| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2011 08:18:10 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
It was obvious to me it was a statue. I gave it a 4. |
Well wasn't that generous of you. I am sure the photographer bows to you. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 09:10:25 AM · #52 |
| Why does everyone get worked up because the photographer "tricked" the viewer? There are a lot of winning photos, on this site, that tricked the viewer. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 09:13:20 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Marc923:
Why does everyone get worked up because the photographer "tricked" the viewer? There are a lot of winning photos, on this site, that tricked the viewer. |
I agree 100%!!! Sounds to me like a case of sour grapes. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 09:32:17 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
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 |
Well, thank goodness I always use Monopoly money here...;-) |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 11:01:52 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
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. |
Understood- I can only see the plaque on the laptop. Monitor brightness varies and is NOT something that the photographer can control (only hope for the best ---notice the photographer's notes in the 21st place in the Silhouette At Night) But the fact does remain that the photographer left it in so as too not totally mislead his audience. IMHO, if he truly wanted to *fully mislead* the audience he would have removed the plaque, but made the choice not too.
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. |
Too add to the posting: This was a three dimensional object where choice of lighting (if this was a full sun day shot the blue tones & dark sky could have been achieved by changing the white balance and the aperature), angle and how to compose the elements in the shot are choices made by the photographer. As such, those components play a heavy role in removing it from that two dimensional DQ'able aspect of the Art Rule. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 11:36:57 AM · #56 |
Wanted to post a quick reply to clarify where I was coming from with my image.
When i saw the theme "Silhouette At Night", I immediately thought "Shapes". Since you don't see much detail in your subject in a silhouette shot, what stands out is the shape of the subject and not much more, so I started looking for something with an interesting shape. It never crossed my mind it must be dead or alive, I didn't care about that, all I cared about was what can I find that has a unique shape. Just like this image that some others have brought up:
I read most of the post-challenge comments under this image and I see nothing but praises for the photographer, so what is the difference? Why is he being praised but I get criticized? He titled it "Rainforest" too. Good for him, because he cared about the shape of the subject which what the challenge theme was about (just like in silhouette -- to me at least).
Regarding the title "The Wild", I gave it that title because that is what the statue represents ... wild life. The shape of the subject represents that ... again I was thinking shape the whole time.
Had this been a "Wild Life" challenge, it would not have even crossed my mind to photograph a staue, but this was a silhouette challenge and all I cared about was the shape of my main subject and nothing more.
Just wanted to explain what my thinking was.
p.s. ok, just found another one:
This was done in a "life" challenge which is something I would NOT have done, because we are now talking "life" where in silhouette we don't have that restriction.
Message edited by author 2011-06-19 11:44:30. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 11:48:36 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Oh golly... here we go... LOL! |
Not that it actually fooled anybody ... 
Message edited by author 2011-06-19 11:49:17. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 11:49:16 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Just wanted to explain what my thinking was. |
I find it sad that you feel you have to explain anything at all... it's a great shot, deserving of the blue, and it meets the challenge perfectly. I will say I was fooled during voting, and wondered "how the hell..."
After voting, when I saw it was a statue, my reaction was "how cool!" |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 12:04:33 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Just wanted to explain what my thinking was. |
I find it sad that you feel you have to explain anything at all... it's a great shot, deserving of the blue, and it meets the challenge perfectly. I will say I was fooled during voting, and wondered "how the hell..."
After voting, when I saw it was a statue, my reaction was "how cool!" |
Thanks, kibric. I too find it surprising that I have to come on here and defend why I chose to shoot a statue, because some people feel disappointed and think that I meant to trick them. It was a Silhouette challenge! |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 12:14:02 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Wanted to post a quick reply to clarify where I was coming from with my image. |
Putting aside the question of your intention, I am still interested if you are planning to submit it to 1x? Your photos are of very high quality so I always wondered why you have none published on 1x. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 12:40:28 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Just wanted to explain what my thinking was. |
I find it sad that you feel you have to explain anything at all... it's a great shot, deserving of the blue, and it meets the challenge perfectly. I will say I was fooled during voting, and wondered "how the hell..."
After voting, when I saw it was a statue, my reaction was "how cool!" |
I agree with  kirbic. I see nothing wrong with this being a statue for this challenge. Nothing in the challenge description even alludes that the subject should be alive. And like Marc923 said, there are a lot of winning photos that "trick" the voters. And why comment on the background (sky) color? Manpulating the white balance settings on your camera for creative effect is perfectly legal. The challenge was advanced editing, so changing it in post processing would be OK also. People do these things all the time.
