| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2004 09:43:19 AM · #76 |
Okay. Since I'm getting a tad confused here- let's recap.
1) By your own admission, you have been struggling with new camera software. This has resulted in several images being DQ'd because the originals were invalid.
2) You requested an admin note on this image.
3) When requesting that note, you triggered the same process for a DQ. The original must be submitted for validation. This means the unedited original.
4) Per the comment from Ben, when you submitted your proof for validation, you submitted an edited image, not the unedited original.
At this point in time the artwork rule is moot. You didn't submit the original, unedited version. Then looking at the original? you uploaded here, I don't see that there was any choice. The feet are clearly in a framed work of art. It's like taking a picture of a corner of a Monet and then submitting it to a challenge.
I guess I'm kinda confused about how you are getting picked on? I mean, if you requested the admin note, and then didn't submit the original correctly then that's not picked on really. Help! I'm a confused little photographer!
Clara |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 09:47:46 AM · #77 |
No image was ever uploaded for the feet shot. My comments about invalid originals and admin note requests apply to past DQs for train.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 09:47:54 AM · #78 |
the requested admin note dq was on a different challenge, not the one being discussed at the moment.
.... i know, i know .... the commercials aren't long enough to go to the bathroom without missing some of the show when you get back :) |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 09:49:56 AM · #79 |
Actually it is many different occassions of DQ's and reasons that are being put together here.
The steps blemt outlines are what basically occurred for another DQ, but not for the feet submission.
However, the point blemt makes is undeniably clear. There has been help, help, and more help given to Train.
We love to provide help any way that we can. However, like I stated earlier in this thread, perhaps a full review of the rules and a lesson with your computer/software and camera are in order here.
I am not trying to be 'harsh' or anything else. It just seems silly to me that we are getting fingers pointed at us for something we are not doing.
I am only left scratching my head at this now.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 09:55:38 AM · #80 |
Oy! Who's got a scorecard? Can't tell the players without a scorecard!
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 11:09:14 AM · #81 |
It seems that train and wackybill are still a bit befuddled by what "constitutes" a literal representation of a work of art (although I think EddyG and Konador offered very good explanations). Allow me to take a crack at it...
The difference is this: in train's image of feet, we are looking at a straight-on shot of a printed piece (whether it's cropped or behind glass is irrelevant). There is nothing for the viewer to comment on except for the artwork itself. It might as well have been placed on a flatbed scanner or photographed off a computer screen.
In the case of kiwiness' water drops, the viewer can see obvious decisions made by the photographer... the single softbox reflection and strong shadow on the back of each drop create a dimensional quality that would be very different (and obviously intentional) than the same shot under flat, ambient light. We can see that Gary chose to shoot at a low angle and maybe slightly rotated. The brilliance of the shot was not merely the water drops, but how they were photographed.
The same concept would hold true for footprints in the sand (shooting from a particular angle with a certain quality of light and shadows). Most dimensional subjects will not be DQ'd because they depict a particular angle and lighting setup chosen by the photographer.
It's not necessarily the subject matter that draws a DQ, it's how you shoot that subject. A straight-on photo of a print of Kiwiness' water drops image would be DQ'd as a literal representation unless you added something to it (a physical object on the print or a shadow across the surface, for example). The key to this rule is whether or not the photographer has made an obvious contribution to what was already there. That will determine whether we are voting on the artwork or on a photograph of the artwork.
In a nutshell... a cropped photo of the Mona Lisa's nose would be DQ'd. A cropped photo of the Mona Lisa's nose with a fly on it would be fine (and maybe a ribbon). Hope that helps. ;-)
Message edited by author 2004-08-16 12:07:00. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 05:18:21 PM · #82 |
Good morning Oh did I ever open a can of worms!!
The image I uploaded for you to see on the feet challenge with the hands showing is a shot I took yesterday not the original I had already wiped that after the DQ
AS for my Feet shot I AM SORRY but I dont agree with your reasoning. Here is why!
I make a set up (as I did with the help of my daughter) for the challenge (that is what motivated us to do something we had been going to do for a long time It had not been hanging on a wall or anything like that) in the Feet challenge and take a image with my camera then down load it, and then crop it, so it just shows the feet and not the hands, put a border around it, and upload it onto a site, that I am cheating. I AM NOT let me explain .....
If I made, as I did, with the help of my oven and vast skills LOL! my blue berry muffins ( as I did in the food challenge)put it on a plate with a flower beside it and took an image of that with my camera then upload it. It is still a work of art, if not a flat work of art I realise, no one thought anything of it but both are MY works of art created for both challenges.
