| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2009 09:35:41 PM · #126 |
I support the rule simply for 1 reason.... and this is directed at your entry specifically...
I had NO idea it was a photograph of an existing image that had spam cut-out's strategically placed "on top" of that existing image. I naively assume that when I'm voting on an image, it really is the work of that photographers & only that photographers..
It would be awesome to scan through the billions of amazing images, print them out into various sizes to see which ones work best for my plan, then add maybe, a leaf to a landscape shot, or some sand to a beach shot and then call it my own...
That seems to me to be what horrible detrimental outcome "they" are trying to prevent by DQing images such as this.. And just like with any other image that violates any part of any rule, you have to keep it fair across the board.. You can't say this image only violated the rule a little, so we'll allow it and so on..
I just don't see the point in taking a picture of another picture even if you've added something to the surface of it and calling it yours.. just doesn't work for me.. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 09:41:29 PM · #127 |
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. |
Posting again, just in case some members of the SC who actually voted for/against this particular validation might want to stop "sitting idly by" and join in with their thoughts...some of us might actually learn - and benefit - from the exercise. Speaking personally, as I did not enter said image with the intent to flout the rules, knowing where the goalposts are for those in the position to decide these matters might help me continue to lead a clean DPC life. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 09:48:05 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by krnodil:
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. |
Posting again, just in case some members of the SC who actually voted for/against this particular validation might want to stop "sitting idly by" and join in with their thoughts...some of us might actually learn - and benefit - from the exercise. Speaking personally, as I did not enter said image with the intent to flout the rules, knowing where the goalposts are for those in the position to decide these matters might help me continue to lead a clean DPC life. |
It would be interesting to know why that was validated. My guess is they thought it looked like artwork therefore the voters weren't fooled and therefore it's legal. If that's the case and the ultimate goal of the artwork rule is to avoid voter confusion then it would be hypocritical to not consider DNMC as a DQ offense, particularly in cases where the photographer admits it afterwards (ex. a zoo photo entered in a wildlife challenge). Of course that'll never happen.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 21:48:47.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:19:51 PM · #129 |
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not?
|
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:24:21 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wish those who support the current interpretation of this rule could please explain exactly what horribly detrimental outcome they are trying to prevent with all this?
Why shouldn't all of the voters (not just SC members minus myself) have had the chance to express their opinion on my entry? |
The detrimental outcome is that there will be a focus on graphic design/mixed media sculpture shoehorning. Your piece is more fitting of being displayed in person because it's a mixed media sculpture. Photo+Spam+Saran Wrap=mixed media. Taking a photo of it and claiming it's the same creative process as photography is asinine. Besides which: I believe you were trying to avoid the unfortunate fact that, as you said, Originally posted by GeneralE:
As it is I hear people claiming that they thought I'd really seen these dancers in the park with two-foot hunks of canned meat on long skewers, and pulled it out and re-photographed it. Sorry, but that's just not realistic to me, |
Why are they assuming that? That is how you would have to capture this to be legal in basic. People assumed you were being legal.
Your comparison of photographers moving objects in their photo doesn't hold up either. Basic Editing challenges have a focus on controlling and manipulating the scene BEFORE CAPTURE. You clearly attempted to extend the process of the capture in order to achieve something that you determined was not legally feasible otherwise (finding people with real spam fans). If this is legal, there is no reason to assume that somebody couldn't meticulously take 20 photos of local buildings, cut them into pieces, and reassemble them into the most insane example of architecture that ever existed. This approach obviously bears little resemblence to the idea of photography and is more akin to sculpture and graphic design. I consider your entry identical in its approach.
Photographers use all sorts of manipulation to effect a scene, but the fact remains that the focus is on manipulation before the capture and all alterations made after the fact are subject to editing rules in the challenges here. There are two ways of looking at things then: Either you captured a photo, made it into a mixed media work, and captured it again (the photo, of course, would then consist entirely of another piece of artwork) or you captured, illegally edited, captured.
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 22:24:59. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:37:14 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not? |
i'd like to hear about how this one got validated too. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:40:00 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not? |
And I do respect your opinion Juliet, so please don't read my response as defensive - but I am curious, why "clearly"? What do you think about it? |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:40:49 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not? |
i'd like to hear about how this one got validated too. |
Yeahhhhhhhhh.. I'm totally confused now.. Again, not sure how we as photog's can simply take a picture of AN EXISTING image and add an element to it and that be acceptable.. someone's got some esplaining to dooooooo
edit to say:
I think I get it... since the rule says this: 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.