I think it is a great image that makes creative use of the subject matter available. More power to him and a well deserved blue.
Message edited by author 2011-06-19 12:40:58. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 12:41:20 PM · #62 |
| What the heck does have anything published - or not - on 1x, or whatever it is called, have anything to do with ribboning on DPChallenge? I've never even looked at the site, and I am sure that applies to plenty of us. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 12:43:00 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Just wanted to explain what my thinking was. |
I find it sad that you feel you have to explain anything at all... it's a great shot, deserving of the blue, and it meets the challenge perfectly. I will say I was fooled during voting, and wondered "how the hell..."
After voting, when I saw it was a statue, my reaction was "how cool!" |
Thanks, kibric. I too find it surprising that I have to come on here and defend why I chose to shoot a statue, because some people feel disappointed and think that I meant to trick them. It was a Silhouette challenge! |
At least your picture won't be removed from the site. Well deserved blue. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 12:51:40 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Wanted to post a quick reply to clarify where I was coming from with my image. |
Putting aside the question of your intention, I am still interested if you are planning to submit it to 1x? Your photos are of very high quality so I always wondered why you have none published on 1x. |
It's an off-topic comment, but I will answer anyway. 1x.com simply doesn't do it for me, not because there aren't fantastic images over there, heck, there are. I even became a paid member just to support that site but haven't been real active mainly because I don't feel like I would get an accurate evaluation or assessment of my images based on ... what 2 or 3 (maybe more???) judge's approval on whether my images should be published or not? On DPC, you get over 100 people (sometimes over 200) vote on your images which gives a lot more accurate assessment of what your images are worth. To me it's about sample size which I get here but not there. I will try it some in the future, but I am not thinking about it too much. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 12:55:35 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Just wanted to explain what my thinking was. |
I find it sad that you feel you have to explain anything at all... it's a great shot, deserving of the blue, and it meets the challenge perfectly. I will say I was fooled during voting, and wondered "how the hell..."
After voting, when I saw it was a statue, my reaction was "how cool!" |
Me too. It is a great image....and deserved the blue. The final out-come of an image is what really matters.....how it was achieved is up to the photographer. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 01:10:37 PM · #66 |
Congratulations on a well deserved ribbon - and kudos to the artist who sculptured such a realistic piece.
As was mentioned by some, I didn't think the animals were alive - but then again I hunted for years when I was young. Part of my culture so no apologies.
What irks me is when it is a wildlife challenge and people submit zoo shots or back yard shots with no explanation - much worse pretending you spent the hours and hours (usually) finding out where the animal was, it's habits and finally the shot. Other people think that's fine. I don't complain about it however as it's part of the rules. I just think mean things (grin)
My point being, you can't please everyone and when there are long discussions regarding the validity or the ethics of a winning photo, you rob the winner of the joy of being chosen to get the highest ribbon DP has to offer. That's just wrong.
Name was saker, changed it. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 01:18:52 PM · #67 |
| Let's see. The challenge was Silhouette At Night. The winning shot was the best silhouette entered. What is the controversy? The subject does not matter here. Now if this had been a wildlife challenge where you were expecting the subject to be alive maybe we would have a valid argument to talk about. This is not it. Move on people. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 01:20:48 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
What the heck does have anything published - or not - on 1x, or whatever it is called, have anything to do with ribboning on DPChallenge? I've never even looked at the site, and I am sure that applies to plenty of us. |
You are right. I will start a separate thread about success at DPC vs being published on 1x. The reason I keep on asking these questions is that I am trying to understand what 1x judges select and ultimately, what is fine art in photography. This has bugged me for a long time and I still don't understand why so few "ribboning" DPCers get published at 1x. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 01:21:52 PM · #69 |
| As someone who thoroughly enjoys spending hours of her time attempting wildlife photography I had no real problems with this.. I was pretty sure when voting that it was of a sculpture. In any case it wasn't in a wildlife/nature contest - that would have been a very difficult kettle of fish. Seems to me it was a legitimate photo that absolutely nailed the challenge. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 01:32:02 PM · #70 |
Not sure if the last 2 posters got my point that I think it is wrong to disparage the winner and indeed it is past time to move on. I brought in the point about wildlife photography to highlight my premise that you can't please everyone.
