Notes on the Artwork Rule - DPChallenge Forums

12/11/2008 09:47:38 AM · #501

Originally posted by MattO:

Using that logic its still illegal based on the "fool the voter" rule. Even in his photographers comments it tells you his thinking that he was trying to fool the voters.

"I shot this while scuba diving in the Florida Keys. I used an underwater housing for my Pentax. "

Matt

And if you read right after that, I said just kidding and said it was museum display. So If I was trying to fool anyone I would not have said anything about the museum and you all would still think it was real.

Originally posted by basssman7:

However passing off a museum display as real wildlife (while voting you would not know it was a museum display, that is the whole point) is a total disgregard for ethics and is a totally different thing.

Once again, I did not pass this off as real wildlife. It says right there in my notes that it is a museum display. Yes, I made a comment about taking it while diving. That was sarcasm. A joke. Right after that comment is the true statement. I have been a member of this site for a long time. I know the rules. This shot is legal. So do not question my ethics.

MattO

Nikon D4

12/11/2008 09:51:02 AM · #502

Originally posted by Marc923:

And there in lies the problem. The rule specifically states that your photo is not suppose to fool the voters. You say yourself that we would still think its real.......even though its not so therefore fooling the voters making it illegal by the rules.

Matt

Edit grammar

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 09:52:19.

12/11/2008 09:53:09 AM · #503

Originally posted by MattO:

And there in lies the problem. The rule specifically states that your photo is not suppose to fool the voters. You say yourself that we would still think its real.......even though its not so there by fooling the voters making it illegal by the rules.

Matt

The rule is meant for using another photograph and fooling the voters into thinking I took that photograph.

12/11/2008 09:57:55 AM · #504

This artwork debate is going around in circles regarding the letter of the law, without stepping back and thinking about why the rule exist in the first place. I'd have thought the main reasons were to a) deter plagarism, and b) prevent people taking a photo of a photo to circumvent editing rules.

If someone takes a photo of a photo then it's impossible for SC to detect this as a rules violation, unless they discovered the original shot or demanded proof from the submitter that the scene/setup exists in real life, and that the photographer was present to shoot it.

I submit that the artwork rule when applied for the purposes it was intended is unenforceable. And in the cases where it is applied, it stifles creativity and leads to subjective and unnecessary DQs.

This mess regarding how much of the shot is composed of artwork etc. makes no sense to me. If the crucifix in De Sousa's shot was actually a cardboard cutout (i.e. artwork) Would this be a DQ? What if the firemen, the crucifix, the Jesus, and the background were all cardboard artwork? DQ?

What difference does it make how much the photographer 'fools' people? - Isn't that what it's about anyway? We adjust saturation, crop the shot, dodge and burn the clouds, and make changes here and there which result in us fooling people into thinking that the scene is different to the one which existed in real life.

12/11/2008 10:00:20 AM · #505

Originally posted by MattO:

So you're saying that since you were fooled that it should be DQ'd? So based on your statement...

yanko fooled us into thinking this was shot in a studio. Should it be DQ'd?

DrAchoo fooled us into believing those lady bugs were crawling along the flower. Should it be DQ'd.

12/11/2008 10:02:02 AM · #506

Originally posted by JH:

What difference does it make how much the photographer 'fools' people? - Isn't that what it's about anyway?

Thank you.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 10:02:18.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/11/2008 10:02:04 AM · #507

Originally posted by JH:

What difference does it make how much the photographer 'fools' people?

It makes a lot of difference, because the voter must know what he is judging. In the case of the manatee photo, the lighting of the photo is almost entirely created by the person who designed the exhibit. Light is everything to a photograph. Why should the photographer get high scores for that?

12/11/2008 10:06:00 AM · #508

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by JH:
What difference does it make how much the photographer 'fools' people?

It makes a lot of difference, because the voter must know what he is judging. In the case of the manatee photo, the lighting of the photo is almost entirely created by the person who designed the exhibit. Light is everything to a photograph. Why should the photographer get high scores for that?

So for a landscape photographer, did he create the scene? Did he adjust the sun?

Why are you all so bent out of shape over a virtual score? No matter what, if the picture is DQ'd or not, what do any of us lose or gain here? Nothing.

