| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2009 07:23:16 PM · #1 |
This is a photo that never was asked for validation. Plus no one ever commented it should be disqualified, even more this shot got only one 1 as a vote.
Please validate this one according to Advanced Editing rules because I am in a doubt according the results of the Rock Song titles.
Given that photograph's information and photographer's comments are accurate: "For those who may ask, in the background resides a shot of John Coltrane, a famous to me Jazz Musician, from an LP cover."
vs the rule: 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 to fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph at the time of this capture.
Message edited by author 2009-04-06 19:25:44. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:30:53 PM · #2 |
You answered your own question.
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
The image is only used as a prop in the bg. His image is not entirely the album cover.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:32:51 PM · #3 |
| I would not DQ it because it does not appear to be trying to fool me into thinking it is part of the actual capture. It is clear to me that this is a photo in the background and the main subject is the turntable. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:41:38 PM · #4 |
| I don't know... I'm thinking back to a photo by someone that was dq'd. It was a wine glass in the foreground, and that person said the background picture was from another event. Since the background picture was a major part of the photo, it was dq'd. At least that's what I understood. I think since it's a large part of the photo that it's questionable. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:43:26 PM · #5 |
The answer is that the photo in the background of the submission was obviously a poster. It was not an attempt by the photographer to fool the voters into thinking that it was part of the scene as shot at that moment.
EDIT: Just to elaborate on this just a little further... Think of it this way. When people are voting on the shot, were they looking at the qualities of the photography of the man on the album? No, because people knew it was an album cover or poster. If people were making comments that critiqued the man's expression, or the contrast of that part of the shot, or the lighting on his head, etc., then we would say that people were "fooled" by this and were casting votes according to those qualities. That's when shots are most likely to violate this rule.
Message edited by author 2009-04-06 19:50:19. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:50:14 PM · #6 |
Yup, just found this about the wine glass shot I was thinking about.
The technique is legal... as long as it's either obviously artwork (doesn't fool anyone) OR the artwork plays a supporting role (the primary subject that the voters are judging photographically should be real). Example:
Read the comments. Many people assumed they were looking at a real person with an uncanny resemblance to the actor. They were commenting on the costume, model, expression, lighting and so on as if the photographer made those decisions in THIS shot. I would vote DQ under the current rule. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:53:45 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Read the comments. Many people assumed they were looking at a real person with an uncanny resemblance to the actor. They were commenting on the costume, model, expression, lighting and so on as if the photographer made those decisions in THIS shot. I would vote DQ under the current rule. |
You are 100% correct! You have explained it perfectly. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:59:03 PM · #8 |
so the example posted would be DQ'd under current rules as well ?
explained perfectly ?
|
|
|
|
04/06/2009 08:06:55 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by soup:
so the example posted would be DQ'd under current rules as well ?
explained perfectly ? |
No, it would not be, because it is obvious to the viewer that (1) they are looking at a piece of artwork (not being fooled), and (2) the artwork is not the main, dominant focus of the photograph |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 08:32:14 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by soup:
so the example posted would be DQ'd under current rules as well ?
explained perfectly ? |
No, it would not be, because it is obvious to the viewer that (1) they are looking at a piece of artwork (not being fooled), and (2) the artwork is not the main, dominant focus of the photograph |
Bingo. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 08:36:27 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by soup:
so the example posted would be DQ'd under current rules as well ?
explained perfectly ? |
Do you mean the example in the OP, or the example that vawendy posted? |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 01:27:18 AM · #12 |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 01:42:54 AM · #13 |
In my opinion it has more to do with how an existing piece of art work is used in your shot that determines it's legality.
Just to stay with giant cardboard cutouts mentioned previously
the cutout seems to be the subject moving through the leaves, might not be legal.
 here the cut out is modified in a nifty trench coat to fit the theme and is not the main subject, more likely to be legal.
Your shot is IMHO legal, since the subject is clearly the record and the turntable and the photo of Coltrane is intended to invoke a mood rather than to fool the viewer into seeing someone else's work as your own.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2009 01:43:24 AM · #14 |
...but how you knew that it was a poster? because i didnt(talking about the first picture)...
How about this pic then?
this is a comment from ssocrates
"As I see it, this is not a realistic shot. The careful viewer may easily realize, that the relevant size between the girl's figure and the moon is unnatural. Not to mention the DOF!!! It s a setup! Thats why this one should not be disqualified because the careful viewer easily realizes that either the moon or the girl is a fake. The photo does not fool the voters into thinking that the photographer actually captured the original photograph at the time of this capture."
Message edited by author 2009-04-07 02:06:10. |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 01:58:35 AM · #15 |
It's a subjective standard, George. I guess the site council thought that the moon played too big a part in the composition of your image. "All" you put into it was a silhouetted face.