My points being as I posted below:
Congratulations on a well deserved ribbon - and kudos to the artist who sculptured such a realistic piece.
you can't please everyone and when there are long discussions regarding the validity or the ethics of a winning photo, you rob the winner of the joy of being chosen to get the highest ribbon DP has to offer. That's just wrong. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 01:39:52 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by dswann:
And like Marc923 said, there are a lot of winning photos that "trick" the voters. And why comment on the background (sky) color? Manpulating the white balance settings on your camera for creative effect is perfectly legal..... |
I thought I read a mention of the sky being odd or something....maybe it is from lack of sleep that thought I saw that. I pointed it out because as you said it is a creative effect. It was meant to further illustrates the point that we all as photographers make conscious choices in how to present our vision be it color, mood, angle, composition of elements, lighting. Because of applied use of those elements to a present a three dimensional object in a new and creative way it removes it from the Art rule. Nightpixel's shot is of a three dimensional object that took into account all those components creatively to make a fabulous shot. And I might add, I also learned of a fabulous and interesting place BECAUSE of his shot.
Allen's blue ribbon Silhouette shot reminds me of another Blue ribbon winner who used color, silhouette, angle, and composition of a statue to stunning effect. Remember AP's blue ribbon winner from the Hot challenge? Both are very deserving of the Blue Ribbon IMHO.
Solar Rider
 |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 01:43:11 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Just wanted to explain what my thinking was. |
I find it sad that you feel you have to explain anything at all... it's a great shot, deserving of the blue, and it meets the challenge perfectly. I will say I was fooled during voting, and wondered "how the hell..."
After voting, when I saw it was a statue, my reaction was "how cool!" |
Ditto. To the "finding it sad" part. Not so much to the "fooled" part; at first glance I was "Whoa!" ΓΆ€” then I looked closer and said, "That's gotta be a statue!", THEN I thought, "If this is a diorama in a museum, the shooter's in trouble!" (background art fooling viewers). Then, closer examination yet convinced me that was a real backdrop, and I'm thinking life-size, outdoor sculpture, which proved to be the case.
All in all, the image got a lot of examination from me, LOL. None of it with negative feelings in my heart.
R. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 02:07:07 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by Marc923:
Why does everyone get worked up because the photographer "tricked" the viewer? There are a lot of winning photos, on this site, that tricked the viewer. |
I agree 100%!!! Sounds to me like a case of sour grapes. |
+100
I NEVER thought I would see myself typing something like this, but this thread and the one started by  weheh has me seriously questioning how much time i want to spend here anymore. Everyone knows there are rules and when people don't follow them the SC is very good about rooting it out. Lately there seems to be almost a lynch-mob mentality and it's left a really bad taste in my mouth. I think I might start posting more at 500px and just be a silent contributor over there and a casual observer over here.
Message edited by author 2011-06-19 17:40:51. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 02:25:36 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
Originally posted by dswann:
And like Marc923 said, there are a lot of winning photos that "trick" the voters. And why comment on the background (sky) color? Manpulating the white balance settings on your camera for creative effect is perfectly legal..... |
I thought I read a mention of the sky being odd or something....maybe it is from lack of sleep that thought I saw that. I pointed it out because as you said it is a creative effect. It was meant to further illustrates the point that we all as photographers make conscious choices in how to present our vision be it color, mood, angle, composition of elements, lighting. Because of applied use of those elements to a present a three dimensional object in a new and creative way it removes it from the Art rule. Nightpixel's shot is of a three dimensional object that took into account all those components creatively to make a fabulous shot. And I might add, I also learned of a fabulous and interesting place BECAUSE of his shot.
Allen's blue ribbon Silhouette shot reminds me of another Blue ribbon winner who used color, silhouette, angle, and composition of a statue to stunning effect. Remember AP's blue ribbon winner from the Hot challenge? Both are very deserving of the Blue Ribbon IMHO.
Solar Rider
|
Thanks, CNovack for the perfect find! It so much resembles my entry. Saturated sky and silhouette of a statue. Nothing wrong with his entry and I actually love it very much. |
|
|
|
06/19/2011 02:50:53 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Saturated sky and silhouette of a statue. |
Yup -- good idea!  |
|
