| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2011 06:18:07 AM · #26 |
I'm very sorry to see that it's been disqualified, as it's a shame no matter why that happens, but it was the correct decision.
First off, much respect to Alessandro for a brilliantly creative idea.
I gave it a 10 because I was hoping it was an entirely real composition, and if it was simply placed in front of a photo, the SC would take care of it. We're not supposed to deduct points for questioning whether something is legitimate or not. It's explicitly stated in the rules.
I can't imagine it's easy to disqualify photos, but the SC did the correct thing.
And yes, I kept my trap shut in the other thread because honestly that discussion was entirely poor form given the timing and events. |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 06:19:48 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I disagree with this decision. I carefully read the rules and IMO my entry keeps being ok. The background was not the most important part of my image. It is blurred and if I had worked on PS I could create such a similar background myself without using a real photo. And if I didn't tell that it was a photo I wouldn't get the DQ. Several images of the Lego challenge are existing artworks, is it less important than a blurred image? I dont think so...
These are my first and last words about it. |
I know it must be hard to win a ribbon then get it taken away. Thank you for making your point without any bitterness.
I'm not going to get into the debate of the actual rule set that got the image DQ but I will give my full support to the site council in making the decision and put my trust into the way they interpret the rules.
We can all argue the point but what it boils down to is a group of individuals (peers) who make judgment and vote accordingly. I think the system works well :)
Message edited by author 2011-08-20 06:22:38. |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 07:07:30 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
I'm very sorry to see that it's been disqualified, as it's a shame no matter why that happens, but it was the correct decision.
First off, much respect to Alessandro for a brilliantly creative idea.
I gave it a 10 because I was hoping it was an entirely real composition, and if it was simply placed in front of a photo, the SC would take care of it. We're not supposed to deduct points for questioning whether something is legitimate or not. It's explicitly stated in the rules.
I can't imagine it's easy to disqualify photos, but the SC did the correct thing.
And yes, I kept my trap shut in the other thread because honestly that discussion was entirely poor form given the timing and events. |
im not sure it was poor form giving timing and events, the photo was out of voting and really was about be moved off the front page, when it started how would one know if the photo was validated or not?
anyhow i agree with the decision based on the explanation that scalvert gave in the other thread, but there still seems to be some concern what we are allowed to do with existing artwork. it is still very subjective how one is able to use a background image, considering all background images are going to change a viewers perspective on an image, when would it be deemed legal or not.
the only criteria appears to be whether the image is real or not. i mean how is one supposed to distinguish a backdrop that one buys and one that i were to print out myself? for instance portraits, the point of the backdrop is to set context, say a backdrop of a christmas tree in a christmas portrait. is that not legal? it would seem that the dq'd photo used the same technique, putting the subject in a fake atmosphere. |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 08:55:12 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
To some extent I feel the site council's decision may have been influenced by the ongoing forum discussion about this. Would it have been the same without everyone bringing up various arguments about it? |
+1
|
|
|
|
08/20/2011 09:07:16 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by alexlky:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
To some extent I feel the site council's decision may have been influenced by the ongoing forum discussion about this. Would it have been the same without everyone bringing up various arguments about it? |
+1 |
The same things can be said about discussion of challenge titles and descriptions so should we be banning these discussions? This is something which needs to be discussed and it'll never really be the right time as it will always affect someone in some way, the rule needs to be carefully looked at again and sorted out so there is less ambiguity and subjectivity about the issue and we all know what we can and can't do.
Message edited by author 2011-08-20 09:07:39.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2011 09:10:01 AM · #31 |
It's a discussion worth having, however.
Banning all artwork is going to far. Allowing all artwork in any shape or form is also going too far. It turns things into a little bit of a farce. I could have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, squirrels in the kremlin. Squirrels in the oval office, simply by finding pictures and printing them out. It's worth discussing where to draw the line.
Message edited by author 2011-08-20 09:25:08. |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 09:33:05 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's a discussion worth having, however.
Banning all artwork is going to far. Allowing all artwork in any shape or form is also going too far. It turns things into a little bit of a farce. I could have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, squirrels in the kremlin. Squirrels in the oval office, simply by finding pictures and printing them out. It's worth discussing where to draw the line. |
Indeed, even a simple patterned studio background is an artwork of sorts (as pointed out in the other thread), where to draw the line is an important issue to define, unfortunately it is also partly where the ambiguity comes in as any such line will be quite subjective. Then of course there is the issue of how to police such a rule as it is possible to fake it well enough not to be obvious. :\
|
|
|
|
08/20/2011 12:17:49 PM · #33 |
For the sake of clarification, with the obvious risk of seeming like a jerk, and with apologies to the listed photographers...
What is the difference?
The main differences I see are:
·Prominence in photo (which shouldn't matter if it's a violation)
·Placement in voting (which shouldn't matter if it's a violation)
Is there another solution besides rewording the rule? |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 12:25:37 PM · #34 |
what about this wonderful photo, then?
seems like an obvious DQ now |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 12:27:55 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by LevT:
what about this wonderful photo, then?
seems like an obvious DQ now |
That was a different rule set, though I think  scalvert may have commented somewhere that it would be a likely DQ under present rules (I may be wrong about that last bit, getting old ;) ).
|
|
|
|
08/20/2011 12:51:11 PM · #36 |
I do think at least two of those must now be DQ'd. |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 01:40:26 PM · #37 |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 01:42:35 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by adigitalromance:
What is the difference? |
There's hardly any artwork here, certainly nothing to the extent that the voters are judging the pre-existing photo.
