| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2011 12:43:16 PM · #1 |
I don't want to cause a fuss. But I remember seeing the set-up of this image and it involved taking a picture of a picture. The fish was a picture but the water and bowl were real.
Is something like this ok or would it be dq'd? I am just thinking of the lego winner that was dq'd recently and I don't understand the difference.
Gonna look for the thread that discussed the set-up of this image. |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 12:46:14 PM · #2 |
And this one as well... |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 12:49:44 PM · #3 |
| Well, I can't figure out where I read about the setup of de sousa's image but I do remember that the fish is just a picture. |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 12:51:08 PM · #4 |
I think both would be DQ'd under today's rules.
Both of these were taken under a different rule set than exists today. |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 12:52:37 PM · #5 |
| There is no way to know for sure before the SC members actually vote on it. |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 12:55:22 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to know for sure before the SC members actually vote on it. |
as a ribbon winner wasn't it automatically reviewed? |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 12:57:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to know for sure before the SC members actually vote on it. |
While you are quite correct technically, I fully expect you guys would DQ it on the simple basis that the fish looks real - and fools the voters into thinking it is real, which is pretty much the defining point of when a DQ occurs on existing artwork right? |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:04:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by FourPointX:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to know for sure before the SC members actually vote on it. |
as a ribbon winner wasn't it automatically reviewed? |
I meant there's no way to know if one's entry will be validated or DQ'd -- it doesn't matter what has happened to a "similar" picture in the past.
Originally posted by Cory:
While you are quite correct technically, I fully expect you guys would DQ it on the simple basis that the fish looks real - and fools the voters into thinking it is real, which is pretty much the defining point of when a DQ occurs on existing artwork right? |
As a multiple "victim" of what I consider somewhat bizarre interpretations of this rule, I now refuse to give advice on whether any particular image might be DQ'd or not; obviously I have no clue ... :-( |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:15:27 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by FourPointX:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to know for sure before the SC members actually vote on it. |
as a ribbon winner wasn't it automatically reviewed? |
Yes, but the rules were different then. You could include artwork as long as there was also something "real" in the photo. That was basically the only criterion, that the image not consist "solely" of existing artwork, if I'm not mistaken.
R. |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:25:21 PM · #10 |
These were both DQ'd under the current rule ...   |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:29:31 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There is no way to know for sure before the SC members actually vote on it. |
as a ribbon winner wasn't it automatically reviewed? |
Yes, but the rules were different then. You could include artwork as long as there was also something "real" in the photo. That was basically the only criterion, that the image not consist "solely" of existing artwork, if I'm not mistaken.
R. |
ahhh makes perfect sense. and paul i apologize if it felt like "piling on" just an honest question about validation. |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:32:03 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by FourPointX:
ahhh makes perfect sense. and paul i apologize if it felt like "piling on" just an honest question about validation. |
No problem -- I just wish I had an answer to this question ... |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:47:01 PM · #13 |
On a "slicker" note....if the original "proof" file does not show proof that the fish is fake, then unless the photographer basically "self DQs" by telling his secret ...the images passes.
I imagine that the samples with the "big" background like the wine glass and the Lego can be done the same way. However, those would have to be cropped when shot with the BG filling the frame.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:50:28 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
On a "slicker" note....if the original "proof" file does not show proof that the fish is fake, then unless the photographer basically "self DQs" by telling his secret ...the images passes.
I imagine that the samples with the "big" background like the wine glass and the Lego can be done the same way. However, those would have to be cropped when shot with the BG filling the frame. |
LOL, weren't you just beating up my ethics in another thread? ;) |
|
|
|
08/27/2011 01:53:21 PM · #15 |
Yes but....I didn't say I would do it....I just know it can be done !
EDIT: I have two DQs over 6 years...both have a pic in a pic !
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by kenskid:
On a "slicker" note....if the original "proof" file does not show proof that the fish is fake, then unless the photographer basically "self DQs" by telling his secret ...the images passes.
I imagine that the samples with the "big" background like the wine glass and the Lego can be done the same way. However, those would have to be cropped when shot with the BG filling the frame. |
LOL, weren't you just beating up my ethics in another thread? ;) |
Message edited by author 2011-08-27 13:54:24.
|
|
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: 08/30/2025 01:57:13 AM EDT.
