| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/29/2006 01:47:12 AM · #1 |
I usually study the DQ's, hoping to learn what to avoid and as I looked at the results in Hands and saw that
got DQ'ed. I distinctly remembered another shot, IMO almost identical
and it was not DQ'ed. Is this simply because no one has suspected a violation?
Absolutely no sour grapes here, just curious.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:50:38 AM · #2 |
Here's the slight difference. The first one is a shot taken straight on, so that it's really no different from a painting hanging on a wall.
The second one was taken with an added dimensional element, a perspective using the photographer's creativity, thus making it more 3D.
In this case, 3D elements added to artwork are very rarely, if ever, DQd.
Of course, this isn't an official explanation, but that's the most likely scenario |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:53:46 AM · #3 |
| Yes, the answer would be that no one brought this to our attention. But now that you HAVE brought this to our attention, the photo will be reviewed. Thanks. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:54:17 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Here's the slight difference. The first one is a shot taken straight on, so that it's really no different from a painting hanging on a wall.
The second one was taken with an added dimensional element, a perspective using the photographer's creativity, thus making it more 3D.
In this case, 3D elements added to artwork are very rarely, if ever, DQd.
Of course, this isn't an official explanation, but that's the most likely scenario |
That's probably why but the whole concept is silly, IMO. How can you tell the shot wasn't taken at a very slight angle? At what angle does it stop being a "Literal representation"? |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:55:08 AM · #5 |
| As well as what Artyste pointed out, I might venture to add, in my limited knowledge base, it also looks like definite choices were made by the photog as to lighting and exposure, to get the 'blown out' brilliant white background, giving the appearance of more than a straight on, simple shot of handprints on a paper. Just opinion :-) |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:55:50 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Here's the slight difference. The first one is a shot taken straight on, so that it's really no different from a painting hanging on a wall.
The second one was taken with an added dimensional element, a perspective using the photographer's creativity, thus making it more 3D.
In this case, 3D elements added to artwork are very rarely, if ever, DQd.
Of course, this isn't an official explanation, but that's the most likely scenario |
That's probably why but the whole concept is silly, IMO. How can you tell the shot wasn't taken at a very slight angle? At what angle does it stop being a "Literal representation"? |
a slight angle only and the addition of lighting makes for a non-literal representation ;) |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:58:12 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Rikki:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Here's the slight difference. The first one is a shot taken straight on, so that it's really no different from a painting hanging on a wall.
The second one was taken with an added dimensional element, a perspective using the photographer's creativity, thus making it more 3D.
In this case, 3D elements added to artwork are very rarely, if ever, DQd.
Of course, this isn't an official explanation, but that's the most likely scenario |
That's probably why but the whole concept is silly, IMO. How can you tell the shot wasn't taken at a very slight angle? At what angle does it stop being a "Literal representation"? |
a slight angle only and the addition of lighting makes for a non-literal representation ;) |
Yeah but you would have to apply some really thick hand paint to make good use of lighting on it. :P
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 01:59:12. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 02:00:00 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Rikki:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Here's the slight difference. The first one is a shot taken straight on, so that it's really no different from a painting hanging on a wall.
The second one was taken with an added dimensional element, a perspective using the photographer's creativity, thus making it more 3D.
In this case, 3D elements added to artwork are very rarely, if ever, DQd.
Of course, this isn't an official explanation, but that's the most likely scenario |
That's probably why but the whole concept is silly, IMO. How can you tell the shot wasn't taken at a very slight angle? At what angle does it stop being a "Literal representation"? |
a slight angle only and the addition of lighting makes for a non-literal representation ;) |
Yeah but you would have to apply some really thick hand paint to make good use of lighting on it. :P |
lol.. Hey, I'm not the the writer of the rules ;)
As Heather pointed out though.. it was a case of not being noticed, but will now be reviewed, so hey.. we might all be wrong. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 02:06:07 AM · #9 |
| I think this is silly, what if the photographer created that painting for this specific photo only, not as art work. I have seen people creat something in photoshop, then take a photo of it and they called that a photograph rather then a representation of artwork. I think this should have been a dispute where the artist, in this case, the photographer, had to explain, is it just your childs art class project or did you have an idea of acrylic paint representing hands in a photograph? I don't think it should have been disqualified without representation. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 02:08:18 AM · #10 |
Specifically on "this" kind of art - this is very common in India to see this kind of "hand prints" due to cultural significance (esp on front doors or front wall or house). And if I click any photo of house which has these kind of prints, would it be considered as photo of "artwork" and I will get DQed...?
And also - there are "MANY" photographs of other photographs on DPC (and they are not DQed!). Shouldn't those be considered as photo of artwork (another photo)??? The recent one could be this one (and its a beautiful ribbon winning photo!) -
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 02:11:29 AM · #11 |
| Try this tutorial to start with a basic understanding of the literal artworks rule. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 02:14:41 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Try this tutorial to start with a basic understanding of the literal artworks rule. |
Thanks for pointing out to tutorial. I think I got my answers from this one :)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 02:49:51 AM · #13 |
You're welcome :-)
...(easier to link to that than give an explanation) guess I'm just lazy :-) |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:06:19 AM · #14 |
| I think the differnce is one of them had 'Click here if you suspect a rules violation'and the other didn't (Probably). |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 03:12:56 AM · #15 |
I'm still trying to figure out why straight on is any less of a choice of perspective, from a photographic point of view of course. ...or why a grey background is any less of a photographic choice than a blown white one.
