DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Fantastic image but can't help but be disappointed
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 107, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/18/2011 08:08:01 PM · #26
IMO, these are both my interpretations of someone else's art. But the reason that was explained to me about the DQ on the second one was that I was trying to fool people into thinking it was my own art. If I understand correctly, had I stood back a few feet and captured the screen so that it showed part of the billboard edges, it would have been OK.

So then the question, IMO, with this photo is DID the artist attempt to fool anyone?
I'm not sure that that was his intention - especially since the plaque, abeit not very visible, was left in the photograph.
06/18/2011 08:08:53 PM · #27
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

IMO, these are both my interpretations of someone else's art. But the reason that was explained to me about the DQ on the second one was that I was trying to fool people into thinking it was my own art. If I understand correctly, had I stood back a few feet and captured the screen so that it showed part of the billboard edges, it would have been OK.

So then the question, IMO, with this photo is DID the artist attempt to fool anyone?
I'm not sure that that was his intention - especially since the plaque, abeit not very visible, was left in the photograph.


If he wasn't trying to fool people than he wouldn't have called it 'the wild'.
06/18/2011 08:13:44 PM · #28
Originally posted by Judi:

It is someones creation, therefore it is considered art. I am pretty sure there were threads based on the art ruling when it was brought into force. And there have been DQ's where photos were used as an art form that had tricked viewers...the same principle, the same trickery.

A building, dress or car is also someone's creation (and arguably art), but AFAIK we have never DQ'd sculptures or other three dimensional objects. The artwork rule is intended to prevent taking "a photo of a photo" and refers specifically to two dimensional artwork: "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo." Note the words highlighted in bold. The statues were not images included while photographing the entry, but real objects in the scene.
06/18/2011 08:14:11 PM · #29
Originally posted by Judi:


If he wasn't trying to fool people than he wouldn't have called it 'the wild'.


You could be right about that, and I get your point.
But the things people say about my buildings ... nice light....great angle....good colors...... they could be a statue too.
06/18/2011 08:15:53 PM · #30
The shot is about the silhouette technique, to me it looked like a statue but statue or not either way the effect of the silhouette with the sky are what make the image. If the image was taken outdoors and the sky is real it falls into what the SC has stated about statues in previous threads about how the photographer makes use of the lighting to create the scene which is constantly changing. Take that same image in the mid day sun with the light on the wrong side and see how it scores. It's a great silhouette and a DQ would be a bad call in my opinion.

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 20:17:10.
06/18/2011 08:16:53 PM · #31
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Judi:

It is someones creation, therefore it is considered art. I am pretty sure there were threads based on the art ruling when it was brought into force. And there have been DQ's where photos were used as an art form that had tricked viewers...the same principle, the same trickery.

A building, dress or car is also someone's creation (and arguably art), but AFAIK we have never DQ'd sculptures or other three dimensional objects. The artwork rule is intended to prevent taking "a photo of a photo" and refers specifically to two dimensional artwork: "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo." Note the words highlighted in bold. The statues were not images included while photographing the entry, but real objects in the scene.


Thanks so much for that explanation. I learned something!!!

edited to add - I hope we all did!!!

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 20:23:49.
06/18/2011 08:26:58 PM · #32
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Yet someone ribboned with a silhouette of a frog on a leaf. The frog was cut out of paper. Wouldn't that be artwork, as well?


I don't remember which entry you're talking about, but who cut the frog out of paper?


Wendy...I remember that entry...here it is:



Oh...I'm on the fence on this topic. I'm unclear how a silhouette of art constitutes a photograph of the art itself. But, I do feel a bit let down that the deer aren't real.

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 20:39:08.
06/18/2011 08:29:28 PM · #33
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Judi:

It is someones creation, therefore it is considered art. I am pretty sure there were threads based on the art ruling when it was brought into force. And there have been DQ's where photos were used as an art form that had tricked viewers...the same principle, the same trickery.

A building, dress or car is also someone's creation (and arguably art), but AFAIK we have never DQ'd sculptures or other three dimensional objects. The artwork rule is intended to prevent taking "a photo of a photo" and refers specifically to two dimensional artwork: "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo." Note the words highlighted in bold. The statues were not images included while photographing the entry, but real objects in the scene.