There might be a case for this one (validation was never requested). However the artwork is used as a rather ambiguous supporting element, and looks like the Eagle Nebula to me rather than "real objects in the scene." You could replace that background with other amorphous shapes or even a blue gradient and it wouldn't change the entry much IMO. It would probably pass on a split decision similar to the skiing ducky. Contrast that with the lego entry where the background is an absolutely critical part of the subject itself. The lego entry would be meaningless without the artwork, so voters would reasonably be judging the "photo of a photo" on its technical merits as if the photographer had shot real skyscrapers.
The artwork is quite obvious here. "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry." |
Makes sense! |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:26:42 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's a discussion worth having, however.
Banning all artwork is going to far. Allowing all artwork in any shape or form is also going too far. It turns things into a little bit of a farce. I could have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, squirrels in the kremlin. Squirrels in the oval office, simply by finding pictures and printing them out. It's worth discussing where to draw the line. |
I missed this! I'd to see them!!! What about Side Challenge on all possible/impossible backgrounds?? |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 06:31:36 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's a discussion worth having, however.
Banning all artwork is going to far. Allowing all artwork in any shape or form is also going too far. It turns things into a little bit of a farce. I could have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, squirrels in the kremlin. Squirrels in the oval office, simply by finding pictures and printing them out. It's worth discussing where to draw the line. |
I missed this! I'd to see them!!! What about Side Challenge on all possible/impossible backgrounds?? |
haha! That would be fun. :) |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 08:20:01 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's a discussion worth having, however.
Banning all artwork is going to far. Allowing all artwork in any shape or form is also going too far. It turns things into a little bit of a farce. I could have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, squirrels in the kremlin. Squirrels in the oval office, simply by finding pictures and printing them out. It's worth discussing where to draw the line. |
I missed this! I'd to see them!!! What about Side Challenge on all possible/impossible backgrounds?? |
haha! That would be fun. :) |
I seem to recall an internet craze a few years ago where people were photoshopping a squirrel into the most bizarre scenes; we had our own thread on it here... I bet Art knows where that one is.
R. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 09:04:30 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's a discussion worth having, however.
Banning all artwork is going to far. Allowing all artwork in any shape or form is also going too far. It turns things into a little bit of a farce. I could have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, squirrels in the kremlin. Squirrels in the oval office, simply by finding pictures and printing them out. It's worth discussing where to draw the line. |
I missed this! I'd to see them!!! What about Side Challenge on all possible/impossible backgrounds?? |
haha! That would be fun. :) |
I seem to recall an internet craze a few years ago where people were photoshopping a squirrel into the most bizarre scenes; we had our own thread on it here... I bet Art knows where that one is.
R. |
hahah! I remember that! Supposedly the groundhog/squirrel/whatever popped up into someone's family photo. And people were changing it up. :) |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 09:23:59 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's a discussion worth having, however.
Banning all artwork is going to far. Allowing all artwork in any shape or form is also going too far. It turns things into a little bit of a farce. I could have squirrels in front of the taj mahal, squirrels in the kremlin. Squirrels in the oval office, simply by finding pictures and printing them out. It's worth discussing where to draw the line. |
I missed this! I'd to see them!!! What about Side Challenge on all possible/impossible backgrounds?? |
haha! That would be fun. :) |
I seem to recall an internet craze a few years ago where people were photoshopping a squirrel into the most bizarre scenes; we had our own thread on it here... I bet Art knows where that one is.
R. |
hahah! I remember that! Supposedly the groundhog/squirrel/whatever popped up into someone's family photo. And people were changing it up. :) |
You mean this little fellow?
Message edited by author 2011-08-23 09:24:27. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 09:35:28 AM · #44 |
Right, except we had our own thread on him here in DPC and I can't find it now...
R. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 09:52:15 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Right, except we had our own thread on him here in DPC and I can't find it now...
R. |
This one? |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 10:29:53 AM · #46 |
Someone else had the same idea, but used blurred legos as towers.
//www.flickr.com/photos/balakov/1614997917/
There's a link on the page that shows the guys set up, pretty nice.
Message edited by author 2011-08-23 10:30:45.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2011 10:05:20 PM · #47 |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 10:10:14 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
However, i must confess i did use a photo for this shot a long time ago [hope we're past the statute of limitations]
 |
Anybody that mistakes the earth for a real object in the background has my sympathy. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 10:25:50 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mefnj:
However, i must confess i did use a photo for this shot a long time ago [hope we're past the statute of limitations]
|
Anybody that mistakes the earth for a real object in the background has my sympathy. ;-) |
so, maybe i am missing something.
the rule 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.
so we can use another piece of "recognizable existing artwork", but it can't be like a photo of just that artwork. the photo that was just DQed was clearly using the classic photo as a backdrop, but i doubt anyone voted on the backdrop. it was the creative re-imagining of the classic with LEGO people that made it a great photo. shame on the people who tagged it for a SC eval for rule breaking (unless it was just a routine check).
|
|
|
|
08/23/2011 10:31:00 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mefnj:
However, i must confess i did use a photo for this shot a long time ago [hope we're past the statute of limitations]
|
Anybody that mistakes the earth for a real object in the background has my sympathy. ;-) |
so, maybe i am missing something.
the rule 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.
so we can use another piece of "recognizable existing artwork", but it can't be like a photo of just that artwork. the photo that was just DQed was clearly using the classic photo as a backdrop, but i doubt anyone voted on the backdrop. it was the creative re-imagining of the classic with LEGO people that made it a great photo. shame on the people who tagged it for a SC eval for rule breaking (unless it was just a routine check). |
I also new it was an existing photo and was disappointed with it's DQ. However, I feel that coming in 1st probably meant it was this reason it was tagged for evaluation. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/03/2025 09:57:15 AM EDT.
