Would this be a DQ today? - DPChallenge Forums

04/23/2009 09:15:18 PM · #1

I scored well with this picture in basic editing:

It was brougt to my attention that it might be a DQ if entered today. The cat is a picture I created...some of it was "positive" some "negative". I set it up...put paint brush in my hand..positioned hand over pic to illustrate "painting".

It was validated and passed. If you think it would be a DQ today...please explain the difference between rule today and rule then.

Thanks

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

04/23/2009 09:29:09 PM · #2

The vast majority of it is a picture of a picture (only the blue fingers are added to it), and voters would be primarily judging their vote on the photographic qualities of the cat. It would almost definitely be a DQ.

04/23/2009 09:31:21 PM · #3

Blue (negative) fingers AND brush were added...

If DQ today...what was the rule change that makes the difference? Or...are the rules the same and it just slipped by inspection last time?

Originally posted by alanfreed:

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

04/23/2009 09:34:58 PM · #4

Originally posted by kenskid:

Blue (negative) fingers AND brush were added...

The brush isn't exactly a huge addition to the fingers...

Originally posted by kenskid:

If DQ today...what was the rule change that makes the difference? Or...are the rules the same and it just slipped by inspection last time?

The artwork rule changed since then to prohibit things just like this. There are numerous, numerous other threads that have debated the rule since then if you do a search.

04/23/2009 09:48:32 PM · #5

Can you send me a link to the current "artistic representation" rule? I saw it a little while ago but can't find it now.

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Blue (negative) fingers AND brush were added...

The brush isn't exactly a huge addition to the fingers...

Originally posted by kenskid:
If DQ today...what was the rule change that makes the difference? Or...are the rules the same and it just slipped by inspection last time?

The artwork rule changed since then to prohibit things just like this. There are numerous, numerous other threads that have debated the rule since then if you do a search.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

04/23/2009 09:52:05 PM · #6

HELP -> SITE RULES -> CHALLENGE RULES.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/23/2009 09:56:01 PM · #7

I see it now...

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.

Would it be the part about "fooling the voters"?

Originally posted by alanfreed:

HELP -> SITE RULES -> CHALLENGE RULES.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/24/2009 02:42:38 AM · #8

Originally posted by kenskid:

More likely the part about "circumvent... editing rules", since you couldn't legally have made the cat image in basic editing, or even advanced editing I daresay.

R.

04/24/2009 09:46:01 AM · #9

IMO you may be somewhat off. I feel the "fooling the voters" would be the one for the cat photo...

I think if what you're saying is true, I would be DQ in basic even if I was to be pictured "holding the cat picture in front of me".

For example...I edit the cat picture using EXPERT EDITING...every trick in the book...

I print out that picture....

I hold that picture in front of me and snap another picture.(lets say just for context, I have 25 real cats walking around my feet...in the "new" picture")

Seems like you're saying that that "new" picture would be a DQ because the "cat" picture was edited using Expert Editing...but ultimatly entered in a basic editing challenge.

Also...the original "cat" picture could be done in Advanced editing with no DQ. It would be like using this picture

And "selectivly" making some parts "negative" in the final entry...I think...

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I see it now...

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.

Would it be the part about "fooling the voters"?

More likely the part about "circumvent... editing rules", since you couldn't legally have made the cat image in basic editing, or even advanced editing I daresay.

R.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/24/2009 09:55:05 AM · #10

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by kenskid:
If DQ today...what was the rule change that makes the difference? Or...are the rules the same and it just slipped by inspection last time?

The artwork rule changed since then to prohibit things just like this. There are numerous, numerous other threads that have debated the rule since then if you do a search.

Bold above added for emphasis.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/24/2009 10:03:47 AM · #11

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by kenskid:
If DQ today...what was the rule change that makes the difference? Or...are the rules the same and it just slipped by inspection last time?

The artwork rule changed since then to prohibit things just like this. There are numerous, numerous other threads that have debated the rule since then if you do a search.

Bold above added for emphasis.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/24/2009 11:08:47 AM · #12

Originally posted by kenskid:

You may be right, but the part I'm looking at is that the cat picture is pretty much ENTIRELY the prexisting artwork, which could not have been legally PP'd in the way you did it, so I'm left assuming the *reason* you included it as prexisting art is just that: if you'd have had a way to legally edit a single capture to get the desired result, you'd have done that, no?

