| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2005 06:21:39 PM · #51 |
 Here is another image the I wondered if it should be DQed under the art work rule so I asked for an evaluation - the SC decided it was ok - but I think it fits in with the current discussion of what is meant by the art work rule.
I think showing these examples is good in that it tell everyone what the SC thinks fits and what they think does not. That prevents disappointment from someone who is DQed because they did not figure out what the rule really meant. Also not knowing the rule can actually limit creativity when someone does not enter an image because they are afraid of being DQed
Edit: I can't spell..........
Message edited by author 2005-08-17 18:25:48. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:21:47 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
What might be very helpful for this, and other rules is to have EXAMPLES of what would be considered legal and what would be illegal. |
It's on the way. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:25:16 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kpriest:
What might be very helpful for this, and other rules is to have EXAMPLES of what would be considered legal and what would be illegal. |
It's on the way. |
Don't you mean "coming soon" LOL j/k
Thanks Shannon - it may not stop the discussion, but it should help with clarification.
Here's another idea that could end the discussion - REMOVE the rule completely and let the voters decide. What would the problem with that be? That seems to be the way the "doesn't meet the challenge" issue is handled. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:28:37 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
REMOVE the rule completely and let the voters decide. What would the problem with that be? |
Without this rule someone could enter a shot of their screen, an existing photo or print out of Photoshop and the voters would have no way of knowing. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:31:43 PM · #55 |
let's have one challenge where no rules apply, whatsoever, and no topic. like a free study...but there will be no rules at all, not even EXIF information...any photo that is top 5, automatically validated because it can't be dq'd...anything with text or anything in the entire world will be ok to enter...a true free study.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:35:20 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by deapee:
let's have one challenge where no rules apply, whatsoever, and no topic. like a free study...but there will be no rules at all, not even EXIF information...any photo that is top 5, automatically validated because it can't be dq'd...anything with text or anything in the entire world will be ok to enter...a true free study. |
I'd be grabbing something out of Heida's portfolio, hehe. ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:36:23 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kpriest:
REMOVE the rule completely and let the voters decide. What would the problem with that be? |
Without this rule someone could enter a shot of their screen, an existing photo or print out of Photoshop and the voters would have no way of knowing. |
And that is what the rule should prohibit, not macros or the use of pieces of art as part of an overall composition. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:37:46 PM · #58 |
Clarifications: (I hope)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Did I say that? |
The conclusion I drew from your "Did he not use a brush and paint..." comment was that it's still artwork. |
I guess I meant that Warhol saw and interpreted. If you look at the General's example work you may notice that the part of the labels that indicate the type of soup are out of proper perspective. That's just an example of how the eye to mind to hand clearly creates a new perspective/interpretation/slant on things.
Montage, collage, "junk art" has always come under scrutiny. So has photography. The question is always, when does it become "art" and when is it simply someone else's crap? Or a copy?
There's an artist in my town that paints from photos--photo-realistic paintings? Is it great? Or is it just copying from another art form? Is that bad?
Then, of course, there's the intended goal of this site: To become better photographers. To become better art photographers? To become better historical, journalistic, documentary, studio, wedding, portrait, or even family photographers? Hmmmm.....
Originally posted by KaDi:
(By the way, thanks for letting me slip by having ripped off your photo for my profile pic. I do intend to put the appropriate attribution on my page.) |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No need. The photo is of far more use to you than me. ;-) |
I am soooooo disappointed. <> I totally thought you had slipped a copy of my lovely mug over the pic of your wife in your wallet--NOT! =p'''''
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:40:23 PM · #59 |
I thought I had the rule understood and to use the Mona Lisa analogy, if I was too take a photo of it head on it would be a literal representation of the original artwork and would therefore not be allowed.
However, if I was to scribble a moustache on her (or him if you believe the rumors)then it would then become my own work of art.
Yes?
Ok, what if I was to take a picture head on and then convert it to black and white in Photoshop CS2 :-) ?
Wouldn't it then become my own work of art?
Hmm, interesting.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:57:26 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
I thought I had the rule understood and to use the Mona Lisa analogy, if I was too take a photo of it head on it would be a literal representation of the original artwork and would therefore not be allowed. However, if I was to scribble a moustache on her (or him if you believe the rumors)then it would then become my own work of art. |
"Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions." It doesn't matter whose work of art it is. Paul is saying that it's OK to submit a photo of just Mona Lisa's head, or two prints of the Mona Lisa side-by-side. I disagree whole-heartedly. If there is nothing in the frame but pre-existing artwork (regardless of who made it), and no evidence of photographic decisions, it's going to get a DQ vote from me. Cropping a painting or arranging several paintings next to each other are NOT photographic decisions. A monkey without a camera can do that. I need to see some evidence that a PHOTOGRAPHER was present: creative lighting, use of shadow, DOF, focus, point of view, bokeh... things like that. I'm not here to learn scrapbooking.
