DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> What Do You Think Of This Disqualification?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 207, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/08/2009 09:18:25 AM · #26
Originally posted by vawendy:
. I've wanted to try something like this, but I'm not sure it would hold up with today's definition of the rules.

I'm not sure if that would pass today either. Personally, I'd allow a shot like that since the primary elements (girl, rug, lighting & pose) are real and the background is not a subject. I have a pretty good idea of which SC would vote which way, and I would expect a split decision with an unpredictable outcome.
 07/08/2009 09:22:19 AM · #27
I don't see how you could have thought this would have passed the rule the way it is written and with the prior precedents set on it. I do applaud you though for your effort it was a pretty ingenious interpretation of the challenge, just not exactly legal.

Matt
 07/08/2009 09:32:04 AM · #28
I don't see how you can say the background is not a subject. It is a MAJOR part of the subject. Without it what would you have?
 07/08/2009 09:52:37 AM · #29
Originally posted by David Ey:
I don't see how you can say the background is not a subject. It is a MAJOR part of the subject. Without it what would you have?

A subject with a blank background.
 07/08/2009 09:53:47 AM · #30
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I don't see how you can say the background is not a subject. It is a MAJOR part of the subject. Without it what would you have?

A subject with a blank background.


A subject without context, because the background is what makes the photo, making it a MAJOR element in making the photo.

Matt
 07/08/2009 10:06:44 AM · #31
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I don't see how you can say the background is not a subject. It is a MAJOR part of the subject. Without it what would you have?

A subject with a blank background.


A subject without context, because the background is what makes the photo, making it a MAJOR element in making the photo.

Matt


Yet what's the point of adding in a photograph if it doesn't add something to the picture. It sets the mood, it sets the story, but it's not the main focus--the girl on the flying carpet is the main focus, without her, you'd have a picture of a city from above.

For that matter, do we have examples of the rule that have been validated?

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 10:09:35.
 07/08/2009 10:26:14 AM · #32
The Artwork Rule continues to confuse. This thread, Notes on the Artwork rule discusses the DQ of LydiaToo's thanksgiving photo. It's some 250 posts long and even after passionate discussion, SC apparently decided not to change the rule as it confusingly stands. LydiaToo wrote a good revision on 12/12/08:

I've finally seen what SC is saying!

It's the second 'OR' that divides the sentence into two parts... not the 'AS LONG AS'. Eureka!
...

How about this:

Current: 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.

Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.

What do you think??

Interestingly no member of the Site Council checked into the thread after this was posted to give input one way or another.

Shannon or others, comment?
 07/08/2009 10:42:44 AM · #33
Is there any difference between this and Shannon's magic carpet? I think Shannon was operating under a different ruleset, however.
 07/08/2009 10:45:54 AM · #34
Originally posted by sfalice:


Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.

What do you think??[/b]

Interestingly no member of the Site Council checked into the thread after this was posted to give input one way or another.

Shannon or others, comment?


this would validate the flying carpet -- it didn't consist entirely of the photograph, and I certainly didn't believe that the carpet was truly flying.

I think it would invalidate the wine glass and possibly the spam fan; I thought they were both live...
 07/08/2009 10:52:03 AM · #35
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by sfalice:


Proposed: You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as: (1) The entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules or (2) The entry does not give the viewer the impression that the entire capture was 'live' together at the time of the capture.

What do you think??[/b]

Interestingly no member of the Site Council checked into the thread after this was posted to give input one way or another.

Shannon or others, comment?


this would validate the flying carpet -- it didn't consist entirely of the photograph, and I certainly didn't believe that the carpet was truly flying.

I think it would invalidate the wine glass and possibly the spam fan; I thought they were both live...


Yes, it would, but the rule would at least be clear on the subject.
 07/08/2009 11:00:38 AM · #36
agreed. I vote we adopt those changes!
 07/08/2009 11:04:14 AM · #37
For what it's worth, I like the suggested wording and would be in favor of changing it in the interest of clarifying things.
 07/08/2009 11:05:47 AM · #38
Originally posted by alanfreed:
For what it's worth, I like the suggested wording and would be in favor of changing it in the interest of clarifying things.


yipee! one down, how many to go?
 07/08/2009 11:09:14 AM · #39
Originally posted by vawendy:
this would validate the flying carpet -- it didn't consist entirely of the photograph, and I certainly didn't believe that the carpet was truly flying.

I think it would invalidate the wine glass and possibly the spam fan; I thought they were both live...


Oh, we're going to base our rules on your belief system? Because you are more willing to believe in spam fans than flying (or suspended) carpets?
 07/08/2009 11:11:59 AM · #40
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by vawendy:
this would validate the flying carpet -- it didn't consist entirely of the photograph, and I certainly didn't believe that the carpet was truly flying.

