the art of deception , a photograph & a DQ (long)

10/19/2007 10:15:14 PM · #226

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Because it uses more than a single source image, and our rules are set up to reward in-camera compositing, not photoshop compositing, except for expert editing. But let me ask you this: if the dragonfly was sporting wings you had painstakingly fabricated out of mylar and a technical pen and then mounted to its thorax, then wouldn't it be disappointing to you, by what you have said, if it fooled us?

R.

Not at all. You need to read a few posts above. I am not anti-illusion. I am anti printed image because it can get around other rules.

My being impressed by an illusion also has to do with the setup. If the street photog shot was set up by someone who printed the background rasterized in 8x10 sheets and put it together, I'd be impressed at the dedication.

I'm quite impressed that Jorge got the shot he did. I'm very much less impressed that Nico got his shot.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/19/2007 10:18:44 PM · #227

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Because it uses more than a single source image, and our rules are set up to reward in-camera compositing,

This conversation is getting a little too "real time", but I exactly agree. However, I think printed images are a time-shifting trick to get around "in-camera compositing". I just don't think it's kosher. I'm quite entitled to that opinion and I think the artwork rule could be easily implemented to reflect this and wind up quite easily interpreted.

Easy interpretation. No perception of unfairness. That's what I'm striving for.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/19/2007 10:26:29 PM · #228

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Because it uses more than a single source image, and our rules are set up to reward in-camera compositing,

This conversation is getting a little too "real time", but I exactly agree. However, I think printed images are a time-shifting trick to get around "in-camera compositing". I just don't think it's kosher. I'm quite entitled to that opinion and I think the artwork rule could be easily implemented to reflect this and wind up quite easily interpreted.

Easy interpretation. No perception of unfairness. That's what I'm striving for.

Yes, of course you are entitled to your opinion. I am just vigorously debating. If you restrict the opinion to use of printed or displayed photographs to fool the viewer, I'm not in total disagreement with that :-)

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/19/2007 10:29:52 PM · #229

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Oh ya, well that's been my opinion all along. (well computer screens are added there.) You should know my work enough to know I like a good trick too (usually double exposure has been my M.O.) I just never liked printed images or computer screens. I always bugged Rikki each and every time he did it.

FireBird

10/19/2007 10:37:35 PM · #230

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Now that I mention it, I have caught myself dropping a couple points when I see pics of ladybugs. Hmmm...

Now I come in here tonight and find out that even my job as smartass has been outsourced. :(

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/19/2007 10:39:00 PM · #231

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

[quote=DrAchoo] [quote=GeneralE] By cropping to a small portion of ... you talk about ILLUSIONS in photography... Everythign was studio setups designed a la Scalvert to fool the viewer, always for a specific goal or purpose.

It was fiendishly painstaking work, and I grew to appreciate how hard it is to do. I have a lot of admiration for people who can pull these illusions off, and I think it's a major genre of photography that, for a lot of people, is fun to view and easy to admire.

R.

Oh, I'm in favor of allowing the use of props to create illusions if it's otherwise legally-edited -- I have no problem with printouts or monitors as long as there is something real to put it all in context.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/19/2007 10:44:35 PM · #232

Originally posted by GeneralE:

So did you vote for or against the owl?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/19/2007 11:51:57 PM · #233

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Oh, I'm in favor of allowing the use of props to create illusions if it's otherwise legally-edited -- I have no problem with printouts or monitors as long as there is something real to put it all in context.

So did you vote for or against the owl?

That particular decision was made without my direct participation, but I would have voted to validate -- I found the binoculars to be (pardon the expression) quite the focus of the composition.

The odds of getting a real owl to hold that position long enough to get its eyes showing throught the lenses are infinitesimal, so it was obvious to me that it was almost certainly a prop of some sort, and just as clear that it was not just a portrait shot of some wildlife. So, who shot the original owl and when is irrelevant in my consideration of the overall photo. Why is it any more important who shot the original owl photo thasn who made the binoculars? It is their juxtaposition which made this an original piece of art.

10/20/2007 12:00:50 AM · #234

OK, that's a reasonable position. I disagree with it, but it's logical.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

10/20/2007 02:45:10 AM · #235

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm quite impressed that Jorge got the shot he did. I'm very much less impressed that Nico got his shot.

and yet you admitted to voting down Jorge's on the assumption it was faked?