What Do You Think Of This Disqualification?

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

07/08/2009 01:09:32 PM · #76

Originally posted by vawendy:

It's not the artwork that has me wondering... I thought you couldn't merge two different photos...

"You must create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates."

Not merged - double exposed

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/08/2009 01:10:08 PM · #77

Originally posted by vawendy:

She did it legally, in-camera, with a single exposure, using a black card in front of the lens as she switched the pieces of artwork for each other.

R.

ETA: gawd I'm slow today...

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 13:10:57.

krnodil

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

07/08/2009 01:10:18 PM · #78

Originally posted by vawendy:

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.

It's not the artwork that has me wondering... I thought you couldn't merge two different photos...

"You must create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates."

this is one photo - an @30 second exposure during which both elements were exposed in turn (lens covered in between)

07/08/2009 01:13:35 PM · #79

Originally posted by frisca:

The main image of the family is clearly a photo

Not necessarily. There is no paper edge or border to it. It could possibly be mistaken for a real scene - especially since it was validated.

07/08/2009 01:15:58 PM · #80

Originally posted by krnodil:

Originally posted by vawendy:

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.

It's not the artwork that has me wondering... I thought you couldn't merge two different photos...

"You must create your entry from 1-10 captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change). All captures used must be shot within the challenge submission dates."

this is one photo - an @30 second exposure during which both elements were exposed in turn (lens covered in between)

cool! (I should really read the details first, but I'm trying to clean up swim team photos... :)

Well, it may be completely pre-existing photos, but the whole point of the challenge was to photograph something 100 years old. It wasn't meant to fool us, and it wasn't meant to circumvent the time issue.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

07/08/2009 01:19:59 PM · #81

Originally posted by vawendy:

It wasn't meant to fool us, and it wasn't meant to circumvent the time issue.

(just doing a little devil's advocate here) You can't prove intent, so I don't think that factors into the validation process. I think if a photo of a photo were allowed, it would have to show the edges to make it completely obvious it is a photo.

MattO

Nikon D4

07/08/2009 01:20:21 PM · #82

Originally posted by vawendy:

(I should really read the details first, but I'm trying to clean up swim team photos... :)

Did they get wet?

Matt

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

07/08/2009 01:21:42 PM · #83

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by vawendy:
(I should really read the details first, but I'm trying to clean up swim team photos... :)

Did they get wet?

Matt

No, but I get sopping wet when taking them. I also learned, that if you're going to sit on a very wet pool deck while wearing light colored shorts, don't wear bright colored underwear! (why isn't this in the rules somewhere!)

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

07/08/2009 01:23:37 PM · #84

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by vawendy:
(I should really read the details first, but I'm trying to clean up swim team photos... :)

Did they get wet?

Matt

No, but I get sopping wet when taking them. I also learned, that if you're going to sit on a very wet pool deck while wearing light colored shorts, don't wear bright colored underwear! (why isn't this in the rules somewhere!)

Common sense? ;oP

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

07/08/2009 01:23:47 PM · #85

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by vawendy:
It wasn't meant to fool us, and it wasn't meant to circumvent the time issue.

(just doing a little devil's advocate here) You can't prove intent, so I don't think that factors into the validation process. I think if a photo of a photo were allowed, it would have to show the edges to make it completely obvious it is a photo.

Naw, I figured if someone went through that much trouble, (incredibly accurate clothing, hairstyling, background) to fake a 100 year old portrait and to dupe me, more power to them. It worked. But then again, I'm a very trusting person.

krnodil

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/08/2009 01:25:25 PM · #86

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I'll have to disagree with you there, that intent shouldn't factor into the validation process. Given that the editing rule frames itself according to intent:

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.

I agree you can't prove intent, but considerations of intent seem to be baked into that rule...

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

07/08/2009 01:25:28 PM · #87

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by vawendy:
(I should really read the details first, but I'm trying to clean up swim team photos... :)

Did they get wet?

Matt

No, but I get sopping wet when taking them. I also learned, that if you're going to sit on a very wet pool deck while wearing light colored shorts, don't wear bright colored underwear! (why isn't this in the rules somewhere!)

Common sense? ;oP

Ironically enough its not all that common. If you need proof read the forums.

Matt

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

07/08/2009 01:28:11 PM · #88

Originally posted by krnodil:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by vawendy:
It wasn't meant to fool us, and it wasn't meant to circumvent the time issue.

(just doing a little devil's advocate here) You can't prove intent, so I don't think that factors into the validation process. I think if a photo of a photo were allowed, it would have to show the edges to make it completely obvious it is a photo.

I'll have to disagree with you there, that intent shouldn't factor into the validation process. Given that the editing rule frames itself according to intent:

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.

I agree you can't prove intent, but considerations of intent seem to be baked into that rule...

True - but the rule is badly written. Hence, these common threads. ;-)

JulietNN

Canon EOS R7

07/08/2009 01:57:38 PM · #89

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by JulietNN:
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

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?

If it is statue, a stuffed animal, or anything that you can go around, then it is okay. If it is flat like a picture and you cant walk around it , it is not ok

There, clear as mud!

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

07/08/2009 02:04:03 PM · #90

Originally posted by JulietNN:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by JulietNN:
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

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?

If it is statue, a stuffed animal, or anything that you can go around, then it is okay. If it is flat like a picture and you cant walk around it , it is not ok

There, clear as mud!

but, but, it says "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."

How can an image be 3D? OOOh, we can make it into a hologram!! Help us OB1, you're our only hope! (sorry, couldn't resist :)

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 14:04:20.

JulietNN

Canon EOS R7

07/08/2009 02:07:51 PM · #91

ohh pffffffffffffffffft, you know what i mean.

there was a case of a blue )I believe) ribbon winner, who had photographed a pair of mantas (?) in a museum. He did nothing for set up, lights set up etc, just took the shot. He got validated because even though it was completely a statue, you could walk around it.

now a piece of paper, a photograph, print, etc you can not.

Makes no sense to me either, and the mantas was argued to death too.

here is the shot, it was removed from DPC though.//www.flickr.com/photos/lepidus/3060717086/in/set-72157610138063984/

and here is the thread it all went too:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=851775&page=1 all 30 pages of it

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 14:12:59.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

07/08/2009 02:26:29 PM · #92

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

True - but the rule is badly written. Hence, these common threads. ;-)

Ah, back to the important part of this thread. We've had several suggestions regarding a rewrite of this confusing rule.

Perhaps it's time to come to a consensus on language that would make the rule clear for all participants on the site.

How can we do this?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/08/2009 04:01:13 PM · #93

Originally posted by sfalice:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

True - but the rule is badly written. Hence, these common threads. ;-)

Ah, back to the important part of this thread. We've had several suggestions regarding a rewrite of this confusing rule.

Perhaps it's time to come to a consensus on language that would make the rule clear for all participants on the site.

How can we do this?

Esperanto?