| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2004 01:50:35 PM · #51 |
Again, could you sign that portrait of Lincoln and call it your own? I think the SC has been quite consistent given the difficulty of interpreting a literal representation of art in some cases.
Per TomLewis' question below, dramatic light is an external factor imposed on the artwork, and would therefore be considered adding something, so it would likely stand (the SC would have no way of knowing who set up the lights anyway). With 3D objects, the photographer is presenting one of a potentially infinite number of views. Flat objects like dollar bills are intended to be viewed straight-on (even if you cropped it), so there is nothing unique to call your own if you shoot it that way.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 14:09:01. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 01:57:49 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Again, could you sign that portrait of Lincoln and call it your own? I think the SC has been quite consistent given the difficulty of interpreting a literal representation of art in some cases.
Per TomLewis' question below, the SC would have no idea who set up the lighting in your example, so it would likely stand. With 3D objects, the photographer is presenting one of a potentially infinite number of views. Flat objects like dollar bills are intended to be viewed straight-on (even if you cropped it), so there is nothing unique to call your own if you shoot it that way. |
What the heck does it matter if I set up the lighting or not? Think about that for a minute. I know for a fact that at least 1 ribbon winner used another person to set up their lighting for a challenge. The photographer then used it to their liking! So what does that have to do with this? Nothing. It has to do with whether or not the photographer did a LITTERAL represntation of artwork.
bestagents' Lincoln should not have been DQed because: the lighting is an obvious factor (and it doesn't matter if he used a desk lamp or overhead light) due to the wrinkles which give it a 3D classification. Just because an object is originaly flat doesn't mean that it doesn't have 3D qualities in the right lighting and situation.
EDIT: The photo I mention is this one. It is fabulous and deserving of its place, but just being used as an example to prove my point.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 14:01:59.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 02:04:15 PM · #53 |
You are correct that WHO setup the lighting doesn't matter (which I should have added, but your example isn't a representation of artwork anyway so it's a moot point). In the case of Lincoln, though, any unique lighting shown is pretty darn subtle. That image is about what I would expect the average person to see if they looked at the bill.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 14:06:05. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 02:07:43 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Again, could you sign that portrait of Lincoln and call it your own? |
Would you look at that photo and title it "Lincoln" or "Five Dollar Bill" ??? -- sorry, you already did.
Like you, I would do the former, which means it is not a literal representation of the existing work, but one where the photographer has forced me to consider the lighting, cropping and other artistic decisions which go into creating an original/derivative work based on an existing object.
In case it's not clear, I'm on the (apparently minority) side of allowing these works.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 14:08:27. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 02:10:20 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You are correct that WHO setup the lighting doesn't matter (which I should have added, but your example isn't a representation of artwork anyway so it's a moot point). In the case of Lincoln, though, any unique lighting shown is pretty darn subtle. That image is about what I would expect the average person to see if they looked at the bill. |
The challenge was to show what the average person would see if they bothered to look closely at a common object. Isn't that what the "Macro" topic is all about -- to (artistically) show normally-overlooked detail? |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 02:11:22 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You are correct that WHO setup the lighting doesn't matter (which I should have added, but your example isn't a representation of artwork anyway so it's a moot point). In the case of Lincoln, though, any unique lighting shown is pretty darn subtle. That image is about what I would expect the average person to see if they looked at the bill. |
No it's not moot, it is just an example of how it doesn't matter, I never said it was artwork. If you say that someone else can't set up the lighting for one thing, then it applies to another. Why would it matter if I used the lamps at home and the overhead lights without moving them from where my mother had placed them (for any photo)? Why should it apply solely to one type of photography and not the rest?
scalvert: I understand what you mean and this is more for clarification than anything else.
I can see the unique lighting easily in the thumbnail and in the image. It's not strong but it's not so subtle as to say that it's not there.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 02:26:18 PM · #57 |
Ami- I already went back and edited my post for clarification. Yes, I think your example WAS a moot point because we're discussing representations of artwork specifically. Here's an example of why the lighting could matter...
