| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2009 01:00:00 AM · #101 |
| whats the go on some of the latest street entries where graffitti is the main subject in the photo? |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 01:32:16 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Under the new rule this would, IMO, be illegal. Voters are judging a photo of a photo, no doubt.
|
just wondering where this would fall- legal / illegal
PS: This is again my shameless attempt to pimp my shot - do not forget to favorite it once you pay visit. :-D
|
|
|
|
07/15/2009 01:34:18 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Really, Langdon?
Are we REALLY having a challenge topic, using a specfic image as an example of what to do for the topic, when that very same image is in this thread as an "Is this image legal?" image?
Really?
I am having a hard time understanding the logic behind this.
Is SC just BEGGING for more work?
I, for one, will be sending my image in with a ticket before entering. And I have NO idea what my image will be.
Really, Langdon?
REALLY!??
(I've not questioned the topics before, but this one... I'm just shaking my head over this.) |
Well that's a clear example of a legal image, lets just hope that people don't incorporate artwork into their shots in a more overpowering way! |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 01:37:35 AM · #104 |
eta: erroneous post
Message edited by author 2009-07-15 01:41:00. |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 06:25:32 PM · #105 |
In the basic Editing thread today:
Kirbic said: Now if we can just nail down a clarified artwork rule. ;-)
SCalvert said: Yeah, good luck with that. The proposal thread was supposed to clarify the existing rule, but quickly devolved into a conversation of what should be allowed and the need for any restrictions at all (questioning the intent itself). That's a valid conversation, but a separate issue. Rather than addressing the goals stated in the OP, it became a chaotic philosophy debate and nothing was settled. Thus, I don't expect that rule to change anytime soon.
Kirbic said: It did kinda degenerate, LOL.
Still, I think there was enough input there that was on topic that it could move forward. The artwork rule will always be contentious, I think y'all should just take the input you have and run with it. Of course it's easy for me to say ;-)
I don't want this to get buried in the wrong thread and have us wonder once again what happened to the Artwork Rule.
With all the words and thought expended on this rule, and the confusion evidenced in the debate over the present rule, I would think that 13 reasonable people (the Site Committee) could, with the assistance of the membership if necessary), come up with a clear rule on this subject.
If the problem is keeping the subject on topic, I would think one of the skilled moderators on the Site Council could step in and assist in furthering the discussion in the direction it needs to go.
In any event, I want to make sure people know this appears to be on the way to becoming dormant by posting this in the correct thread..
|
|
|
|
07/15/2009 09:27:38 PM · #106 |
| SC is still hammering (or is that yammering) on it, a large part based on the more relevant information in this thread. :) |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 09:41:52 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Trumpeteer4:
Hey guys, just to clarify. The model in this picture is real. I wasn't very clear in my description but now I've changed that. Only the black hole and the torn paper fringe are paper. The fringe was taped to the models face and the edges were smoothed in GIMP. |
|
|
|
|
07/15/2009 11:00:40 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by karmat:
SC is still hammering (or is that yammering) on it, a large part based on the more relevant information in this thread. :) |
thanks,  karmat. It's good to have the update.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 12:10:15 AM · #109 |
Whatever the rule ends up being, I really think there should be a separate section of the site with Examples and Counter-Examples that visually lay out the scope of the rule.
Has this idea already been shot down?
People (especially photographers :P) understand things better visually, why not have a set of pictures to compare and reference before we submit so we know what we're looking at.
This will DOWNPLAY the role of interpreting the WORDING of the rule that is causing so much controversy, and put the emphasis on visual precedent which may be far less confusing... |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 12:16:15 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by AP:
Whatever the rule ends up being, I really think there should be a separate section of the site with Examples and Counter-Examples that visually lay out the scope of the rule. |
We already had one, but it became obsolete when the rule changed last time. |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 12:27:38 AM · #111 |
| Well why not keep it current - based on the current wording/interpretation of the rules? |
|
|
|
07/16/2009 11:21:02 AM · #112 |
Maybe have a forum thread for each ruleset, the way there's a forum thread for each tutorial.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2009 11:41:30 AM · #113 |
| I have a feeling that the current challenge -- all about position -- will bring a number of these issues to a head... |
|
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: 08/05/2025 01:07:21 AM EDT.
