| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/21/2014 12:15:13 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i'm still confused...
i just dont see the criteria in which Ken's entry is illegal... anyone who looks it knows it was not real and it was printed out and stuck on his head. |
This is the gray area in the rules, the "artwork rule":
"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."
The deal here is, it basically only applies to photographs and/or photo-realistic paintings. The *primary* purpose of the "artwork rule", in its various iterations, was to close a loophole so people can't submit work that was taken by others or by themselves outside the challenge dates by taking a photograph of a photograph. That's basically what we're trying to prohibit. It's terribly difficult to word it without inadvertently excluding some usages of existing photographs that we don't WANT to prohibit. For example, if the challenge was "museums" and someone submitted a shot of a gallery filled with photographic art, we don't want to exclude that.
So we have a wording that tries to say "as long as the voters are not judging a photo of a photo, it's probably OK." (remember the rule: "must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.")
That's the key issue here with Art's DQ, from an ethical point of view, so to speak: without the gears, the image doesn't meet the challenge in any way whatsoever. Therefore, it's OBVIOUS that the viewers are "judging" the gears as a significant part of the image when they vote. And those gears were not shot in the challenge timeframe nor by Art, the entrant in this case. So a completely non-conforming piece of art, the gears, had been shoehorned into the challenge. It doesn't feel right.
Unfortunately, viewing the rule this way DOES preclude a photographer actually SHOOTING the gears himself, within the challenge timeframe, and taping them to his head: we'd still be judging a photo of a photo. But then, that's WHY we have expert editing, so we can go in that direction when we want to. It's not a perfect rule, and personally I don't know how to word it to make it perfect, but the goal is, IMO, admirable: ensure that the significant portions of the image, the parts that people are voting on, all were photographed BY the entrant and WITHIN the challenge time-frame.
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 12:17:02. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 12:28:03 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
i'm still confused...
i just dont see the criteria in which Ken's entry is illegal... anyone who looks it knows it was not real and it was printed out and stuck on his head. |
This is the gray area in the rules, the "artwork rule":
[iThat's the key issue here with Art's DQ, from an ethical point of view, so to speak: without the gears, the image doesn't meet the challenge in any way whatsoever. Therefore, it's OBVIOUS that the viewers are "judging" the gears as a significant part of the image when they vote. And those gears were not shot in the challenge timeframe nor by Art, the entrant in this case. So a completely non-conforming piece of art, the gears, had been shoehorned into the challenge. It doesn't feel right.
|
Meeting the challenge has NEVER been a reason for a DQ without a Specific rule and yellow flag added, so this argument hold no water at all.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2014 12:32:56 PM · #78 |
this is why i asked if the challenge title had been anything but "wheels" if it would pass muster. Shannon said no. I agree in your reply that its should be dq'd since it was a wheels challenge and he didn't shoot the wheels himself.
i dont get how this image would have passed muster even in expert with the explanation you are giving.
if Ken took the same image and inserted it in post it would have been dq'd since its clipart. but in the current case had he shot some gears within the dates himself and printed it out and stuck it to his head, you are saying it would still be illegal?
it you are dqing it because he took a picture of an image outside the challenge dates, i agree with that. but dont make a dq because he printed out the image and taped it to his head.
the rule he violated is shooting someone elses artwork taken outside the challenge dates and that would be illegal no matter the rule set so saying "that's why we have expert" isn't really a good argument. im arguing that what he did should be legal had he shot the gears himself.. hell Christophe just did this in minimal not to long ago...
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 12:38:04. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 12:45:00 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i dont get how this image would have passed muster even in expert with the explanation you are giving. |
It wouldn't. Bear's saying we have Expert editing for composites– shoot the gears yourself as real objects and Photoshop them together. It's the difference between a DQ and a Gyaban.
Originally posted by Mike:
if Ken took the same image and inserted it in post it would have been dq'd since its clipart. but in the current case had he shot some gears within the dates himself and printed it out and stuck it to his head, you are saying it would still be illegal? |
No, still a circumvention to create an otherwise-illegal composite (a mockery of the clip art guideline you mentioned). Everything substantial must be real objects in the scene.
