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

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/16/2007 12:54:58 PM · #127

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No, the other interpretation is that he had access to his own giant printer and printed a picture for the background himself. Perhaps SC would rule it was obviously a billboard due to the obvious size of the picture. (although couldn't the man be a cutout in front of a normal woman?)

I agree, it reveals the gray zone of this possible wording, but I think the zone is much, much smaller than current and while this excellent picture would unfortunately not meet the standard, it would prevent lots of other shenanigans out there.

I still don't get why so many people have such a problem if someone can print out something big, or if they make thier own backgrounds.You fooled me into thinking the ladybugs were real and alive. Your dead bugs are as much a lie (if not more) than many examples presented here. Because the bugs are 3d that shoud make a difference? this is all fake does that mean it should have been DQ'd?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/16/2007 12:59:53 PM · #128

Well you two are obviously on the other side of the argument. I believe you should either let it all in (any printed/video background should be allowed) or you keep it all out. Currently I'm arguing for keeping it all out.

One problem with the way both SC and the DPC vocal seem to operate is nobody looks at the ease of enforcement of the rules. Instead everybody looks at it backwards and wants rules that will allow their "pet" photographs in. Shannon's flying carpet is an awesome picture. Hotpasta's billboard shot is also awesome. But if you allow those two, you need to allow the owl and the binoculars and other examples posted. I cannot distinguish between the two other than "I like the first one, I don't like the second one".

silverscreen

10/16/2007 01:04:03 PM · #129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Shannon's flying carpet is an awesome picture. Hotpasta's billboard shot is also awesome. But if you allow those two, you need to allow the owl and the binoculars and other examples posted. I cannot distinguish between the two other than "I like the first one, I don't like the second one".

Agreed again - it has to be one way or the other... But right now I find it very hard to decide which I prefer - I just want some consistency.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

10/16/2007 01:08:13 PM · #130

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I cannot distinguish between the two other than "I like the first one, I don't like the second one".

The owl could be a real subject whereas it should be obvious that the other backgrounds are not... which is apparently what you proposed as the rule. :-/

Apple iPhone 5

10/16/2007 01:11:52 PM · #131

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well you two are obviously on the other side of the argument.

I'm on neither side of the argument at the moment. Just playing devil's advocate. As has been pointed out, this is a tough rule to get the wording correct on and to implement fairly, because of subjectivity.

The 'printed/video' wording probably isn't enough, because of the example which Elvis_L posted;

This is a setup background. It is 'fake' and should probably fall foul of this proposed rule, but how would the ruling be worded/applied in a fair manner in cases like this? What if he'd used real plants but a 'fake' sunset? Where to draw the line?

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/16/2007 01:24:32 PM · #132

Originally posted by jhonan:

Absolutely stunning setup and final image! Quite clever. Kudo's to

2mccs on this accomplishment.

IMO, this image is nowhere close to the one in the OP. Not comparable at all.

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/16/2007 01:36:25 PM · #133

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Absolutely stunning setup and final image! Quite clever. Kudo's to 2mccs on this accomplishment.

IMO, this image is nowhere close to the one in the OP. Not comparable at all.

I would agree on all points, but both are manufactured backgrounds. the quality of such can't be grounds for DQ. I sure as hell thought it was a real sunset (one of the best setups on the site) and in no way did I think it was a real owl. In the end though they are both printed backgrounds( i am going with a print and a monitor being the same thing)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/16/2007 01:41:38 PM · #134

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well you two are obviously on the other side of the argument.

I'm on neither side of the argument at the moment. Just playing devil's advocate. As has been pointed out, this is a tough rule to get the wording correct on and to implement fairly, because of subjectivity.

The 'printed/video' wording probably isn't enough, because of the example which Elvis_L posted;

This is a setup background. It is 'fake' and should probably fall foul of this proposed rule, but how would the ruling be worded/applied in a fair manner in cases like this? What if he'd used real plants but a 'fake' sunset? Where to draw the line?

This is exactly the picture my wording would disallow and I do not feel should be allowed. The challenge was Bokeh and I don't see how it engenders a photographic spirit if you can create exactly the amount and type of bokeh you want, print it, and then use it for a background at whatever aperture you want.

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 13:43:21.

smurfguy

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/16/2007 01:44:01 PM · #135

A lot of things in photography are fake. Models are fake people, props make up a fake scene, the subject flashes their best fake smile, the fake family advertises the products and we buy it because it looks good. A solid black background is fake - nobody lives in a black void.

And that's not even considering the PP aspect of it.

In that way, photography is like painting. You see what I want you to see, regardless of what's actually real. That's why I'm the artist and you're the audience.

