| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/25/2014 10:28:52 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
Originally posted by sfalice:
...Okay - and then I'll step back - how do we redefine the 'issue' so that it is not divisive? For example: Is this an 'issue' that is a 'must' in the Artwork Rule. |
I thought this part at least would do that, but the post above seems to have got lost amid all the finger pointing
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
. . . So how about we start by making that legal:
You may: ... include original artwork, other than a photograph, in your entry, whether created by you or someone else, and regardless of when it was created. |
More reasoning in the prior post, no need to repeat here |
Thank you for keeping this discussion on target,  EstimatedEyes.
Does anyone care to comment on this proposal. Either for or against?
And, if against, perhaps offering words that you feel would make this proposal more workable? |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 11:45:58 PM · #77 |
 It seems that if we say ..other than a photo.. that this would not be allowed?
|
|
|
|
07/25/2014 11:56:49 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by jomari:
It seems that if we say ..other than a photo.. that this would not be allowed? |
That image has never been illegal in any ruleset at DPC, and probably never will be either. It's photographs trying to pass themselves off as something "real" that is at issue here. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 12:01:38 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jomari:
It seems that if we say ..other than a photo.. that this would not be allowed? |
That image has never been illegal in any ruleset at DPC, and probably never will be either. It's photographs trying to pass themselves off as something "real" that is at issue here. |
Like real gears you can see through the real window into someone's head.
Sorry. I'll get my coat. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 12:35:36 AM · #80 |
If like me you think the current rules are too complex and ambiguous have a look at these examples:
The current baby animals challenge have no date time frame on the image you enterâ€Â¦now let’s say hypothetically I have a great shot that I want to enter but can’t find the original for exif data evidence which is required on all entries. So here is the questions can I take a screen shot of that image and enter it? Or can I photograph the print I have of that image hanging on my wall?
Surely without the date requirement you would not be “using prints and monitor images as a way of circumventing date or editing rules”
Probably would be Dq on grounds of a photo of a photo even if it’s your own image and having no date requirementâ€Â¦..I would be interested to see what others thought.
The previous Album Cover challenge was a total fiasco of the rules! My entry was dq with others because I was stupid enough to think that  Langdon would add the extra rules regarding text before rollover!
Many other entries were not dq for adding text via monitor shot and taking shots of prints! I would argue strongly that this was a method to “circumventing date or editing rules” The precedent has been set with this one! Now this would enable us in the future under any expert editing rules to add text via a screen shot or print out and not fear being disqualified.
Isn’t adding text via this method the same as adding artwork created by someone else outside the challenge dates? I mean the text was created by someone else? and where does this stopâ€Â¦..can we add all sorts of symbols?
I’m not trying to get this thread off-topic but what is needed is a simplifying of the rules! I have used these examples to illustrate how the rules are open to interpretation.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2014 08:55:07 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
If I take a picture of a picture of a black wall, photoshop it to be really black, and then cut out a strip, and place it over my eyes in a photo, is that illegal? |
A pointless risk when you could just use a strip of black paper.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
the paperclip on the eyeball, we need to lighten up. |
Not sure what you mean here. |
You are saying you would dq the photo of blackness printed out?
and was the eyeball and paperclip shot Dq'd for the reason the paperclip was added? that seems to be an insignificant addition not worthy of a DQ.
all these arguments and discussions prove is that perhaps many voters want a rule to be well defined, and changed until it can be, so as not to be exposed to the pre-screening or after challenge dq'ing fiat of the SC. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 10:31:24 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
all these arguments and discussions prove is that perhaps many voters want a rule to be well defined, and changed until it can be, so as not to be exposed to the pre-screening or after challenge dq'ing fiat of the SC. |
[
This one quote summarizes the frustration and helplessness of this Thread best.
Remember, we were invited by a Site Council member thusly: "If you want to debate the artwork rule and how to improve it, please start a thread for that purpose."
So far we have submitted language and examples of possibilities for framing new rules, amid a chorus of "we' can't" and "it can't be done" and "no" instead of "let's see how we can say this better or more clearly."
A member of the Site Council posted a flow chart, presumably showing how the Artwork Rule is judged in SC circles. It was informative and could have been helpful in the promulgation of a new rule. Yet, somehow that posting, along with a follow up from a member who said something like: "you lost me at Step 2" have been removed from this thread. Fortunately, another member had a screen grab and reposted it so we know the material exists. Until this moment, editing of threads has been confined only to removing abusive posts. Only SC has the magic power to completely remove posts.