EDIT- Sorry if I sound harsh. It's been a rough day.
Message edited by author 2005-08-17 19:06:16. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:59:00 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by deapee:
let's have one challenge where no rules apply, whatsoever, and no topic. like a free study...but there will be no rules at all, not even EXIF information...any photo that is top 5, automatically validated because it can't be dq'd...anything with text or anything in the entire world will be ok to enter...a true free study. |
Sounds good to me, but certain challenge subjects tend to lend themselves more to "being ok" to use literal representations of artwork ... imho...
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 07:04:20 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by deapee:
let's have one challenge where no rules apply, whatsoever, and no topic. like a free study...but there will be no rules at all, not even EXIF information...any photo that is top 5, automatically validated because it can't be dq'd...anything with text or anything in the entire world will be ok to enter...a true free study. |
A true free study isn't really possible. Even without rules, the site's Terms of Service will still apply. Enter someone else's photo or an image of child porn and you'll earn a DQ and a suspension. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 07:07:19 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Without this rule someone could enter a shot of their screen, an existing photo or print out of Photoshop and the voters would have no way of knowing. |
I'm curious as to how this is enforced - save for the "photographers comments". How would you know for sure whether someone actually photographed a landscape, or photographed a printout of a landscape? (edit: or photographed a landscape displayed on a laptop screen?)
Message edited by author 2005-08-17 19:08:05. |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 10:59:10 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by "UNCLEBRO":
However, if I was to scribble a moustache on her (or him if you believe the rumors)then it would then become my own work of art. |
Not quite right, because if you photographed the mona lisa with your scribbles...you are still photographing a "prior" art piece. It's not whether you've modified the art in presentation. But whether your photograph has done so either in presentation or not.
For example, if you took that same scribbled on mona lisa and sat it upright on a table beside a candle and perhaps a pen and a piece of paper of which a scribbled love note is written. You'd now be offering a new perspective.
Even in this case, perhaps the most borderline, there is much that the photographer has done. (I've taken photos of coins). And here the photographer has chosen a clean background, used good focus, provided good lighting and chosing a pleasing angle of viewing. All of those factors contribute to making it a pleasing photo. Another person could have placed the same coin on the kitch floor, shot straight down with a flash and it could have had blown highlights, etc. And although the exact same coin....it would have been an unpleasing foto.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2005 12:54:17 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
... a clean background, used good focus, provided good lighting and chosing a pleasing angle of viewing. All of those factors contribute to making it a pleasing photo. Another person could have placed the same coin on the kitch floor, shot straight down with a flash and it could have had blown highlights, etc. And although the exact same coin....it would have been an unpleasing foto. |
"Pleasing" is not (should not be) a criterion for deciding if a photo is "legal" or not. |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 01:01:56 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by theSaj:
... a clean background, used good focus, provided good lighting and chosing a pleasing angle of viewing. All of those factors contribute to making it a pleasing photo. Another person could have placed the same coin on the kitch floor, shot straight down with a flash and it could have had blown highlights, etc. And although the exact same coin....it would have been an unpleasing foto. |
"Pleasing" is not (should not be) a criterion for deciding if a photo is "legal" or not. |
No it should not, but the fact that it can be adjust in so many ways, and in such variance, shows that there is room for an artistic influence to be added on the part of the photographer.
And that's what makes it valid or not....IMHO |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 01:09:46 PM · #67 |
| That there's "room for improvement" suggests that there's "choice" -- that you don't care for the particular choice the photographer made does not obviate the fact that a choice was made. |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 02:34:22 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That there's "room for improvement" suggests that there's "choice" -- that you don't care for the particular choice the photographer made does not obviate the fact that a choice was made. |
Agreed, I was just showing how the same object such as the coin in that pic could be presented two very different ways.
Where as taking a straight photo of a 2-dimensional object really offers very little difference (I mean sure you can take it in low light with high ISO so as to have a noisy photo... *lol* but if two photographers took the same shot and did so with quality - it's not that they might look the same, but they'd be hard pressed for anything else but looking the same. Where as with a 3-dimensional object. 2 photographers could both take quality photos and potentially end up with completely different photographs.
