Using a pre existing photo in a challenge

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

08/18/2011 11:36:04 PM · #77

It may go back awhile to when I posted in a similar forum:

My example:

Challenge is called - Things that Hop

I take a photo of a pet shop frog sitting on a board with a photo in the background of the surface of Mars. Title = Life is Hoping on Mars. (Voter thinks..."Wow...cool...that's cleaver...I should have thought of that"...but in no way believes the frog is on Mars.)

Another person takes a shot of a similar pet shop frog sitting on a rock with a PHOTO of the Rainforest as the background. (WOW...an 8)

There is no reason to believe that with the worldwide participation in DPC that someone did not go out and get a great shot of a frog in the rain forest. So the voter thinks this is the case - NOT LEGAL.

There is no way the Mars background is really Mars - LEGAL

That is how I see it.

Rain Forest entry = DQ

jomari

Nikon D7000

08/18/2011 11:51:56 PM · #78

Actually , my take on this is, what does it matter? What does it matter if the frog (or duck, or lego men) are on Mars or in a rainforest or in a shop? If the photo looks good that's all I care about. Only qualifier would be that it needs to not infringe on copyrights.

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

08/19/2011 12:14:39 AM · #79

Originally posted by jomari:

jomari

Nikon D7000

08/19/2011 12:40:59 AM · #80

Originally posted by kenskid:

...and I don't really disagree with you. However, the rule needs to be handed out fairly. I do believe that if the "wine glass" was a DQ, then the Lego should be a DQ. The same technique is used in both.

Originally posted by jomari:
Actually , my take on this is, what does it matter? What does it matter if the frog (or duck, or lego men) are on Mars or in a rainforest or in a shop? If the photo looks good that's all I care about. Only qualifier would be that it needs to not infringe on copyrights.

Yes, I definitely agree with you. It needs to be consistent.

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

08/19/2011 03:18:09 AM · #81

Before sending my Lego entry I carefully read the rules because I knew I was risking:

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.

Do you think mine is a photo of a photo? I guess the main subject are the litle men. And above all - how can you think I could get such a result with so little bricks and huge skyscrapers? To get a picture like that I used f/14... with real skyscrapers I didn't have a change to get such a background.

We couldn't say the same for the glass one.

Message edited by author 2011-08-19 03:18:51.

james_so

Canon EOS 77D

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Canon

08/19/2011 08:58:38 AM · #82

Originally posted by scalvert:

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!

The comments made during the challenges for both images have only 1 (ducky) or 2 (lego) mentions which seem to indicate the background is being recognised as a photo, and there is no reason to believe that the background of both could not be someone else's photo. Also, the background of the lego image could be replaced with a 'real scene' and the image would still work, it just wouldn't look like the image it is imitating so much. My own image in the lego challenge was very loosely based on an image I found on the web, but I chose not to use a photo as the wall in the background because of the rule we are discussing (and because I'm pretty crap at faking such things ;) ).

That is all an aside though, what you have done above has changed the original quoted text (pasted below) from a reasonably well defined statement to a very subjective statement. How realistic or unrealistic it looks cannot be used as a deciding factor because it leads to situations like this one.

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 makes better sense as it stands and with no further explanation and assuming the lowest common denominator of viewer (eg one who doesn't recognise the background as an image), it would result in a DQ for both ducky and lego men. What you have done is added further words which make the question more ambiguous, thus making the task of deciding what should be DQed much more difficult. What is wrong with simply going with the original statements intention and DQing both (and any future similar uses) for making a pre-existing artwork a prominent part of the scene?

I'm starting to edit within my reply now and for fear of creating a confusing mess I'll leave it here, it makes no difference to me though whether it/they get DQed or not at this juncture, but if the rule is causing such issues it needs to be changed, taking away the subjectivity is the only way to go IMHO.

Message edited by author 2011-08-19 09:00:08.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/19/2011 09:39:00 AM · #83

The issue evolved into:

If the Wine Glass photo is a DQ then the Lego SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be a DQ.

Both used an existing photo as their backdrop to enhance the "subject" or "focal point" of their entry. Both did the job.

The Wine glass was made to look like it was sitting on a table with a family dinner happening.
The Lego was made to look like it was sitting on a window sill of a 100 story building.

Side by side, there is no way to tell if both backgrounds were real or both were fake. If one got the DQ, then the other should go.

To avoid this mess, I would suggest the photographer get the entire background in the frame of the camera at the time of shooting. DO NOT put that you used a fake background in the details of your image.

Let the voters vote on it. Let it be called up by SC for verification if necessary.
If there is no way for SC to tell if it was fake....you can stay...if there is a way for them to tell...and they deem you broke the rule...then DQ.

Originally posted by james_so:

Originally posted by scalvert:

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!

The comments made during the challenges for both images have only 1 (ducky) or 2 (lego) mentions which seem to indicate the background is being recognised as a photo, and there is no reason to believe that the background of both could not be someone else's photo. Also, the background of the lego image could be replaced with a 'real scene' and the image would still work, it just wouldn't look like the image it is imitating so much. My own image in the lego challenge was very loosely based on an image I found on the web, but I chose not to use a photo as the wall in the background because of the rule we are discussing (and because I'm pretty crap at faking such things ;) ).