I understand the literal artwork rule is in place to handle some perceived problem -- I'm not just not sure it's handling it as implemented or enforced.
David
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 04:20:05 AM · #16 |
That was my daughters photo that was disqualified and she is 9. Your right she created this artwork specifically for the challenge.
I had a sneaking suspicion that this might happen (DQ) however I have no input (deliberately)into what Joyah submits except to resize it for her in photshop. She has taken the DQ on the chin but I was very interested to see this thread and the other handprints photo.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 08:23:38 AM · #17 |
| Even if the artwork is created specifically to have a photo taken of it, by the rules of DPC, some OTHER element MUST be included. That element can be a lot of things, lighting, an object that is not part of the original artwork and changes the perspective, etc., but NO artwork - and especially two dimensional artwork - can simply be photographically reproduced and submitted for a challenge. It can be INCLUDED, but not simply reproduced, in whole or in part. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 10:05:38 AM · #18 |
this isn't a photo of a photo !
look at the setup he posted...
Originally posted by tejinder:
And also - there are "MANY" photographs of other photographs on DPC (and they are not DQed!). Shouldn't those be considered as photo of artwork (another photo)??? The recent one could be this one (and its a beautiful ribbon winning photo!) -
|
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 10:20:37 AM · #19 |
I am the creator of the second hand print image in the comparison. After the challenge I saw that the other hand print was dq'd, and a part of me wondered if mine should have been as well. I will point out (for whatever it is worth) that my pic was taken of 3 separate handprints on different pages laid out amongst quite a few other blank white pages. My intention for the overall pic was to not so much document a picture of our the hand print, but to present a shot with the focus on color and texture. I adjusted saturation to bring out more color, jacked up sharpening basically to the max to bring out the texture of the paint and played with the levels to make the white have a sharp contrast to the color. I don't believe that I caught a literal representation of an existing piece of artwork since the originals and my final product are probably significantly different. I don't know - I guess the SC will decide if need be.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 10:34:29 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by soup:
this isn't a photo of a photo !
look at the setup he posted...
Originally posted by tejinder:
And also - there are "MANY" photographs of other photographs on DPC (and they are not DQed!). Shouldn't those be considered as photo of artwork (another photo)??? The recent one could be this one (and its a beautiful ribbon winning photo!) -
|
|
FYI, I don't think a literal representation of artwork is limited to a photo. (I'm not saying I think the afterlife family pic should be DQ'ed.)
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 10:38:42 AM · #21 |
Snip<<<Originally posted by timfythetoo:
I don't believe that I caught a literal representation of an existing piece of artwork since the originals and my final product are probably significantly different. I don't know - I guess the SC will decide if need be. |
>>>Snip
If post-processing alone is what differentiates the original from the submission, and it (the original) is deemed to be a literal representation of artwork, then I think it will be DQ'ed. But that's an "if".
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:08:08 AM · #22 |
I just went ahead and posted a description of the set up and post processing of my painted hands pic (just click on its pic at the top of this thread). Again - I don't believe that I have a literal representation of existing artwork but I am willing to accept whatever decision is made by the SC. I am still quite new to this site and I am still trying to figure out how to interpret the rules within the challenges. I have been reading alot of past threads on rule interpretations and trying to find out what is allowed and what is not. Seems like a fine line in many areas. I hoep I have not crossed any of them.
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 11:08:46.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 11:23:50 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by soup:
this isn't a photo of a photo !
look at the setup he posted...
Originally posted by tejinder:
And also - there are "MANY" photographs of other photographs on DPC (and they are not DQed!). Shouldn't those be considered as photo of artwork (another photo)??? The recent one could be this one (and its a beautiful ribbon winning photo!) -
|
|
It's a beautiful photo and I have nothing against it. In-fact, I have already commented that I'm clear about the rules now (after being pointed to tutorial).
Btw, at the end of tube (in this photo), there is another photo (unless being silhoutted makes it lesser photo or artwork).
|
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:03:03 PM · #24 |
I'm confused by your last sentence--a cutout that makes a silhouette isn't a photo, it's a cutout. Look at this.
Message edited by author 2006-03-29 13:05:32. |
|
|
|
03/29/2006 01:31:04 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by dahved:
...a cutout that makes a silhouette isn't a photo, it's a cutout. |
It IS still 2D artwork, though. In this case it wasn't just the artwork presented literally, and that's the key difference. There's a lot more to see than just the cutout people. If the cutout had been simply glued to a piece of paper and shot straight-on without the pipe, it probably would have been DQ'd. Note that it doesn't matter WHO made the artwork (whether it was pre-existing or created for the photo)- only that the entry is not simply a direct reproduction of a two-dimensional image. |
|
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: 10/18/2025 04:31:45 PM EDT.