So I was in agreement with you. Just clarifying my point was not on the quality of the photo but the potential for variance. |
|
|
|
08/18/2005 10:12:22 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Even in this case, perhaps the most borderline, there is much that the photographer has done. (I've taken photos of coins). And here the photographer has chosen a clean background, used good focus, provided good lighting and chosing a pleasing angle of viewing. All of those factors contribute to making it a pleasing photo. Another person could have placed the same coin on the kitch floor, shot straight down with a flash and it could have had blown highlights, etc. And although the exact same coin....it would have been an unpleasing foto. |
Now lets take this and apply the same logic to the Mona Lisa example. I could take the painting and use it - If I put it in such a postion so as to end up with a black border - width of my choosing. Then the picture is it ok since I can make lots of choices such as use of flash, not overexposing and the like. Seems to me to be the same situation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think the Mona Lisa picture would end up with a DQ.
I really don't think issues such as the quality of the image I take, exposure, lighting, and such should enter into the DQ discussion. The basic rule is on using prior artwork - not on my photographic skills. The ladder is for the voters to determine.
No matter what the final decisions are on these issues, these are the kinds of images and discussions that need to be included in the example page that is being worked on. I am less concerened with what the final rules are than that they be clearly explained for all to understand. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 02:09:08 AM · #70 |
I have many issues with the existing artwork rule, the biggest is the uneven, unfair and inconsistent way that it is enforced.
Several DQ requests, but it is OK.
Was DQ'd back in November 04 in a macro challenge (as well as 2 or 3 other paper money shots) for violating the arwork rule.
Hmm...I interpreted it - i chose what to show and not show, how to light it, how to or not to shift colors, what BG to show (if any), what focus and DOF to use, etc.
So had I shown 4 $5 bills or made reference to Warhol or perhaps any other artist, it would have been an aceptable entry? What if i had rotated it 180 degrees to give it a fresh perspective?
My opinion is, if the 'artwork' is the subject of the image, or a major portion of the image, then it should be DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:39:49 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
My opinion is, if the 'artwork' is the subject of the image, or a major portion of the image, then it should be DQ'd. |
Had you rolled it up and held it...perhaps.
The top one is borderline but he constructed a collage and photographed a composite. It was this composite nature that I believe is why the SC ok'd it. Yours does not show such. Although a good capture yours is more of a fascimile than a artistic presentation.
A good fascimile.... (although a crisp clean bill would have been nicer)
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:44:58 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Even in this case, perhaps the most borderline, there is much that the photographer has done. (I've taken photos of coins). And here the photographer has chosen a clean background, used good focus, provided good lighting and chosing a pleasing angle of viewing. All of those factors contribute to making it a pleasing photo. Another person could have placed the same coin on the kitch floor, shot straight down with a flash and it could have had blown highlights, etc. And although the exact same coin....it would have been an unpleasing foto. |
Now lets take this and apply the same logic to the Mona Lisa example. I could take the painting and use it - If I put it in such a postion so as to end up with a black border - width of my choosing. Then the picture is it ok since I can make lots of choices such as use of flash, not overexposing and the like. Seems to me to be the same situation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think the Mona Lisa picture would end up with a DQ.
I really don't think issues such as the quality of the image I take, exposure, lighting, and such should enter into the DQ discussion. The basic rule is on using prior artwork - not on my photographic skills. The ladder is for the voters to determine.
No matter what the final decisions are on these issues, these are the kinds of images and discussions that need to be included in the example page that is being worked on. I am less concerened with what the final rules are than that they be clearly explained for all to understand. |
You missed my whole point. Sorry, I forget how "quality" focused DPC people are. It seems a few of you latched onto that one fragment of my post. My post was NOT to say a good photo was acceptable and a bad is DQ'd.
My point was on variance and artistic license. When taking a shot straight of a 2D subject directly such as Prof Fate's shot of the Abe Lincoln the ONLY variance is quality of the photograph. There must be a composition, and artistic element.
My statement regarding the coin was that although two photos could be taken of the same coin the compositions could be quite different.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 11:52:06 AM · #73 |
I had DQ thoughts the second I saw that pic of the art house.
I feel that that pic was nothing other than a literal representation of that peice of artwork. The only thing in that picture is the artwork. The lighting is a product of typical ambient daylight. It is in essence a snapshot of an eyeturning peice of art. It is well presented.
On the other hand, I don't really think that there is anything to it having been accepted. So what. At least I know that when I finally get around to shooting my portraits of the sandstone and marble statues in my area in interesting light I will be able to submit them :).
