|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2010 03:11:40 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 03:19:53 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scalvert:
As long as they were all taken during the challenge dates, you can combine photographs in Expert, so it doesn't matter. |
The first phrase being the key. If, however, someone sources a texture from an old image of theirs, or a library of images sch as present on DPC, then it will certainly not be shot during the challenge, and will be DQ'd if it is deemed to represent compositional elements of a photo and not a texture. |
From the rules:
You may:
use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules.
So go for it. Hit that texture library.
eta: Maybe I shoulda read a bit more before posting. I thought this was clear cut but apparently it isn't
Message edited by author 2010-04-27 15:21:16. |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 03:21:49 PM · #28 |
From my perspective they all "read" as texture except the first one, the leaf-over-text, which looks like two photographs merged. Of course, what I think doesn't matter...
R. |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 03:24:40 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
From my perspective they all "read" as texture except the first one, the leaf-over-text, which looks like two photographs merged. Of course, what I think doesn't matter...
R. |
Your opinion DOES count Robert... :-)
What about the 2nd photo, the one with the Bull (or whatever animal that is)...looks like it's standing on cement now rather than dirt or grass. ??? Wouldn't that be a compositional element? |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 03:42:35 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What about the 2nd photo, the one with the Bull (or whatever animal that is)...looks like it's standing on cement now rather than dirt or grass. ??? Wouldn't that be a compositional element? |
Not to my way of thinking, no, it's more diffused than that, conceptually. The text is much more prominent *as an element*. But, I repeat, this is just my rather singular take on how I read the rule, and it doesn't mean much :-)
R. |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 03:49:44 PM · #31 |
| Ok, thanks Robert. I may just steer clear of "textures" completely to be safe. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 04:10:36 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Ok, thanks Robert. I may just steer clear of "textures" completely to be safe. :-/ |
No pun intended? ;o) |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 04:18:56 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What about the 2nd photo, the one with the Bull (or whatever animal that is)...looks like it's standing on cement now rather than dirt or grass. ??? Wouldn't that be a compositional element? |
Not to my way of thinking, no, it's more diffused than that, conceptually. The text is much more prominent *as an element*. But, I repeat, this is just my rather singular take on how I read the rule, and it doesn't mean much :-)
R. |
So to understand, you're basically saying we can't use a texture AS a texture? In other words, it can only be used as a roughly applied overlay for an effect and not to be mapped perfectly onto a preexisting structure or shape within the scene as a means to replace the original surface texture. For example, using a brick texture on a wall that originally had a drywall texture. Is that the gist of it?
|
|
|
|
04/27/2010 05:41:14 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What about the 2nd photo, the one with the Bull (or whatever animal that is)...looks like it's standing on cement now rather than dirt or grass. ??? Wouldn't that be a compositional element? |
Not to my way of thinking, no, it's more diffused than that, conceptually. The text is much more prominent *as an element*. But, I repeat, this is just my rather singular take on how I read the rule, and it doesn't mean much :-)
R. |
So to understand, you're basically saying we can't use a texture AS a texture? In other words, it can only be used as a roughly applied overlay for an effect and not to be mapped perfectly onto a preexisting structure or shape within the scene as a means to replace the original surface texture. For example, using a brick texture on a wall that originally had a drywall texture. Is that the gist of it? |
No, that's not what I mean. The original question implied, to me, the use of "texture" to build a brick wall where no wall had existed. But I can't imagine how they are navigating this. What I mean is, suppose you wanted a wall so you drew a trapezoidal shape and filled it with a brick texture, and used perspective to make it look real. Or suppose you took a picture of a brick wall and pasted it in. Now in the second case, that's perfectly legal *if you took the picture this week*, but if you have a brick wall you shot LAST week you can use it as a texture but not as an image, right? So where is the line gonna be drawn?
Look, I have no clue, myself, I am just speculating...
R. |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 05:45:43 PM · #35 |
| Hmmpfff this is why they shoudl have more expert challenges, so we would all know what the rules mean!! lol |
|
|
|
04/27/2010 06:23:32 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What about the 2nd photo, the one with the Bull (or whatever animal that is)...looks like it's standing on cement now rather than dirt or grass. ??? Wouldn't that be a compositional element? |
Not to my way of thinking, no, it's more diffused than that, conceptually. The text is much more prominent *as an element*. But, I repeat, this is just my rather singular take on how I read the rule, and it doesn't mean much :-)
R. |
So to understand, you're basically saying we can't use a texture AS a texture? In other words, it can only be used as a roughly applied overlay for an effect and not to be mapped perfectly onto a preexisting structure or shape within the scene as a means to replace the original surface texture. For example, using a brick texture on a wall that originally had a drywall texture. Is that the gist of it? |
No, that's not what I mean. The original question implied, to me, the use of "texture" to build a brick wall where no wall had existed. But I can't imagine how they are navigating this. What I mean is, suppose you wanted a wall so you drew a trapezoidal shape and filled it with a brick texture, and used perspective to make it look real. Or suppose you took a picture of a brick wall and pasted it in. Now in the second case, that's perfectly legal *if you took the picture this week*, but if you have a brick wall you shot LAST week you can use it as a texture but not as an image, right? So where is the line gonna be drawn?
Look, I have no clue, myself, I am just speculating...
R. |
I guess we are just seeing it differently. If a wall DID exist and you changed the texture of it from say limestone to stucco would that be grounds for a DQ? Assuming of course the texture used was shot outside of the challenge time period. I agree trying to judge this would be very difficult because there is no clear line. If you use a texture it will undoubly change the surface area to whatever it's applied to.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 10:46:00 AM  |
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: 08/08/2025 10:46:00 AM EDT.
|
