What Do You Think Of This Disqualification?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/08/2009 11:50:13 AM · #51

I would say that as long as the SUBJECT of the photo is not the artwork, then yes it would be okay.

It's funny because in the past people have photographed sculpture (as the subject), but because the angle and lighting differ by photographer, then that is deemed okay. Why not 2-D artwork as a background when the subject is affected by angle and lighting of the photog too?

Jutilda

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon

07/08/2009 11:50:34 AM · #52

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

did not cross the line into being digital creations.

OH dear.... here we go. I think I'll just bite my tongue, Steve.

Maybe not. That's what digital is all about. With the advances in technology/editing, I think that's part of the digital age. Sometimes I feel like it should be RPC (Rules Photography Challenge). Ok, I promise to shut up now. I see your point but just think that the ends always justify the means in this endeavor. Not wanting to stir up a can of worms, just stating my opinion. That's why I mostly enter side challenges. Oh, and I do adore so many people here too.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/08/2009 11:55:35 AM · #53

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

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.

That is certainly one of the intentions of the editing rules, but this one is a bit different. In this case, the intention is to keep people from taking an existing piece of artwork and having their entry voted upon based on the intrinsic qualities of that artwork, rather than for their own photographic merits.

That's the case with Paul's spam entry. People were clearly being led to base their vote on the qualities of the lighting of the women, their poses, etc., when Paul was not the person who took the picture of those women in the first place. Sticking a few slices of spam into the shot does not keep people from primarily basing their votes on work that was not his. That is what this rule is meant to prevent.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/08/2009 11:57:49 AM · #54

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.
----------

Ok, if that's the case-- From what I understand about editing rules: I'm not allowed to take two photos of the same scene, unless I have the same exact elements in it. So I can't photograph my kitchen table with and without SPAM, and then use layers to bring the two together.
BUT, I can take a picture of my table, print it out, place the spam on it, and take a picture? I think there's a problem here...

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

07/08/2009 11:58:00 AM · #55

Originally posted by SJCarter:

It's funny because in the past people have photographed sculpture (as the subject), but because the angle and lighting differ by photographer, then that is deemed okay. Why not 2-D artwork as a background when the subject is affected by angle and lighting of the photog too?

When you're voting on a sculpture, you KNOW it's a sculpture or statue... you know what you're looking at. When you're voting on a photo of a photo, you are unknowingly voting based on someone else's work, or possibly work of the original photographer shot outside the date range, etc.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/08/2009 11:58:57 AM · #56

Originally posted by MattO:

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

The existing rule is problematic from only one perspective... the word "entirely" was left in, which can be interpreted to allow what Paul did. I'd suggest that the following wording would functionally accomplish what is desired, while eliminating the loophole caused by the "entirely" language:

include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not consist predominantly of a pre-existing photograph with the effect of circumventing date or editing rules or fooling the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.

SJCarter

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/08/2009 12:05:47 PM · #57

Wendy: Interesting comparison and I see what you mean, but I would still say that it was okay. Photogs have been painstakingly "prepping" each scene that they shoot for years before digital - including tricks like this.

Alan: I'm not sure I agree with your argument based on the wording of the rules. Just because the viewer recognizes that the subject is a sculpture doesn't mean that the photog isn't making someone else's artwork the subject of their entry.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

07/08/2009 12:14:47 PM · #58

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.

I see you have no real understanding of English. Would the photo have nearly as much meaning WITHOUT the backgroung?
Now, reply with another dumbass statement.

never mind, I see some others have corrected you

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 12:16:40.

07/08/2009 12:19:25 PM · #59

Originally posted by David Ey:

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.

I see you have no real understanding of English. Would the photo have nearly as much meaning WITHOUT the backgroung?
Now, reply with another dumbass statement.

never mind, I see some others have corrected you

Ok, I guess three is the limit to the number of pages we get before this disintegrates into bashing.

