AM · #209 |
Just scanning through the thread trying to keep up-- so have I got this right: Fish are not allowed in Basic? Ok. I wrote that down.
...does that include Dolphins? |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 06:33:33 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Just scanning through the thread trying to keep up-- so have I got this right: Fish are not allowed in Basic? Ok. I wrote that down.
...does that include Dolphins? |
Only one humped dolphins.
Oh wait.....
That's camels isn't it.
DOH!
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 06:44:37 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Just scanning through the thread trying to keep up-- so have I got this right: Fish are not allowed in Basic? Ok. I wrote that down.
...does that include Dolphins? |
Only one humped dolphins.
Oh wait.....
That's camels isn't it.
DOH! |
But not with toes. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 06:49:08 AM · #212 |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 11:26:33 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well both wouldn't be in the same challenge because it seems one copied the other. :) Jorge's shot is defintely better executed and has the added appeal with the real fish and as you say people might not have noticed it was a real fish and didn't vote as high as they would knowing that. However, I'm pretty sure he got plenty of favorable votes from people thinking this was a great idea that he authored when it apparently wasn't the case. The two kind of cancel out don't you think? |
You are losing sight of the point though Richard. (I'm not even sure Jorge was aware of Nico's shot as I believe it won before Jorge even got to the site. Still, both their inspirations could have come from a third source.)
My point is I simply don't like being "tricked" into thinking a shot was painstakingly set up and executed only to find out it is a cutout. I guess that will be true no matter what the ruleset is. I think I actually lowered Jorge's vote by a point or two because I assumed it was a cutout.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 05:31:07 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well both wouldn't be in the same challenge because it seems one copied the other. :) Jorge's shot is defintely better executed and has the added appeal with the real fish and as you say people might not have noticed it was a real fish and didn't vote as high as they would knowing that. However, I'm pretty sure he got plenty of favorable votes from people thinking this was a great idea that he authored when it apparently wasn't the case. The two kind of cancel out don't you think? |
You are losing sight of the point though Richard. (I'm not even sure Jorge was aware of Nico's shot as I believe it won before Jorge even got to the site. Still, both their inspirations could have come from a third source.)
My point is I simply don't like being "tricked" into thinking a shot was painstakingly set up and executed only to find out it is a cutout. I guess that will be true no matter what the ruleset is. I think I actually lowered Jorge's vote by a point or two because I assumed it was a cutout. |
What happened to voting on the merits of the image?? Why would you lower the score based on an assumption like that?
Now that I mention it, I have caught myself dropping a couple points when I see pics of ladybugs. Hmmm... |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 05:32:07 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point is I simply don't like being "tricked" |
Bad experience at a Magic Show? :P |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 05:54:05 PM · #216 |
| By cropping to a small portion of the visible scene, and converting a (usually) 3-D space into a 2-D represention every photograph is a "trick" to get you to see only what the photographer wants you to see -- even more so with macros or telescopic views beyond the normal range of the human eye. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 06:36:57 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
By cropping to a small portion of the visible scene, and converting a (usually) 3-D space into a 2-D represention every photograph is a "trick" to get you to see only what the photographer wants you to see -- even more so with macros or telescopic views beyond the normal range of the human eye. |
blah blah blah. What you see with the human eye is really an interpretation of electrical signals from your retina to your brain.
You know exactly what I mean. ;)
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 18:37:12. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 09:31:24 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
By cropping to a small portion of the visible scene, and converting a (usually) 3-D space into a 2-D represention every photograph is a "trick" to get you to see only what the photographer wants you to see -- even more so with macros or telescopic views beyond the normal range of the human eye. |
blah blah blah. What you see with the human eye is really an interpretation of electrical signals from your retina to your brain.
You know exactly what I mean. ;) |
Well, I know what you mean but I don't agree with you :-) When I went to work as a photographer, it was as the gofer/darkroom guy for a commercial studio in San Diego that did ALL the photography for T. George Harris's Psychology Today magazine in its glory days. I don't know if you're old enough to remember that, but you talk about ILLUSIONS in photography... Everythign was studio setups designed a la Scalvert to fool the viewer, always for a specific goal or purpose.