So are you saying that if I put a flower beside my Feet entry it would be accepted? How crazy is that.
I accept it has been DQ but that to me, makes no sense.
As for my car image I did ask for an admin note on it because it had been suggested through comments left that it was a copy
I thought I did provide he original but the only problem with that was I had named it car proof so it was not accepted.
Also in my 'Star sign challenge' I entered an image of a carved Crystal crab which is a paper weight own by us, I did it on Macro, that was a work of art created by a carving artist, no one said anything to me about copying a work of art. I though I met the challenge and very nicely thank you, although some people thought it was in negative so it didn't score highly It was however a good image for the challenge IMHO
I could go on and on but unless you wipe me off the site I really cannot understand why It is considered not my image to upload.
I created it.
Yes, I am having problems with my camera loading on the right format and its when I change that into J peg I get the problem that it's not the original I am no technical person I just love to take photographs
I may try and go back to my first disk and load the old programme up It's the new disk with the new camera uploading seems to have caused the problem
I accept that it is MY fault, but hey, there are no prizes, no money changing hands, and if I do get a Ribbon it is only glory for a week and who really cares, (although I did get a nice fuzzy feeling when I got my ribbons) I take my art seriously and strive to get a nice image
Take my ribbons away, wipe the board so to speak, I know I have had fun on this site it's very addictive and it has certainly made me look at the world differently 9Thank you for that) after all who would really think of taking a photo of feet or muffins or crystal crab paperweights.
I realise anyone an cheat , take another persons art and call their own , anyone can do that but what is the point? where is the satifaction in that? why bother that doesnt make me a good photographer. There are people out there that do that and people that score low when no need to hey look at most of the top images most have 1's and 2's on them and that shows how silly it all is.
I have had letters this week offering to help me and with nice comments to me as a photographer and I thank every one for that
First of all I am going to read my manual and ask the camera shop what is going on if that fails I will look at changing back to my old camera although I have always loaded the same way so maybe all my images are wrong ! Oh no! If I cant sort it out in the next few days I will get someone to help me
Anyway enough said
I accept the problem is MINE and will try to rectify it
I do not accept though that I have in anyway cheated just that I am ignorant when it comes to the technical stuff but I am learning Two years ago I had not done anything like this.
Now Ben, as for asking for admin notes to DQ me I have done that a few times when in a last minute rush I have loaded up the wrong image (call me what you will but I am trying to juggle family a sick partner grand children a teenager and fit in what I want to do.) to one I have used tools on not meant for the challenge. sometimes when I am working on an image I forget that its for a members challenge or an open challenge
and Yes BEN I do think your being 'harsh' I admire your work, but there are ways of saying things to people, I may be an older person but I am a person with feelings so you can learn some tact, my son! LOL! that is just a joke to lighten the load so please dont start on about that!
Regards
Sally
Message edited by author 2004-08-16 17:33:23. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 05:23:53 PM · #83 |
| Taking a picture of the process of making the footprints would've been the best way to go. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 05:29:36 PM · #84 |
I thought I would never get involved in this one.
But Sally, I have noticed that you have used the word 'cheating' in a lot of posts. I don't see anyone here accusing you of cheating. In my opinion it's about what's accepted and what's not here on DPC.
If it's in anyway against the rules, I don't think DPC really has a choice. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 05:34:39 PM · #85 |
Whatever ! Doing the process wrongly then, please dont start me on that!
Good morning Oh did I ever open a can of worms!!
The image I uploaded for you to see on the feet challenge with the hands showing is a shot I took yesterday not the original I had already wiped that after the DQ
AS for my Feet shot I AM SORRY but I dont agree with your reasoning. Here is why!
I make a set up (as I did with the help of my daughter) for the challenge (that is what motivated us to do something we had been going to do for a long time It had not been hanging on a wall or anything like that) in the Feet challenge and take a image with my camera then down load it, and then crop it, so it just shows the feet and not the hands, put a border around it, and upload it onto a site, that I am cheating. I AM NOT let me explain .....
If I made, as I did, with the help of my oven and vast skills LOL! my blue berry muffins ( as I did in the food challenge)put it on a plate with a flower beside it and took an image of that with my camera then upload it. It is still a work of art, if not a flat work of art I realise, no one thought anything of it but both are MY works of art created for both challenges.
So are you saying that if I put a flower beside my Feet entry it would be accepted? How crazy is that.
I accept it has been DQ but that to me, makes no sense.
As for my car image I did ask for an admin note on it because it had been suggested through comments left that it was a copy
I thought I did provide he original but the only problem with that was I had named it car proof so it was not accepted.