The perspective I want to show you, as a photographer, may include a billboard, it may include a printed background, it may be an optical illusion.

So where should the line be drawn for the purposes of these challenges? You can't simply take a photo of somebody else's photo.

It's gotta be subjective. Someone must decide. And lucky for us, we have SC. The idea of drawing the line at "fooling the audience into voting on quality that is not of the photographer", while vague and admittedly imperfect, is the only thing that makes sense.

If you make a hard fast rule, it still won't be hard and fast. I'll argue that your photo incidentally includes a magazine cover, and you'll say "the photo obviously wasn't of the magazine cover", and we're back to square 1. Someone must decide.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

10/16/2007 01:46:06 PM · #136

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is exactly the picture my wording would disallow and I do not feel should be allowed.

Too bad there was no printed background or video representation used in that image. Your wording wouldn't apply at all.

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 13:46:38.

Apple iPhone 5

10/16/2007 01:48:04 PM · #137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is exactly the picture my wording would disallow and I do not feel should be allowed.

This one?

;-)

Elvis_L

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/16/2007 01:49:08 PM · #138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Like your killed ladybugs were fake and allowed you to make the exact picture you wanted?:) and by the way his bokeh is real. there are holes punched in the paper and light shone through it so it is real bokeh and just as valid as somone positioning lights to get the bokeh they wanted.

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 13:50:29.

10/16/2007 01:51:18 PM · #139

Originally posted by smurfguy:

The idea of drawing the line at "fooling the audience into voting on quality that is not of the photographer", while vague and admittedly imperfect, is the only thing that makes sense.

I agree. And this should apply regardless of whether the printout is the subject or the background.

10/16/2007 01:55:53 PM · #140

I think we should outlaw all B/W images, because they're fooling people into thinking there's no colour in the world. I mean, the nerve!

silverscreen

10/16/2007 01:57:24 PM · #141

Originally posted by ursula:

I think we should outlaw all B/W images, because they're fooling people into thinking there's no colour in the world. I mean, the nerve!

Fine by me - if you outlaw over saturated pictures as well ;)

10/16/2007 01:58:14 PM · #142

Originally posted by silverscreen:

Originally posted by ursula:
I think we should outlaw all B/W images, because they're fooling people into thinking there's no colour in the world. I mean, the nerve!

Fine by me - if you outlaw over saturated pictures as well ;)

:) Yeah.

10/16/2007 01:58:23 PM · #143

Originally posted by ursula:

I think we should outlaw all B/W images, because they're fooling people into thinking there's no colour in the world. I mean, the nerve!

for me, it's not about fooling people, it's about taking credit for someone else's work.

10/16/2007 02:01:38 PM · #144

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by ursula:
I think we should outlaw all B/W images, because they're fooling people into thinking there's no colour in the world. I mean, the nerve!

for me, it's not about fooling people, it's about taking credit for someone else's work.

Well, there go my shots of my kids in front of my neighbour's beautiful garden! ;-)

[edited spelling]

Message edited by author 2007-10-16 14:02:34.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/16/2007 02:02:33 PM · #145

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by ursula:
I think we should outlaw all B/W images, because they're fooling people into thinking there's no colour in the world. I mean, the nerve!

for me, it's not about fooling people, it's about taking credit for someone else's work.

Well, there go my shots of my kids in front of my neighbours beautiful garden! ;-)

Go pull a weed and then you can say you helped. :P

10/16/2007 02:03:29 PM · #146

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by ursula:
I think we should outlaw all B/W images, because they're fooling people into thinking there's no colour in the world. I mean, the nerve!

for me, it's not about fooling people, it's about taking credit for someone else's work.

Well, there go my shots of my kids in front of my neighbours beautiful garden! ;-)

Go pull a weed and then you can say you helped. :P

Good idea, but the kids look like my husband :)

10/16/2007 02:08:07 PM · #147

Originally posted by ursula:

Well, there go my shots of my kids in front of my neighbour's beautiful garden! ;-)

[edited spelling]

There is no implicit assumption that you created that beautiful garden. In fact, it is a well-accepted fact of photography that it is a capture of beauty rather than a creation of beauty. It's faking the capture that's a problem, not faking the creation.

10/16/2007 02:09:15 PM · #148

Originally posted by ursula:

Good idea, but the kids look like my husband :)

for a second there I got confused and thought you were talking about your neighbor's kids... I almost fainted...

10/16/2007 02:10:38 PM · #149

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by ursula:
Good idea, but the kids look like my husband :)

for a second there I got confused and thought you were talking about your neighbor's kids... I almost fainted...

You AND my husband :)