| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2004 05:59:03 AM · #26 |
| To Train: I do hope you don't feel that I am attacking you in anyway by standing by the moderators decision to DQ your photograph. I do think you do some fantastic work and you've proved it by your ribbon. I do feel though that the photo in question is a literal representation of another piece of artwork. No hard feelings. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 05:59:15 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by d14:
You've got more to that photo than just the pottery. The photographer created art with art,. The lighting and the shadows and what not. If Train's image was put into an artistic context, for example, taken in the middle of a field or on a beach, I don't think it would have been DQ'd. As it stands,. the photo is a full frame crop of another piece of artwork. |
Yes indeed, this is why it got a blue ribbon. Train's photo was rated acordingly for not so inventive lighting. But why DQ? Is about being an artwork or about not having proper lighting and shadows? If it were about lighting, I should have been expelled from this site long ago. :)
Where is the limit, the line and who can say for sure that certain photos are representing art and the rest are just being creative?
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 08:31:49 AM · #28 |
Just to add an official voice here (and I haven't read all other replies) but you stated in your photographer comments that you took the photo of the footprints when they were framed behind glass on a wall. That is taking a photo of artwork and that's why it was DQd. You photograph of it added nothing that wasnt in the original artwork created by your daughter. It's just like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa for the portrait challenge and submitting that. All of Gary's shots that you mentioned are photographs of 3D set-ups he created specially for the photo.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 08:45:27 AM · #29 |
Here's my point of view, and im going to use the pottery as an example.
As your photo is now, it's a straight on picture of two gold footprints. There doesnt seem to be any thought process into TAKING the picture. Setting up the subject is only half the battle.
As you can see in the pottery, they were setup and placed so that the light fades into the background, and using the rule of thirds to make the eye follow. Where as your photo at hand, is just a straight on shot of the footprints. Perhaps if you had bought a long piece of board, and had the baby take a few steps, then gotten low to the ground, your photo wouldnt be "picked on" as you state it.
I think the photo is a good idea, just not fully thought out =)
Please dont hate me. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2004-08-15 08:48:46.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 08:58:06 AM · #30 |
| I have to weigh in on the side of dq also. It is all a matter of 2d versus 3d. If you had made a mold of her feet in sand and photographed that it would have been 3d. if you had taken the gold footprints that you made and added a hand touching up the picture, that would have been 3d. As your picture was taken, it's a copy of what you had created on a 2d surface. The difference between your entry and Kiwi's is that Gary's are 3d. There are lots of examples on the site of someone taking pictures of artwork, but each of them have a real element within them. I liked your picture, btw. I'm thinking of the wood man drawing himself and the pencil portrait of the kids with the pencil point in the picture. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:03:08 AM · #31 |
Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions
The rules say, "...of the entirety of existing works...". If this is a photo of the only the feet portion of the piece of art that is hanging on train's wall, doesn't this mean that this is a legal image? I believe so. If she didn't photograph the hand prints that are in the same piece of art she didn't photograph the piece of art in it's entirety. Even if she has cut out a portion of the black area of the image and cropped in on the feet, she didn't submit a photo of the piece of art in it's entirety.
I don't care if you can transport something from one place to another and that is what makes it art. That's crazy!!! What about the folks that make sand sculptures at the beach? They make them but could never move them. They are still art. A very talented art I must say.
I see this no different than someone making footprints in the sane on a beach and photographing them. The sand is the paper and the prints are the paint.
I stand behind the entirety point though. If she didn't submit a 100% photo of the artwork hanging on her wall, the photo should be reposted in the challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:06:22 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by wackybill:
Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions
The rules say, "...of the entirety of existing works...". If this is a photo of the only the feet portion of the piece of art that is hanging on train's wall, doesn't this mean that this is a legal image? I believe so. If she didn't photograph the hand prints that are in the same piece of art she didn't photograph the piece of art in it's entirety. Even if she has cut out a portion of the black area of the image and cropped in on the feet, she didn't submit a photo of the piece of art in it's entirety.
I don't care if you can transport something from one place to another and that is what makes it art. That's crazy!!! What about the folks that make sand sculptures at the beach? They make them but could never move them. They are still art. A very talented art I must say.
I see this no different than someone making footprints in the sane on a beach and photographing them. The sand is the paper and the prints are the paint.