I think it would invalidate the wine glass and possibly the spam fan; I thought they were both live...


Oh, we're going to base our rules on your belief system? Because you are more willing to believe in spam fans than flying (or suspended) carpets?


Sure! I think the whole world should switch to my belief system -- would make life much easier for me! :D
 07/08/2009 11:17:55 AM · #41
Bottom line, under the current artwork rule, you can photograph artwork pretty much any way you want, as long as it is apparent to the voter that it is artwork. In the past, the artwork rule just stated that the entirety of the photo could not consist of pre-existing artwork, and we DQ'd macro photos of paper money, for instance, because it was artwork; not a desired result, but we had to do it. It also allowed images that consisted almost completely of existing art, also not a desired result. We tweaked the rule to allow any representation of artwork, as long as it is not done to circumvent editing rules or to fool the voter into thinking that the artwork is an as-captured scene. In other words, we made it a decision based on how the artwork *functions* in the photo.
In the case of Paul's entry, it is not readily apparent that the fan dancers are artwork; the intent is to fool the voter into thinking it is an as-captured scene. Clear violation of the intent of the rule.
The artwork rule actually produces very few DQ debates these days, as opposed to the past when its scope was not limited.
 07/08/2009 11:25:58 AM · #42
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bottom line, under the current artwork rule, you can photograph artwork pretty much any way you want, as long as it is apparent to the voter that it is artwork. In the past, the artwork rule just stated that the entirety of the photo could not consist of pre-existing artwork, and we DQ'd macro photos of paper money, for instance, because it was artwork; not a desired result, but we had to do it. It also allowed images that consisted almost completely of existing art, also not a desired result. We tweaked the rule to allow any representation of artwork, as long as it is not done to circumvent editing rules or to fool the voter into thinking that the artwork is an as-captured scene. In other words, we made it a decision based on how the artwork *functions* in the photo.
In the case of Paul's entry, it is not readily apparent that the fan dancers are artwork; the intent is to fool the voter into thinking it is an as-captured scene. Clear violation of the intent of the rule.
The artwork rule actually produces very few DQ debates these days, as opposed to the past when its scope was not limited.


Unfortunately, the existing rule is not as clear as you just stated. The existing rule states "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." It can be argued that the SPAM photo is not entirely a pre-existing photo, since it has SPAM--which was not part of the original photo. Also, the wine glass is not entirely a preexisting photo. We now know what is meant by the rule--but someone coming into the site and reading the rules can very easily miss the point.
 07/08/2009 11:29:09 AM · #43
Kirbic do you think if the rule was as clear as you state it is, that a member of SC with so many entries would have violated it? I can't believe with as many entries that Paul has that he could possibly have been clear on the rule and then broke it.

Matt
 07/08/2009 11:35:19 AM · #44
My answer to this dilemma:

LESS RULES and more open interpretation to creativity (dashing off before I get hit on the back of the head by a brick).
 07/08/2009 11:41:34 AM · #45
I would have to vote on the side of allowing your entry Paul. I don't see that it violated the rules from my interpretation. Of course, I don't see that any of the other examples shown here should have been DQed either.
 07/08/2009 11:44:34 AM · #46
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I would have to vote on the side of allowing your entry Paul. I don't see that it violated the rules from my interpretation. Of course, I don't see that any of the other examples shown here should have been DQed either.


To play devil's advocate -- Could I then take a picture of Rembrandt's Night Watch and add SPAM to it?
 07/08/2009 11:46:59 AM · #47
Originally posted by vawendy:
To play devil's advocate -- Could I then take a picture of Rembrandt's Night Watch and add SPAM to it?

Yes! You certainly can. ROFL :~P
 07/08/2009 11:47:08 AM · #48
Originally posted by vawendy:


To play devil's advocate -- Could I then take a picture of Rembrandt's Night Watch and add SPAM to it?


Or The Last Supper with a can of SPAM on the table?
 07/08/2009 11:48:06 AM · #49
Perhaps the answer lies in the ultimate purpose of the editing rules. To me, I have always felt that the purpose of the editing rules was to ensure the entries remained photographs and did not cross the line into being digital creations.
 07/08/2009 11:49:14 AM · #50
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by vawendy:


To play devil's advocate -- Could I then take a picture of Rembrandt's Night Watch and add SPAM to it?


Or The Last Supper with a can of SPAM on the table?


I think those would both be fine as no one would think the paintings were anything but those paintings.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 08:48:39 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/12/2025 08:48:39 AM EDT.