MattO

Nikon D4

12/11/2008 10:11:15 AM · #509

Originally posted by Marc923:

Marc this is not about the loss or gain, the score, the ribbon or anything other then getting some clarification of the current enforcement of the rule. When even the SC cannot agree on the application or legality of the rules it makes it very hard for us to take photos and enter them based on past precedence when its always changing even when the rule wording doesnt. I'm not on a personal voyage to get your photo DQ'd. IMHO your photo and Lydia's are no different, either they are both legal or they both arent. And I'm trying to get to the point that either they can make me understand what is different about yours then hers. That is why I have been trying to walk with Scalvert through his thought process to make me understand.

I'm at the last step and if he can make me understand that I'm good, but he hasnt provided an answer to it yet.

Matt

Edit to answer your question. The rule about fooling the voters includes existing artwork. Your photo does include existing artwork the examples you provided dont.

The rule doesnt say you cant fool the voters, it says you cant use existing artwork or photos to do so. You used existing artwork to fool the voters as did Lydia, so either they are both legal or both not legal. I dont see how they are different.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 10:23:00.

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

12/11/2008 10:15:06 AM · #510

Originally posted by posthumous:

The photographer was in the right place at the right time, he identified a good shot with decent lighting, chose his angle, and took the shot. How is that any different to a sunset photo? - The photographer just has to be in the right place and wait for the sun to do all the lighting work for him.

In many of scalvert's setups I honestly couldn't figure out how he'd done the setup until he showed us after the challenge. In other words he fooled me, and I didn't know what I was judging.

Or are we talking about different degrees of being fooled? Clever scalvert setups means it's okay to be fooled. Deceptive manatee setups means it's not okay to be fooled.

Try building an objective ruleset around that...

JulietNN

Canon EOS R7

12/11/2008 10:21:32 AM · #511

[/quote]

One more Bump hoping for an answer from Shannon.

Matt [/quote]

I sent him a case of Whiskey and he is hiding under his bed drinking it

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 10:21:40.

12/11/2008 10:24:18 AM · #512

Originally posted by Marc923:

Yes you DID! Geepers. You know that the voters do not get to read the photographer's notes until after the challenge. By then they have already voted thinking it was real. As for your being a member for a long time and knowing the rules, that is interesting considering some other long time members such as Posthumous, Artrflmao, MattO and myself all disagree with you.

The main reason this shot scored so high is because of the beautiful filtered light coming down from the top of the water. That light is painted on the background of the exhibit!!! Because the photographer's notes are not available to the voter (at time of voting) they thought you captured this perfect underwater scene either while diving or through the glass of a marine tank, but either way it would be hard to get that perfect light, and that is part of what they judged it on. You deliberately mislead the voting public. You do not deserve to benefit from that.

12/11/2008 10:25:35 AM · #513

Originally posted by Marc923:

Originally posted by MattO:
And there in lies the problem. The rule specifically states that your photo is not suppose to fool the voters. You say yourself that we would still think its real.......even though its not so there by fooling the voters making it illegal by the rules.

Matt

The rule is meant for using another photograph and fooling the voters into thinking I took that photograph.

NO. The rule is meant for "artwork" and a painting is artwork. The backdrop of that set, the part with the beautiful light, is a painting. flat. not 3d!

12/11/2008 10:28:46 AM · #514

Originally posted by basssman7:

As for your being a member for a long time and knowing the rules, that is interesting considering some other long time members such as Posthumous, Artrflmao, MattO and myself all disagree with you.

Ah, the new SC-in-waiting?

12/11/2008 10:29:10 AM · #515

Originally posted by JH:

Ok, let's go back to the original post in this mess by AlanFreed, that he posted on behalf of SC:

Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.

The painted backdrop of this set contains the wonderful light which the voters were partly judging the photo on. They were "judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if it were real". That is exactly what the rule was meant to get rid of, and is EXACTLY what we are talking about here.

12/11/2008 10:31:28 AM · #516

Originally posted by Marc923:

Originally posted by MattO:
And there in lies the problem. The rule specifically states that your photo is not suppose to fool the voters. You say yourself that we would still think its real.......even though its not so therefore fooling the voters making it illegal by the rules.