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 12:53:09. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 01:23:01 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Meeting the challenge has NEVER been a reason for a DQ without a Specific rule and yellow flag added, so this argument hold no water at all. |
You're missing the point I'm making: I'm saying that because the gears are absolutely integral to the particular challenge, you can't make the argument that people were NOT judging the photograph-within-the-photograph when they ranked the image. Once more: "...but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
You can't argue they're not doing that here, because without the included photo there wouldn't even BE an entry: the gears are primary to the concept here, of COURSE they're being judged. Or so we reasoned, anyway... |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 01:26:24 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
Meeting the challenge has NEVER been a reason for a DQ without a Specific rule and yellow flag added, so this argument hold no water at all. |
You're missing the point I'm making: I'm saying that because the gears are absolutely integral to the particular challenge, you can't make the argument that people were NOT judging the photograph-within-the-photograph when they ranked the image. Once more: "...but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
You can't argue they're not doing that here, because without the included photo there wouldn't even BE an entry: the gears are primary to the concept here, of COURSE they're being judged. Or so we reasoned, anyway... |
Yes -- but if it was a photo of just the artwork, it wouldn't have scored nearly as high. It was the idea of art's brain that made it much, much more interesting. Perhaps it was too big of a part of it and should have been shot by him. But it seems like there have been other shots that have had pictures playing a much larger part that have passed muster... |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 01:42:03 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
it seems like there have been other shots that have had pictures playing a much larger part that have passed muster... |
Not in the past 4 or 5 years. The old artwork rule allowed prominent artwork as long as something in the shot was real, which I personally exploited on several occasions. That loophole is largely closed now... as it probably should be, especially considering the frequent availability of Expert editing for that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 01:44:15 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vawendy:
it seems like there have been other shots that have had pictures playing a much larger part that have passed muster... |
Not in the past 4 or 5 years. The old artwork rule allowed prominent artwork as long as something in the shot was real, which I personally exploited on several occasions. That loophole is largely closed now... as it probably should be, especially considering the frequent availability of Expert editing for that sort of thing. |
.
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 13:59:35. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 01:55:39 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, still a circumvention to create an otherwise-illegal composite (a mockery of the clip art guideline you mentioned). Everything substantial must be real objects in the scene. |
sorry but that is just stupid..
if i had tken a picture of some gears (within the challenge date and not someone elses picture) and printed it out and taped it to my head, are you telling me that's illegal but holding up a phone with art made by someone else in front of another object isn't???
i get why we have the rule but how does my procedure circumvent anything??? there isn't a rule in advanced or minimal that says you cant do that... |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:06:36 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
No, still a circumvention to create an otherwise-illegal composite (a mockery of the clip art guideline you mentioned). Everything substantial must be real objects in the scene. |
sorry but that is just stupid..
if i had tken a picture of some gears (within the challenge date and not someone elses picture) and printed it out and taped it to my head, are you telling me that's illegal but holding up a phone with art made by someone else in front of another object isn't???
i get why we have the rule but how does my procedure circumvent anything??? there isn't a rule in advanced or minimal that says you cant do that... |
I discussed this earlier. Maybe you missed it? (emphasis added)
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Unfortunately, viewing the rule this way DOES preclude a photographer actually SHOOTING the gears himself, within the challenge timeframe, and taping them to his head: we'd still be judging a photo of a photo. But then, that's WHY we have expert editing, so we can go in that direction when we want to. It's not a perfect rule, and personally I don't know how to word it to make it perfect, but the goal is, IMO, admirable: ensure that the significant portions of the image, the parts that people are voting on, all were photographed BY the entrant and WITHIN the challenge time-frame. |
|
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:19:53 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i get why we have the rule but how does my procedure circumvent anything??? there isn't a rule in advanced or minimal that says you cant do that... |
Originally posted by Those Pesky Rules:
"The intent of allowing multiple captures is... not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene" "You may not combine captures of different scenes... or combine different captures to create a new scene." |
Composites are not allowed outside of Expert Editing (and even there everything other than textures must be photos of actual objects taken by you during the submission dates). You can, however, take a photo of a phone or billboard.