Obviously the photographer who submitted this wasn't around when this image was taken, she wasn't submitting it to circumvent the date or editing rules and since we know she couldn't have personally taken it, hence she clearly wasn't trying to fool us into thinking she actually captured the original.. So, if I'm understanding it, that's why this one was validated.. I'm guessing.. lol
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 22:50:55. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:44:24 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not? |
And I do respect your opinion Juliet, so please don't read my response as defensive - but I am curious, why "clearly"? What do you think about it? |
Its clearly a photo of two pre existing artworks, a photograph and a writing. I can't believe under any set of rules that it would be validated. Clearly the SC found SOME reason to validate it, but honestly i don't see how that isn't a slam dunk DQ and yet Paul's is clearly a DQ to the SC.
Matt |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:48:53 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not? |
And I do respect your opinion Juliet, so please don't read my response as defensive - but I am curious, why "clearly"? What do you think about it? |
Its clearly a photo of two pre existing artworks, a photograph and a writing. I can't believe under any set of rules that it would be validated. Clearly the SC found SOME reason to validate it, but honestly i don't see how that isn't a slam dunk DQ and yet Paul's is clearly a DQ to the SC.
Matt |
I ask that you RE-READ the rules under what you MAY do... then say again if you think THIS IMAGE is still in question... |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 10:54:00 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not? |
And I do respect your opinion Juliet, so please don't read my response as defensive - but I am curious, why "clearly"? What do you think about it? |
Sorry, it has been said by the others here. But it is a photograph and then it is a letter, add the two together and you have two pre-existing artworks together. Hey, Double DQ!! lol
And no, I would never think your response was defensive. It is a excellent concept and you pulled it off brilliantly. I only wish I could have thought of something that ingenious!!!
Kandy, I am sorry, i don't understand what you mean?
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 22:55:30. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:01:08 PM · #137 |
I'm just trying to understand based on what the rules say... It appears to me that clearly NO ONE would believe the photographer was around in the 1800's or early 1900's whenever this image was originally taken.. And since you are only NOT ALLOWED to use existing artwork to circumvent date or editing rules OR to FOOL THE VOTER INTO THINKING YOU TOOK THE ORIGINAL IMAGE, then that is why I think they have allowed this one.. Does that make anymore sense..
When we as the voter look at this image, we don't think or at least the SC decided the average voter would not believe that the photographer submitting this for viewing was the photographer who actually took it ORIGINALLY.. And since that is not up for debate, then clearly the photographer was not trying to fool us or trying to get away with submitting something outside of the date guidelines or editing guidelines so this would be considered acceptable..
Now, this is just my A-HA moment.. This is my understanding and my own interpretation as to why they allowed this image and not the one originally in question.. I may be wrong.. So, if the SC would chime in, that would be great.. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:13:34 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by krnodil:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
As much as I respect K's work, this clearly should have been DQ'd, why was it not? |
And I do respect your opinion Juliet, so please don't read my response as defensive - but I am curious, why "clearly"? What do you think about it? |
Its clearly a photo of two pre existing artworks, a photograph and a writing. I can't believe under any set of rules that it would be validated. Clearly the SC found SOME reason to validate it, but honestly i don't see how that isn't a slam dunk DQ and yet Paul's is clearly a DQ to the SC.
Matt |
I ask that you RE-READ the rules under what you MAY do... then say again if you think THIS IMAGE is still in question... |
I Re-Read the rules at your suggestion and still say its a slam dunk.
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
This image is clearly made up of not one, but two existing artworks/photographs. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
Matt |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:23:59 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by MattO:
This image is clearly made up of not one, but two existing artworks/photographs. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
Matt |
what i think too. hmm |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:24:17 PM · #140 |
I Re-Read the rules at your suggestion and still say its a slam dunk.
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
This image is clearly made up of not one, but two existing artworks/photographs. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
Matt
But, the sentence doesn't end with... consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph... You can't just only read the parts of the rule that you want.. It continues on to say, ... 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.
That's the part where I'm thinking the SC is saying this image is OK and the other is NOT... Again, just my understanding of the rule.. I'm not defending it or saying it's right/wrong.. I'm too just trying to understand all of this..
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 23:25:37. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:26:11 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I Re-Read the rules at your suggestion and still say its a slam dunk.
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
This image is clearly made up of not one, but two existing artworks/photographs. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
Matt
But, the sentence doesn't end with... consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph... You can't just only read the parts of the rule that you want.. It continues on to say, ... 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. |
Then tell that to the SC who DQed the Thanksgiving photo because it included the photo, in the correct time period, by the same photographer. It was DQed only for the reason I posted not the end of the sentence I left off.
Matt
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 23:27:07. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:29:58 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I Re-Read the rules at your suggestion and still say its a slam dunk.
