| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2005 10:12:11 AM · #1 |
let me start off by saying that i do not wish this forum entry to offend anyone, for i feel this picture that got 5th place is excellent and very well executed.
but
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=92741
my question is, how did it go through the rules committee since the photo of an existing photo (of jennifer love hewitt) was not his? (or more than likely not his)... from what i see, it's like so many other paintings that have been photographed that were disqualified. once again, i am not trying to stir up trouble, because this is a well deserved high rank photo. very good clarity that exemplifies a great photographer.
i'm just trying to find out what's "legal" and "not-so-legal"
thanks so much.
-jon rowe |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 10:16:53 AM · #2 |
| Rules, like art, is subject to interpretation. "Artists" call them like they want to see them. |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 10:19:39 AM · #3 |
| There's a lot more to the image than just the artwork. See the tutorial for a better idea of what's allowed. |
|
|
|
12/06/2005 10:22:17 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by jerowe:
my question is, how did it go through the rules committee since the photo of an existing photo (of jennifer love hewitt) was not his? |
It is legal because it includes other elements (such as the glasses) and is positioned in such a way that it creates a new composition -- it is not a straight-on shot of a another photo where there's nothing else to consider than the original photo.
In this case, the photo is a "prop" like any other object used to create a static composition/still-life.
Message edited by author 2005-12-06 10:22:44. |
|
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: 10/21/2025 08:07:25 PM EDT.