I think some people might still be misinterpreting the third step of my chart. It's an issue of presenting an existing image as something that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene, regardless of whether people are actually fooled. I've reworded that part to hopefully make it easier to understand. (You might have to refesh your browser to see the updated chart)
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 14:26:36. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:29:04 PM · #87 |
As I said early on, Ken took this DQ like a champ (publicly), and kudos to him for it.
To be honest, i don't care if he photographed the gears or not; if he used a print out of them, it's no different than buying the gears and using spirit glue to stick them to your head. He setup a scene, which did a marvelous job of conveying the sense of inner workings of the mind being like gears; he shot and edited the picture that was put up for voting, the primary element in the scene is him, the gears are the accessory to his image, and i see that no differently than scalvert's fish.
Ken is the subject here, despite the challenge being called Wheels, and had he omitted the print out entirely he would be able to convey the same message via the image/title. Some may claim it DNMC since no wheels were present, others may herald it as brilliant (that is all speculation), but it would not change the fact that the primary subject has remained the same and would convey the sense of the image through his expression and pose.
I understand that these are not taken lightly, and remember it being said that this was not an easy decision to come to, so do not mistake my post as an attack on the ruling of the SC, i'm just voicing an opinion on the matter. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:32:59 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
Meeting the challenge has NEVER been a reason for a DQ without a Specific rule and yellow flag added, so this argument hold no water at all. |
You're missing the point I'm making: I'm saying that because the gears are absolutely integral to the particular challenge, you can't make the argument that people were NOT judging the photograph-within-the-photograph when they ranked the image. Once more: "...but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
You can't argue they're not doing that here, because without the included photo there wouldn't even BE an entry: the gears are primary to the concept here, of COURSE they're being judged. Or so we reasoned, anyway... |
Is this for Advanced only or does it apply to Expert as well? |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:34:55 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
if he used a print out of them, it's no different than buying the gears and using spirit glue to stick them to your head. |
Therefore it's equally no different if I take a photo of Yosemite through a window frame vs. taking a shot of an Ansel Adams print taped to the outside of my window. After all it's the same brilliant concept, so it shouldn't matter that people are mostly judging the lighting, focus and tones of a carefully processed print under the assumption that I shot it that way, right?
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 14:37:34. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:37:16 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Is this for Advanced only or does it apply to Expert as well? |
The artwork rule is listed exactly the same way in every ruleset. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:47:13 PM · #91 |
| So if Ken shot the gears separately in and photoshopped them on his head (not taped them) then it would be legal in EXPERT? Please say it is or I have to get a lawyer to figure out these rules. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:48:37 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by nygold:
So if Ken shot the gears separately and photoshopped them on his head (not taped them) then it would be legal in EXPERT? |
Assuming you mean real gears, yes. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:48:50 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by nygold:
So if Ken shot the gears separately in and photoshopped them on his head (not taped them) then it would be legal in EXPERT? Please say it is or I have to get a lawyer to figure out these rules. |
Correct. THAT would be legal.
ETA: What Shannon said: REAL gears shot by Art. You can't use other peoples' art to composite an expert image.
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 14:50:04. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:50:08 PM · #94 |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:55:21 PM · #95 |
| Are those gears really photorealistic? Using the flowchart, other examples of DQs, and everything else presented here, this photo is unquestionably legal in my view. No offense intended, but this DQ seems entirely unnecessary. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 02:59:52 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Therefore it's equally no different if I take a photo of Yosemite through a window frame vs. taking a shot of an Ansel Adams print taped to the outside of my window. After all it's the same brilliant concept, so it shouldn't matter that people are mostly judging the lighting, focus and tones of a carefully processed print under the assumption that I shot it that way, right? |
If the challenge was "window frames", no, it wouldn't matter to me, in-so-far as your entry being able to stand on its own merit with or without the picture of yosemite.
