| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2007 11:40:23 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Requiring a super majority on DQ voting wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO. Actually, I thought initially that's how it was being done or it was like a jury where everyone had to agree to DQ. |
right now it is a simple majority, but we are currently discussing changing it to a "super" majority with a higher quorum. it's a bigger SC than ever before, and it's got a lot of ego, so everyone wants to get their point heard. :)
|
|
|
|
10/16/2007 11:41:31 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... and it's got a lot of ego, so everyone wants to get their point heard. :) |
Soooo, that's new? :)
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 07:58:34 AM · #178 |
sorry to revive this tread but there has been talk of CONSISTENCY (or lack thereof);
it seems to me that the spirit of the current submission rules is that they apply to post-processing: minimal EDITING, basic EDITING, andvanced EDITING, extreme EDITING, using concepts such as layers, filters, RAW conversions, in-camera effects, whatever. in other words, the SC, when validating an image, concerns itself with the alterations made to the raw sensor data after it has been read from the sensor.
now, adding rules like those debated in this tread means that SC also passes judgement on things that ARE NOT post-processing: framing, composition, props, lighting, "physical" special effects and the likes. i can understand the reasoning behind preventing someone from manipulating the crap out of a digital image, projecting/printing/displaying it on some surface and then taking a photo of it for the purpose of bending the rules. BUT, where does one draw the line? when does creativity and thinking outside the box become rule-bending? the answer is that there is no answer, it is a 100% subjective decision taken using a voting sistem by the folks making up SC. and because of that there is no CONSISTENCY since you can't have any in the presence of subjectivity, by definition.
so, either does the SC restrict itself to validating post-processing steps (which anyway it is what it should be doing since it is smacking people over their heads with EDITING rules) and weather the occasional abuse (and you yourselves admitted that these kinds of submissions are pretty far in between, the ones you know about anyway) OR if they can't tolerate it and MUST pass subjective judgement if an entry's physical setup bends PP rules or is just clever thinking, then involve everyone concerned in it. have people vote on DQ's for 24 hrs or whatever after the challenge ends, allow them to see the original and the alleged PP steps. i mean, i value my opinion (subjective) just as much as yours, SC or not.
my 2 eurocents.
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 08:02:17. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 08:08:18 AM · #179 |
Sorry to disagree. But most of what is in question here is including images that were taken outside the challenge window and presenting them as if they were. I think the owl shot fits this to a tee since the owl is the subject, not the background.
As has already been stated many times, the inconsistency has appeared due to the change in the rules over time. The images that haven't been dq'd were submitted prior to the rule changes and those that were, after the rule changes.
Sure, projection or using the computer monitor can be a creative part of getting an image for a challenge but let's keep in mind that the projection or computer monitor image must be secondary, not the prime subject.
Just my 2 CDN cents.
ETA: Also, I don't think DQ's should be the responsibility of the entire DPC community. The rules are there for a reason and the SC as the administrators of the rules should be the ones voting.
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 08:09:50. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 10:40:15 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Sorry to disagree. But most of what is in question here is including images that were taken outside the challenge window and presenting them as if they were. I think the owl shot fits this to a tee since the owl is the subject, not the background.
As has already been stated many times, the inconsistency has appeared due to the change in the rules over time. The images that haven't been dq'd were submitted prior to the rule changes and those that were, after the rule changes.
Sure, projection or using the computer monitor can be a creative part of getting an image for a challenge but let's keep in mind that the projection or computer monitor image must be secondary, not the prime subject.
Just my 2 CDN cents.
ETA: Also, I don't think DQ's should be the responsibility of the entire DPC community. The rules are there for a reason and the SC as the administrators of the rules should be the ones voting. |
Do you consider the use of a monitor the secondary element in this picture?
Looks like the main subject to me and the reason that it is allowed (and would still be allowed we are told) is because we should assume that this is a monitor since the moon is distorted. I feel the same way about the owl shot. I wasn't fooled looking at that picture. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 12:18:41 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Do you consider the use of a monitor the secondary element in this picture?
Looks like the main subject to me and the reason that it is allowed (and would still be allowed we are told) is because we should assume that this is a monitor since the moon is distorted. I feel the same way about the owl shot. I wasn't fooled looking at that picture. |
I agree. I can't see any difference. Except that one is  scalvert. Hmm.... |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 12:45:35 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I can't see any difference. Except that one is scalvert. Hmm.... |
Different rules, wiseguy. Back then, if a significant real object was included as part of the composition, it was legal, period. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 12:53:34 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I can't see any difference. Except that one is scalvert. Hmm.... |
Different rules, wiseguy. Back then, if a significant real object was included as part of the composition, it was legal, period. |
But Shannon, here's Alan Freed's take on this shot.
(From earlier in the thread)
So yes, I would say that it would still be legal on the basis that nobody would be fooled into thinking the moon shot had not been tinkered with/re-shot.
See why there is so much confusion? |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:00:12 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by tase:
so, either does the SC restrict itself to validating post-processing steps ... |
i understand your point and it's well-taken. however, let me remind you of these rules that are also part of every ruleset:
Originally posted by rules:
(Your submission must be:)
-taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline, based on the Current Server Time (US Eastern Standard/Daylight Time) displayed at the bottom of every page on this site.