It was fiendishly painstaking work, and I grew to appreciate how hard it is to do. I have a lot of admiration for people who can pull these illusions off, and I think it's a major genre of photography that, for a lot of people, is fun to view and easy to admire.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 09:41:31 PM · #219 |
| I think the problem Robert is that we are trying somehow to pull these shots off within a rules context that is design already to prevent other "illusions" like digital compositing. I have no problem with the methods as a photographic genre and think it would actually be quite fun to do. However, within DPC rules, I think it causes more harm than good. Just my opinion though. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 09:44:24 PM · #220 |
But, Jason, sometimes photography is about fooling the viewer. That's what makes it a creative art....
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:02:08 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the problem Robert is that we are trying somehow to pull these shots off within a rules context that is design already to prevent other "illusions" like digital compositing. I have no problem with the methods as a photographic genre and think it would actually be quite fun to do. However, within DPC rules, I think it causes more harm than good. Just my opinion though. |
So are you saying both fish shots shouldn't be allowed going forward? Even if Jorge used a real fish he's still tricking the viewer. I'm pretty sure Jorge didn't train the fish to jump out of the bowl on cue rather it was setup to make it appear that way. It's one heck of an execution but just because he used a real fish doesn't make it any more legit than Nico's shot. In the end they are both still illusions.
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 22:02:50.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:07:26 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the problem Robert is that we are trying somehow to pull these shots off within a rules context that is design already to prevent other "illusions" like digital compositing. I have no problem with the methods as a photographic genre and think it would actually be quite fun to do. However, within DPC rules, I think it causes more harm than good. Just my opinion though. |
So are you saying both fish shots shouldn't be allowed going forward? Even if Jorge used a real fish he's still tricking the viewer. I'm pretty sure Jorge didn't train the fish to jump out of the bowl on cue rather it was setup to make it appear that way. It's one heck of an execution but just because he used a real fish doesn't make it any more legit than Nico's shot. In the end they are both still illusions. |
I don't know why you guys think I'm de facto against illusions. I like illusions. I am looking for a rule that can be easily interpreted and easily ajudicated.
Somehow pointing to the creativity or coolness of illusion doesn't help us with the rules. I thought this was a pretty cool illusion, why can't I use it in advanced?
 |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:09:33 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the problem Robert is that we are trying somehow to pull these shots off within a rules context that is design already to prevent other "illusions" like digital compositing. I have no problem with the methods as a photographic genre and think it would actually be quite fun to do. However, within DPC rules, I think it causes more harm than good. Just my opinion though. |
So are you saying both fish shots shouldn't be allowed going forward? Even if Jorge used a real fish he's still tricking the viewer. I'm pretty sure Jorge didn't train the fish to jump out of the bowl on cue rather it was setup to make it appear that way. It's one heck of an execution but just because he used a real fish doesn't make it any more legit than Nico's shot. In the end they are both still illusions. |
Bingo. And the same is true of a LOT of winning shots that don't actually use printed or monitor components in their execution. For instance, this great shot by  Coley is absolutely an illusion:
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Now, Doc can split hairs and say this one isn't "fooling" anybody, that everyone "knows" the stuff is suspended, but you can't, IMO, logically make the argument you're making without saying shots like this are somehow less satisfying to you.
Do you think that, Doc?
R.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:11:39 PM · #224 |
we were typing at the same time Bear. The bottom line, to me, is that Coley's illusion can't be hijacked to circumvent other editing rules. Printed images can. That's the difference to me, not what creative applications they have.
Message edited by author 2007-10-19 22:12:38. |
|
|
|
10/19/2007 10:12:33 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Somehow pointing to the creativity or coolness of illusion doesn't help us with the rules. I thought this was a pretty cool illusion, why can't I use it in advanced?
|
Because it uses more than a single source image, and our rules are set up to reward in-camera compositing, not photoshop compositing, except for expert editing. But let me ask you this: if the dragonfly was sporting wings you had painstakingly fabricated out of mylar and a technical pen and then mounted to its thorax, then wouldn't it be disappointing to you, by what you have said, if it fooled us?
R.
|
|
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 06:02:33 PM EDT.
