| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/18/2011 12:45:34 PM · #26 |
I'm for that.
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by kenskid:
What? Both were used the same way. Both were not taken during the week of the challenge.
Originally posted by mike_311:
one was used as a backdrop and the other to admittedly circumvent the date constraint. |
|
oh, then i agree with you :)
all seriousness, why not just disallow all photos as backdrops, if you cant create your shot with legitimate means, then do something else. you can have a photo in your picture but it must be clearly shown as such.
but maybe that what the rule says anyway... |
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:14:38 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I think the Lego Blue is another similar example that validated OK:
 |
This one hasn't been validated yet. |
It is a great idea. I hope it gets validated OK. |
Doesn't matter if it is a great idea or not, Lydia's photo was DQ'ed for using the same technique as this one. You have to be consistent. If hers was DQ'ed, this one should be too. |
Agree 100%. How can anyone say that the 2 photos are not used the same way? Funny, both b&w shots, both with PROMINENT backgrounds that used existing photos. Without the backgrounds on either of the 2 photos (lego and wine glass), the pictures would be bland and boring. Of course the background had much to do with the success of the photo. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:16:07 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Doesn't matter if it is a great idea or not, Lydia's photo was DQ'ed for using the same technique as this one. You have to be consistent. If hers was DQ'ed, this one should be too. |
Lydia's image was quite different. The backgorund was entirely visible behind the glass and couldn't be a secondary element. Mine is much more similar to the Margaret one. But obiouvsly I don't know if I'll get a DQ. I carefully read the rules and IMO my entry was ok, otherwise I wouldn't join that challenge. |
Your background is exactly in the same context as Lydia's. Your background is entirely visible also. If it wasn't, I would not be able to tell it was an aerial shot of buildings. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:17:58 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I think the Lego Blue is another similar example that validated OK:
|
This one hasn't been validated yet. |
It is a great idea. I hope it gets validated OK. |
Doesn't matter if it is a great idea or not, Lydia's photo was DQ'ed for using the same technique as this one. You have to be consistent. If hers was DQ'ed, this one should be too. |
No, it wasn't. Lydia's glass in focus was not the key subject of the photo - blurred people sitting at the table were. In Lego case it is the workers in focus who are the key subject. The blurred background is just the background, although very important for the context as my skiing duck needed skiers in the background for the context.
So I do hope it validates OK as there is no difference between my validated ducky and this photo. |
+
You have got to be kidding me. The two photos are so similar I would almost believe they were taken by the same person if I didn't know better. The glass IMO was the key subject, same as the lego guys. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:24:08 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I didn't think that the lego shot was taken from the 35th story in new york city. It didn't fool me.
I did tthink the background for the wine glass was real. It did fool me.
I wouldn't think that scalverts flying carpet was really flying over a city (sorry, don't have the link handy), it didn't fool me.
However, I don't believe you should be able to use photos as backdrops, except in obvious, fun things like the lego and the flying carpet. I really don't think I should be able to have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, or on top of the statue of liberty torch in advanced editing.
Expert, yes. :) |
What? Both were perfectly capable of being real backgrounds. How can you say one fooled you and the other didn't? I personally thought the lego guys background was real, because it is perfectly capable of being real. In no way did I have any doubt is was a picture in the background until it was stated after the contest. If anything, the wine glass is less likely to have a real background than the lego guys, but they both look real to me. That's what it is going to come down to, who feels which one looked real or not. But the basis is the same for both photos, they both fooled the majority. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:24:39 PM · #31 |
There are a heck of a lot of portraits with a photo backdrop. I guess they aren't photographs.
Look, If it looks like a photo, it should be OK if some are fooled...there are quite a few fools you know. I have the most problem with photos that look like graphic art. They will usually get a 1 from me. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:32:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
There are a heck of a lot of portraits with a photo backdrop. I guess they aren't photographs.
Look, If it looks like a photo, it should be OK if some are fooled...there are quite a few fools you know. I have the most problem with photos that look like graphic art. They will usually get a 1 from me. |
i agree, but if you set a precedent by disqualifying some, you have to do it to all. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:34:11 PM · #33 |
DQ all or None....simple.
Originally posted by David Ey:
There are a heck of a lot of portraits with a photo backdrop. I guess they aren't photographs.
Look, If it looks like a photo, it should be OK if some are fooled...there are quite a few fools you know. I have the most problem with photos that look like graphic art. They will usually get a 1 from me. |
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:39:23 PM · #34 |
in all honesty, i was going to do a shot of lego with a photo backdrop on my computer monitor and i thought, "nah. might get dq'd" and opted for a different scene.
that why this issue needs to be clarified, is it legal or not? personally i dont care either way, i just want to know for certain.
Message edited by author 2011-08-18 13:39:47. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:45:40 PM · #35 |
Just a reminder from the rules:
"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."
