| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 02:10:06 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...the old rules, seem to state the exact same thing as the "new rules". |
I've lost count of how many times you've already been told this, but the old rules were not the same. Until the new rule was introduced in November 2006, the photographer only had to include something 3 dimensional to be legal. The voters would then be rating something OTHER than just the artwork.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 14:11:44. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:17:02 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, the museum photographer would have to deal with glass reflections, people in the way, and low light hand-held (usually no tripods allowed) shooting. :-) |
First of all I do not think there was likely any glass, it is not like there was real water to be held in or anthing!
My main beef is that this was presented to the public as a wildlife photo. It was judged and voted on in the same way as my shot of this. 
I happen to feel a little ripped that people who take real wildlife photos, freezing their asses off and doing whatever else they need to do to get the shot, have to have their photos compared on the same basis to someone that takes a snapshot of an indoor display and passes it off as genuine real animals. Can you not see how that is wrong? An artistic sculpture by Michelangelo is recognizable as a sculpture, it is not passed off as being the real scene. If a photograph in your background can get you dq'd because it fools the voters into thinking that it was actually there in real life when the photo was taken, I do not see how taking a photograph of a pre-lit "set" as the entire photo and passing it off as a real wildlife should be allowed just because the fakeness in this case was 3d instead of flat!
I find it hard to believe that taking photos of a "set" with pre-lit stuffed things and a photo realistic background is what was intended by the 3d interpretation. If it is, then it had better get modified quick, because people who take photographs of real wildlife are gonna get tired of this real fast. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:19:56 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Only the glass was real, not the scene. To use Jorge's entry as an example again, if only a small foreground part of his shot was real, then the scene would consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph with an object placed in front of it. Take away that real part (or replace Lydia's glass with a candle) and the scene/entry remains all about the artwork. |
Taking a photo of a pre-lit "set" is also all about the artwork....the only difference being that it is 3d artwork, not flat. There were not lighting choices made, it has a painted realistic background, all of which is passed off as being real. Makes no sense. You could even say that if you took the manatee and the fake 3d rocks from the foreground, you would then have a photorealistic painted background (maybe even a photo?) which has the "rays of light" in the background...so it is the same situation.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 14:22:12. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:20:20 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
... But, I also recognize that from the date on the shot's entry, perhaps, the "old rules" were in effect. And, ironically, the old rules, seem to state the exact same thing as the "new rules". ... |
February 2005, there is a link next to every challenge photo ever taken that takes you to the ruleset in effect at that time.
From the rules for that photo (Advanced Editing IV):
"Artwork. Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. 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)."
ETA - Current ruleset reads (Advanced Editing - Jan 14th):
"You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."
Seems they do read a little differently, eh? |
It is different but, one can also be subjective in the viewpoint that we don't know if there is another photo behind that photo or whether it is her that she has photographed behind the front photo. Her notes don't say and that would make a difference. If it was another photo behind the photo, it's simply a photograph of a piece of "artwork" and thereby, "unacceptable". That's why I asked whether it was her behind the artwork or another photo of her. Otherwise, it's simply a photo of a collage.
Do you think that we'll get a real answer? ;-) And, by the way....seems like you may want to run for an SC seat in the next elections! ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:21:44 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Well, the museum photographer would have to deal with glass reflections, people in the way, and low light hand-held (usually no tripods allowed) shooting. :-) |
My main beef is that this was presented to the public as a wildlife photo. It was judged and voted on in the same way as my shot of this.
... If it is, then it had better get modified quick, because people who take photographs of real wildlife are gonna get tired of this real fast. |
Oh, that's funny. Well, not funny at your expense...
I nearly mentioned the comparison of Wildlife vs Zoo shots to Statues vs Museum Displays. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:22:09 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
So then a person that lived near one of these museums that have displays that are all pre-lit etc could go there and shoot a different one every month, never learning anything other than how to bracket exposures...enter them into the FS's and likely win the FS marathon and some ribbons along the way? All on the back of the REAL artists that created, composed, and lit the displays that the photographer is taking snap shots of? Supposedly that should be allowed in the rules?