I think we all understand that Site Council members have an enormous task of running this site well with only the recompense of dues remission. Most SC members have undertaken this volunteer responsibility for the full period of time the site has been in operation. It must be terribly difficult to keep your objectivity through all this. You've seen and dealt with a lot. Still, for the sake of the site, it's important to persevere.
Additionally, I want to thank all the participants in this Thread for keeping it on target (with a little levity upon occasion) and keeping it civil. We can still get someplace with this topic. I know we can.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2014 10:52:53 AM · #83 |
| What about limiting the existing artwork to no more than 50% (or some other number) of the frame when used in an effort to fool the viewer. This would allow an image like Art's to stand but a window frame with an existing scene not. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 11:10:04 AM · #84 |
I feel the artwork rule should be revoked. I don't think there should be ambiguous rules here, the term artwork is subject to widely varying opinion and how important the artwork is to the photograph should be up to the photographer. More importantly, I don't see any reason not to include photos or artwork taken by one's self or others. I have a right to vote. If someone enters a straight up photo of the Mona Lisa, I will vote it accordingly. If Art takes a photo of a photo of himself with gears taped to his head, I will make a judgment about that entry as well. If someone fools me with a photo of a tv screen, I say they must have made it theirs. Should I enter a photo of a photo that someone else took? No. I know that. For those who look for ways to cheat and steal, that is going to be their nature regardless of any rule set. I say get rid of it. The damage it does by placing its interpretation on a select few is worse than if the few entries that have been DQd had never been reviewed at all.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2014 11:16:36 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
I feel the artwork rule should be revoked. I don't think there should be ambiguous rules here, the term artwork is subject to widely varying opinion and how important the artwork is to the photograph should be up to the photographer. More importantly, I don't see any reason not to include photos or artwork taken by one's self or others. I have a right to vote. If someone enters a straight up photo of the Mona Lisa, I will vote it accordingly. If Art takes a photo of a photo of himself with gears taped to his head, I will make a judgment about that entry as well. If someone fools me with a photo of a tv screen, I say they must have made it theirs. Should I enter a photo of a photo that someone else took? No. I know that. For those who look for ways to cheat and steal, that is going to be their nature regardless of any rule set. I say get rid of it. The damage it does by placing its interpretation on a select few is worse than if the few entries that have been DQd had never been reviewed at all. |
Now, there's a concept worth exploring.
Perhaps with a probationary period to evaluate it. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 11:50:19 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
What about limiting the existing artwork to no more than 50% (or some other number) of the frame when used in an effort to fool the viewer. This would allow an image like Art's to stand but a window frame with an existing scene not. |
I think the 50% idea is nice and concrete. But I am not opposed to a revoked rule either. (Although I do suspect if a revocation occurred that a few years from now something would crop up that would have folks up in arms wanting a rule back?) |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 12:19:14 PM · #87 |
It's a temptation to believe that a rule will make things better. Yet isn't it rules that create the expectation & mystique of rule-breakers? Not to leave out the necessity of rule-enforcers.
I hope that the thing that distinguishes DPC from the mob of photography sites out there is something more than a set of rules.
I still like this one, for our proposed artwork rule
Originally posted by posthumous:
You may not: fool voters into voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
Message edited by author 2014-07-26 12:22:17. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 12:29:26 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
A member of the Site Council posted a flow chart, presumably showing how the Artwork Rule is judged in SC circles. It was informative and could have been helpful in the promulgation of a new rule. Yet, somehow that posting, along with a follow up from a member who said something like: "you lost me at Step 2" have been removed from this thread. Fortunately, another member had a screen grab and reposted it so we know the material exists. Until this moment, editing of threads has been confined only to removing abusive posts. Only SC has the magic power to completely remove posts. |
Alice, nobody removed anything. What you're referencing was posted in the original DQ thread for Art's "Wheel" image. And it's all still there... Note also that Shannon was speaking for himself, not all SC, when he posted that chart. He created the chart for the purpose of this discussion, trying to show how HE navigates the rule.
Originally posted by Scalvert:
Rather than answering the same questions over and over again, let's try a different approach. Based upon my understanding of the Artwork rule, this is how I vote:
 |
I think the "you lost me" response might have been this one?
Originally posted by posthumous:
I fell off the flow chart at "photorealistic". Even the tattooed lady didn't think it was a photo. |
Message edited by author 2014-07-26 12:39:47. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 12:47:41 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I still like this one, for our proposed artwork rule
Originally posted by posthumous:
You may not: fool voters into voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
|
I'm tempted to like that also, with a slight modification: You may not: fool voters into put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph.