So you're saying that since you were fooled that it should be DQ'd? So based on your statement...

yanko fooled us into thinking this was shot in a studio. Should it be DQ'd?

DrAchoo fooled us into believing those lady bugs were crawling along the flower. Should it be DQ'd.

Marc, you are clutching at strings! The "fooling" part is about fooling the voters into thinking that the artwork you photographed (the painted backdrop of this set) was actually a real part of the live scene you photographed. (which it is obviously not) They voted based in part on the beautiful painted backdrop that they thought was real life.

12/11/2008 10:33:37 AM · #517

Here is the rule,

"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."

Notice the bold. The rule is meant to stop people from taking a picture of an existing photograph and passing it as their own.

And sorry you disagree. But I did not violate any rules.

12/11/2008 10:35:11 AM · #518

Originally posted by basssman7:

And my point is that in the cases where this method is used for 'cheating' the rule is unenforceable.

The *only* way we knew about the manatees was that Marc923 told us. If he'd left the comment about taking the shot while he was scuba diving, a) we wouldn't be any the wiser and b) the only way we'd have been able to prove otherwise would be to pay him a personal visit and ask to see his scuba gear, or hope that some DPC-er happens across the exhibit display and reports it to SC within the 7 days DQ period.

12/11/2008 10:37:02 AM · #519

Originally posted by Marc923:

Again, you are clutching at strings!

I am bent out of shape over the the fact that photographers of real wildlife spend many hours or days trying to get a good shot. When they do get that good shot, it deserves MUCH better then to be scored in the same way as a FAKE wildlife photo from someone who captured a snapshot of a set exhibit with a photo-realistic (again pun intended) backdrop. Essentially your fakery is cheapening every great photo ever posted here. When the voters see a great photo now they might actually score it lower thinking that they are being duped because it is "too perfect" to be true. That is exactly why I questioned your ethics.

12/11/2008 10:37:28 AM · #520

Originally posted by Marc923:

Yes! Exactly! The rule was originally created to deter direct plagiarism and prevent 'photo-of-a-photo' to circumvent editing rules. That's all.

MattO

Nikon D4

12/11/2008 10:39:32 AM · #521

Originally posted by Marc923:

Marc if you have followed along you will no doubt have seen that the idea of photographing a painting has been brought up, and it was ruled that is the same as a photograph and therefore illegal. Shannon said if we take away the glass in Lydia's case then all that is left is the photograph. If we do the same with your stuffed Manatee's we also have a photograph(ie the painting) do you see why I am confused and wanting the answer to my question for clarification.

Matt

12/11/2008 10:40:36 AM · #522

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by JH:
What difference does it make how much the photographer 'fools' people?

It makes a lot of difference, because the voter must know what he is judging. In the case of the manatee photo, the lighting of the photo is almost entirely created by the person who designed the exhibit. Light is everything to a photograph. Why should the photographer get high scores for that?

The photographer was in the right place at the right time, he identified a good shot with decent lighting, chose his angle, and took the shot. How is that any different to a sunset photo? - The photographer just has to be in the right place and wait for the sun to do all the lighting work for him.

In many of scalvert's setups I honestly couldn't figure out how he'd done the setup until he showed us after the challenge. In other words he fooled me, and I didn't know what I was judging.

Or are we talking about different degrees of being fooled? Clever scalvert setups means it's okay to be fooled. Deceptive manatee setups means it's not okay to be fooled.

Try building an objective ruleset around that...

Clever set-ups which are created by the photographer deserve credit for being clever. A photograph of someone else's art (especially painted or photographed artwork like this backdrop) is not skill, it is plagiarism.

12/11/2008 10:42:16 AM · #523

Originally posted by JH:

Originally posted by basssman7:
As for your being a member for a long time and knowing the rules, that is interesting considering some other long time members such as Posthumous, Artrflmao, MattO and myself all disagree with you.

Ah, the new SC-in-waiting?

Although I love your sarcasm, he is the one that brought his extensive experience into it. I simply pointed out that others with the same or more experience disagree.