| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2009 12:15:23 AM · #151 |
Just to make sure I am understanding the current rule.
Shannon's image would be dq'd if the subject was an airplane instead of a girl on a magic carpet since we would be fooled into thinking the airplane was flying over a "real" earth. Is that correct? |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:17:30 AM · #152 |
Completely off the topic here. But can I say, I just had a toad zoom across my floor,along with 10 cockroaches.
When we have monsoons, it floods, then the darling little disgusting, will make me scream, things, come into my house.
eww eww and more ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:23:48 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
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.. |
A photo like that can be shot today and be made to look like it was taken in the 1800's. That's not all that difficult. Throw in advance editing and the use of an overlay and it becomes even easier to pull off.
Message edited by author 2009-07-09 00:24:24.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:34:49 AM · #154 |
Okay, without reading through 7 pages of responses, I'm going to tell you why I feel this photo should be DQ'd (If I am repeating what someone else said, then I'm sorry)
I did read where a few said that taking a photo of a photo really isn't photography. The fact is, what you tried to do was skip around the rules of basic editing. In order to achieve the effect you wanted, you would have had to break the rules of basic editing, and use selective tools, which is illegal under basic editing. So instead of doing that, you took a prior photo, physically cut out the spam (instead of using the cutting tool in photoshop) and physically pasted it (instead of pasting it in photoshop). What DPC is trying to establish is that, either way you do it, whether it be photoshop, or physical, its still doctoring the photo and thereby breaking the rules of basic editing. That was the way I interpreted it. As for why other photos were not DQ'd and so, I'm not sure, and I don't really have time to look back and go into all that. I'm just responding as to why I think your photo should have been DQ'd and got DQ'd. Just my two cents... Mileage may vary :) |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:36:16 AM · #155 |
If I were that good at Trompe L'Oeil I'd be making mucho bucks in some highfalutin' bistro, not arguing the fine distinctions on whether a block of pixels captured by my digital camera should be considered a photograph.
Anyway, here's a 100% crop of my culinary handiwork ...
 |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:39:32 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
... I just had a toad zoom across my floor,along with 10 cockroaches. |
If the former was chasing the latter you're OK, if the reverse is true, you better be careful. If they seem to be working together and coordinating their movements I'd check into a Motel 6 and call Roger Corman ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:42:43 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
The whole point of voting in challenges is to rate a single photograph taken for the topic and edited within the rules. Whether the artwork was his or not, it's still primarily a photo of a photo, and many voters would be judging lighting, poses, expressions, DOF, etc. as if it were all a live scene. OBVIOUS use of artwork (such as money or a computer screen with the edge of the monitor showing) is legal because the voters know what they're rating and can vote accordingly. Karen's shot is interesting because it looks like a print with writing on it, and even if it wasn't, the voters will reasonably assume they're judging a photo of a photo. |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:43:50 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Completely off the topic here. But can I say, I just had a toad zoom across my floor,along with 10 cockroaches.
When we have monsoons, it floods, then the darling little disgusting, will make me scream, things, come into my house.
eww eww and more ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
So did you get the shot? |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:48:06 AM · #159 |
I think it's pretty obvious that there's actual SPAM on the photo, which means it's obvious that I used another photo as a background, so I'm not "fooling" anyone about that -- there's a free admission that this is a "multimedia" composition. The scene-as-shot is not really believable as either a practical or compositional matter; why should I be penalized for the cursory nature of people's viewing habits, other than by their low votes?
Why is this different than shooting, say, a wine bottle against a backdrop painting to give it context?
Message edited by author 2009-07-09 00:51:14. |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:49:06 AM · #160 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If I were that good at Trompe L'Oeil I'd be making mucho bucks in some highfalutin' bistro, not arguing the fine distinctions on whether a block of pixels captured by my digital camera should be considered a photograph.
Anyway, here's a 100% crop of my culinary handiwork ...
|
i wonder if you'd still be DQ'ed if you had submitted this crop, lol.
what a bummer Mr General. i'd like to see justice. |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 12:51:16 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Completely off the topic here. But can I say, I just had a toad zoom across my floor,along with 10 cockroaches.