I don't think we want any rule that tries to judge whether or not somebody's been "fooled", that's too nebulous. Anyway, I'd have to have a long think on what would be the unintended consequences of that version of an artwork rule, but it's admirably concise and it does incorporate the *spirit* of the rule as it currently stands.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2014 12:52:13 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sfalice:
A member of the Site Council posted a flow chart, presumably showing how the Artwork Rule is judged in SC circles. It was informative and could have been helpful in the promulgation of a new rule. Yet, somehow that posting, along with a follow up from a member who said something like: "you lost me at Step 2" have been removed from this thread. Fortunately, another member had a screen grab and reposted it so we know the material exists. Until this moment, editing of threads has been confined only to removing abusive posts. Only SC has the magic power to completely remove posts. |
Alice, nobody removed anything. What you're referencing was posted in the original DQ thread for Art's "Wheel" image. And it's all still there... Note also that Shannon was speaking for himself, not all SC, when he posted that chart. He created the chart for the purpose of this discussion, trying to show how HE navigates the rule.
|
[/quote]
Oooops, it looks as if my own magical power of placing the origin of posts became severely impaired. My sincere apologies to  scalvert and to the others in this thread for my completely unintentional error. scalvert's halo is hereby restored and I am even now briskly repolishing my own tarnished one. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 01:08:02 PM · #91 |
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph.
I'm assuming something like this is what Posthumous had in mind, incidentally. I think we'd still need the first part? Remember, I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm intrigued, but this is not an official SC endorsement of the proposed wording.
Message edited by author 2014-07-26 13:09:05. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 01:53:07 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
And based on that wording, how would you have voted on Art's gears? |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 02:01:19 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
And based on that wording, how would you have voted on Art's gears? |
I really want the artwork rule to be changed in some way and applaud  Sfalice for following through and starting this thread.
And I like this new wording but, if SC could still enlist a DQ, is this any less ambiguous than the rule in place now? Maybe the answer is, as the new words suggest, to leave the decision to the voters? |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 02:09:27 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
And based on that wording, how would you have voted on Art's gears? |
He would have passed validation IMO.
ETA: at least as far as the proposed artwork rule goes... It's just enough looser to let me make that decision.
Message edited by author 2014-07-26 15:55:12. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 02:10:51 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Maybe the answer is, as the new words suggest, to leave the decision to the voters? |
So the new voting scale would go from DQ—10? I would predict an spate of DQ's unless the number of votes needed to DQ is set pretty high ... |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 02:14:05 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
And I like this new wording but, if SC could still enlist a DQ, is this any less ambiguous than the rule in place now? |
Practically every aspect of the rules is subjective, though. Important case in point is where we draw the line on what can be cloned out of an image under advanced editing. This is inevitable because we're dealing with art, not mathematics. SC has to be trusted to do the best it can. We have a variety of viewpoints and we arrive at a consensus, which is a good mirror of real life. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 03:42:35 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
And I like this new wording but, if SC could still enlist a DQ, is this any less ambiguous than the rule in place now? |
Practically every aspect of the rules is subjective, though. Important case in point is where we draw the line on what can be cloned out of an image under advanced editing. This is inevitable because we're dealing with art, not mathematics. SC has to be trusted to do the best it can. We have a variety of viewpoints and we arrive at a consensus, which is a good mirror of real life. |
I am in no way trying to negate the work of SC. And no, not a score of DQ to 10. But this artwork rule (the existing one or the new wording), IMHO, is subject to much more interpretation than the other rules so I'm wondering if DQ should be the ultimate consequence.
Whatever happens, I find this a welcome discussion.
Message edited by author 2014-07-26 16:04:58. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 04:51:31 PM · #98 |
I still feel the ambiguity will always exist if the wording doesn’t give us a clear definition of what is artwork! In Shannon’s flow chart he accepts drawings but not screen shots of drawings and he also mentions the use of 3 dimensions images over 2 dimensional. I can’t find this information in any of the rules! It needs to be made public and form part of the rules.
We need to know what is accepted in simple terms like you may or may not use drawings, screen shots, print-outs, text etc. also it needs’ to spelled out the time frame that the original artwork is created.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2014 05:22:09 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So the new voting scale would go from DQ—10? I would predict an spate of DQ's unless the number of votes needed to DQ is set pretty high ... |
Now there is an interesting idea.... what if we DID have that? Set the needed percentage of DQ votes high enough to protect people from a few grouches that vote DQ just to be mean, and we might actually be onto a good thing. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 05:28:01 PM · #100 |
I would like to propose that, other than used as a physical object (photo in a frame on a table, on the wall - part of the environment), that artwork not be allowed in anything but expert challenges. Its a tool/technique whose use is very subjective and is difficult to quantify. Let folks go hog-wild in expert, but stick to photography in the other categories.
|
|