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
This image is clearly made up of not one, but two existing artworks/photographs. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
Matt
But, the sentence doesn't end with... consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph... You can't just only read the parts of the rule that you want.. It continues on to say, ... 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.
That's the part where I'm thinking the SC is saying this image is OK and the other is NOT... Again, just my understanding of the rule.. I'm not defending it or saying it's right/wrong.. I'm too just trying to understand all of this.. |
so this means it is legal if we all find some OBVIOUSLY old photo, overlay it with some text and submit? what is this, card-making competition? |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:30:37 PM · #143 |
Excellent Point  MattOand just when I think I'm starting to understand something, I get put back in my place.. lol... man, I really thought I was figuring this out.. Now we seem to have 3 totally different examples all of which contradict eachother and based on the rules, if 1 isn't allowed then none should be.. lol.. I'm gonna go shoot for the fricken flower challenge.. AND NOT USE ANY EXISTING ARTWORK WHAT-SO-EVER !!! |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:31:01 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by AP:
Honestly until I read what the pic was about I really thought it was just a straight up photo of a painting... Either way I think it's a no-brainer DQ whatever the rule wording may be because it is just substantially about the painting. That word 'substantially' is tough to define, sure, but ya know it when you see it. |
And I thought it was a poor photo of dancers whose fans happened to look vaguely like Spam. I looked for quite a while, actually, and still didn't figure out that it WAS real Spam, overlaid. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:55:13 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I Re-Read the rules at your suggestion and still say its a slam dunk.
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
This image is clearly made up of not one, but two existing artworks/photographs. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
Matt
But, the sentence doesn't end with... consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph... You can't just only read the parts of the rule that you want.. It continues on to say, ... 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. |
Then tell that to the SC who DQed the Thanksgiving photo because it included the photo, in the correct time period, by the same photographer. It was DQed only for the reason I posted not the end of the sentence I left off.
Matt
|
I'll explain this one:
... 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.
So, I could not take several pictures, print some on transparent paper and stick them in front of each other creating layers in real life. This picture is violating the circumventing editing rules section. I dont know, i reread what i typed but i'm still a little confused, just play along.
edit: I also think it violates create your entry from a single capture. clearly its now two right?
Message edited by author 2009-07-08 23:59:07. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:55:51 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I wish those who support the current interpretation of this rule could please explain exactly what horribly detrimental outcome they are trying to prevent with all this? |
If I didn't know better I would have thought this was posted in one of the civil rights threads. |
You are correct -- and for much the same reasons. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:58:21 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I just don't see the point in taking a picture of another picture even if you've added something to the surface of it and calling it yours.. just doesn't work for me.. |
The underlying photo is mine -- and knowing I had it and what it looked like gave be the idea for how to use cut out pieces of SPAM. I didn't steal anything. |
|
|
|
07/08/2009 11:59:34 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I Re-Read the rules at your suggestion and still say its a slam dunk.
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
This image is clearly made up of not one, but two existing artworks/photographs. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.
Matt
But, the sentence doesn't end with... consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph... You can't just only read the parts of the rule that you want.. It continues on to say, ... 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. |
Then tell that to the SC who DQed the Thanksgiving photo because it included the photo, in the correct time period, by the same photographer. It was DQed only for the reason I posted not the end of the sentence I left off.
Matt
|
I'll explain this one:
... 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.
So, I could not take several pictures, print some on transparent paper and stick them in front of each other creating layers in real life. This picture is violating the circumventing editing rules section. I dont know, i reread what i typed but i'm still a little confused, just play along. |
I can surely say you are confused. That was an advanced editing challenge, there isn't much she could have done to the photo she printed that would have circumvented the rules. According to SC it was because it was a photo of a photo, nothing else. Same as the 100 year photo, but got validated.
Matt |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:01:15 AM · #149 |
| hahha, indeed i am confused. Just end this thread, specify the rules better and be done with it. |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:06:35 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I just don't see the point in taking a picture of another picture even if you've added something to the surface of it and calling it yours.. just doesn't work for me.. |
The underlying photo is mine -- and knowing I had it and what it looked like gave be the idea for how to use cut out pieces of SPAM. I didn't steal anything. |
OK.. point taken.. I'm still confused... If yours gets DQ'd, and so does Lydia's, but Karen's doesn't, then I simply have either had too much wine or not enough at this point to understand what the logic is behind all of this..
I totally apologize for implying you stole something as that wasn't my intention.. I know you were being very creative and I certainly didn't think you did it out of a mean spirit or to get one past DPC.. So, please accept my apologies.. I think tone of voice is lost in type and re-reading what I wrote seems harsher then I meant it.. |
|