While this is open to some interpretation it is clear that in many cases existing photos as backgrounds are allowed. I am again amazed how some of the posters do not like to allow logic or reason into their thinking. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:51:24 PM · #36 |
One of the issues I believe that clouds this issue is how a person defines certain terms in photography. As a noobie, I have spent some time pouring over books and sites, and the definitions for this art of ours. The lego shot kind of confounds me for a couple of reasons--or peoples opinions on it.
Firstly, I believe that the subject of the shots is not the lego men/beam. They are the technical "subject" of the photo as they are the focus of the shot. However, it could be easily argued that the subject of the shot is the background photo. I say this because Alex's (excellent, by the way) photo is a homage to a prior photograph. Due to that, in reality, the lego figurs may be the focus of the shot, but they are not it's subject. Because without the context of the background, the positioning of the figures has no meaning. . .or at least no meaning that would have earned a ribbon.
Maybe I am just too new to catch the other stuff, but that is how I see the photo. . .
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 01:51:50 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I didn't think that the lego shot was taken from the 35th story in new york city. It didn't fool me.
I did tthink the background for the wine glass was real. It did fool me.
I wouldn't think that scalverts flying carpet was really flying over a city (sorry, don't have the link handy), it didn't fool me.
However, I don't believe you should be able to use photos as backdrops, except in obvious, fun things like the lego and the flying carpet. I really don't think I should be able to have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, or on top of the statue of liberty torch in advanced editing.
Expert, yes. :) |
What? Both were perfectly capable of being real backgrounds. How can you say one fooled you and the other didn't? I personally thought the lego guys background was real, because it is perfectly capable of being real. In no way did I have any doubt is was a picture in the background until it was stated after the contest. If anything, the wine glass is less likely to have a real background than the lego guys, but they both look real to me. That's what it is going to come down to, who feels which one looked real or not. But the basis is the same for both photos, they both fooled the majority. |
I completely agree with Wendy on this, the lego shot didn't even come close to fooling me, where the wine glass 100% fooled me.
The reason for this is scale. With the wine glass, everything is appropriately scaled, which makes the background look real. For the lego shot, I don't believe the scale of the lego men vs the background is going to be possible with that depth of field. I could be wrong on the lego photo and it is possible, but that's not how I saw it so I knew the background was fake. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 02:00:58 PM · #38 |
| And Lydia used her own photo, the skyscraper photo was just one off the net was it not? |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 02:12:29 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
And Lydia used her own photo, the skyscraper photo was just one off the net was it not? |
From the rule - "clearly recognizable as existing artwork" - this does not say that existing artwork must have been taken by you. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 02:17:11 PM · #40 |
oh so instead of just photoshopping a background into an image i can just pull it up on a screen ad set up in front of it?
why not just make green screen legal too.
the lego shot background isnt clearly recognizable as existing artwork.
for the record i have no horse in this race, im just stirring the pot :)
Message edited by author 2011-08-18 14:19:16. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 02:18:38 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
oh so instead of just photoshopping a background into an image i can just pull it up on a screen ad set up in front of it? |
I used an A3 print in my ducky photo. No Photoshop involved. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 02:23:14 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
for the record i have no horse in this race, im just stirring the pot :) |
Yes, that's the problem with this discussion :/ |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 02:29:20 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
oh so instead of just photoshopping a background into an image i can just pull it up on a screen ad set up in front of it?
why not just make green screen legal too.
the lego shot background isnt clearly recognizable as existing artwork.
for the record i have no horse in this race, im just stirring the pot :) |
Here's the issue, in a larger sense: how do we formulate a rule that differentiates between posing a model in front of a billboard that fills the background entirely, and doing a setup in front of a particular image, either printed out or projected or on the screen? How do we differentiate between images like, say, thanksgiving toast scene being discussed here and, say, a portrait shot in front of photographer's backdrop of a fake library (just one of MANY realistic backdrops you can buy for the studio)?
DPC has always had a policy that it's NOT allowed to photoshop together multiple images (as in green-screen work) because we want the image to have been *created* in-camera -- that's just our particular niche. But it's in no way relevant to expand that proscription to include prohibiting the bringing other images INTO the setup, because (like it or not) THAT's still photography, not computer-generated art.
And if you look at the history of photography, we've always had artificial backdrops, anyway.
So, going back to the beginning of this reply, how do we formulate a rule that allows incorporating art-in-the-environment into the image, but still prohibits introducing art INTO the environment for the purpose of making the image? The powers-that-be have been struggling with that as long as I've been here; it ain't easy. Just ask  GeneralE, a Site Council member and the creator of the spam fans that went down in greasy flames :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2011-08-18 14:30:11. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 02:36:50 PM · #44 |
Good take on the issue.