Jutilda

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon

07/08/2009 12:30:29 PM · #60

HUGS TO EVERYONE. :~)

JulietNN

Canon EOS R7

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

07/08/2009 12:37:32 PM · #61

This was pretty much talked to death with the wine glass photo.

The general concensos was that as long as it was 3d, it was fine. if it was flat it was not fine.

there cleared up the whole thing in one sentance!!

lol

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

07/08/2009 12:38:02 PM · #62

Originally posted by Jutilda:

HUGS TO EVERYONE. :~)

Hurray! I got my first DPC hug! Can I put it on my profile? :D

JulietNN

Canon EOS R7

07/08/2009 12:39:24 PM · #63

Originally posted by David Ey:

ouch, someone didn't eat their Bran Flakes this morning!

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

07/08/2009 12:39:58 PM · #64

Originally posted by JulietNN:

Ok, now you've confused me... how can a photograph ever be 3D? or is that the point--a photograph is never fine?

come to think of it, I never did see a response... Does anyone have examples of when this rule has been validated instead of DQ'D?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/08/2009 12:47:34 PM · #65

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Alan: I'm not sure I agree with your argument based on the wording of the rules. Just because the viewer recognizes that the subject is a sculpture doesn't mean that the photog isn't making someone else's artwork the subject of their entry.

But we CAN'T have a rule that says "nobody else's art work can be the subject of your entry." Architecture, for example, is often considered art. So we wouldn't be able to photograph buildings, or at least not *good* buildings. Many similar conflicts could arise, out in the real world.

R.

sprite777

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/08/2009 12:50:30 PM · #66

I haven't read all the above entries, but I think the danger in taking a picture of a printed photo is that no one knows when you took the original. There's no exif data on a print. Well, some, but not most. So because you can't (or otherwise haven't been able to) provide proof of timing, I would have probably done the same. The site, afterall, is dpchallenge, not just pchallenge. ;)

krnodil

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

07/08/2009 12:58:59 PM · #67

Originally posted by vawendy:

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

This shot was ultimately validated after several days (I think 5-6 days?) and I've always wondered whether the validation was contentious, and if it was the artwork rule that made it contentious. Because it was validated, I never got to know...

I'm offering this up in response to

vawendy's question. SC is welcome to use it as an example to further the discussion in this thread, if they want to.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/08/2009 01:03:11 PM · #68

Originally posted by krnodil:

Originally posted by vawendy:

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

This shot was ultimately validated after several days (I think 5-6 days?) and I've always wondered whether the validation was contentious, and if it was the artwork rule that made it contentious. Because it was validated, I never got to know...

I'm offering this up in response to vawendy's question. SC is welcome to use it as an example to further the discussion in this thread, if they want to.

Ok, first I want to know -- since this has been validated, nothing we can say or question will lead to its disqualification, correct? I have many questions on this, but since krnodil was kind enough to post it, I don't want to take any chances on getting it DQ'd...

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

07/08/2009 01:05:52 PM · #69

Originally posted by vawendy:

Double jeopardy would be unconstitutional. ;-)

That example consists of not just one, but TWO pre-existing artworks. Wow.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

07/08/2009 01:06:40 PM · #70

Originally posted by krnodil:

That's an interesting example; as far as I can see, the image consists in its entirety of two existing pieces of "artwork", a photo and a letter, that have been (legally) layered together. I'm really curious as to the rationale behind the validation of this one...

R.

ETA: I see Art beat me to it...

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 13:07:03.

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/08/2009 01:07:12 PM · #71

we're not going to go back and DQ something we already debated and validated, and yes the artwork rule was the reason we were taking time with krnodil's image.

jeger

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/08/2009 01:07:42 PM · #72

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by vawendy:
Ok, first I want to know -- since this has been validated, nothing we can say or question will lead to its disqualification, correct? I have many questions on this, but since krnodil was kind enough to post it, I don't want to take any chances on getting it DQ'd...

Double jeopardy would be unconstitutional. ;-)

That example consists of not just one, but TWO pre-existing artworks. Wow.

Don't two wrongs make a right? :D