As i stated following your quoted block of mine, Ken's image could still stand without the wheels based on the pose and expression, and it would still have lovers and haters declaring it's brilliance or the fact it doesn't meet the challenge.
The challenge was about wheels, and the wheels in his head are obviously turning based on his physical presence presented in the image, so the gears, To Me, are secondary and i took in the scene as a whole, as it was presented by the photographer. The man was the subject in my interpretation of the image, and i was just voicing my thoughts on the matter.
With reference back to your picture of the ansel adams image, if the challenge was "scenic vistas" and you faced a brick wall from a city apartment, yet taped the ansel adams picture up and used it as your entry as the whole space of the presented vista, i would say it's a photo of a photo and would be dq'd; if you had shown that same image as a subset of the building, in that you were showing how you created a scenic vista that was pleasant to see when you look out your window, where only a bland wall stood before, i would say it is a pleasant way to "spruce up the scenery".
Message edited by author 2014-07-21 15:00:53. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 03:10:29 PM · #97 |
Wow, this could go on forever. I appreciate the support and defense of my entry, but I'm over it. I realize for many posting here, the main issue is that there is still some ambiguity in the artwork rule. Shannon's flowchart is very helpful (at least to me). I'd like to bump and second Bear's suggestion from earlier in this thread: Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have a suggestion: someone, start a thread with a constructive suggestion for a NEW artwork rule that we can slip in that will leave us free to do creative stuff but still require photographers to actually photograph the meaningful, challenge-relevant parts of their entries, OK? Then we can all hash it out with no holds barred. |
We've tried this several times in the past (apparently still unsuccessfully), but we have some new blood now and maybe someone can come up with better wording for the rule. In the meantime, I'll use the flowchart from now on, knowing that it is still no guarantee of legality. Everything will always be subject to interpretation and that's why we rely on the SC - as a group, I trust and respect them make the final decision. Bottom line is that, like everything in life, if you take risks and push the envelope, it can either pay off or you can crash & burn. I'll continue to push and take my lumps. It's all just for fun & learning here anyway. :) |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 03:12:36 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Wow, this could go on forever. |
Except for this part +100 ... :-) |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 03:38:03 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
If the challenge was "window frames", no, it wouldn't matter to me, in-so-far as your entry being able to stand on its own merit with or without the picture of yosemite. |
I didn't mention a topic because that's irrelevant from a validation standpoint. While I understand your opinion that the head is the subject, I disagree with that assessment. Anyone looking at the entry goes right to the eye-magnet gears as the whole point of the entry. The head serves as context for that focal point of interest. Conceptually, you could make the argument that the head alone infers wheels on some level, but it's a stretch for photographic communication. As the great photographer A. Agassi famously said, "Image is everything."
Originally posted by RyanW:
if the challenge was "scenic vistas" and you faced a brick wall from a city apartment, yet taped the ansel adams picture up and used it as your entry as the whole space of the presented vista, i would say it's a photo of a photo and would be dq'd; if you had shown that same image as a subset of the building, in that you were showing how you created a scenic vista that was pleasant to see when you look out your window, where only a bland wall stood before, i would say it is a pleasant way to "spruce up the scenery". |
Regardless of the challenge, a full frame photo of a photo would be DQ'd. A photo shown framed or taped to the brick wall would be exempt since it's being presented AS artwork rather than something that could be mistaken for real . If you cut the photo into quadrants and framed them to look like a window, that would be a DQ for presenting an existing photo as an apparent real scene outside a window (whether it's believable or not).
Originally posted by bohemka:
Are those gears really photorealistic? |
Yes, the artwork was intended to look like real gears. |
|
|
|
07/21/2014 03:46:53 PM · #100 |
fair enough. as originally stated, i wasn't looking to say the SC was wrong, or that my views were unquestionably correct, i was offering what i thought to be a rather level-headed comment on the matter in a discussion (at least, that's how it was meant to be conveyed...text is always so bloody difficult to convey any sort of flat expression with, especially when the subject is already heated).
You guys have a hard job being the ones who decide whether something is or isn't on one side of a line, which in many cases is blurry to begin with, and i don't envy you that. |
|