Thanks so much for that explanation. I learned something!!!

edited to add - I hope we all did!!!


Just saw this and I want to add that the photographer states in a reply to Xakpeet that , "Good point on the plaque in the lower right. I could have removed it but chose not to so that people who look closely would see that this is in fact a statue."

On different monitors it is either easy to see or very dark and hard to see. But the main point is that the photographer left it in the shot so that it would serve as a clue to others as to weather it was real deer or not.

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 20:31:41.
06/18/2011 08:37:48 PM · #34
I cant tell if its fake, theres nothing in the picture to suggest that its a statue. I just assumed that it was real and a great capture that not many people would get the chance to shoot.

Like i said, there is no indication that its a statue.
06/18/2011 08:38:29 PM · #35
Originally posted by CNovack:

But the main point is that the photographer left it in the shot so that it would serve as a clue to others as to weather it was real deer or not.

I am afraid that only those who knew it was a statue could see the plaque. I still can't see it on my monitor.
06/18/2011 08:58:18 PM · #36
Fooling the voters into thinking you shot a live animal is not, in and of itself, against the rules. Sometimes it's not even evident to the photographer. When I was scouting around for this entry, I spotted a large egret fishing at the edge of the riverbank on the opposite side of the road. I parked the car, walked back very slowly and quietly, and thought I was lucky to get a few shots before I realized it was a very realistic statue. Doh! The only way I could see sculptures risking DQ would be something like straight shot of a museum diorama where the entire scene is artwork, background and all, under controlled lighting.

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 20:59:37.
06/18/2011 09:05:07 PM · #37
Originally posted by scalvert:

Fooling the voters into thinking you shot a live animal is not, in and of itself, against the rules. Sometimes it's not even evident to the photographer. When I was scouting around for this entry, I spotted a large egret fishing at the edge of the riverbank on the opposite side of the road. I parked the car, walked back very slowly and quietly, and thought I was lucky to get a few shots before I realized it was a very realistic statue. Doh! The only way I could see sculptures risking DQ would be something like straight shot of a museum diorama where the entire scene is artwork, background and all, under controlled lighting.


Although I'm not seeing a DQ in this particular instance, I'm also not seeing an alignment of your analogy above to this image. The photographer KNEW up front that the deer were not real unlike you who figured out only later that the bird wasn't real. I have a hard time believing that these deer were not "evident" and real to the photographer right away. Sorry.
06/18/2011 09:13:21 PM · #38
This thread, in some ways, reminds me (or affirms for me) that when we vote in the challenges, so much more plays into our votes than "just" image quality.

If I can take a shot and make it look like something that would be difficult to capture, I will score higher than if I take something that is obviously "simple," or, at the very least, easy to get.

The fact that the photog got a shot of something that *looked* difficult (and is quite possibly near impossible for many of us) makes us tend to value it more and vote it higher.

The shot violated no site rules, and thus has no grounds for dq.

If we started dq'ing shots of "created art" (as Scalvert pointed out), suddenly there are a LOT of things that will need to be dq'ed. If I take a picture of my couch -- it is "created" -- there are grounds for it to be dq'ed. Contrary to the sometimes popular belief, SC really doesn't go looking for entries to dq. :)

06/18/2011 09:13:29 PM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:

Fooling the voters into thinking you shot a live animal is not, in and of itself, against the rules. Sometimes it's not even evident to the photographer. When I was scouting around for this entry, I spotted a large egret fishing at the edge of the riverbank on the opposite side of the road. I parked the car, walked back very slowly and quietly, and thought I was lucky to get a few shots before I realized it was a very realistic statue. Doh! The only way I could see sculptures risking DQ would be something like straight shot of a museum diorama where the entire scene is artwork, background and all, under controlled lighting.