Also in my 'Star sign challenge' I entered an image of a carved Crystal crab which is a paper weight own by us, I did it on Macro, that was a work of art created by a carving artist, no one said anything to me about copying a work of art. I though I met the challenge and very nicely thank you, although some people thought it was in negative so it didn't score highly It was however a good image for the challenge IMHO
I could go on and on but unless you wipe me off the site I really cannot understand why It is considered not my image to upload.
I created it.
Yes, I am having problems with my camera loading on the right format and its when I change that into J peg I get the problem that it's not the original I am no technical person I just love to take photographs
I may try and go back to my first disk and load the old programme up It's the new disk with the new camera uploading seems to have caused the problem
I accept that it is MY fault, but hey, there are no prizes, no money changing hands, and if I do get a Ribbon it is only glory for a week and who really cares, (although I did get a nice fuzzy feeling when I got my ribbons) I take my art seriously and strive to get a nice image
Take my ribbons away, wipe the board so to speak, I know I have had fun on this site it's very addictive and it has certainly made me look at the world differently 9Thank you for that) after all who would really think of taking a photo of feet or muffins or crystal crab paperweights.
I realise anyone an cheat , take another persons art and call their own , anyone can do that but what is the point? where is the satifaction in that? why bother that doesnt make me a good photographer. There are people out there that do that and people that score low when no need to hey look at most of the top images most have 1's and 2's on them and that shows how silly it all is.
I have had letters this week offering to help me and with nice comments to me as a photographer and I thank every one for that
First of all I am going to read my manual and ask the camera shop what is going on if that fails I will look at changing back to my old camera although I have always loaded the same way so maybe all my images are wrong ! Oh no! If I cant sort it out in the next few days I will get someone to help me
Anyway enough said
I accept the problem is MINE and will try to rectify it
I do not accept though that I have in anyway cheated just that I am ignorant when it comes to the technical stuff but I am learning Two years ago I had not done anything like this.
Now Ben, as for asking for admin notes to DQ me I have done that a few times when in a last minute rush I have loaded up the wrong image (call me what you will but I am trying to juggle family a sick partner grand children a teenager and fit in what I want to do.) to one I have used tools on not meant for the challenge. sometimes when I am working on an image I forget that its for a members challenge or an open challenge
and Yes, BEN, I do think your being 'harsh' I admire your work, but there are ways of saying things to people, I may be an older person but I am a person with feelings so you can learn some tact, my son! LOL! that is just a joke to lighten the load so please dont start on about that!
Regards
Sally
Message edited by author 2004-08-16 17:33:23.
Message edited by author 2004-08-16 17:36:50. |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 06:12:49 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by train:
Yes BEN I do think your being 'harsh' I admire your work, but there are ways of saying things to people, |
How would you have said what I said then?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 06:15:24 PM · #87 |
I can't believe this thread continues...
Please, Sally, you got DQed... no one is picking on you.. the rules are the rules... accept it & let's get back to shooting!
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 06:24:41 PM · #88 |
OK- let me try to clarify...
Whether the artwork is yours is not in question. What matters is that your entries demonstrate decisions made by the photographer that affect how the depicted artwork is perceived by others. Your image of the feet was ALREADY a "picture" before you took a picture of it. Muffins are not. You would need to take a picture of muffins to capture the scene on paper. When you take a pictures of muffins, you are forcing the viewer to see the photographer's particular vision of that setup (a specific angle, lighting, etc.) By shooting straight-on in even light, you've essentially made a color Xerox of a picture that already existed as-is. You are presenting the artist's vision, not the photographer's.
Placing a flower (or other object) over your feet image before shooting makes it something "new" that didn't already exist on paper. Likewise, shining a light through venetian blinds to create strong shadows across your feet picture would add something new, and probably be OK.
Nobody's scolding you or accusing you of cheating. We're just trying to help you understand the ground rules so you can dazzle us next time. Cheers. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 06:26:23 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
I can't believe this thread continues...
Please, Sally, you got DQed... no one is picking on you.. the rules are the rules... accept it & let's get back to shooting! |
No kidding! If we'd all spent this much time debugging those technical problems instead of beating a dead horse Train's future submissions would probably survive administrative review and we could avoid another wave of this thread :)
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 07:51:38 PM · #90 |
First off, I want to stress what xion and scalvert said, Train, I don't think anyone at all has said, implied or thinks you were "cheating". I think people just want to help you see this in a way that doesn't leave a sour taste in your mouth.