When we have monsoons, it floods, then the darling little disgusting, will make me scream, things, come into my house.
eww eww and more ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
So did you get the shot? |
Hell NO, I was too busy screeching like a little girl with a plastic bag in one hand to catch the toad thing (kept thinking of Lydia) and a shoe in the other to stomp the cockroaches.
I love and hate Monsoons, those urkky toads are all out there right now, with their mating calls, sounds like a cats in mating season on steriods. ewwwewewewewewewe |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:00:09 AM · #162 |
Before this thread goes into that realm where old threads go, bear with me here for one more post.
There have been two threads within the last six months discussing the present Artwork Rule
Posts in each thread offer many interpretations of the present rule. It̢۪s beyond obvious that the rule is confusing.
Here it is:
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.
In this thread two three ways to clarify the rule have been offered:
 GeneralE suggests:
You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph/artwork in order to circumvent date or editing rules.
 LydiaToo suggests:
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.
 kirbic suggests:
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.
Now, four Site Council members (out of thirteen) have contributed to this thread:  Alanfreed,  Frisca,  Scalvert, GeneralE. Perhaps between you, and the nine others on the Council, a solution can be achieved.
I̢۪d like to think we are not just clicking our keyboards here.
Edited to add kirbic's suggestion.
Message edited by author 2009-07-09 11:23:40.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:07:24 AM · #163 |
| it is being hammered out as you type. :) |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:13:57 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
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. |
I'll re-post this, since I see that the suggestions all still include the "consist entirely" language, which is where the trouble lies. Paul's photo is *not* entirely existing art, but it does violate the intent of the rule. The language needs to make it very clear that the artwork needs to be recognizable as such; the voters should not be fooled into thinking that they are voting on an as-shot scene. |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:14:17 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by karmat:
it is being hammered out as you type. :) |
I am so very glad to hear that. Thank you  Karmat.
P.S. Sorry, Kirbic. I missed your proposed revision, and should not have.
Message edited by author 2009-07-09 11:15:22.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:40:21 AM · #166 |
note, too, that we have an SC thread going that basically mirrors this one with a lot more four letter words. :)
actually, we are doing some revising right now and will throw something out to the group ASAP. |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:44:06 AM · #167 |
I still think my 1/4 idea is a brilliant one.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:46:36 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I still think my 1/4 idea is a brilliant one. |
let us know when it grows to full size...
|
|
|
|
07/09/2009 11:47:25 AM · #169 |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 02:44:34 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Completely off the topic here. But can I say, I just had a toad zoom across my floor,along with 10 cockroaches.
When we have monsoons, it floods, then the darling little disgusting, will make me scream, things, come into my house.
eww eww and more ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
Catch toad.
Photograph toad wearing a hat.
Stomp roaches.
Enter toad image into challenge.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2009 02:47:19 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Catch toad.
Photograph toad wearing a hat.
Stomp roaches.
Enter toad image into challenge. |
Get DQ'd for Literal Wartwork... |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 03:20:46 PM · #172 |
| Who toad you bad puns were okay here? |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 03:36:07 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Who toad you bad puns were okay here? |
Yeah I bet he is a real Fungi to hang out with huh?
Matt |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 03:47:41 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Who toad you bad puns were okay here? |
Yeah I bet he is a real Fungi to hang out with huh?
Matt |
I promise this one was legally edited ... |
|
|
|
07/09/2009 04:15:36 PM · #175 |
they are foul foul looking things. NOt at all like the ones that Lydia posts. These are teh distant relatives of the Ugly Stick family.
They can grow to the size of a dinner plate. They are also toxic to animals. But, if you squeeze the diamond shape sacks of poison and then dry the toxin out, you have your own LSD. Just foul.
I really (and maybe Lydia can tell me) how the heck they got into my yard. No standing water, only an inch gap in the gate and the rest of it is brick wall.
|
|
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 09:21:33 AM EDT.