I know many other accepted images were very similar, but some of the water refractions and other trick shots using computer screens seemed to have more original elements brought into them like visible objects, not just a silhouette. Again, it is a subjective standard that has gray areas.
The Gandalf image has a lot going on aside from the cut-out but I would think would be DQ'd if voted on today. It seems to me the cardboard cutout either violates the "anti-trick" clause or the "dominant subject" clause of the pre-existing artwork rule. But the interpretations and rules change over time.
Sorry about the DQ on your personal best! |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 02:05:21 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by grgkopanas:
How about this pic then?
|
I would say that this was DQed because the girl in the title was just a silouette , an outline on the moon. Had her face been lit, even very slightly, then she would become the subject of the image and the moon would have been a foil. As is, all of the detail is provided by the screen, so it is mostly a record of another image.
Message edited by author 2009-04-07 02:07:04. |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 02:09:47 AM · #17 |
| anyway, i dont want to be a geek for my own DQ, i have speaked with the SC and got all the info i needed for the DQ. i think the rule should be a little clearer, i dont know how, but it should be, there should be bounds that you cant cross and to know when you submit a photo that you are safe and it is legal... |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 02:17:23 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by grgkopanas:
anyway, i dont want to be a geek for my own DQ, i have speaked with the SC and got all the info i needed for the DQ. i think the rule should be a little clearer, i dont know how, but it should be, there should be bounds that you cant cross and to know when you submit a photo that you are safe and it is legal... |
I don't think that is possible in this case. The only options for a black & white rule would be allow pre-existing artwork in ALL cases or allow it in NO cases, neither of which I think is a desirable result for the site. Anything in between requires subjective interpretation, so the SC's judgment and the continued body of "precedents" is the best we got goin for us. |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 02:33:29 AM · #19 |
| Could anyone believe, in the OP's example, that it was really John Coltrane sitting by the turntable? That, IMO, is the difference between it and the other examples shown, and why it's legal. |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 02:44:24 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Could anyone believe, in the OP's example, that it was really John Coltrane sitting by the turntable? That, IMO, is the difference between it and the other examples shown, and why it's legal. |
Well, did you really recognized him at first place? I think not! Can you say its an album cover or a wall behind the man? My intention was actually to make a "realistic" shot and not to show an album cover which would include the title of the album and so on that were cropped!
I actually think that the Moonchild shot was much more recognizable as a unrealistic setup than mine (All that Jazz-Coltrane)! |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 02:46:26 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by grgkopanas:
anyway, i dont want to be a geek for my own DQ, i have speaked with the SC and got all the info i needed for the DQ. i think the rule should be a little clearer, i dont know how, but it should be, there should be bounds that you cant cross and to know when you submit a photo that you are safe and it is legal... |
The safe way is just to go out in the world and shoot what you find, but once you get into the studio and start setting up props and cutouts, you start sailing closer to the wind. Many of the best images on this site have come close to breaking the rules, but have thought of clever ways around the rules (in camera double exposures, mirror box editing ect.). It hurts to get a good image DQed, but don't let it keep you from making the kind of shots you like, the rules are in some areas fuzzy because they are in transition. Democracy is a messy process.
If you got DQed for faking a date, or messing with voting you should feel ashamed. What you got nailed for was a subtle rule violation in the fuzziest of areas, but you got 3 favorites out of the shot, so it was a winner. Congratulations. |
|
|
|
04/07/2009 02:57:13 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by ssocrates:
My intention was actually to make a "realistic" shot and not to show an album cover which would include the title of the album and so on that were cropped! |
If you wanted to make the album cover look like part of the image, you ought to have taken the image out of color, gone full B&W conversion and unified the tints, or at least re-set you black point so they matched between the man and the turntable. If that had been a real man back there in all his sodium bromide glory, then he was either 30 inches tall or the LP was the size of a man hole cover. if your intent was to mislead, you missed.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2009 03:17:56 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by ssocrates:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Could anyone believe, in the OP's example, that it was really John Coltrane sitting by the turntable? That, IMO, is the difference between it and the other examples shown, and why it's legal. |
Well, did you really recognized him at first place? I think not! Can you say its an album cover or a wall behind the man? My intention was actually to make a "realistic" shot and not to show an album cover which would include the title of the album and so on that were cropped!
I actually think that the Moonchild shot was much more recognizable as a unrealistic setup than mine (All that Jazz-Coltrane)! |
No, I didn't recognise who the person was, and I couldn't say it was an album cover specifically, but I didn't for a moment think that it was a real person rather than a poster or picture of some sort, sorry. |
|
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: 10/13/2025 04:34:01 PM EDT.