IF the artwork had only slight dimension and was presented as a typical view in a predetermined lighting situation, then I would expect a DQ:
If, on the other hand, the photographer made an obvious effort to incorporate something else into the image besides the typical view, then it's OK:
Now imagine fading back those reflections to where they're barely visible. Determining where to draw the line in objective terms for all cases is impossible, and that's why we have multiple SC members with differing opinions to vote on these things. OK? |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 05:18:46 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
(the SC would have no way of knowing who set up the lights anyway). |
Then it doesn't seem like a very fair system to me.
Originally posted by scalvert:
With 3D objects, the photographer is presenting one of a potentially infinite number of views. |
There are also an infinite number of views of a "2D" object as well, you can shoot it from any angle, you can rotate the object and you can crop it however you wish.
"Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions,"
I don't think that the shot posted at the top of this thread broke this rule, if the SC want to change the rules then fair enough, but I don't feel that somebody̢۪s shot should be removed on as handful of peoples interpretation of a poorly written rule.
however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible.
Define creative. It maybe some peoples opinion that Chad's shot wasn't very creative, but it was creative to some extent. It was cropped to form a pleasing composition and it was taken at a slight angle, so there were some creative decisions taken by the photographer. Lighting isn̢۪t the be all and end all of photography.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 05:37:08 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
"Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions,"
I don't think that the shot posted at the top of this thread broke this rule, if the SC want to change the rules then fair enough, but I don't feel that somebody̢۪s shot should be removed on as handful of peoples interpretation of a poorly written rule.
|
i would just like to second this and say that tom has hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head. and in danger of repeating someone else in this thread, i strongly suspect that the stuff printed on currency does not constitute artwork (or at least, no more than a coke can, say). in fact, it's a very technical in terms of design as it's supposed to be counterfeit-proof. Also, by the same reasoning that the top shot was dq'd, shouldn't all pictures in numerous earlier challenges comprising multiples of a single word printed on a sheet of paper also be dq'd retrospectively. these are no less pieces of art than a 20 buck note (i've seen a lot worse in the Tate Modern).
editted to show example of what i'm on about: 
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 17:40:23. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 05:45:22 PM · #60 |
If his isn't considered a macro and just a copy of someone's art, please DQ mine from the last macro challenge, it would only be fair. Van
 |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 05:54:36 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
How far and wide can this DQ ruling go..... It is a slippery slope... |
I don't think we are on a slope regarding the literal art rule. In fact, I think the SC is moving in the direction of consistent enforcement.
I have complained about the level of enforcement, both in forum posts and by sending in requests for DQ, quite a bit in the past. I've been trying to pay close attention to this issue for a year or more. Before the rule was updated last April I perceived a strong reluctance on the part of the SC to apply the rule. Since it was changed they have come up with the "straight on" standard. I didn't understand it, or agree with it, too much in the beginning; but have come to see benefit in it's ongoing implementation. It has been explained, in depth, several times in these forums. It makes the enforcement of the art rule less subjective. Without getting into the specifics of the current debate, it appears that the discrepancy between the Basic and Advanced rules(certainly an inadvertent oversight) has thrown a monkey wrench into their path as the SC continues toward uniform application of the restriction against inartistically using another artist's work in our challenges.
Has anyone else got an entry all ready to upload and then changed their mind after thinking about the art rule? I have a few times. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:02:43 PM · #62 |
Let the SC make the decisions, and stop fighting over every little detail on this site. If you have a objection to their ruling, communicate with them directly instead of fighting it out in threads.
Spend energy on photographing instead of fighting.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:04:09 PM · #63 |
Ok. here is another upload of my DQ'd image
let's see if the link works.
Edit: ok now that the link works, my intention was to show overlooked (or even normally invisible) detail in a $5 bill, like the red thread in the eye. The bill is also slightly bent, hence the shadow on the left (gives almost some sense of 3D, not much I admit). I don't claim to be original or very creative, but there is quite a bit of thought in this.