Oh golly... here we go... LOL!
06/18/2011 09:24:53 PM · #40
Originally posted by scalvert:

Fooling the voters into thinking you shot a live animal is not, in and of itself, against the rules.
I think I would score this highly dead or live. Just a thought of someone handling the mouse deserves a high score! Seriously - Lydia's photo has humor in it which makes up for using a dead animal (yuck! there is no way I could do anything like it! :)
06/18/2011 09:42:55 PM · #41
Originally posted by MargaretN:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Fooling the voters into thinking you shot a live animal is not, in and of itself, against the rules.
I think I would score this highly dead or live. Just a thought of someone handling the mouse deserves a high score! Seriously - Lydia's photo has humor in it which makes up for using a dead animal (yuck! there is no way I could do anything like it! :)


=D

06/18/2011 09:56:06 PM · #42
Originally posted by hihosilver:

Although I'm not seeing a DQ in this particular instance, I'm also not seeing an alignment of your analogy above to this image. The photographer KNEW up front that the deer were not real unlike you who figured out only later that the bird wasn't real. I have a hard time believing that these deer were not "evident" and real to the photographer right away.

It's the same photo whether I know it's a statue or not. What if a photographer is riding in a car that stops at a traffic light and spots the elk sculpture in the early morning fog, not realizing it's fake. Somebody else is walking along the road, stops in the same place and takes a photo with the same settings, fully aware that it's a sculpture. If the voters knew the circumstances, should one absolutely identical photo really be worth more than the other? According to the voting rules, no. As photographers, we naturally want to reward the extra effort of a tough shot and penalize the easy approach. That's understandable, but it can also interfere with simply appreciating the inherent beauty of a photo, even when no rules are broken, and that loss is our own.
06/18/2011 10:07:15 PM · #43
Great shot... More creative than if it had been real. I'm so darn impressed that I might make a point of emulating it if I ever am in the area.

06/18/2011 10:20:19 PM · #44
Originally posted by Cory:

Great shot... More creative than if it had been real. I'm so darn impressed that I might make a point of emulating it if I ever am in the area.
You can use it in the Free Study. Now I know for sure it is a fake I won't mind voting! :)

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 22:21:01.
06/18/2011 10:33:33 PM · #45
It was obvious to me it was a statue. I gave it a 4.
06/18/2011 10:46:13 PM · #46
I didn't vote on the challenge. But I think it's a great shot and deserves the ribbon. The funny thing is, we have a very similar sculpture here in Westminster, Colorado. At first glance that is what I thought it was.
06/18/2011 10:47:23 PM · #47
Originally posted by posthumous:

It was obvious to me it was a statue. I gave it a 4.


That's a high score for you!
06/18/2011 10:54:31 PM · #48
Originally posted by MargaretN:

Originally posted by Cory:

Great shot... More creative than if it had been real. I'm so darn impressed that I might make a point of emulating it if I ever am in the area.
You can use it in the Free Study. Now I know for sure it is a fake I won't mind voting! :)


Now I just need to score a plane ticket to Jackson...
06/18/2011 11:02:29 PM · #49
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by hihosilver:

Although I'm not seeing a DQ in this particular instance, I'm also not seeing an alignment of your analogy above to this image. The photographer KNEW up front that the deer were not real unlike you who figured out only later that the bird wasn't real. I have a hard time believing that these deer were not "evident" and real to the photographer right away.

It's the same photo whether I know it's a statue or not. What if a photographer is riding in a car that stops at a traffic light and spots the elk sculpture in the early morning fog, not realizing it's fake. Somebody else is walking along the road, stops in the same place and takes a photo with the same settings, fully aware that it's a sculpture. If the voters knew the circumstances, should one absolutely identical photo really be worth more than the other? According to the voting rules, no. As photographers, we naturally want to reward the extra effort of a tough shot and penalize the easy approach. That's understandable, but it can also interfere with simply appreciating the inherent beauty of a photo, even when no rules are broken, and that loss is our own.


Well, if the photographer sells me a cubic zirconium for the vote of a diamond...yep...I'm gonna want my money back. ;-)

Message edited by author 2011-06-19 00:10:15.
06/19/2011 06:29:34 AM · #50
Originally posted by hihosilver:

...Well, if the photographer sells me a cubic zirconium for the vote of a diamond...yep...I'm gonna want my money back. ;-)
\

..."caveat emptor", there are no refunds. :O)

Ray
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:47:30 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/04/2025 05:47:30 PM EDT.