Another great photographer has left DPC

06/11/2009 02:46:22 PM · #51

OK naysayers, how about this one.. I set up my camera to Manual mode, 60 second exposure, f8 on ISO 320 - I then send my camera to Larus (or Lallisig or whatever), I say, I want you to point this up at the sky and shoot the northern lights for me. Do not touch the settings!! All he does is press the button..

So, I have setup the shot, I have instructed what composition I want and all he has to do is press the button, I then get the RAW emailed to me, I post-process it myself and enter it under my name..

legal? of course not.

Trying not to sound heartless, but if you are not even in a position to wipe your own arse you can hardly compose a self portrait can you..

Message edited by author 2009-06-11 14:49:51.

06/11/2009 02:47:58 PM · #52

Originally posted by Simms:

Maybe you could apply common sense to your logic and stop trying to worm around in the `legal` loopholes... seriously, common sense goes a long way.. Even John admitted in his notes it could be up for a DQ, so he entered it knowing full- well it might not abide to the spirit of the rules..

How am I worming around legal loopholes? Is a tripod/base the ONLY possible way to set up a shot? If yes, why can't the rules be clear? It would make things very simple.

Telling someone where to point the camera is setting up composition. Common sense to me...

Message edited by author 2009-06-11 14:49:03.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/11/2009 02:48:25 PM · #53

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Originally posted by scalvert:
.... and the idea of directing the composition with hand signals in front of the camera while on morphine is just silly. Aside from correcting a camera obviously aimed at the ceiling, you'd only be guessing at the composition and focal point...

To assume you know how much morphine he was on, and the extent to which he was therefore in control of his facilities is very.... assumptive. He was giving a thumbs-up, I believe.

Originally posted by scalvert:
....John was in no condition to shoot a photo...

Dr. Calvert, attending physician...

In the photographer's own words: "...I scribbled out the word "picture" (barely legible, morphine does that to you) for her to take this."

06/11/2009 02:49:13 PM · #54

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by Simms:
Maybe you could apply common sense to your logic and stop trying to worm around in the `legal` loopholes... seriously, common sense goes a long way.. Even John admitted in his notes it could be up for a DQ, so he entered it knowing full- well it might not abide to the spirit of the rules..

How am I worm around legal loopholes? Is a tripod/base the ONLY possible way to set up a shot? If yes, why would the rules not be clear. It would make things very simple. Telling someone where to point the camera is setting up composition. Common sense...

LoudDog - see my post just before your one I quote here.

Message edited by author 2009-06-11 14:49:26.

06/11/2009 02:51:33 PM · #55

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
....John was in no condition to shoot a photo...

Dr. Calvert, attending physician...

In the photographer's own words: "...I scribbled out the word "picture" (barely legible, morphine does that to you) for her to take this." [/quote]

Got it, so off a comment written on a photo SC can determine if someone is mentally competent to have taken a photo. Good to know.

posthumous

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/11/2009 02:52:45 PM · #56

Brilliant move. Lose one of the most accomplished photographers on the site in order to enforce a vague rule whose main purpose is to make couples feel guilty about helping each other.

Classic DPC!

posthumous

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/11/2009 02:54:08 PM · #57

Originally posted by Simms:

He's clearly posing in the self-portrait, and yes you do sound heartless.

06/11/2009 02:56:14 PM · #58

Originally posted by Simms:

If you were watching on a web cam and directed the instant to push the shutter and which direction, yes. if you specifically said take the shot at 6:02:53PM and gave coordinates to aim at (and zoom) yes.

And one further, , if you set your camera on the rim of the grand canyon, put it on a timer to take a shot every morning at 6:02:52 every morning, accessed the files remotely and then picked one of those shots for a challenge, absolutely itâ��s your photo.

Originally posted by Simms:

Trying not to sound heartless, but if you are not even in a position to wipe your own arse you can hardly compose a self portrait can you..

There are blind and quadraplegic photographers. Are you saying they can't enter photos on DPC?

