| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2012 03:20:20 PM · #26 |
Subjective it may be, and open to all sorts of questions, but it is a great improvement over the prior version(s) of the rule. If in doubt, plan your shot ahead, and run it past the SC with enough time for them to respond yea or dq.
I'm guessing, but as long as the photograph of the soldier in uniform was framed, it would be OK - it is obviously existing artwork. But, if you used the photograph of a soldier in uniform to make it look like he/she was seated at the table, it would be a dq.
I think of the great shot of the building wall sized billboard of a woman, with a real woman dressed similarly walking in front of it - again, obviously existing artwork, so OK.
But again, check with the SC if in doubt. I entered a picture of the World Trade Center I & II towers, thinking it was obviously existing artwork, but got dq'd (old rules). |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 03:21:55 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
What I don't get is, you can trick the voters with screens and camera techniques and hire 4000 people to help you, but you can't put a picture of a butterfly on a cat's nose. what about a fake butterfly? |
A fake butterfly is still a real "thing." It's not a photo of a photo (or even artwork, and therefore not subject to the artwork rule).
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 15:24:10. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 03:22:34 PM · #28 |
i dont know that the butterfly would be illegal:
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.
you're judging the scene, not image of the butterfly
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 15:25:06. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 03:25:24 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
we could get into hypotheticals all day long here.
I'm pretty sure that "common sense" can answer most questions you have if you follow one simple guildeline:
"Does the photo lose it's emphasis/oomf if i did not include this other picture in my frame?"
The water drop would lose some, but still it's focused on the drop and it can stand alone without the kid's picture.
The lego girder/skyline was imitating a photo where the photographer actually had a cityscape behind the construction guys, so yes, that picture would lose it's reference/oomf and you'd just have lego guys on a lego log against a nondescript backdrop. Not the same thing.
The military thing would lose a big part of the meaning if your shot was dependant on compositionally having the focus on the soldier's picture. If it was obscured / in the background and not meant to draw your attention as the sole focal point then i'm sure it would be fine - we all need some props for staged shots... |
Thats all well and good, but rules need to be relatively clear. Or you just alienate people who get dq'd subjectively.
And there are threads all day long with site suggestions, changes, this may not be the appropriate forum,
but can't there be differing opinions which sway the mob as well as powers that be to change or simplify/clarify officially? |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 03:25:47 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
So if there was a "patriotism" challenge, and your shot was a still life of a table with a vase of flowers and an american flag such, but the highlight of the still life was a framed photograph of a soldier in uniform...DQ? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Likewise, you could enter a macro of LCD pixels, a photo of the Mona Lisa, a billboard with the frame showing, etc. People will generally understand that you took a picture of artwork and can vote as they see fit. |
|
"You can enter a photo of obvious artwork without issue. Anything non-photorealistic like a crayon illustration or money is fair game. Likewise, you could enter a macro of LCD pixels, a photo of the Mona Lisa, a billboard with the frame showing, etc. People will generally understand that you took a picture of artwork and can vote as they see fit."
Full context. When describing obvious artwork in this section (the section that has billboards and frames), it sounded like you were talking about artwork that was non-photorealistic. In the next section of your comment, you explicitly distinguish photorealistic work. So obvious artwork can be photorealistic as well?
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 03:26:29 PM · #31 |
| it helps that its a majority council vote, not one person deciding if its legit or not. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 03:31:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
When describing obvious artwork in this section (the section that has billboards and frames), it sounded like you were talking about artwork that was non-photorealistic. In the next section of your comment, you explicitly distinguish photorealistic work. So obvious artwork can be photorealistic as well? |
Nobody is going to mistake a crayon drawing or etched portrait of Andrew Jackson for a real subject that you lit and shot as a photograph, so everyone understands it's artwork and there's no problem. Likewise, things that are photorealistic, like a monitor shot, billboard photo or framed soldier print would be legal as long as the context (macro of pixels or a frame) makes it obvious to the viewer that it's a photo of artwork. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 05:08:11 PM · #33 |
Who's on first.
What's on second. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 05:14:14 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
When describing obvious artwork in this section (the section that has billboards and frames), it sounded like you were talking about artwork that was non-photorealistic. In the next section of your comment, you explicitly distinguish photorealistic work. So obvious artwork can be photorealistic as well? |
Nobody is going to mistake a crayon drawing or etched portrait of Andrew Jackson for a real subject that you lit and shot as a photograph, so everyone understands it's artwork and there's no problem. Likewise, things that are photorealistic, like a monitor shot, billboard photo or framed soldier print would be legal as long as the context (macro of pixels or a frame) makes it obvious to the viewer that it's a photo of artwork. |
There are photoshop filters that produce such effects so in theory someone could be fooled into thinking the subject captured was real and artistic filters were applied to it in post. If the post processing is done very well you wouldn't know the difference.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 17:15:05. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 05:16:44 PM · #35 |
because its a photography website, you can't use photography to trick someone, as in a picture of a butterfly. Otherwise, you can trick them with mirrors or perspective, photography tricks. lens flaps, or strobes, etc that make a shot seem impossible, but actually the result of an easy tricky technique. Or you can use a plastic butterfly. just not a picture of a plastic butterfly. Ha!
but what about that shot with the monitor and tea set behind it in basic editing- isn't that using a photo to trick someone into thinking its photorealistic? The only way that shot would have been legal is to break the monitor, hollow it out and place it in front of something.
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 17:20:00. |
|
|
|
06/07/2012 10:11:34 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by yanko:
There are photoshop filters that produce such effects so in theory someone could be fooled into thinking the subject captured was real and artistic filters were applied to it in post. If the post processing is done very well you wouldn't know the difference. |
And this matters why? If the artwork is obvious, then it's legal and viewers can vote accordingly. If somebody takes a photo and legally edits it to look like obvious artwork, then it's still legal and viewers will vote under the same assumption (as the photographer presumably intended).
Message edited by author 2012-06-07 22:13:04. |
|
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: 08/03/2025 09:31:20 PM EDT.