Originally posted by crowis:
One of the issues I believe that clouds this issue is how a person defines certain terms in photography. As a noobie, I have spent some time pouring over books and sites, and the definitions for this art of ours. The lego shot kind of confounds me for a couple of reasons--or peoples opinions on it.
Firstly, I believe that the subject of the shots is not the lego men/beam. They are the technical "subject" of the photo as they are the focus of the shot. However, it could be easily argued that the subject of the shot is the background photo. I say this because Alex's (excellent, by the way) photo is a homage to a prior photograph. Due to that, in reality, the lego figurs may be the focus of the shot, but they are not it's subject. Because without the context of the background, the positioning of the figures has no meaning. . .or at least no meaning that would have earned a ribbon.
Maybe I am just too new to catch the other stuff, but that is how I see the photo. . . |
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 03:20:38 PM · #45 |
To throw out another example, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of images on this site of photos being reflected into water drops or oil drops. I see those to be very similar to the wine glass shot. I don't think the wine glass photo should have been DQ'd, but that's not the issue here, of course. Still, if you take into account all of those photos of images reflected in water drops, I think that makes the water even murkier.
I know this discussion has come up a million times, but I think that the fact that we're having it yet again is a good indication that it has yet to be satisfactorily settled. The SC should probably look into this again and give us very clear verbage and several examples of what is and is not legal. |
|
|
|
08/18/2011 03:31:25 PM · #46 |
To a degree I don't know if there ever will be a satisfactory solution to this problem. . .if we can even call it that. All of us (if conversations I've had are any judge) become nervous when we begin to but up against certain restrictions set on the photos entered into challenges here. The rules state all of the guidelines are at the discretion of the SC. . .who, if history is any judge, prefer to remain silent about many of the guideline issues. They alone have the right to determine the DQ of any photo or technique. Often, they must use their own interpretations of the rules and the art to make their judgments. Unfortunately we may not agree with them, or even find them consistent. This is natural of any human endeavour.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 03:52:25 PM · #47 |
The consistent thing got me ! No...it has to be consistent. If the wine glass is a DQ then how can the Lego not be a DQ? The set-up on both is the same. A sharp subject in front of a blurred pre existing image.
If Lego is allowed to stand, then the wine glass must be reinstated.
Originally posted by crowis:
To a degree I don't know if there ever will be a satisfactory solution to this problem. . .if we can even call it that. All of us (if conversations I've had are any judge) become nervous when we begin to but up against certain restrictions set on the photos entered into challenges here. The rules state all of the guidelines are at the discretion of the SC. . .who, if history is any judge, prefer to remain silent about many of the guideline issues. They alone have the right to determine the DQ of any photo or technique. Often, they must use their own interpretations of the rules and the art to make their judgments. Unfortunately we may not agree with them, or even find them consistent. This is natural of any human endeavour. |
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 04:00:52 PM · #48 |
The rule exists to stop the :"photoahop by printerr" phenomenon. We can't put two photos together in photoshop, so people are printing it out in order to create something that doesn't exist.
I'd rather that the site didn't turn that direction. While it would be fun to have my squirrel licking a fork in front of mcdonalds, or smelling a flower in front of a french bistro, it's the same as expert editing- manipulating a photo into something that wasn't possible to shoot.
Especially if the background isn't even your own shot. Ahhh, what I could do with a squirrel and an ansel adams print.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 04:17:49 PM · #49 |
I disagree.
If it was to stop "photoshop by printer" then there would be no issue...both the wine glass and the lego are dead.
I'd say the best reason would be so one couldn't get around the "shooting dates" of each challenge. However, that rule can be circumvented right under the SC noses. With a tripod and even lighting it would be very easy to shoot a photo of a photo and turn it in for validation. Frame it perfect and don't have "glare" and voila...you beat the system.
There are several parts to the rule now. The one that will likely deturmine the fate of Lego is the "fooling the voter" portion. If that is the case and wine glass is DQ....then.....
Originally posted by vawendy:
The rule exists to stop the :"photoahop by printerr" phenomenon. We can't put two photos together in photoshop, so people are printing it out in order to create something that doesn't exist.
I'd rather that the site didn't turn that direction. While it would be fun to have my squirrel licking a fork in front of mcdonalds, or smelling a flower in front of a french bistro, it's the same as expert editing- manipulating a photo into something that wasn't possible to shoot.
Especially if the background isn't even your own shot. Ahhh, what I could do with a squirrel and an ansel adams print. |
|
|
|
|
08/18/2011 04:38:49 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'd say the best reason would be so one couldn't get around the "shooting dates" of each challenge. However, that rule can be circumvented right under the SC noses. With a tripod and even lighting it would be very easy to shoot a photo of a photo and turn it in for validation. Frame it perfect and don't have "glare" and voila...you beat the system. |
There are many aspects of this site that require us to trust in the honor system.
|
|