-taken and post-processed by you.
|
in a shot such as ralph's where the primary subject of the photo is another photo, we have no idea if the above rules were followed.
so you're saying that someone could take a photo of a mountain climber and shoot it in front of an ansel adams mountain photo and that would be OK with you? all of the impact of the shot would come from the background, which was neither taken nor processed by the photographer -- and definitely from outside the timeline.
not to mention that it's also a sneaky way of circumventing the rule that the challenge entries must be composed of one and only one photograph (expert editing excluded).
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:06:36 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
[snip]
not to mention that it's also a sneaky way of circumventing the rule that the challenge entries must be composed of one and only one photograph (expert editing excluded). |
ah !!! .. now i think this line is a better tack to take than complaining about the reality of the back drop / alternate art images or whether it is a real item or not .. .. this is indeed a way to get around the multi image rule
(this did NOT occur to me when taking the picture .. but it is obvious now ..DO'H)
edit: spelllling
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 13:09:12. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:10:10 PM · #186 |
I'm so lost.
I'm so scared.
Somebody rescue me. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 01:35:46 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
See why there is so much confusion? |
Yeah, because you aren't accepting one person's opinion for what it is. Alan (or I) can't speak for the entire group on a subjective call. We can only offer an opinion, and honestly, I'm not so sure the same photo would pass validation these days. Absolutely nobody should be fooled into thinking I shot a pear-shaped moon up in the sky (duh), but it could be construed as an attempt to circumvent the editing rules even though you could arguably say the same thing about painting a realistic moon onto an actual light bulb and shooting that rather than Photoshopping it on. When the editing is obvious, we tend to leave subjective calls to to the voters. Personally, I would expect a long discussion and a split decision, just as we have in this thread. As with any subjective call, it would be wiser to err on the side of caution than look for a sharp line in the sand.
Perhaps a better test of the current rule/discussion would be this image:
The fish was a print, albeit a small part of the composition and not edited. Is that a problem? Originally, I was planning to use a vinyl goldfish that my kids had as a bath toy, but I couldn't find the darn thing. I doubt anyone would complain about using such a "found" object vs. a real fish. What if the fish had been cut out of a shower curtain? It's still a found object, but really no different than an inkjet print. If that's not a problem, then other printed elements shouldn't be a problem, but to what extent? Surely we couldn't allow people to just add a bug to a print and call that legal. Anyone can sit here and claim that they weren't fooled into thinking the owl was real, yet it's even less likely that a photographer was able to get Ian McKellen (or his twin) to pose for this shot (sorry, Joey) and LOTS of people were fooled:
The artwork rule is a balancing act, and it's simply going to be subjective no matter what you do. If you don't like it, then stop complaining and propose a better solution. Just remember that not all included artwork is controversial, even if it was another photographer's work:
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:22:26 PM · #188 |
Deleted. I don't want to purposely make any issues confusing and convoluted.
I also don't want to create confusion and tension where it's not necessary.
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 21:29:36. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:35:21 PM · #189 |
DIT-OH
And I thought I was in a perfect world, Cyberphotopia.
no rules just right. |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 02:57:19 PM · #190 |
the key word in that argument is "props." the owl photo in ralph's image takes up the whole screen. isn't that more than a "prop?" i would consider the binoculars to be the prop in the OP's setup.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:14:59 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
the key word in that argument is "props." the owl photo in ralph's image takes up the whole screen. isn't that more than a "prop?" i would consider the binoculars to be the prop in the OP's setup. |
Well, if we go by size, then we're back looking at this one:
A) Not his artwork (some arguments about that)
B) Commands a large portion (some arguments about that)
I'm still saying either all-in or all-out (or nearly all out with the exception of "obvious" artwork being allowed).
If I keep repeating it, will people eventually see it as a reasonable rulset? ;) |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 03:35:23 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by tase:
so, either does the SC restrict itself to validating post-processing steps ... |
i understand your point and it's well-taken. however, let me remind you of these rules that are also part of every ruleset:
Originally posted by rules:
(Your submission must be:)
-taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline, based on the Current Server Time (US Eastern Standard/Daylight Time) displayed at the bottom of every page on this site.
-taken and post-processed by you.
|
in a shot such as ralph's where the primary subject of the photo is another photo, we have no idea if the above rules were followed.
|
AFAIK, both requirements WERE fulfilled by ralph's photo. the digital photograph he submitted WAS taken in the allowed timeframe and WAS legally processed. you're "not sure" about the PHOTO INSIDE RALPH'S PHOTO, the owl photo, but the rules don't say anything about "previous art" in the shot having to fulfill the editing requirements and it seems to me that there is no consensus whether the owl IS the PRIMARY subject or not. some (myself included) would see it as PART of the primary subject. after all, the owl AND the binoculars have to be present to drive home the message. since there is no consensus about this (on this thread and within SC i gather, correct me if i'm wrong) this photo at best sits in a gray area. i would say that given the precedents it is legal and the "new rule" oft quoted is ineffective at tackling the kind of abuse it was designed to tackle. all it does is give rise to controversy since "primary subject" in a photo, sadly, is not something you can determine with a ruler.
