Using a pre existing photo in a challenge

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II

08/18/2011 04:41:58 PM · #51

Originally posted by vawendy:

The rule exists to stop the "photoshop by printer" 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 don't think so; witness the following, basic editing no less, that ribboned in 2005. The interesting thing to me was that he processed a moon picture to turn it into the shape of a lightbulb, which would not have been legal under of the rulesets at that time (and still wouldn't be, except under expert editing), and then mounted it on his screen, held his hand (holding a lightbulb base) in front of the screen, and bingo! One of the more memorable images in DPC history.

A lot of people, at the time, felt the moon image was being used to circumvent the editing rules, but SC didn't agree. I seem to recall Shannon having mentioned, not all that long ago, that his image probably wouldn't pass muster under the current rule set (not sure about this), but that isn't the point anyway; I'm using this to illustrate that the rule apparently wasn't intended to keep people from circumventing the editing rules :-)

dtremain

Canon EOS 80D

08/18/2011 04:53:50 PM · #52

Poor SC. It is apparent by this discussion that their clarification of the previous version of the rule has not resolved the confusion. I will grant them this - the current version is a lot less confusing than the old.
My understanding was that the intent of the new version was to prohibit the use of pre-existing photography in such a way that it makes a believable seamless scene. For example, you could take a picture similar to the wine glass shot with real family around the table at Thanksgiving. However, the skiing duck, the lego skyscraper builders, and the flying carpet are not shots you could really take. Again, my understanding, so FWIW.
I think the narrow beam SC is trying to balance on (excuse...) is to permit incidental photos in the shot without allowing them to be used to circumvent the allowed shooting time for the challenge.

dtremain

Canon EOS 80D

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II

08/18/2011 05:00:01 PM · #53

Originally posted by kenskid:

My letter "C" setup is done. If the Lego shot gets the ok, then I'm going to go through with my idea.

You can always pre-submit to the SC for approval before entry. However, if they're still debating the Lego Workers shot, that may not come back in a timely manner for the challenge.

kenskid

Nikon D700

08/18/2011 05:39:01 PM · #54

I have another idea that doesn't involve an existing photo....I think I'll use that !

Originally posted by dtremain:

Originally posted by kenskid:
My letter "C" setup is done. If the Lego shot gets the ok, then I'm going to go through with my idea.

You can always pre-submit to the SC for approval before entry. However, if they're still debating the Lego Workers shot, that may not come back in a timely manner for the challenge.

kenskid

Nikon D700

08/18/2011 05:41:24 PM · #55

LOL...and I see it somewhat different. I say the flying carpet is fair because the voter KNOWS it is fake and can vote as an INFORMED voter. The Lego and the wine glass can be fake or real...the voter doesn't know.

Originally posted by dtremain:

adigitalromance

Nikon D750

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/18/2011 06:16:16 PM · #56

It's hard to read in the grey area on purpose.
Get it?

eta: Even if there's a smaller "grey area" in reality, there is still a switch somewhere along the middle where grey area does exist.

Message edited by author 2011-08-18 18:18:02.

jotaga

Canon EOS-7D

08/18/2011 08:01:07 PM · #57

Originally posted by kenskid:

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. . .

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/18/2011 08:31:53 PM · #58

If you want to make a rule more clear, eliminate words, not add them. Then you would be on your way to getting rid of the rule. The fewer rules the better....leaves less to interpret.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

08/18/2011 09:01:30 PM · #59

This topic has been talked to death and resurrected more than once.
This thread, back in April 2010 is an example of the problems that still surround this question.

At the risk of opening old debates, I offer this bit of dialog from the April 2010 discussion. While it nearly caused me to leave DPC, I 'got over it' and remain a staunch supporter of the site and the Council. Still, I agree that the wording continues to leave too much wiggle room. Here is the dialog:

04/19/2010 02:09:05 PM â�¢ #56
Originally posted by alanfreed:
________________________________________
Originally posted by sfalice:
________________________________________
I suppose people will continue to 'miss the point' until the point becomes crystal clear.
The fact that these threads continue would suggest that the time has not yet arrived.

ALANFREED: You have made it your mission to complain about this rule every time it has been brought up in discussion, and we have asked you for your solution to make it better, to which you have had no answer. When you are ready to make it crystal clear, we are here with open ears.