The interpretation about 3d art like sculptures was intended (IMHO) to allow sculptures and 3d art that you can walk around and examine from multiple sides.Find the best angle or time of day for light etc and try to give your own interpretive take on the original artist's creation. This snapshot does none of that. Is the small fish at the back of the fake tank a real fake, and the rocks back there? Or are they painted into the background.
A sculpture generally does not have a photo-realistic (pun intended) painted background! |
Well, the museum photographer would have to deal with glass reflections, people in the way, and low light hand-held (usually no tripods allowed) shooting. :-) |
I'm surprised to hear you defending this, glad. If a voter thought those were living animals, he would be voting based on underwater photography skills or at least the timing to take this shot in an aquarium. The shot would be so much more challenging, and most would vote higher based on that. I know I voted 2 or 3 points higher than I would have otherwise. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:22:58 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...the old rules, seem to state the exact same thing as the "new rules". |
I've lost count of how many times you've already been told this, but the old rules were not the same. Until the new rule was introduced in November 2006, the photographer only had to include something 3 dimensional to be legal. The voters would then be rating something OTHER than just the artwork. |
Right....but how do we KNOW or, better put, how could VIEWERS/VOTERS know whether it was Laurie behind the top photo OR....another photo of Laurie?! With no idea as to what it really was without her explanation, one could assume that it's another photo of her behind that top photo, which would have made it illegal, even with that ruleset at that time. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:23:00 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
... And, by the way....seems like you may want to run for an SC seat in the next elections! ;-) |
No thanks. Armchair quarterbacking is much more fun! :-) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:24:20 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm surprised to hear you defending this, glad. If a voter thought those were living animals, he would be voting based on underwater photography skills or at least the timing to take this shot in an aquarium. The shot would be so much more challenging, and most would vote higher based on that. I know I voted 2 or 3 points higher than I would have otherwise. |
Thank you Don. That is exactly it. The fact that it was passed off as being real. Nothing in the foreground to show it was a set. Just some very good fake manatee in front of a painted background, which is the real artwork in this photo...masquarading as real. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:24:45 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Taking a photo of a pre-lit "set" is also all about the artwork....the only difference being that it is 3d artwork, not flat. |
The entry is still composed of real objects, even if they're not breathing. It's a real scene that you could walk into and interact with... until the security guard reached you. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:26:12 PM · #436 |
It is not relevant as it will not be DQ'ed, so who cares what happened yesterday? It does not change what one must do today - regardless of what the rules do or do not state.
If you look closely at the picture, it definitely appears as though it is actually 2 of the same photo - one torn and placed over the other. There is absolutely NO CHANGE IN DEPTH from the top b/w one to the color one underneath. Also, every single line - hair, cheek, nose, etc. ALL LINE UP EXACTLY. BUT, so what? It was back in 2005 that something should have been done, as in someone should have requested validation. Obviously no one did and the photo stands.
I have read this entire thread and have only one more thing to say, well ask actually, can we lock this thread? It stopped being productive a long time ago and it seems people are really starting to act, ok, some people not all, like little school kids - "well you did this and he did that and he did what? Oh my gosh. Mom! Mom! Timmy farted."
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 14:29:21. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:26:20 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
... And, by the way....seems like you may want to run for an SC seat in the next elections! ;-) |
No thanks. Armchair quarterbacking is much more fun! :-) |
LOL....and you're good at it too! ;-)) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:26:39 PM · #438 |
I am not sure where the thread is that happened over a year ago where SC said they were not going to allow people to use images on computers for backgrounds anymore, I was not aware there were going to be exceptions and have avoided using my monitor. When I read Lydias discription on how the image was created I thought to myself "Ithough that was not allowed". The fact that she has used her monitor for a back drop before and been validated would confirm in her eyes it was an acceptable practice so I can understand her being upset and if I were in her shoes I would be upset too.
