| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2014 02:08:46 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ubique:
How can all this anaesthetising gibberish be relevant to contemporary digital photography? |
Every contest has rules. This particular one, if eliminated, would render most of the other rules moot. The biggest complaint of Expert editing (by far) is that it encourages composites, so it's unlikely that preventing "fake" composites, date circumvention or plagiarism is driving people away. |
That isn't an answer. It merely begs the actual question I posed. But on the other hand, on a Zen sort of level, the absence of answer ultimately is the answer. However I appreciate that this thread isn't a philosophical one, and so digs no deeper than is comfortable for the plants. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 02:20:00 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Mike:
im sorry... at what point did i say take a picture of existing artwork? im taking about taking a picture of real stuff and printing it out. |
...at which point you would then take a picture of the print that is now, by definition, existing artwork. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 02:30:20 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
im sorry... at what point did i say take a picture of existing artwork? im taking about taking a picture of real stuff and printing it out. |
...at which point you would then take a picture of the print that is now, by definition, existing artwork. |
Touche
i give up... |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 02:42:17 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Mike:
im sorry... at what point did i say take a picture of existing artwork? im taking about taking a picture of real stuff and printing it out. |
Sure. Like Shannon said, that becomes artwork. My hypothetical Yosemite shot was of a real object, and hypothetically I printed it out then photographed the print. My question, which you didn't quite answer, is this:
"Do you think we ought to be allowing me to make that hypothetical entry?"
Because, also as Shannon pointed out, if that's a legal entry then pretty much ALL the editing rules and time-of-shooting rules and authorship-of-image rules go out the window. And if it's NOT a legal entry, then neither is what Art did, it's the same thing, except that in his case he didn't actually shoot the gears.
I think if everyone thinks clearly about this, they'll better understand the validation issue we were facing on Art's wonderful, creative shot.
Message edited by author 2014-07-22 14:43:24. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 02:43:42 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
im sorry... at what point did i say take a picture of existing artwork? im taking about taking a picture of real stuff and printing it out. |
...at which point you would then take a picture of the print that is now, by definition, existing artwork. |
Touche
i give up... |
Welcome to the club.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 02:49:21 PM · #131 |
So let me make sure I understand this.
No part of an entry can include a photograph now? |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:01:07 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by MattO:
So let me make sure I understand this.
No part of an entry can include a photograph now? |
You can include all the photographs you want as long as they're "obvious artwork." This one, for example, is legal; 
But when you take a photograph and integrate it INTO the subject in some way, you're getting into dangerous waters. It's a gray area. It's a judgment call. We haven't found a way to make it black-and-white, and probably never will. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:08:50 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Do you think we ought to be allowing me to make that hypothetical entry?"
|
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. Ken's did. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:14:20 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
Had he ENTERED a picture of real gears, that would have been fine, but inserting a photo of gears (no matter who took it) that isn't actually presented as a photo is no different than pasting that same photo over the head in Photoshop, which is illegal in Advanced. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:16:01 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Do you think we ought to be allowing me to make that hypothetical entry?"
|
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. Ken's did. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
OK, that's good. Take it one step further, though; to make this distinction of yours viable, A photographer would have to submit two originals, right? But the first part of the rules says that multiple originals have to be of the same scene, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:19:12 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
Had he ENTERED a picture of real gears, that would have been fine, but inserting a photo of gears (no matter who took it) that isn't actually presented as a photo is no different than pasting that same photo over the head in Photoshop, which is illegal in Advanced. |
So it has to be square, rectangle, or in the shape of a photo print? Is that the whole issue? What do you think about what he entered doesn't make it look like a photo or obvious that it is a photo? Bear just said we can enter as many photos as you want as long as they appear to be obvious artwork. I'm confused as to what Ken entered that makes it not obvious that it isn't a artwork. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:38:26 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by MattO:
So it has to be square, rectangle, or in the shape of a photo print? I'm confused as to what Ken entered that makes it not obvious that it isn't a artwork. |
No, the shape doesn't matter, only that if you're going to use artwork that prominently it should be presented AS artwork whether that's by showing the frame, billboard, cell phone, paper edge, etc. As an example, you couldn't enter a full frame photo of the earth taken from space because that's literal artwork, even though everyone fully comprehends that the photographer wasn't standing on the moon and it must be artwork of some kind. From Mike's earlier question, you can take photos like this, where the existing image is presented for what it is, but you couldn't silhouette around the actor in the supermarket to make that look like part of the capture– even if people recognize the movie scene and can deduce that it's a print. We're talking about visual appearance here, not logical deduction. Note that the Lion King or Pinocchio artwork would be exempt because those are clearly illustrative, not photorealistic.
If Ken had simply taken the same print, cutout exactly as shown, and held it up in front of his head with his hand, that would have been fine. The difference is that then the artwork is being presented for what it is: a print in front of the head. The problem arises when the artwork is presented only as its content, in this case gears, with no reference to the fact that it's artwork, and no different than an illegal composite in Advanced. Understand now?