I think that maybe you're focusing on the fact that the footprints were YOUR own work. No one is debating that fact. Here is an example I don't think anyone has used, let's say that I paint (hypothetical, I couldn't paint my way out of a paper bag :-) ) But say I make a painting, and then take a photo of it. I then show it to people, (or enter it in a challenge, or whatever) then really what they are looking at, or judging or appreciating is my talent as a painter. They think, what a nice painting. The photo isn't really different than showing them the actual painting. It doesn't even matter that it was mine or not.
Now, if I took a photo of say, my hand signing the finished painting, or of the painting sitting on a table, cascaded with light from a single window, or on the wall with dramatic shadows cast across it, or someone looking at it, or an odd perspective or angle, etc. , then the painting has become just the object/subject of the photo, and I am saying look at this neat photo, not see this neat painting.
BTW, your footprints are beautiful. A wonderful keepsake to have of your daughter. You're obviously very talented. Hope you can shrug this off and keep the creativity flowing.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2004 11:01:08 PM · #91 |
This is a marathon and I give up! There is no way we are going to see eye to eye
MY crystal crab was a straight image of someone elses art all I did was to photograph it in Macro I did nothing else to it.
So I throw my hands in the air and say I've had enough!
Thanks to the supporters and the people who have tried to help.
It is all very over whelming to me. This is a photography sight not a court room I was just trying to ask why
1. I am having trouble with loading my original unaltered image
2. Why is is I am having DQ's lately because of my inability to load my originals as proof If I load my images up in the other files other than Jpeg I cannot see them to work on them so I have to change to Jpeg
I dont know any other way
3. That I feel my entry was valid and I still say it is but
I am accepting the DQ I just dont see why those other entries of mine remain as they have all been done the same way since I started my time with D P C
Thanks to everyone
Sally |
|
|
|
08/16/2004 11:37:56 PM · #92 |
Last try. Your crystal crab was NOT already a picture before you shot it.
The sculpture itself was finished, but then you made obvious decisions as a photographer about how best to portray it: you placed it on a black background, lit it from the sides rather than from behind, and cropped it in such a way that it seems like a crab with dimension placed in the bottom of an open glass pit. The difference is that I can respond to choices the photographer made rather than the artwork alone. |
|
|
|
08/17/2004 12:51:42 PM · #93 |
Sally,
It sounds like you misunderstand the intent of the "Other Artwork" rule. This rule does not exist just to prevent users from submitting other people's work, thus the words "including your own" in the rule text. This rule has been used to disqualify photographs of computer and television screens, paintings, photographs, and drawings, some of which, like yours, were created specifically for the challenge in question.
The metric used to judge this, while difficult to draw a precise line on, is simple to state: If an image is composed in such a way that it compels the voter to score only the artwork in the photograph, rather than the artistic decisions made by the photographer in representing that artwork, it will be disqualified. Whether the artwork was created specifically for the challenge is irrelevant to the decision.
In the case of your entry, the creation of the work was essentially complete when you put the footprints on the paper. The footprints on the paper have essentially the same impact on the viewer as your photograph thereof. The taking of the photograph simply put that artwork in a form that could be submitted to DPChallenge. While I have no doubt your intentions were good, the fact remains that we have consistently ruled such entries as unacceptable for submission. To apply that same ruling to your photograph is not picking on you, but simply applying the rules on a consistent basis.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/17/2004 12:59:58 PM · #94 |
Actually, Terry, that kind of makes sense and I do now see a little of the logic behind differentiating between 2D and 3D artwork.
It's true that photographer's choices on lighting, viewpoint etc can show a 3D piece in a variety of ways.
But I still think there are far too many instances where people go and take a picture of a nice statue or modern sculpture in a park and get the benefit of the artist's vision. It's not as though the artist didn't already consider the impact their piece would have from different viewpoints and in different lights. Just crouching down on a knee doesn't necessarily add anything new.
Just my two cents.
PS It doesn't really matter whether someone is deliberately trying to cheat or whether they are simply unable to get their head around how to use their own camera, computer and software. If they fail to submit a wholly unedited original on request they deserve a DQ. End of story.
I don't think self requested DQs should be permitted. It's everyone's OWN responsibility to ensure they submit the right image, to ensure that they have the permission of their subject to use the image publicly and so on.
We should not impose on the good nature and helpfulness of the SC because WE can't get it right.
Message edited by author 2004-08-17 13:00:32.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 09:58:13 AM · #95 |
Excuse me for my ignorance, but I'm really confused. I read much of this thread yesterday and thought I understood the problem with the DQed photo and agreed with the SC's decision to disqualify it, but today, as I'm voting on the NEON challenge, I see MANY pictures of neon signs that seem to be in the same vein as the footprints shot--straight on, no artistic interpretation apparent, no interesting angle, no background giving it context, no photographic technique enhanding it, just a straight-on shot of a sign. How is this any different from the picture of the footprints? It is still someone taking a picture of someone else's art (in this case, the art being the neon sign). Should these pictures be DQed too or is there a reason these photographs should be considered in a different light (er...excuse the pun)? I'm not trying to be argumentative or get anyone's shot DQed, I just truly wish to understand.