I stand behind the entirety point though. If she didn't submit a 100% photo of the artwork hanging on her wall, the photo should be reposted in the challenge. |
The handprints are a different picture.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:06:35 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by pcody:
I have to weigh in on the side of dq also. It is all a matter of 2d versus 3d. If you had made a mold of her feet in sand and photographed that it would have been 3d. if you had taken the gold footprints that you made and added a hand touching up the picture, that would have been 3d. As your picture was taken, it's a copy of what you had created on a 2d surface. The difference between your entry and Kiwi's is that Gary's are 3d. There are lots of examples on the site of someone taking pictures of artwork, but each of them have a real element within them. I liked your picture, btw. I'm thinking of the wood man drawing himself and the pencil portrait of the kids with the pencil point in the picture. |
2D vs. 3D. This should make no difference. The rule doesn't state 3D artwork is allowed but 2D artwork is not. That's silly and makes no difference. By the way, train's is also 3D. It just depends on how closely you want to look.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:07:32 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
Originally posted by wackybill:
Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions
The rules say, "...of the entirety of existing works...". If this is a photo of the only the feet portion of the piece of art that is hanging on train's wall, doesn't this mean that this is a legal image? I believe so. If she didn't photograph the hand prints that are in the same piece of art she didn't photograph the piece of art in it's entirety. Even if she has cut out a portion of the black area of the image and cropped in on the feet, she didn't submit a photo of the piece of art in it's entirety.
I don't care if you can transport something from one place to another and that is what makes it art. That's crazy!!! What about the folks that make sand sculptures at the beach? They make them but could never move them. They are still art. A very talented art I must say.
I see this no different than someone making footprints in the sane on a beach and photographing them. The sand is the paper and the prints are the paint.
I stand behind the entirety point though. If she didn't submit a 100% photo of the artwork hanging on her wall, the photo should be reposted in the challenge. |
The handprints are a different picture. |
Even so, if she has cropped any of the black portion away, it is not a 100% representation.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:08:34 AM · #35 |
Wackybill, you said, "I see this no different than someone making footprints in the sane on a beach and photographing them. The sand is the paper and the prints are the paint. "
I disagree... The footprints in the sand are "liquid" if you will, and not permanent by any means. It's not a work of art in the same instance... if you made footprints one day, and went back the next, they wouldn't be there. Maybe the reasoning for the DQ isn't so much whether or not artwork is defined by its ability to be moved, but by the "permanence" of the art. You could take the photo of the gold paint footprints every day, and it would never change... but the footprints in sand would likely never be the same from day-to-day.
Just my 2 cents. :) And by the way, I'm glad this subject was brought up, because I've had a difficult time understanding the rule... but I think it's becoming more clear.
Message edited by author 2004-08-15 09:09:57.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:09:32 AM · #36 |
Any time you have a 3D object though, the photographer's choice of lighting and angle effects the appearence, so it is no longer a literal representation, it's an 'artistic interpretation'. The shot in question was a flat piece, taken flat on. That makes it a literal representation.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:11:29 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Any time you have a 3D object though, the photographer's choice of lighting and angle effects the appearence, so it is no longer a literal representation, it's an 'artistic interpretation'. The shot in question was a flat piece, taken flat on. That makes it a literal representation. |
...but in it's entirety? If not it didn't break any rule.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:12:35 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by annasense:
Wackybill, you said, "I see this no different than someone making footprints in the sane on a beach and photographing them. The sand is the paper and the prints are the paint. "
I disagree... The footprints in the sand are "liquid" if you will, and not permanent by any means. It's not a work of art in the same instance... if you made footprints one day, and went back the next, they wouldn't be there. Maybe the reasoning for the DQ isn't so much whether or not artwork is defined by its ability to be moved, but by the "permanence" of the art. You could take the photo of the gold paint footprints every day, and it would never change... but the footprints in sand would likely never be the same from day-to-day.
Just my 2 cents. :) And by the way, I'm glad this subject was brought up, because I've had a difficult time understanding the rule... but I think it's becoming more clear. |
I disagree but we will leave that at that. We will not argue what is and isn't art. We will never agree.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:13:13 AM · #39 |
I think it actually means if the whole of your photo is taken up with the work of art, ie there are no other elements to the photo, such as a background, a prop, etc.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:15:31 AM · #40 |
Okay, not meaning to argue, wackybill. But I want to clarify that I wasn't saying that either instance wasn't art, I think they both are. It's just a matter of which is legal on the site and which one isn't. And when it comes to that, I'm not the one to make a judgment, I was just trying to justify the ruling in my own mind.
:) My apologies.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:16:13 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Konador:
I think it actually means if the whole of your photo is taken up with the work of art, ie there are no other elements to the photo, such as a background, a prop, etc. |
I don't see how that can be what that means, "...of the entirety of existing works". It clearly is about what is being photographed.
I think it is saying that you can't take a full photo of the MonaLisa but you can take a photographic impression of just the MonaLisa's eye or nose.