SFALICE: Alanfreed, in all my discussions with Site Council and with other members of DPC I have always tried as carefully as I can to be polite and respectful. I never expected the reply you made above.

SFALICE: To answer your odd observation, please refer to [url=thread :][/url]

Specifically:
07/12/2009 09:33:01 PM â�¢ #102
Scalvert has presented a rule change for discussion that reads:

"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."

GeneralE presents a rule change as follows:

You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph

Scalvert's wording still requires subjective decisions.
GeneralE's wording does not.

Although I would go even further and spell it out thusly:

â��Existing artwork may be included as long as your submission does not consist entirely of pre-existing artwork.â��

I donâ��t think there is any wiggle-room in that. Do you?

and another from that thread:
07/12/2009 10:06:49 PM â�¢ #93
There are people on this site who will run out to the end of the smallest branch and jump up and down to see if it will hold. If it does, they win. If it doesnâ��t, they pick themselves up off the ground and find another branch to tromp on.

There are other people who read the rules carefully and interpret the rules to the best of their ability. They donâ��t want to make a mistake; take a fall. They want to understand the rules without trial and error.

I personally donâ��t care what this or any other rule specifies; I do care enormously that all participants can understand the rule and abide by it without guesswork.

I'm not sure Scalvert's presentation fits this description. I do however, appreciate the time he and others have taken to formulate the wording. It's a tough one.

Message edited by author 2010-04-19 14:46:10.

08/18/2011 09:23:13 PM · #60

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I seem to recall Shannon having mentioned, not all that long ago, that his image probably wouldn't pass muster under the current rule set (not sure about this)

It wouldn't (the flying carpet shot probably wouldn't pass either). At the time, the only limitation on artwork was that SOMETHING in the shot had to be real. Under the current rule, that's not good enough. You can use artwork that's OBVIOUS, like non-photorealistic illustrations and paintings or situations where the edge of a monitor or sign is visible to the voter. What you CAN'T do is use existing artwork in such a way that the voters assume it was a prominent part of the real scene. If an entry derives much of its impact from existing an photo and voters can't reasonably tell that it's artwork, then they will be judging the image as if you controlled the lighting, focus and expressions of the whole scene as real objects... and you risk a DQ.

On another note, using someone else's copyrighted photo (an image taken from Google or Flickr, for example) can result in DQ as a ToS violation regardless of how it's used. DPCers get really upset when our images are used without permission, and we owe the same respect to other photographers' rights.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

08/18/2011 09:30:08 PM · #61

Originally posted by sfalice:

â��Existing artwork may be included as long as your submission does not consist entirely of pre-existing artwork.â��

That was the original artwork rule, and it ruled out such innocuous entries as macros of money or full frame graffiti while allowing people to enter a photo taken out of dates or extensively Photoshopped so long as a speck of dust was real. The current rule was an attempt to address those situations.

james_so

Canon EOS 77D

08/18/2011 09:36:53 PM · #62

Originally posted by scalvert:

What you CAN'T do is use existing artwork in such a way that the voters assume it was a prominent part of the real scene.

This would seem to apply to both the duck and the lego men unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible)..

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/18/2011 09:53:01 PM · #63

Originally posted by james_so:

Originally posted by scalvert:
What you CAN'T do is use existing artwork in such a way that the voters assume it was a prominent part of the real scene.

This would seem to apply to both the duck and the lego men unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible)..

That's my take on it also.

R.

jomari

Nikon D7000

08/18/2011 10:04:33 PM · #64

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by james_so:

Originally posted by scalvert:
What you CAN'T do is use existing artwork in such a way that the voters assume it was a prominent part of the real scene.

This would seem to apply to both the duck and the lego men unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible)..

That's my take on it also.

R.

And mine.

MargaretNet

Sony DSC-RX100 VII

08/18/2011 10:17:28 PM · #65

Originally posted by jomari:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by james_so:

Originally posted by scalvert:
What you CAN'T do is use existing artwork in such a way that the voters assume it was a prominent part of the real scene.

This would seem to apply to both the duck and the lego men unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible)..

That's my take on it also.