Thanks.
Patty |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 10:20:09 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Pidd:
Excuse me for my ignorance, but I'm really confused. I read much of this thread yesterday and thought I understood the problem with the DQed photo and agreed with the SC's decision to disqualify it, but today, as I'm voting on the NEON challenge, I see MANY pictures of neon signs that seem to be in the same vein as the footprints shot--straight on, no artistic interpretation apparent, no interesting angle, no background giving it context, no photographic technique enhanding it, just a straight-on shot of a sign. How is this any different from the picture of the footprints? It is still someone taking a picture of someone else's art (in this case, the art being the neon sign). Should these pictures be DQed too or is there a reason these photographs should be considered in a different light (er...excuse the pun)? I'm not trying to be argumentative or get anyone's shot DQed, I just truly wish to understand.
Thanks.
Patty |
Interesting observation... I had the same thought on a bunch of them, but didn't connect to this thread until I read your post. I think in general this dips back into the 3-d vs 2-d school of thought. Most of the emotionless submissions in neon seemed to have one of two things going for them which I think get them out of the "photos of art" category.
(1) They are three dimensional. The neon sign itself is a three dimensional object often in a 3-d window. This creates the potential for interpretation in terms of point of view, shadow, lighting, exposure, etc. In contrast, a straight on shot of a 2-d prior work has no photographic elements to its credit - strictly the elements of its original medium.
(2) To be more specific about (1), most of them are taken as a night shot which has the effect of a blacked out (to some degree) background. Although I don't think all of them really flexed their creative muscles, it's hard to argue about the photographer making an exposure choice which resulted in the emphasis of a foreground subject and a de-emphasis of distracting or unaesthetic background elements.
I noticed a few submissions which really seemed to be little more than the sign itself, yet the perspective of the shot had a significant impact on the aesthtic quality. Good or bad, I did feel that most of the neon entries in question had at least one photographic element which "altered" the straight prior work.
Hope this makes sense! Thanks for waking up my brain :)
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 10:23:40 AM · #97 |
What cghubbell said.
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 10:23:57. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 10:43:02 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
(1) They are three dimensional. The neon sign itself is a three dimensional object often in a 3-d window. This creates the potential for interpretation in terms of point of view, shadow, lighting, exposure, etc. In contrast, a straight on shot of a 2-d prior work has no photographic elements to its credit - strictly the elements of its original medium.
|
I dunno. Even in the 2-D picture of a picture, lighting has to be considered to some degree. I thought the picture of the footprints looked nice, even if it was in TOS violation. The photo has been removed from the thread so I can't take a look at it to confirm my recollection, but I seem to remember that one side of the picture was a little darker than the other, casting a kind of shadow across it. I thought this was a nice effect and pleasing to the eye--a photographic element I probably would not have gotten by standing in front of the picture and looking at it with my eyes only.
With the neon signs, the ones that are taken at an unusual angle or contain some other creative element, I have no problem seeing how they conform to the TOS. It's the straight-on shots I have the problem with. Neon signs being 3-D or not (one might argue then that taking a picture of a painting that has thick layers of paint creating a kind of 3-D affect would not be a violation).
Anyway, thanks for your response. I'll consider your words as I cast my votes.
And thanks for not making me feel stupid for asking. LOL
Patty |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 10:50:49 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Pidd:
I dunno. Even in the 2-D picture of a picture, lighting has to be considered to some degree.
Patty |
Great point - no photograph could exist without some form of light interpretation. I don't recall the lighting detail in the footprints you describe, but that doesn't mean anything - I probably wasn't paying much attention :) I think the only thing that's clear is that this is a grey area.
To me the voting distinction becomes whether or not I think someone made an effort to create an image, or simply capture an image. A blurry snapshot with poor composition of a neon sign doesn't get my benefit of the doubt when voting. I think we're on the same page, just wanted to inject the point about photographer's intent when it comes to voting.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 11:13:18 AM · #100 |
| A picture is already a picture. A 3D object (like a neon sign) is part of a scene that has yet to be captured as a picture. The photographer's job is to capture the scene- perhaps with some surrounding store front or reflections in a window. That said, a straight-on crop of an existing sign with nothing else to consider would be questionable. If in doubt, vote as you normally would and recommend a DQ for the SC (Supreme Court) to decide. |
|
