DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tutorials >> Literal Artwork Tutorial
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 27, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/13/2005 08:10:46 PM · #1
Post your comments, questions, and reviews for...

'Literal Artwork Tutorial'
by scalvert

View this tutorial here.
 09/13/2005 08:33:54 PM · #2
bUMP.
 09/13/2005 08:45:21 PM · #3
Clear and concise. The examples were very helpful, thank you scalvert.
 09/13/2005 08:45:46 PM · #4
Shannon,

Great work. This should go a long way to help clarify the Literal Artwork rule.

Thanks again for all the time and effort you put into this.

-Terry
 09/13/2005 08:46:14 PM · #5
Looks like we have a winner............Thanks Shannon
 09/13/2005 08:53:29 PM · #6
Thank you, Shannon! Well thought out examples!
It is certain to be a great help to increasing understanding and reducing arguments in the forums.
 09/13/2005 08:54:18 PM · #7
Good work, now can you do it with statues?
 09/13/2005 09:06:56 PM · #8
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Good work, now can you do it with statues?


The tutorial does briefly mention statues:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Three dimensional objects, like sculptures and architecture, are largely exempt from this rule since the captured image will represent the photographer's chosen viewpoint and lighting.


The key here is that in most cases, shooting a 3-dimensional object requires inherent decisions about angle and composition. Because of this, it is difficult to conceive of a situation where such a photograph could violate this rule.

That said, it is possible that someone will find a way to do this and end up getting disqualified.

-Terry
 09/13/2005 09:13:13 PM · #9
Wow this is great, thanks so much for the time and effort. This is a great resource for all the confusion that can occur.
 09/13/2005 09:20:19 PM · #10
w00t!
 09/13/2005 10:23:50 PM · #11
Very informative and I can confirm at least 1 DQ by being too literal with my shot. Thanks for the hard work.

09/13/2005 10:52:26 PM · #12
Would the double exposure be legal in basic editing?
 09/13/2005 10:53:12 PM · #13
Originally posted by chaimelle:
Would the double exposure be legal in basic editing?


Yup. Anything you can do in camera is legal.
 09/14/2005 12:31:43 AM · #14
Thats really nicely done!

...Now just make one for every filter allowed in each rule-set and we'll be good to go
09/14/2005 12:52:05 AM · #15
Nice job Shannon! Thanks :-)
09/14/2005 08:47:28 AM · #16
Bump for the morning crowd...
 09/14/2005 08:56:14 AM · #17
great stuff, my friend

(yet for some reason it's really funny to me ... not sure why, but i was laughing with each given example)

:)
 09/14/2005 09:05:33 AM · #18
Originally posted by hopper:
(not sure why, but i was laughing with each given example)


It may have been funny money. I didn't test it. ;-P
 09/14/2005 09:11:22 AM · #19
Excuse me but I can't see those much praised examples? Thumbnails are missing completely.

edit: I took a look into the source code and anchors are there. No sign of thumbnails though.

Message edited by author 2005-09-14 09:12:44.
 09/14/2005 09:15:47 AM · #20
nice job Shannon
 09/14/2005 09:18:41 AM · #21
Originally posted by jansku:
...I can't see those much praised examples?


Try clearing your browser's cache or using a different browser.
 09/14/2005 09:18:50 AM · #22
Thumbnails showing fine for me.

Shannon, great job of explaining what can be a very gray area sometimes. Love your choice of subjects for the tutorial too! Very clear and well written.
 09/14/2005 09:21:29 AM · #23
Kudos to you Shannon for taking the time and effort to do this.
 10/08/2005 04:04:21 PM · #24
Thanks for this very informative and very well-done tutorial. I so appreciate the time and effort you put into this.

I have seen many litteral representations of architecture and thought that what I'm viewing here is not the work of a photographer but that of an architect, which I view as artwork. Does the rule apply to architecture, too?
 10/08/2005 04:14:46 PM · #25
Originally posted by Louison:
Thanks for this very informative and very well-done tutorial. I so appreciate the time and effort you put into this.

I have seen many litteral representations of architecture and thought that what I'm viewing here is not the work of a photographer but that of an architect, which I view as artwork. Does the rule apply to architecture, too?


3d objects are generally not included in the artwork rule, since lighting usually plays a part in how the photo turns out. Also, background elements (if even just sky) make the photo NOT just a literal representation. As far as I know, a 3d object has never been DQed under this rule ever. However, I am not saying it's impossible, as it seems some people always try to find a way to bend the rules.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 06:48:04 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 06:48:04 AM EDT.