When the last discussion happened I felt this did not make sense to pick on the use of monitors because back drops and props of all kinds are used in photography daily and eforcing this could be a problem. I do not see the difference between using a plotter to make a back ground, using a clothe back drop, or using an image on a screen as long as there is a subject which is not part or the back drop.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:28:08 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
So then a person that lived near one of these museums that have displays that are all pre-lit etc could go there and shoot a different one every month, never learning anything other than how to bracket exposures...enter them into the FS's and likely win the FS marathon and some ribbons along the way? All on the back of the REAL artists that created, composed, and lit the displays that the photographer is taking snap shots of? Supposedly that should be allowed in the rules?
The interpretation about 3d art like sculptures was intended (IMHO) to allow sculptures and 3d art that you can walk around and examine from multiple sides.Find the best angle or time of day for light etc and try to give your own interpretive take on the original artist's creation. This snapshot does none of that. Is the small fish at the back of the fake tank a real fake, and the rocks back there? Or are they painted into the background.
A sculpture generally does not have a photo-realistic (pun intended) painted background! |
Well, the museum photographer would have to deal with glass reflections, people in the way, and low light hand-held (usually no tripods allowed) shooting. :-) |
I'm surprised to hear you defending this, glad. If a voter thought those were living animals, he would be voting based on underwater photography skills or at least the timing to take this shot in an aquarium. The shot would be so much more challenging, and most would vote higher based on that. I know I voted 2 or 3 points higher than I would have otherwise. |
I understand the point...mostly. So should we now include location data as a DQ consideration?
As for degree of difficulty (that's kind of a side issue I guess), I sure wish that WAS a consideration by more in voting, but I don't believe it ever will be, at least in large numbers.
edit - screwed up quoted text. ;-/
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 14:30:10. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:31:29 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Taking a photo of a pre-lit "set" is also all about the artwork....the only difference being that it is 3d artwork, not flat. |
The entry is still composed of real objects, even if they're not breathing. It's a real scene that you could walk into and interact with... until the security guard reached you. |
I find it hard to believe that you can walk into the background for the photo. The manatee are real fake manatee. Even the foreground rocks are likely real fake rocks. However the entire back of that display is a painted backdrop or photograph. The beautiful filtered light=painted. The small fish on the lower right=painted. The nice ocean with the wavey bits of light and dark=painted. All designed to make it look like it was real.
Just like with Lydia's shot, if you take away the glass you have a photo of a monitor trying to look real. In this case even if you take away the manatee you have a fake painted or photographed background trying to look real. See what I mean? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:32:47 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
It is not relevant as it will not be DQ'ed, so who cares what happened yesterday? It does not change what one must do today - regardless of what the rules do or do not state.
If you look closely at the picture, it definitely appears as though it is actually 2 of the same photo - one torn and placed over the other. There is absolutely NO CHANGE IN DEPTH from the top b/w one to the color one underneath. Also, every single line - hair, cheek, nose, etc. ALL LINE UP EXACTLY. BUT, so what? It was back in 2005 that something should have been done, as in someone should have requested validation. Obviously no one did and the photo stands. |
Ok, then, if that is true, this shot should have been DQ'd. (We don't know that for sure, by the way...thus, the reason for my asking) Ok, it's old news and "who cares" about that one but, the point is, there needs to be a rule change/clarification on this one rule and in going back over what isn't working now and what hasn't worked in the past, it's hoped that one can read a rule that is clear and not subjective to SC's discussions BEFORE it is entered into a challenge and possibly a DQ. If rules are unclear to quite a number of people as shown by the length of this thread alone (some others seem to feel that they, personally, fully and completely and totally understand every rule, without question or hesitation :)), then people risk the DQ's. And, ok, while one DQ means nothing in the grand scheme of things, a ribboned DQ means a lot as does a DQ to someone who has already received a DQ previously.
