DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> Lego Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 72 of 72, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/23/2011 10:58:20 PM · #51
I don't agree with this DQ. This is not an example of judging a photo of a photo. This was an imaginative work of original art. Given the nature of the challenge, no one would mistake the background as real. I think the decision should be appealed.
 08/23/2011 10:58:58 PM · #52
Top 5 get auto evaluation !

Others get evaluation if someone tags it during or after voting.

Originally posted by Abra:
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.

08/23/2011 11:02:29 PM · #53
But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.

08/23/2011 11:21:04 PM · #54
Lots of checking to do there !

I think the "killer DQ" part of the rule is that when using a photo of a photo you are trying to trick the voter. If the voter has little or no chance to believe that the BG is really a part of your original shot then I think you are ok.

I always put it like this:

My subject is a Turtle. I put my turtle in vegetation and mud in my yard. I then put a poster in the back of the turtle. The poster is of the Rain Forest. When voting on the photo, the voter can't tell if you were in the rain forest.

2. I take the same Turtle in the mud in my yard and put a poster of Mars in the BG. No one would believe the turtle is in space or on Mars. No DQ.

Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.

08/23/2011 11:21:20 PM · #55
Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.


with all due respect... this LIMITS creativity. And how would one get a shot of something like... oh ... let's say "Earthrise on the Moon"

I see no problem using an Ansel Adams image (see here)or any other existing artwork, as long as it is not a "photo of a photo" in its totality

Message edited by author 2011-08-23 23:21:54.
 08/23/2011 11:22:32 PM · #56
Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.


This doesn't fly. See my DQ for Feast and follow the link to the thread.

Give up while you still can! ! LOL!

08/23/2011 11:24:46 PM · #57
Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

You just described Expert Editing.
 08/23/2011 11:25:56 PM · #58
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.


This doesn't fly. See my DQ for Feast and follow the link to the thread.

Give up while you still can! ! LOL!


i would still think this is OK... you changed the existing photo by addition of the glass. what if you had the photo in a frame sitting on a table, and your glass of wine in front of it. would that be OK?
 08/23/2011 11:26:04 PM · #59
Originally posted by mefnj:
I see no problem using an Ansel Adams image (see here)or any other existing artwork, as long as it is not a "photo of a photo" in its totality

The copyright holder might not share your opinion.
 08/23/2011 11:35:16 PM · #60
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mefnj:
I see no problem using an Ansel Adams image (see here)or any other existing artwork, as long as it is not a "photo of a photo" in its totality

The copyright holder might not share your opinion.


i believe there is fair use coverage for non-commercial works. but i agree that anything that might be sent to DPC prints, etc. needs to be very careful about using any trademarks, copyrighted material, etc. i've done stock photography and have had to clone out brand names on things like cameras, labware, etc.

Message edited by author 2011-08-23 23:39:43.
 08/23/2011 11:37:20 PM · #61
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.


This doesn't fly. See my DQ for Feast and follow the link to the thread.

Give up while you still can! ! LOL!


i would still think this is OK... you changed the existing photo by addition of the glass. what if you had the photo in a frame sitting on a table, and your glass of wine in front of it. would that be OK?


from the thread, the reasoning given for the acceptability of this image



would seem to apply to the LEGO entry this whole discussion started on.
 08/23/2011 11:47:53 PM · #62
No way ! The flying carpet in no way can fool the voter. Can anyone actually say they thought the girl was on a real flying carpet? Or even on a carpet sitting on a glass floor 2000 feet above a city?

Both of the photos used the same technique, but the wine glass got the DQ because it likely made voters think it was all one shot.

Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by Cyberlandz:
But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.


This doesn't fly. See my DQ for Feast and follow the link to the thread.

Give up while you still can! ! LOL!


i would still think this is OK... you changed the existing photo by addition of the glass. what if you had the photo in a frame sitting on a table, and your glass of wine in front of it. would that be OK?


from the thread, the reasoning given for the acceptability of this image



would seem to apply to the LEGO entry this whole discussion started on.

08/23/2011 11:49:08 PM · #63
Originally posted by mefnj:
from the thread, the reasoning given for the acceptability of this image



would seem to apply to the LEGO entry this whole discussion started on.

