| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2006 11:01:28 AM · #1 |
Not to open a can of worms, but while looking at the Steve Davidson results, I noticed the photo of Mount Rushmore was DQ'd on the literal rule. I thought that sculptures were not considered for literal--since there are so many variables which can be applied (e.g., the clouds in this are unique to that shot) and certainly not many times do you see Steve there.
Just curious if the rule violation is listed correctly there as the literal works repro rule?
(Also should emphasize that this is not my photo, just curious...)
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:02:56 AM · #2 |
In that case, it was a photo of a computer monitor which was displaying an image of Rushmore, hence the DQ. Ordinarily any 3D artwork is permitted.
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 11:03:22.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:05:40 AM · #3 |
Never mind. Manic posted while I was speculating. :)
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 11:06:13. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:10:04 AM · #4 |
Thanks for clarifying Manic!
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:34:29 AM · #5 |
Perhaps for a challenge such as this one. The rules should have been a bit more slack? Because it is more of a photoshop than a photograph challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:37:56 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Perhaps for a challenge such as this one. The rules should have been a bit more slack? |
They were, but any rules are going to be too restrictive for some and not enough for others. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:40:27 AM · #7 |
I have to agree with this one, even under the looser rules of this challenge; taking someone else's image and photoshopping Steve into it doesn't seem right to me for a challenge entry.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:40:51 AM · #8 |
That is why I didn't enter this challenge. :-) that and because I had some time issues the past two weeks.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Perhaps for a challenge such as this one. The rules should have been a bit more slack? |
They were, but any rules are going to be too restrictive for some and not enough for others. |
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 11:44:03.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:53:41 AM · #9 |
| I was rather surprised at seeing the images of Steve in the submissions, as last I had heard we weren't allowed to use any image we hadn't taken during the time frame alloted, including the image that was in the thread. Nothing was in the challenge description anyway. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:55:47 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I was rather surprised at seeing the images of Steve in the submissions, as last I had heard we weren't allowed to use any image we hadn't taken during the time frame alloted, including the image that was in the thread. Nothing was in the challenge description anyway. |
...related thread started earlier.
What In The World...
...it kind of fizzled out. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 02:18:41 PM · #11 |
Should have been a notice, or link on the upload page if the rules were ammended in the forums then. Seems this one had too many threads going in different directions and not everyone has the time to try and dig around for what is/isn't allowed.
I thought so many would be dq'd cloning him in as it was stated we couldn't. Would have had such a blast had it been made clear.
Oh well, was a fun challenge regardless.
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 14:19:03. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 02:32:47 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by BradP:
.... I thought so many would be dq'd cloning him in as it was stated we couldn't. Would have had such a blast had it been made clear....
|
I loved your shot Brad. You took liberty with the ability to use layers/cloning, etc. and did it well. I'm sure that many of the photos still received validation requests. And passed the validation. Not all were cloned in, or used a brush etc.
I think it was a fun challenge. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 02:53:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I thought so many would be dq'd cloning him in as it was stated we couldn't. |
It wasn't cloning, they used a Steve-brush :-)
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 02:56:31 PM · #14 |
But early on, was said that it wasn't allowed, nor could he be cloned in.
If a change is done mid-stream, a vessel needs to be in place to get the word out to everyone or have a flag announcing it on the upload screen.
Not everyone has the time to read every post. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 03:16:37 PM · #15 |
| Someone asked in a forum thread about custom brushes. Since the Major Elements clause was waived, there was an initial SC response that they were legal, and we didn't catch the loophole until the voting had started. By then there was no point in announcing it in the rules, and we couldn't reasonably DQ after giving a public thumbs up. It was a no-win situation, and since this was a special "extra-editing" challenge anyway, we chose to allow it. We'll get it right next time! ;-) |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 03:19:59 PM · #16 |
Was a hilarious challenge though and surely one to bring smiles for years.
Best part was, it was done to honor Steve's safe return. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 04:22:09 PM · #17 |
to clarify in my brain:
literal art in a nutshell is if you photograph someone else's art without any other artistic view and submit your photo as 'the' art.
however if you do something 'different' to the art, (i.e. a portion of the art, different view, etc.) that is not abusing the literal art clause, correct?
Therefore the DQ'd entry was literal art because a Steve brush was used on someone else's art?
Sorry if I am being redundant... |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 04:35:25 PM · #18 |
The entry in question was dq'ed because it was a shot of a computer monitor.
If I take a shot, then modify it, then shoot the monitor and enter that, it is a violation of the artwork clause. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 04:39:10 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We'll get it right next time! ;-) |
Next time Steve gets lost?
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 04:40:28 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The entry in question was dq'ed because it was a shot of a computer monitor.
|
Should have placed a cocktail glass in front of it :-)
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 08:27:32 PM · #21 |
I missed the order of events on that photo.....
Karmat, I wasn't trying to debate, I really was trying to clarify for my knowledge. I was very worried about breaking the rules with my entry....but was ok. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 09:03:03 PM · #22 |
| I know. I was busy at work and answered quickly (and thus it sounded a bit more abrupt than it was meant to). No harm. No foul. :) |
|
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: 10/15/2025 11:37:01 AM EDT.