R.

And mine.

So to be fair and consistent either my ducky gets DQ'd or Alessandro's Lego workers validate OK.

08/18/2011 10:20:08 PM · #66

Originally posted by MargaretN:

So to be fair and consistent either my ducky gets DQ'd or Alessandro's Lego workers validate OK.

Actually, for consistency they both should be/should have been DQ, since the thanksgiving wineglass is the prototype for this approach and IT was DQ'd...

R.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

08/18/2011 10:25:30 PM · #67

Originally posted by james_so:

This would seem to apply to both the duck and the lego men unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible)..

Arguably true, however the ducky shot was much less "about" the background than the Lego entry (just read the comments). You could replace that ski background with plain white and the entry still works. There was also a bit of shadow behind the duck that made it a little more obviously a photo, and the skyscraper background may have been someone else's copyrighted photo appropriated from Google... which changes the conversation a bit. Just sayin' there is more to consider than technique alone!

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

08/18/2011 10:38:21 PM · #68

[quote=Yo_Spiff] If the viewer looks at the scene and believes the pre existing image is actually part of the captured scene, then you can't do it.

Illegal:

What this means is that you cannot be really good at photography and/or editing to be legal.

MargaretNet

Sony DSC-RX100 VII

08/18/2011 10:44:36 PM · #69

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

08/18/2011 10:49:05 PM · #70

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

What this means is that you cannot be really good at photography and/or editing to be legal.

I hear ya. That's the weird conundrum at the heart of this rule; it feels like "If you do it well enough to fool people, it's illegal. If you do a crappy job that won't fool anyone, it's good to go!"

I realize that's not really a fair summary, but it's not that far off either.

Just for the record, I'm personally in the camp that says we're worrying too much, that ALL of this should be legal in advanced editing. But I mainly want everything to be consistent, and the easiest path to consistency is to stop trying to split hairs. I think it's insane to be taking two technically identical photographs and then pass one and DQ the other based on such extremely subjective criteria. Taking the ducky as an example, arguably if she'd made a mound of REAL snow and lit to avoid the shadow Shannon mentions, then the shot would have been enough BETTER that it would have had to be DQ'd? Does that make sense to anyone?

R.

Message edited by author 2011-08-18 23:00:26.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

08/18/2011 10:53:21 PM · #71

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Does that make sense to anyone?

R.

Indeed. These are my thoughts... almost exactly.

Just be sure to do it not very well... and you'll be fine.

But, you also won't score well.

*sigh*

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/18/2011 11:02:12 PM · #72

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

[quote=Yo_Spiff] If the viewer looks at the scene and believes the pre existing image is actually part of the captured scene, then you can't do it.

Illegal:

What this means is that you cannot be really good at photography and/or editing to be legal.

So in my opinion the photo in question, tall building background should also get a DQ. It looks to be part of the captured scene to me.

08/18/2011 11:07:27 PM · #73

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's the weird conundrum at the heart of this rule; it feels like "If you [compose a DPC entry that draws much of its impact from an existing photo taken outside the challenge dates, shot by someone else and/or edited outside the rules] well enough to fool people, it's illegal. If [it's clear to the voters that you're doing so], it's good to go!"

Just want to be clear on the "it" we're talking about here. You can use artwork that's totally seamless and believable as long as that's not the major impact of your entry. As a supporting element or detail, artwork is generally OK, but the main subject and/or primary feature(s) shouldn't be a pre-existing photo for a photography contest!

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Taking the ducky as an example, arguably if she'd made a mound of REAL snow and lit to avoid the shadow Shannon mentions, then the shot would have been enough BETTER that it would have had to be DQ'd?

Real snow wouldn't be artwork and therefore not an issue. ;-)

Message edited by author 2011-08-18 23:26:14.

rjkstesch

Nikon D700

08/18/2011 11:15:53 PM · #74

This was DQ'd for the galaxy portion (in expert editing) as existing artwork that was not obviously existing artwork. Heck, I thought it was obvious, but evidently there are photographers on DPC that can photograph galaxies....

Expert 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.

Advanced 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.

Same rule - different rule set.

I'd be very careful about using existing artwork in a challenge.

Message edited by author 2011-08-19 08:40:32.