That was a different set of rules. At the time, any artwork was legal as long as SOMETHING in the shot was real. The rule was changed after a series of entries where people used marginally significant real objects as an excuse to pass off existing photos, AND to allow full frame images of things like graffiti, currency macros and illustrations that the voters would obviously recognize as artwork.
 08/23/2011 11:49:26 PM · #64
Hehehe. Someone suggested a while back that we need to draw a line. And that's what i was trying to do.

My only problem with the feast shot was that the bg photo was taken outside challenge timeframe, which was the main reason why it was shot that way anyway. DQ straight away.

I see no problem with the turtle in the fake rainforest too. As long as you took the rainforest shot yourself. So why did you not bring the turtle to the rainforest when you took the shot? Probably because you want to use the rainforest bg for other purposes.

An earthrise from the moon... People say it's obviously fake so you wont be fooling anyone. No problem there.

But yeah i know this isn't for everyone. But that is how i would draw the line on this.
 08/24/2011 01:15:07 AM · #65
Does anyone really think that the lego shot was shot from a skyscraper?

Originally posted by kenskid:
No way ! The flying carpet in no way can fool the voter. Can anyone actually say they thought the girl was on a real flying carpet? Or even on a carpet sitting on a glass floor 2000 feet above a city?

Both of the photos used the same technique, but the wine glass got the DQ because it likely made voters think it was all one shot.

Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by mefnj:
[quote=LydiaToo] [quote=Cyberlandz] But using photos and other images as background had been in use in studio shots for quite a while already. I find nothing wrong with it.

What if we allow this under the following conditions:
1. The photo in the bg had to be taken by you. People will be judging a photo of a photo, but it is still your photo. Your creativity. Your skill. Like the flying carpet shot. Both the subject and the bg were photographed by the same person. And it worked out quite well.
2. You have taken the bg photo within challenge timeframe.
3. The bg photo was edited within dpc rules.
4. You need more than one original for the bg photo. A series of shots from the same photoshoot, to prove that you really took the shot yourself and not a shot of an ansel adams print.

I think this would create more room for creativity while preventing people from downloading and large printing other people's photos and putting something in front of it.


This doesn't fly. See my DQ for Feast and follow the link to the thread.

Give up while you still can! ! LOL!

08/24/2011 12:03:23 PM · #66
Originally posted by alohadave:
Does anyone really think that the lego shot was shot from a skyscraper?



Yes.
 08/24/2011 12:28:57 PM · #67
Originally posted by alohadave:
Does anyone really think that the lego shot was shot from a skyscraper?

Several people already noted that they thought the background was, or could be, real.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 12:29:05.
 08/24/2011 12:36:11 PM · #68
I'm wondering...if the photographer of the Lego shot would have put something like "BG is a backdrop" or "BG is a photo" in the title, would it then have been legal?

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by alohadave:
Does anyone really think that the lego shot was shot from a skyscraper?

Several people already noted that they thought the background was, or could be, real.


Message edited by author 2011-08-24 12:36:39.
 08/24/2011 01:01:57 PM · #69
Originally posted by scalvert:
Several people already noted that they thought the background was, or could be, real.


No problem about thinking it was real, but analizing it and still thinking it COULD be real, well, every photographer should say: it's impossible. It's a problem about depth of field. But I don't wanna think about it. I replied only because I accept the DQ but I can't read strange explanation about it. People could think it was real? Ok, DQ me, no problem. People really think, after studying the image, it could be done in front of a window - no... optics has its rules.
 08/24/2011 02:03:58 PM · #70
Originally posted by Alexkc:
every photographer should say: it's impossible. It's a problem about depth of field.

Advanced Editing allows combining multiple captures "to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF..."
 08/24/2011 02:05:12 PM · #71
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm wondering...if the photographer of the Lego shot would have put something like "BG is a backdrop" or "BG is a photo" in the title, would it then have been legal?

It's an editing rule, not a titling rule.
 08/24/2011 03:09:07 PM · #72
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
every photographer should say: it's impossible. It's a problem about depth of field.

Advanced Editing allows combining multiple captures "to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF..."


+1

Ok, you're right :)

(even if with my 90mm. Tamron the change of focus is impossible because during focusing it moves back and forth, but this is another story)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/03/2025 09:54:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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 09:54:25 AM EDT.