| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 03:15:32 AM · #351 |
What do people think of this one? It happened that my clock was off (in fact, the time stamp said it was taken AFTER the submission period ended), but I'd bet it would've been DQ'd for the same reason as Lydia's was even if the clock had been right.
I'll tell you up front it's a real pendant in front of a 15-year-old wedding photo. Apparently I did fool people, but I assure you that wasn't my intent. I mean, most weddings don't result in two kids instantaneously, so I thought it was obvious it was a wedding photo taken long before the kids arrived.
But I can understand why the SC would've DQ'd it, and I'd argue that if it were DQ'd, so should Lydia's have been.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 03:23:42.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:22:36 AM · #352 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
I KNOW YOUR NOT CALLING ME INSANE, but really what is the difference? She took a picture of a glass that happen to be reflecting a picture of a family? Really where is the problem in this shot? |
If I knew the subject of the image was simply a glass, then I would have voted lower as it does not seem to meet the "Feast" challenge. I would take it as a shoehorn attempt. |
If I had known that Marc923's shot wasn't real manatees I would have voted it lower.
If I had known that a photographer suspended something by fishing line I would have voted it lower.
If I had known that the blues in that sky were enhanced by photoshop I would have voted it lower.
If I had ...
It's a weak, weak, weak argument. |
Edward I am sorry but sometimes you take things to such an extreme to make an argument that it is getting a bit silly.
Suspending something by fishing line and altering an image in PS etc are the weak arguments (I have not seen the manatee image that I can recall so I reserve judgement on that one), the offending image was a shot of a glass with what could have been any old picture put behind it (which was positioned to make it look like the scene was real - we would not even be having this debate had the image been framed - ask yourself how you would have scored if it was a simple shot of a glass and a framed picture of a family meal - if your vote would be different then I think this debate can be pretty much be drawn to an end?).
When someone hangs a part of their image by thread however, it is still "real" and needs to be factored in to the lighting and composition when the shutter is pressed.
Altering an image in PS well that's not really a place to take this debate :(
Wow so much for the SC's decision is final, some people seem to be acting like spoilt football players. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:22:49 AM · #353 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
What do people think of this one? It happened that my clock was off (in fact, the time stamp said it was taken AFTER the submission period ended), but I'd bet it would've been DQ'd for the same reason as Lydia's was even if the clock had been right.
I'll tell you up front it's a real pendant in front of a 15-year-old wedding photo. Apparently I did fool people, but I assure you that wasn't my intent. I mean, most weddings don't result in two kids instantaneously, so I thought it was obvious it was a wedding photo taken long before the kids arrived.
But I can understand why the SC DQ'd it, and I'd argue that if it was DQ'd, so should Lydia's have been. |
Difference is that your "real" item (heart pendant) IS the subject of the challenge. Lydia's was the reverse. I still don't think hers should have been DQ'd because the rule and precendents just don't make it clear enough and I would err on the side of the submitter. I think in these cases where there are gray areas, it should require a unanimous SC vote to DQ. Sort of "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:32:54 AM · #354 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by levyj413:
What do people think of this one? It happened that my clock was off (in fact, the time stamp said it was taken AFTER the submission period ended), but I'd bet it would've been DQ'd for the same reason as Lydia's was even if the clock had been right.
I'll tell you up front it's a real pendant in front of a 15-year-old wedding photo. Apparently I did fool people, but I assure you that wasn't my intent. I mean, most weddings don't result in two kids instantaneously, so I thought it was obvious it was a wedding photo taken long before the kids arrived.
But I can understand why the SC DQ'd it, and I'd argue that if it was DQ'd, so should Lydia's have been. |
Difference is that your "real" item (heart pendant) IS the subject of the challenge. Lydia's was the reverse. I still don't think hers should have been DQ'd because the rule and precendents just don't make it clear enough and I would err on the side of the submitter. I think in these cases where there are gray areas, it should require a unanimous SC vote to DQ. Sort of "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria. |
yes it appears the pendant is the subject of the photo, while the B&W photo is a supporting prop. but he got DQ'ed nonetheless. what a shame. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:40:29 AM · #355 |
Originally posted by crayon:
yes it appears the pendant is the subject of the photo, while the B&W photo is a supporting prop. but he got DQ'ed nonetheless. what a shame. |
Not a shame - he clearly cheated with the ol "clock wasn't set right" excuse. The shame is that he was not flogged or put in stocks or something.