So, that is "what" this is about. :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:34:15 PM · #442 |
| you should check your email... |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:36:18 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I am not sure where the thread is that happened over a year ago where SC said they were not going to allow people to use images on computers for backgrounds anymore, I was not aware there were going to be exceptions and have avoided using my monitor. When I read Lydias discription on how the image was created I thought to myself "Ithough that was not allowed". The fact that she has used her monitor for a back drop before and been validated would confirm in her eyes it was an acceptable practice so I can understand her being upset and if I were in her shoes I would be upset too.
When the last discussion happened I felt this did not make sense to pick on the use of monitors because back drops and props of all kinds are used in photography daily and eforcing this could be a problem. I do not see the difference between using a plotter to make a back ground, using a clothe back drop, or using an image on a screen as long as there is a subject which is not part or the back drop. |
Great points!!! :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:37:23 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by cej:
It was back in 2005 that something should have been done, as in someone should have requested validation. Obviously no one did and the photo stands. |
I now see why some people are getting really exasperated over this thread. I make my request again, can we lock this thread as it is no longer productive? SC can figure out what to do with the rule without any more help from this thread. There have been numerous suggestions as to how to reword the rule if they choose to.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 14:38:23. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:39:56 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by CEJ:
Originally posted by cej:
It was back in 2005 that something should have been done, as in someone should have requested validation. Obviously no one did and the photo stands. |
I now see why some people are getting really exasperated over this thread. I make my request again, can we lock this thread as it is no longer productive? SC can figure out what to do with the rule without any more help from this thread. There have been numerous suggestions as to how to reword the rule if they choose to. |
There is still a live discussion going on about the manatee photo. It is still a valid thread. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:41:29 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Just like with Lydia's shot, if you take away the glass you have a photo of a monitor trying to look real. In this case even if you take away the manatee you have a fake painted or photographed background trying to look real. |
I don't really know which parts of the manatee scene are background and which parts are real objects, but it's still a difference of what the photo appears to consist of. Take away the glass and Lydia's shot is no longer a photo of a family gathering. The family gathering that fills the entire frame would be completely gone. Take away the museum background and it's still a photo of [stuffed] manatees. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:46:22 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Just like with Lydia's shot, if you take away the glass you have a photo of a monitor trying to look real. In this case even if you take away the manatee you have a fake painted or photographed background trying to look real. |
I don't really know which parts of the manatee scene are background and which parts are real objects, but it's still a difference of what the photo appears to consist of. Take away the glass and Lydia's shot is no longer a photo of a family gathering. The family gathering that fills the entire frame would be completely gone. Take away the museum background and it's still a photo of [stuffed] manatees. |
So if Lydia had put a turkey in the forground it would have been legal because you could take away the family in the background and still have a turkey which is related to feast? (and dnmc is not grounds for dq anyways...) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:50:58 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Just like with Lydia's shot, if you take away the glass you have a photo of a monitor trying to look real. In this case even if you take away the manatee you have a fake painted or photographed background trying to look real. |
I don't really know which parts of the manatee scene are background and which parts are real objects, but it's still a difference of what the photo appears to consist of. Take away the glass and Lydia's shot is no longer a photo of a family gathering. The family gathering that fills the entire frame would be completely gone. Take away the museum background and it's still a photo of [stuffed] manatees. |
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? The only difference is who put the foreground and their spin on it. Lydia did it all on her own(including the photograph) Marc did neither.
Matt
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 14:52:02.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:51:23 PM · #449 |
Maybe this will help the SC decide what was real in that shot: just the fake manatee and possibly the forground rocks, although it looks like it could just be a "sweep" of a background painting.
 |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:57:07 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by MattO:
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? |
Because it was a photo of manatees, not a photo of rock and fish. Who made the artwork is irrelevant... are you're planning to personally build a skyscraper for the next architecture challenge? |
|