therefore, there is no objective, consistent way to determine the threshold between legal (in a DPC sense) use of "previous art", photographic or not, and use that might be construed as trying to go around the rules. even in copyright law, "derived work" status is decided on a case-by-case basis. therefore, to me it seems that either a) as i said before, SC ignores this issue on the basis that it isn't that frequent (though it might become) or b) in borderline cases like this (not advanced PP in basic, but stuff like this) you allow the users to vote on its legality (which might raise even more issues with fairness, anonimity, technical). like i said, i value my opinion just as much as yours.
this is not a request, not even a suggestion, just an opinion. i detect a hint of hypocrisy in this thread, a bit of genesis' "jesus, he loves me" and having had my share of that in real life i do have something of an allergy.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 04:10:57 PM · #193 |
Actually the rules refer to images of artwork as well.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 06:25:21 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
the key word in that argument is "props." the owl photo in ralph's image takes up the whole screen. isn't that more than a "prop?" i would consider the binoculars to be the prop in the OP's setup. |
Perhaps my use of the word "props" was incorrect.
Shannon's fish? Yes, that is definenately a "prop". He could have done a shot without it. Maybe not with the same impact, but yeah, he could have.
But your fish and Brianna's burger are most certainly the SUBJECTS of the photographsWithout your fish, we'd have a very boring half of fish bowl to look at and without Brianna's burger, we have half of her head, looking up at a big white space, in the "Fast Food" challenge.
So how is it that the photograph of the burger and the photograph of the fish are any different than Ralph's photograph of the owl?
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 06:28:16 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
So how is it that the photograph of the burger and the photograph of the fish are any different than Ralph's photograph of the owl? |
the owl had no context - it would not have been DQwd if i had shown the monitor (just a guess) |
|
|
|
10/18/2007 08:46:29 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I keep repeating it, will people eventually see it as a reasonable rulset? ;) |
no.
i've been trying a similar tactic since i've been on the SC. i speak from experience.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:01:45 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
Originally posted by muckpond:
the key word in that argument is "props." the owl photo in ralph's image takes up the whole screen. isn't that more than a "prop?" i would consider the binoculars to be the prop in the OP's setup. |
Perhaps my use of the word "props" was incorrect.
Shannon's fish? Yes, that is definenately a "prop". He could have done a shot without it. Maybe not with the same impact, but yeah, he could have.
But your fish and Brianna's burger are most certainly the SUBJECTS of the photographsWithout your fish, we'd have a very boring half of fish bowl to look at and without Brianna's burger, we have half of her head, looking up at a big white space, in the "Fast Food" challenge.
So how is it that the photograph of the burger and the photograph of the fish are any different than Ralph's photograph of the owl? |
all of the shots that were pointed out used cut-out images as part of the composition.
Originally posted by rules:
You may: include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph. |
i'd argue that ralph's shot is almost entirely made up of a photo of an owl that may or may not have been taken by him and may or may not have been taken within the challenge guidelines. to me, this is a clearcut violation of the above rule.
note too that i'm not specifically defending my use of cutout fish in the SNAFU shot. if i need to abstain from this argument because it's mine, i'll happily step aside. i'd enjoy not being involved in another firefight. :)
oh, and ralph, i'm not picking on you. i understand your disappointment. i hope you can see my point of view.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:16:38 PM · #198 |
Good Grief. This is only such a confusing and convoluted issue because so many of you are making it into one.
It is very rare in the first place that this comes up, so it's certainly not worth all of the typing that has gone into this thread in the first place.
The example posted here, for example, is CLEARLY LEGAL because no reasonable person would expect that a 50-foot tall Amazon woman was lying in the street. Clearly it's a billboard. It's not merely a matter of size, it's a matter of perception. Is the original artwork that has been photographed being perceived as the submitter's original work? Certainly it is not here.
If I keep repeating this will people come to understand it...? No, probably not, because so many people just love to create confusion and tension where it's not necessary.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if we go by size, then we're back looking at this one:
A) Not his artwork (some arguments about that)
B) Commands a large portion (some arguments about that)
I'm still saying either all-in or all-out (or nearly all out with the exception of "obvious" artwork being allowed).
If I keep repeating it, will people eventually see it as a reasonable rulset? ;) |
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:17:46 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
oh, and ralph, i'm not picking on you. i understand your disappointment. i hope you can see my point of view. |
no prob- i have now wrapped my mind around the issue & was certainly in error -
|
|
|
|
10/18/2007 09:21:10 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
note too that i'm not specifically defending my use of cutout fish in the SNAFU shot. if i need to abstain from this argument because it's mine, i'll happily step aside. i'd enjoy not being involved in another firefight. :) |
Since Muck won't defend his own shot... I will. His fish is a prop, a small piece of a much bigger picture, and not a significant piece of what I'm voting on. I only get wildly bent out of shape when I'm casting the majority of my vote based on someone else's artwork, and the owl is a prime example.
Also not meant to pick on ralph :)
Message edited by author 2007-10-18 21:23:01. |
|