On the other hand, the example is given of the pic of the coin. It was taken with a great deal of thought to setup and presentation. The way that picture looks exists ONLY because of the photographers skill with lighting. How literal it is depends on the topic of the challenge. If the challenge was Money, it's pretty much a literal representation. If the topic was Light, it would change things because now the pic is showcasing the lighting. A challenge on Presentation would follow the same reasons.
Sometimes a title can change the way the photo is interpreted as well.
However, considering these things has led me to feel that while my life will not be affected by the DQ of the art shot in the Illusions challenge, it really ought to go. Not just for the picture, but for the reason of the context of that picture.
Someone else mentioned that in the Illusions challenge, there ought to be an illusion in the setup of taking of the shot. I don't really agree. Some things are illusions (think of certain insects) that only require a snapshot to portray. Many of the best shots are merely snapshots.
However, the pic of the house was submitted under Illusions. The illusion was *in* the artwork. This would have been the case regardless of the angle. There were no other elements in the picture (I really liked the one example shown of the guy that looked like he was jumping out of the hole - that would have been fine by me). There was no special lighting created, or for that matter even really considered. Not even a flash. No special shadows were created. The sky was not used to any great effect. There is only one main element in the picture. The literal representation of that peice of artwork is the direct application to that challenge topic. There is no hidden meaning, no side remarks.
It is because of the relevance to the challenge that I feel this pic is unsuitable, not the picture alone.
My poorly lit and lonely New Taiwan Dollar (value approx $0.02US) with blown out highlights. |
|
|
|
08/19/2005 04:43:29 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by fixedintime:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Even in this case, perhaps the most borderline, there is much that the photographer has done. (I've taken photos of coins). And here the photographer has chosen a clean background, used good focus, provided good lighting and chosing a pleasing angle of viewing. All of those factors contribute to making it a pleasing photo. Another person could have placed the same coin on the kitch floor, shot straight down with a flash and it could have had blown highlights, etc. And although the exact same coin....it would have been an unpleasing foto. |
Now lets take this and apply the same logic to the Mona Lisa example. I could take the painting and use it - If I put it in such a postion so as to end up with a black border - width of my choosing. Then the picture is it ok since I can make lots of choices such as use of flash, not overexposing and the like. Seems to me to be the same situation. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think the Mona Lisa picture would end up with a DQ.
I really don't think issues such as the quality of the image I take, exposure, lighting, and such should enter into the DQ discussion. The basic rule is on using prior artwork - not on my photographic skills. The ladder is for the voters to determine.
No matter what the final decisions are on these issues, these are the kinds of images and discussions that need to be included in the example page that is being worked on. I am less concerened with what the final rules are than that they be clearly explained for all to understand. |
You missed my whole point. Sorry, I forget how "quality" focused DPC people are. It seems a few of you latched onto that one fragment of my post. My post was NOT to say a good photo was acceptable and a bad is DQ'd.
My point was on variance and artistic license. When taking a shot straight of a 2D subject directly such as Prof Fate's shot of the Abe Lincoln the ONLY variance is quality of the photograph. There must be a composition, and artistic element.
My statement regarding the coin was that although two photos could be taken of the same coin the compositions could be quite different. |
Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. My first sentence said I make a compositional choice on the Mona Lisa and put a border around it when I take the original image. Later I said I didn't think that would make the grade and would end up with a DQ. I really don't see any difference between that and the image of the coin.
But let me take the image from Prof Fate - you don't think there was any compositional decisions in that image. I think there were a great many of them.
He choose to use an older somewhat winkled bill. He could have chosen to use an older or a newer bill. That is much like me choosing which of may flowers in a field to use for my image.
He choose how much of the art work to show - much as me choosing how much of a flower to show in my image.
He choose how close to get to the bill. It was a macro challenge after all - so he choose to get close - but he also choose to get close enough to show the details in the printing and to show only part of the face. He choose not to show the entire bill. That is not much different than my choosing how close to get to take an image of a flower.
He choose to take a head on shot - rather than to take the image at an angle - while we may think of it as a direct image of art work it is still a compositional choice.
So I would say there were some composition done in taking the image. You and I may agree they were very much standard choices and may or may not have shown much creativity - but they were still choices.
I think I'm coming out of this entire discussion thinking that the art work clause should be deleted and let the voters decide what to do with the image. My hunch is that anything that looks like an image of art work - with little creativity will not do well.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 04:47:57 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
I think I'm coming out of this entire discussion thinking that the art work clause should be deleted and let the voters decide what to do with the image. |
I suggested that awhile back, but was shot down by "the man" ;-) |
|