Originally posted by kenskid:

Seems like you're saying that that "new" picture would be a DQ because the "cat" picture was edited using Expert Editing...but ultimately entered in a basic editing challenge.

Also...the original "cat" picture could be done in Advanced editing with no DQ.

No, I'm not really saying that, and the reason I'm not is because the latest DQ has shown us that the "pencil marks" on the artwork aren't legal editing. Not unless you actually DID them in pencil, of course :-) Anyway, as Alan said, the net effect here is we are judging the merits of the cat photo and its treatment, not some "overall image", so I'd have to think this fails the "entirely" as well.

R.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/24/2009 11:14:17 AM · #13

Ahhh I see....

Hmmm what would be legal ? I guess if the "exsisting artwork" pretty much fills the scene, having anything added in the forground would not cut the mustard...

This likely leaves existing artwork to "un-noteworthy" photos, billboards, statues etc...in the backgound of your "legal" entry.

I'll look around but if you know of any can you point me to some current shots that contain existing artwork that have recently "passed" the test?

Thanks

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/24/2009 11:16:50 AM · #14

You can use artwork, but it should either be obviously artwork or play a supporting role, not a primary subject.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/24/2009 11:23:08 AM · #15

Originally posted by kenskid:

There was a recent one with a poster in the background and a turntable in the fore, but I don't remember what challenge it was.

04/24/2009 11:26:43 AM · #16

Thanks...

I can't find it now...but I think I saw a picture of a giant fashion poster....it was pretty much a "wordless" add. It was maybe 10feet tall x 4 feet wide. It covered the entire photo. In the forground there was a person walking in front of the poster. (IMO it was obvious that a person was walking in front of a billboard) Would this be legal?

If so, would it be legal to set up a 5foot x 5foot (existing photo) of the CRAB NEBULA and place hermit crabs sitting on a toy space ship on top of the poster and snap a shot?

Are both legal? If both illegal then question is moot at that piont !

Thanks

Originally posted by scalvert:

You can use artwork, but it should either be obviously artwork or play a supporting role, not a primary subject.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

04/24/2009 11:33:23 AM · #17

This topic (basically) was discussed in this thread just a few days ago...in which you also made this remark:

Originally posted by kenskid:

Why can't I keep posting about the rule? It is the rule that led to the INCONSISTENT results you say I SHOULD be talking about.

I'll keep posting replys to comments in any thread that has been or is currently being discussed.

Just seems like you want to stir up the rules for fun recently, that's all. Have fun...I'll take your advice and put this on ignore.

Originally posted by kenskid:

I know the rules have changed. That is pretty much the reason for this discussion.

You're the second post to tell me that this has been discussed and to search the forums. However, I'm using a specific example in this thread (cat picture).

Geezzz if anyone doesn't want to participate in this thread then they don't have to look at it. I didn't realize that if a topic has been discussed, one cannot ever bring it up again in a new thread...sorry.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by kenskid:
If DQ today...what was the rule change that makes the difference? Or...are the rules the same and it just slipped by inspection last time?

The artwork rule changed since then to prohibit things just like this. There are numerous, numerous other threads that have debated the rule since then if you do a search.

Bold above added for emphasis.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/24/2009 11:37:27 AM · #18

Thanks...I guess that's what the ignore is for!

I like to get opinions on different types of photo setups for different types of rules.

My last post asking the difference between the "fashion poster" and the "hermit crabs" seems legit to me and I want opinions. I'm not hammering anyone and so far I've gotten some good info.

**Thanks Bear, K10, Scal for participating**

Originally posted by glad2badad:

This topic (basically) was discussed in this thread just a few days ago...in which you also made this remark:

Originally posted by kenskid:

Why can't I keep posting about the rule? It is the rule that led to the INCONSISTENT results you say I SHOULD be talking about.

I'll keep posting replys to comments in any thread that has been or is currently being discussed.

Just seems like you want to stir up the rules for fun recently, that's all. Have fun...I'll take your advice and put this on ignore.

Originally posted by kenskid:
I know the rules have changed. That is pretty much the reason for this discussion.