06/11/2009 02:56:18 PM · #59

Originally posted by posthumous:

Regardless, taking my example, I am following LoudDogs `logic` to the letter, but I would fully expect my shot to be DQ`d.

Ah well, I was trying not to sound heartless but alas I failed.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/11/2009 02:56:57 PM · #60

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Telling someone where to point the camera is setting up composition. Common sense to me...

Composition is much more than just pointing a camera in a general direction.

Photography Composition

Similar results can be found with a simple Google search.

06/11/2009 02:58:52 PM · #61

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Unless he put his camera on a tripod with all settings locked down. That's what the rule, "Someone else may press the shutter button if you set up the shot and the camera settings." is all about, isn't it?

No, it's not. Asking someone to take your picture is not setting up the shot. I've certainly been to many DPC GTGs where knowledgeable photographers asked me to take pictures of them. They might suggest a shallow DOF, ask me to stand in a particular place and request a portrait orientation, but I would be outraged if I sent them the image and then they entered it as their own work in a photography competition. So should you... and "scribbling the word 'picture' is far less setup than the above scenario.

06/11/2009 02:59:07 PM · #62

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by Simms:
OK naysayers, how about this one.. I set up my camera to Manual mode, 60 second exposure, f8 on ISO 320 - I then send my camera to Larus (or Lallisig or whatever), I say, I want you to point this up at the sky and shoot the northern lights for me. Do not touch the settings!! All he does is press the button..

So, I have setup the shot, I have instructed what composition I want and all he has to do is press the button, I then get the RAW emailed to me, I post-process it myself and enter it under my name..

legal? of course not.

If you were watching on a web cam and directed the instant to push the shutter and which direction, yes. if you specifically said take the shot at 6:02:53PM and gave coordinates to aim at (and zoom) yes.

And one further, , if you set your camera on the rim of the grand canyon, put it on a timer to take a shot every morning at 6:02:52 every morning, accessed the files remotely and then picked one of those shots for a challenge, absolutely itâ��s your photo.

Originally posted by Simms:
Trying not to sound heartless, but if you are not even in a position to wipe your own arse you can hardly compose a self portrait can you..

There are blind and quadraplegic photographers. Are you saying they can't enter photos on DPC?

No, I am saying a usually able-bodied (ex) member of the site who sadly ended up in intensive care, morphined up to the eyeballs, only able to give directions using his thumb cannot take a photo and claim it as his own.

Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.. end of.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/11/2009 02:59:55 PM · #63

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
....John was in no condition to shoot a photo...

In the photographer's own words: "...I scribbled out the word "picture" (barely legible, morphine does that to you) for her to take this."

Got it, so off a comment written on a photo SC can determine if someone is mentally competent to have taken a photo. Good to know.

Probably more in reference to physical condition, he was mentally aware enough to scribble a note to have someone else take a photo of him.

06/11/2009 03:02:57 PM · #64

From his notes..

The pic was taken by my girlfriend with her camera phone... however, while I was still on life support with my arms restrained, I scribbled out the word "picture" (barely legible, morphine does that to you) for her to take this. That has to count for something!

So, all he did was ask for her to take a picture. He didnt give tips regarding lighting and composition, it was her camera phone.. so basically she whipped it out and took a photo after being asked to. If he had scribbled "Dinner" would that of counted as him cooking the meal?

So, scribbling the word "picture" claims the shot as his own? Really.

I might call IreneM up and say to her `picture`... that way anything she take on her equipment from thereon in is my shot?

Funniest thread in ages.

Message edited by author 2009-06-11 15:04:16.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

06/11/2009 03:05:07 PM · #65

Originally posted by posthumous:

Lose one of the most accomplished photographers on the site in order to enforce a vague rule whose main purpose is to make couples feel guilty about helping each other.