That is all an aside though, what you have done above has changed the original quoted text (pasted below) from a reasonably well defined statement to a very subjective statement. How realistic or unrealistic it looks cannot be used as a deciding factor because it leads to situations like this one.

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 makes better sense as it stands and with no further explanation and assuming the lowest common denominator of viewer (eg one who doesn't recognise the background as an image), it would result in a DQ for both ducky and lego men. What you have done is added further words which make the question more ambiguous, thus making the task of deciding what should be DQed much more difficult. What is wrong with simply going with the original statements intention and DQing both (and any future similar uses) for making a pre-existing artwork a prominent part of the scene?

I'm starting to edit within my reply now and for fear of creating a confusing mess I'll leave it here, it makes no difference to me though whether it/they get DQed or not at this juncture, but if the rule is causing such issues it needs to be changed, taking away the subjectivity is the only way to go IMHO.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/19/2011 09:41:21 AM · #84

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

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.

like i said earlier i would have approached the lego shot different had i not been afraid of the DQ for doing something similar to the winning entry.

I dont care either way what the outcome is, in fact I'd rather the ribboner not be DQ'd, but we it needs to be clear so that we can be certain whats allowed. we cant have some people not using certain technique because they are afraid of a dq and other not.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/19/2011 09:43:27 AM · #85

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. 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.

if this is the criteria for a DQ then the lego entry should be DQ'd.

MargaretNet

Sony DSC-RX100 VII

08/19/2011 10:26:08 AM · #86

Originally posted by MargaretN:

--> --> !!

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

08/19/2011 10:33:13 AM · #87

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by scalvert:

[...] it was a prominent part of the real scene[...]

if this is the criteria for a DQ then the lego entry should be DQ'd.

I don't think my background was a prominent part of the real scene. And I'm sure it couldn't be mistaken for real.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/19/2011 10:38:31 AM · #88

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by scalvert:

[...] it was a prominent part of the real scene[...]

if this is the criteria for a DQ then the lego entry should be DQ'd.

I don't think my background was a prominent part of the real scene. And I'm sure it couldn't be mistaken for real.

Whether it IS or ISN'T is not the issue; it's whether we voters ASSUME it is that matters. And I got to be honest with you; in voting, I assumed you'd set the legos up in front of a window above NYC. I didn't spend a lot of time studying it, but it looked real enough to me. So I think there IS some ambiguity there.

Don't get me wrong; I think the rule's silly as it applies to images like this. I think if we can set up dioramas that fool the voters, we've done a good job and ought to be rewarded. I don't understand why some people get bent out of shape over getting "fooled". But where I'm at now is, I think the rule needs to be applied consistently, and it isn't being; the criteria that are being applied are ridiculously subjective, IMO.

R.

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

08/19/2011 10:49:30 AM · #89

We already talked about it and you know what I think about all this story. I just can wait for the SC.

P.s. I agree with you, in any case the rule should be less subjctive :)

crowis

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

08/19/2011 01:41:16 PM · #90

Originally posted by Alexkc:

I don't get a call on this, and honestly, I find your photo to be excellent. However, I have to disagree with this assertion. Without the background photo to add context, the rest of your shot is close to meaningless. It is an homage, and as such, I don't know why it would hurt to allow the photo due to that nature. . .however, if we are sticking by the rules I would have to say that no background photo, no context, no shot. Hence an integral part of your entry. Either way the coin falls, best of luck.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/19/2011 03:26:46 PM · #91

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

the criteria that are being applied are ridiculously subjective, IMO.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/19/2011 08:07:49 PM · #92

The process of pre validation and post validation takes too long !

David Ey

Nikon D80

08/19/2011 08:15:24 PM · #93

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This Bears repeating....spot on.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/19/2011 09:19:14 PM · #94

game over

adigitalromance

Nikon D750

08/19/2011 10:49:02 PM · #95

Originally posted by posthumous:

game over

Guess we got the answer on the Lego challenge. Think they'll reword the rule?

This makes me realize why bills in congress are 10,000 pages long.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/19/2011 10:54:29 PM · #96

Reword to what? LOL....

I simply will not take a chance on ever using a photo or art in my photo unless it is truly recognizable as such !

Originally posted by adigitalromance:

Originally posted by posthumous:
game over

Guess we got the answer on the Lego challenge. Think they'll reword the rule?

This makes me realize why bills in congress are 10,000 pages long.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/19/2011 10:57:02 PM · #97

Originally posted by kenskid:

I simply will not take a chance on ever using a photo or art in my photo unless it is truly recognizable as such !

I've managed to enter nearly 700 challenges without ever using any kind of artwork as a backdrop for my shots, that's definitely a doable thing :-)

R.

ETA: actually, that's not true: I forgot this one:

Message edited by author 2011-08-19 22:58:41.

08/19/2011 10:59:02 PM · #98

I know it is...however, my brain latches on to an idea from space in an instant...if that idea has a pre existing piece of art in it, then I have to fight it off !!!!

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I simply will not take a chance on ever using a photo or art in my photo unless it is truly recognizable as such !

I've managed to enter nearly 700 challenges without ever using any kind of artwork as a backdrop for my shots, that's definitely a doable thing :-)

R.