No matter how I read it I don't see it how you have said. Sorry. :-\
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:17:58 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by annasense:
Okay, not meaning to argue, wackybill. But I want to clarify that I wasn't saying that either instance wasn't art, I think they both are. It's just a matter of which is legal on the site and which one isn't. And when it comes to that, I'm not the one to make a judgment, I was just trying to justify the ruling in my own mind.
:) My apologies. |
Ok, I agree. Both are art but the site rules doesn't say which kinds are and which kind aren't legal. This is all we have to go by:
Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions
Message edited by author 2004-08-15 09:18:54.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:19:06 AM · #43 |
I dunno then, I guess you could argue that even a section of a work of art is a work of art in its own right? I didn't write the rule, it's been there since before I ever joined :P
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:22:45 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Konador:
I dunno then, I guess you could argue that even a section of a work of art is a work of art in its own right? I didn't write the rule, it's been there since before I ever joined :P |
LOL!!! Me too Ben.
I'm always very open minded about a lot of things. I just don't see why this photo was DQed. In a way it does seem like unnecessary nit picking.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:26:20 AM · #45 |
Photos like this have always been DQd in the past. There is nothing new here. Even kiwiness himself has had a photo DQd for this rule! The way we decide whether to DQ is:
"Are we voting on the photograph, or the original artwork?"
In this case there was nothing in the photo but the original artwork. It may as well have just been a scan. Therefor the score wasn't for the photo, it was for the art, and since this is a photograph site, we DQ.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:31:14 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by d14:
Hell,. since its been DQ'd could you post the photo so we can see it? I honestly don't remember it. |
BTW don't get down I have looked at your work and you take great photos.
Message edited by author 2004-08-15 09:32:15. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:32:30 AM · #47 |
My last post as I have to go and mowe the lawn.
I think the SC needs to clarify this rule so that there is no argument. The rules should be able to be made clear enough to state what is and what is not legal without any question. I think this is a clear case where the SC may be DQing photos but have no real rule that covers this sort of thing. The rule that has been being discussed here clearly does not cover this.
Still don't see how this differs from footprints in the sand. Folks would be judging the footprint in this case also and not the photo. Let's face it, everyone votes on the photograph for what is in it and not how it is executed.
Enough said...
Message edited by author 2004-08-15 09:33:52.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2004 09:40:15 AM · #48 |
I'm not the best person to give advice as I'm pretty new to photography, but I'd say what your photo lacks is an obvious point of view. There is no obvious advantage looking at your photo over looking at the actual artwork. In comparison, kiwiness H2O setup is great because without the lighting setup and without the point of view, we would not have seen his setup the same way.
Taking an artistic picture as I understand it is a way for a photo artist to say "look how nice this is looking this way", not just "look how nice this is".
Message edited by author 2004-08-15 09:41:02. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 10:55:13 AM · #49 |
Ben answered brilliantly to all points, however, I just want to add there is no one "picking on" anyone. Rules are rules and we feel we do our best at using them fairly across the board.
I am sorry you feel slighted by your DQ(s). It is not personal.
Perhaps a further review of the rules is in order, and certainly you can post any questions you have about them to get a clear answer.
It is unfortunate that you feel your photography is no longer fun.
You have some fabulous photos. |
|
|
|
08/15/2004 11:32:29 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by wackybill:
Still don't see how this differs from footprints in the sand. Folks would be judging the footprint in this case also and not the photo. Let's face it, everyone votes on the photograph for what is in it and not how it is executed.
|
I'll caveat this with the mention that I, too, am a member of the species N00bus Sapien: a newbie. (disclaimer)Opinions expressed by a newbie do not necessarily reflect the future opinions of the photographer when he knows better.(/disclaimer)
In the case of real footprints vs a painting created by stamping a child's feet on paper, there's no way (Apart from Exif data) that taking a picture, straight on, without altering the perspective, can be recognizable from taking said picture and scanning it. Ten photographers can take the same sand footprints, however, and angle the shot so the photograph is different, even though the subject is the same. Had train altered the perspective of her photo, angled it so the frame or wall behind it became a part of the photograph, it would not be definable as a literal representation of the artwork.
And as for people voting on what is in a photograph, as opposed to how that photograph looks with that thing in it, I really don't think that's the case, otherwise people taking pictures of icky things like dragonflies (personal prejudice: a Dragonfly landed on my face at age 10) would never win. Neither would boring subject matter like puppies and flowers. If your statement was true, even the most badly shot photo of something "new" and pretty would beat the best Jacko Bug, or Kiwiness' H2O (It's just water folks), or the best advetising photos of everyday items. I'm under the impression that It's not WHAT you shoot, it's how well you shot it that counts in this case. otherwise we'd all simply go out and take a picture of the Mona Lisa, and we'd all get 10's accross the board for doing so.
And train, don't give up. You take lovely pictures. We want to see more of them. |
|