It makes no difference how accomplished the person is. The most basic premise of any photography competition is that the photo must be your own work. There's nothing vague about that.

muckpond

Nikon D200

06/11/2009 03:13:55 PM · #66

Originally posted by Simms:

perfect. thank you.

not his phone. not his composition. not his photo.

i went back and forth the the photog about the situation. the DQ was unfortunate, but not misguided. i discouraged him from leaving (he wasn't even penalized for the DQ), but he decided to pack his bag and go.

posthumous

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/11/2009 03:14:56 PM · #67

Originally posted by scalvert:

the photo must be your own work. There's nothing vague about that.

As with anything else, the vagueness exists on the edges. And that's where your rule is: "Someone else may press the shutter button if you set up the shot and the camera settings."

I actually don't have a problem with the rule, but "set up the shot" is not strictly defined. It does not say "tripod." It is a rule to be followed in spirit. A camera phone snapshot is clearly more about seeing something cool and snapping off a pic. That is all the "set up" there is. For someone in a hospital bed to hand his camera to his wife for a low-scoring pic, just to participate.... and get DQ'd? Sheesh.

06/11/2009 03:23:10 PM · #68

Originally posted by posthumous:

..."set up the shot" is not strictly defined. It does not say "tripod." It is a rule to be followed in spirit. A camera phone snapshot is clearly more about seeing something cool and snapping off a pic. That is all the "set up" there is. For someone in a hospital bed to hand his camera to his wife for a low-scoring pic, just to participate.... and get DQ'd? Sheesh.

A little common sense goes a long way. Suppose the photo became famous and there was a bitter divorce. NOW who's photo is it? He didn't hand his camera to his wife. She took a photo on her own camera at his request, both literally and figuratively. The copyright undeniably belongs to her.

06/11/2009 03:29:04 PM · #69

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
Telling someone where to point the camera is setting up composition. Common sense to me...

Composition is much more than just pointing a camera in a general direction.

Photography Composition

Similar results can be found with a simple Google search.

Are you seriously telling me that this photo is such a compositional masterpiece that he somehow benefited by having his GF snap the photo? Yeah, he might be taller or shorter and the angle may have been slightly different. Who cares? Would that have any real impact on this photo or it's score? Yeah, rules are rules but it's pretty easy to see no crime has been commited here.

And seriously, if the big hang up is the camera was not pointed by him and not in a fixed state, that REALLY needs to be in the rules! That is a specific thing that is easy to put into law, and I bet it's been broken a lot. "Set up" has a very broad definition, but clearly a narrow interpretation here.

06/11/2009 03:29:53 PM · #70

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by posthumous:
..."set up the shot" is not strictly defined. It does not say "tripod." It is a rule to be followed in spirit. A camera phone snapshot is clearly more about seeing something cool and snapping off a pic. That is all the "set up" there is. For someone in a hospital bed to hand his camera to his wife for a low-scoring pic, just to participate.... and get DQ'd? Sheesh.

A little common sense goes a long way. Suppose the photo became famous and there was a bitter divorce. NOW who's photo is it? He didn't hand his camera to his wife. She took a photo on her own camera at his request, both literally and figuratively. The copyright undeniably belongs to her.

Since the photo is of him and he did not sign a model release, I think she is SOL.

CEJ

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/11/2009 03:33:00 PM · #71

Wow! He has a wife AND a girlfriend!

Very sorry to see him leave under any circumstances.

06/11/2009 03:34:10 PM · #72

Originally posted by LoudDog:

And seriously, if the big hang up is the camera was not pointed by him and not in a fixed state, that REALLY needs to be in the rules! That is a specific thing that is easy to put into law, and I bet it's been broken a lot. "Set up" has a very broad definition, but clearly a narrow interpretation here.

No, the problem is the camera wasn't owned by him, the setup wasn't by him, the composition wasn't by him, he didn't press the button. His only input was literally to scribble the word `photo`.

I really cant see why this is so hard for some people to understand, its almost like you are being intentionally obtuse. Which is usually the role I play around these here parts.