BTW by a rough calculation the magnification is appx 12.5x
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 18:13:44.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:05:09 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
Originally posted by scalvert:
(the SC would have no way of knowing who set up the lights anyway). |
Then it doesn't seem like a very fair system to me. |
Huh? What system? Nobody is judging based upon who set up the lights. It's not knowable.
Originally posted by scalvert:
There are also an infinite number of views of a "2D" object as well, you can shoot it from any angle, you can rotate the object and you can crop it however you wish. |
Well, to some extent that's true, but cropping alone is generally not enough (as noted earlier) to call something your own, and the angle would have to be exaggerated enough that it's obviously not a normal view. As an example, the eyes of a person staring right at you in a portrait can apear to follow you as you move around the room (I forget what the effect is called). So even though you've changed the angle, the view is still essentially flat and the eyes appear to be looking right at you. A nearly side view of the portrait (or a dollar bill) would be a different story, and likely OK.
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
[i]I don't think that the shot posted at the top of this thread broke this rule, if the SC want to change the rules then fair enough, but I don't feel that somebody̢۪s shot should be removed on as handful of peoples interpretation of a poorly written rule. ...Define creative. It maybe some peoples opinion that Chad's shot wasn't very creative, but it was creative to some extent. It was cropped to form a pleasing composition and it was taken at a slight angle, so there were some creative decisions taken by the photographer. |
Because this rule is necessarily subjective, you'll get different opinions from different people. That's the job of the SC, and I believe they are trying to be as fair and objective as possible. If you think the rule could be written better, then by all means suggest the proper wording. Again, I agree that the shot did not break the rule (barely), but that's just my opinion and giving the benefit of the doubt. Show that image to 1000 people at random and ask them who should get credit for it- the photographer or the artist who engraved it? You'd probably get the same result- a DQ.
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
Lighting isn̢۪t the be all and end all of photography. |
A fine example of another statement that would get different answers from different people. In the strictest sense- yes, it is. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:05:40 PM · #65 |
To *me* it seems as though at times the SC is as divided as the people in a certain country I won't mention. :)
As to a particular SC member.. his opinions on the validity of rules at times leaves a bad taste in my mouth.. but that's where I'll leave *that*.
I honestly don't believe the original photo that was DQ'd, that started this thread, should have been.. in any way, shape, or form.
But then, I'm not on the SC.
This place is falling apart around my head with all the bickering, and "Why?!?!" threads, and stuff. Crazy. Apparently DPC is suffering what every community does when it grows too large.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:08:05 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by redmoon:
editted to show example of what i'm on about: |
Good example. Obvious shallow DOF, vignetted lighting, steep angle... this is more about the photographer's decisions than the printed material itself, so no DQ. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:11:02 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
|
Another good example- the very shallow DOF highlights a specific area of the "artwork" rather than presenting everything equally in a "normal" view, plus the very steep angle and tight crop... this too, is more about the photographer's decisions than the printed material itself, so no DQ. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:18:07 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Gauti:
Ok. here is another upload of my DQ'd image
let's see if the link works.
Edit: ok now that the link works, my intention was to show overlooked (or even normally invisible) detail in a $5 bill, like the red thread in the eye. The bill is also slightly bent, hence the shadow on the left (gives almost some sense of 3D, not much I admit). I don't claim to be original or very creative, but there is quite a bit of thought in this.
BTW by a rough calculation the magnification is appx 12.5x |
This is the best example so far - this one uses depth of field (see - it's blurry at the top), is cropped deliberately to show the red thread, and is slightly wrinkled to give it a shadow. These are all things that would cause it to not be DQ'd. But it was. SC? Any response?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:27:38 PM · #69 |
I hope that an image like this:
is not considered to be more of an artistic interpretation just because of the shallow DOF
(from the same series)
edit: less to more !
or this 100% crop here of just the eye.
would this have made it past the DQ hurdle?