Message edited by author 2014-07-22 15:42:51. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:42:23 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
So it has to be square, rectangle, or in the shape of a photo print? I'm confused as to what Ken entered that makes it not obvious that it isn't a artwork. |
No, the shape doesn't matter, only that if you're going to use artwork that prominently it should be presented AS artwork whether that's by showing the frame, billboard, cell phone, paper edge, etc. As an example, you couldn't enter a full frame photo of the earth taken from space because that's literal artwork, even though everyone fully comprehends that the photographer wasn't standing on the moon and it must be artwork of some kind. From Mike's earlier question, you can take photos like this, where the existing image is presented for what it is, but you couldn't silhouette around the actor in the supermarket to make that look like part of the capture– even if people recognize the movie scene and can deduce that it's a print. We're talking about visual appearance here, not logical deduction. Note that the Lion King or Pinocchio artwork would be exempt because it's clealry illustrative, not photorealistic.
If Ken had simply taken the same print, cutout exactly as shown, and held it up in front of his head with his hand, that would have been fine. The difference is that then the artwork is being presented for what it is: a print in front of the head. The problem arises when the artwork is presented only as its content, in this case gears, with no reference to the fact that it's artwork, and no different than an illegal composite in Advanced. Understand now? |
OK so then how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? To me it's the same, I have no idea if it's real, its just as a prominent part of the entry as this is. The fish is a huge part of that presentation to me.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:56:53 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by MattO:
OK so then how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? To me it's the same, I have no idea if it's real, its just as a prominent part of the entry as this is. The fish is a huge part of that presentation to me. |
It was a supporting element there. The fish does not serve as the primary impact of the the entry (the Cat in the Hat), and the entry would not be completely ruined by its removal. A fish like this, however, would be a DQ under the current rule:
 |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:58:45 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
So let me make sure I understand this.
No part of an entry can include a photograph now? |
You can include all the photographs you want as long as they're "obvious artwork." This one, for example, is legal;
But when you take a photograph and integrate it INTO the subject in some way, you're getting into dangerous waters. It's a gray area. It's a judgment call. We haven't found a way to make it black-and-white, and probably never will. |
This isn't obvious artwork. It's obvious that it's a mirror. It's a photograph, tricking people into thinking it's a mirror. That's clearly the intention and well achieved effect. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:00:15 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
OK so then how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? To me it's the same, I have no idea if it's real, its just as a prominent part of the entry as this is. The fish is a huge part of that presentation to me. |
It was a supporting element there. The fish does not serve as the primary impact of the the entry (the Cat in the Hat), and the entry would not be completely ruined by its removal. A fish like this, however, would be a DQ under the current rule:
|
It would not have been completely ruined, but without it the voters would have voted differently(probably not a blue) Just as you stated earlier if Ken had removed the gears that the voters would vote differently. So I see no difference. It's a big part of supporting the whole story of the entry. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:01:33 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
This isn't obvious artwork. |
When a photo in a frame isn't an obvious pre-existing image, it's time to lay off the vodka. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:02:30 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If Ken had simply taken the same print, cutout exactly as shown, and held it up in front of his head with his hand, that would have been fine. |
Could I then clone out my insignificant hand? |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:04:05 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by MattO:
how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? |
Originally posted by MattO:
It would not have been completely ruined... |
You just validated the final artwork test of my chart. If the image wouldn't have scored any lower without the fish I wouldn't have bothered. That's kinda' the point of a supporting element.
Message edited by author 2014-07-22 16:07:31. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:04:44 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Could I then clone out my insignificant hand? |
Nope, major element rule. ;-P |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:05:44 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OK, that's good. Take it one step further, though; to make this distinction of yours viable, A photographer would have to submit two originals, right? But the first part of the rules says that multiple originals have to be of the same scene, doesn't it? |
That depends on how you define a scene.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:06:05 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? |
Originally posted by MattO:
It would not have been completely ruined... |
That passes the final test of my chart. |
The voters would have voted different without it there. That tells me it's a significant part of the entry. Just as you said with Ken's entry. That tells me it's significant part of the entry. Without the fish, you don't need the bowl, it's a different entry all together. Making it a DQ just as much as Ken's is using your words.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:11:41 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by MattO:
The voters would have voted different without it there. That tells me it's a significant part of the entry. Just as you said with Ken's entry. That tells me it's significant part of the entry. Without the fish, you don't need the bowl, it's a different entry all together. Making it a DQ just as much as Ken's is using your words. |
That tells me the supporting element did its job, but it's still not the primary imapct of the entry. Without the fish, you have the Cat in the Hat playing with three objects instead of four– not quite as interesting, but not a fundamental change either. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:11:48 PM · #149 |
| possibly this is a tribute to Ken's legerdemain/tete. perilously, we were given to think he had grafted an image of gears inside his head? |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:14:11 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the first part of the rules says that multiple originals have to be of the same scene, doesn't it? |
That depends on how you define a scene. |
Fortunately, the rules define it for you: "(defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" |
|