You're the second post to tell me that this has been discussed and to search the forums. However, I'm using a specific example in this thread (cat picture).

Geezzz if anyone doesn't want to participate in this thread then they don't have to look at it. I didn't realize that if a topic has been discussed, one cannot ever bring it up again in a new thread...sorry.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by kenskid:
If DQ today...what was the rule change that makes the difference? Or...are the rules the same and it just slipped by inspection last time?

The artwork rule changed since then to prohibit things just like this. There are numerous, numerous other threads that have debated the rule since then if you do a search.

Bold above added for emphasis.

Message edited by author 2009-04-24 11:40:53.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/24/2009 11:54:19 AM · #19

Originally posted by kenskid:

That's the spirit in which I'm responding. I'm assuming good faith on your part.

As for the Crab Nebula vs Billboard conundrum, it's a fascinating one isn't it? Here's how I see it, emotionally:

1. The "billboard" shot, with a tiny figure under an immense, wall-size advertisement (I know exactly which one you mean) represents for me a "capture" of something we might all have seen, and it has fascinating layerings of social content. It doesn't in the slightest "bother" me that most of the picture's real estate is occupied by a piece of advertising art. That stuff is part of our environment now anyway, if we live in big cities, and it's eminently photographable. Any attempt to make such a shot "illegal" would make this site a mockery of photographic ideals IMO.

2. The proposed "crab nebula" shot, which after all consists of basically the exact same two components, functionally, makes an interesting counterpoint. Is it even *possible* to make a rational distinction between the two images, as far as legality for our challenges goes? I tend to think not: if the one's legal, so should the other be. But the wording of the "fool the viewer" phrase in the rules apparently is apparently in place so that such a distinction *can* be made, so shooter beware!

R.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/24/2009 12:05:01 PM · #20

Unless you managed to find a 15 foot model or shoot from outer space, it sounds like both would be obviously artwork.

04/24/2009 12:20:10 PM · #21

In re-thinking this...I feel that the hermit crabs in "space" may be ok...BUT if the hermit crabs were in front of a REAL LOOKING underwater PICTURE of a Coral Reef...I would be trying to fool the voter. Does this make sense?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Thanks...I guess that's what the ignore is for!

I like to get opinions on different types of photo setups for different types of rules.

My last post asking the difference between the "fashion poster" and the "hermit crabs" seems legit to me and I want opinions. I'm not hammering anyone and so far I've gotten some good info.

**Thanks Bear, K10, Scal for participating**

That's the spirit in which I'm responding. I'm assuming good faith on your part.

As for the Crab Nebula vs Billboard conundrum, it's a fascinating one isn't it? Here's how I see it, emotionally:

1. The "billboard" shot, with a tiny figure under an immense, wall-size advertisement (I know exactly which one you mean) represents for me a "capture" of something we might all have seen, and it has fascinating layerings of social content. It doesn't in the slightest "bother" me that most of the picture's real estate is occupied by a piece of advertising art. That stuff is part of our environment now anyway, if we live in big cities, and it's eminently photographable. Any attempt to make such a shot "illegal" would make this site a mockery of photographic ideals IMO.

2. The proposed "crab nebula" shot, which after all consists of basically the exact same two components, functionally, makes an interesting counterpoint. Is it even *possible* to make a rational distinction between the two images, as far as legality for our challenges goes? I tend to think not: if the one's legal, so should the other be. But the wording of the "fool the viewer" phrase in the rules apparently is apparently in place so that such a distinction *can* be made, so shooter beware!

R.

Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM

04/24/2009 12:21:00 PM · #22

No...the model wasn't 15ft tall...but the "poster" was. I'll try to find it.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Unless you managed to find a 15 foot model or shoot from outer space, it sounds like both would be obviously artwork.

mindbottling

Canon EOS R6

04/24/2009 12:25:17 PM · #23

Originally posted by kenskid:

No...the model wasn't 15ft tall...but the "poster" was. I'll try to find it.

Originally posted by scalvert:
Unless you managed to find a 15 foot model or shoot from outer space, it sounds like both would be obviously artwork.

I recall seeing several of those in each of the "Street" challenges.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/24/2009 01:15:56 PM · #24

This is probably an example of the hermit crab scenario. It was at least legal back then. I suppose that means nothing these days.