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 18:37:56.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:42:29 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Huh? What system? Nobody is judging based upon who set up the lights. It's not knowable. |
In the thread it was suggested that the lighting of the subject could save it from being DQ'd. My point was there maybe no creative process taken by the photographer to setup this lighting, therefore isn't that just the same? Alternatively the photographer may have though that flat lighting brought out the texture of the note/bill better, would this not count as a creative decision by the photographer? I guess my point is; this is very subjective and without knowing all the facts how can you start DQing shots based on this?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Well, to some extent that's true, but cropping alone is generally not enough (as noted earlier) to call something your own, |
But cropping is enough to validate it against the current rules. Cropping is a creative process and you are not showing the "entirety of existing works".
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 07:38:24 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
Alternatively the photographer may have though that flat lighting brought out the texture of the note/bill better, would this not count as a creative decision by the photographer? |
Perhaps, but without specific (vs. ambient) lighting, it becomes more "about" the artwork than the photography (and since when does flat lighting bring out texture?).
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
Cropping is a creative process and you are not showing the "entirety of existing works". |
That might follow the letter of the law, but it defies common sense. With that reasoning, I could crop an inch off the right side of the Mona Lisa and call that my own creative work? C'mon!
Perhaps another direct comparison would help...
The image in question is a closeup of a bill at a slight angle. Vtruan's image is a closeup of a dime at a steep angle, with a shallow depth of field that puts the focus on certain facial features. The light is placed at a low angle at the top left to bring out deep shadows in the embossed features. Note that the DOF and specific lighting are easily discernable decisions specific to photography. Shoot that same dime straight-on in flat light, and you're flirting with a DQ. On the other hand, if Chad's bill were lit and presented from a low angle to show the texture of the paper (as opposed to the printed pattern), then it would be OK.
Message edited by author 2004-11-11 19:40:08. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 07:56:01 PM · #72 |
Currency is art. I've seen the videos of the engravers at work. It's tedious indeed.
[quote]
...The printing impression is three dimensional in effect and requires the combined handiwork of highly skilled artists, steel engravers, and plate printers. The surface of the note feels slightly raised, while the reverse side feels slightly indented. This process is called intaglio printing.
[/quote]
The above statement was taken directly from Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
That said, I don't really enjoy looking at macros of currency. It's rather boring subject matter to me.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 07:58:43 PM · #73 |
One could easily make a case either way. Point is, IMHO, the rule is there for a purpose. It's the spirit of the rule we should care about, and this, in the end, is considered by a jury (the SC).
I think it's alright to disagree with a decision made by the SC, but accepting it would be good form, in my book.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:01:20 PM · #74 |
Why not just remove this rule altogether? What's the harm in photographing somebody else's art as long as there's no copyright infringement? If, for example, I submit a head-on shot of one of Velazquez's portrait paintings to a "Portraiture" challenge, I'll only have made an ass of myself, and will get the brown ribbon.
Or instead of totally ditching it, the rule may be modified to something like; "Photograph of a photograph and full-frame photographs (without any context, environment, etc.) of any artwork, regardless of lighting and angle, will be disqualified". Just brainstorming... |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 08:08:41 PM · #75 |
Well Chad fisrt of all it is a nice Macro and great detail
A while back I was DQ for taking a photo of an image I created and framed of my granddaughters feet they were in gold paint and very creative I thought But it was DQ I still to this day disagree but we have to go with the rules I guess.
You know you did a great shot and I know I did and that needs to be put behind us and move on because I can reassure you that you are the only one who is going to worry about it.
I am not saying that to be unkind. I had sympathy of a few voters on my side and some nice encouragement but at the end of the day it was only me that really got upset. I even cried would you believe. We try our best and thats all that matters. Put that image in your own port folio
and go out and shoot the next challenge and hopefully it will be a winner Best wishes
Sally |
|