*by "put in stocks", I mean that all of his money transferred to worthless GM stock or something like that. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:50:16 AM · #356 |
This looks like a good thread to introduce the newest addition to my ducky stable...
Get it while it's hot!
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 03:50:40. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:02:54 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
This looks like a good thread to introduce the newest addition to my ducky stable...
Get it while it's hot! |
Nope sorry that bg looks like a picture it would have to be a DQ! ;) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:07:03 AM · #358 |
| You got me. It's DPC on my monitor. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:10:22 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Edward I am sorry but sometimes you take things to such an extreme to make an argument that it is getting a bit silly.
Suspending something by fishing line and altering an image in PS etc are the weak arguments (I have not seen the manatee image that I can recall so I reserve judgement on that one), the offending image was a shot of a glass with what could have been any old picture put behind it (which was positioned to make it look like the scene was real - we would not even be having this debate had the image been framed - ask yourself how you would have scored if it was a simple shot of a glass and a framed picture of a family meal - if your vote would be different then I think this debate can be pretty much be drawn to an end?).
When someone hangs a part of their image by thread however, it is still "real" and needs to be factored in to the lighting and composition when the shutter is pressed.
Altering an image in PS well that's not really a place to take this debate :(
Wow so much for the SC's decision is final, some people seem to be acting like spoilt football players. |
I'm sorry, but the argument is that it's DQ'able because something is used to fool the viewer. My examples are perfectly valid. They're all used to fool the viewer.
If the criteria used to DQ shots of this nature is that it fooled the viewer, then we have to DQ anything that fools the viewer.
Of course, that's ridiculous isn't it? So is this rule. IMO.
A person isn't 'spoilt' because they have a differing opinion from others. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:13:30 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If the criteria used to DQ shots of this nature is that it fooled the viewer, then we have to DQ anything that fools the viewer.
Of course, that's ridiculous isn't it? So is this rule. IMO.
A person isn't 'spoilt' because they have a differing opinion from others. |
The rule in question is using existing art work and using it in such a way as to fool the voters and has nothing to do with altering a legitimate image (say changing the sky colour) to enhance it.
The footballer comment was not actually directed at you but did have one particular participant in this thread firmly in mind, sorry I should have made that clearer (ETA: I might also add that it was not what they have said but more the way they have said it).
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 04:14:41. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 04:57:40 AM · #361 |
| So , Ummm, What was the conclusion? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:04:08 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
So , Ummm, What was the conclusion? |
Hand drawn images only from now on and entries are to be sent in by snail mail! ;) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:06:42 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
So , Ummm, What was the conclusion? |
Hand drawn images only from now on and entries are to be sent in by snail mail! ;) |
And this DQ is now under reconsideration...
 |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:10:48 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
So , Ummm, What was the conclusion? |
Hand drawn images only from now on and entries are to be sent in by snail mail! ;) |
And this DQ is now under reconsideration...
|
Oh good, cos I commented on that shot, I really liked his black circles!!!! |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:11:31 AM · #365 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And this DQ is now under reconsideration...
|
Looks like an outright winner to me! ;) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:13:23 AM · #366 |
Wait-- just got the word: Still DQ'd because it is a drawing of a photo of a drawing. The rules are clear on this. :(
ETA: Had there been a real stick figure holding up the drawing of the photo of the drawing or somehwere in the frame, it would have been legal.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 05:15:30. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:31:15 AM · #367 |
I haven't been active in DQ discussions lately due to other commitments but regarding the image of mine which has come up in this thread:
At the time, the particular rule was in force to stop people taking flat images of their monitors or printouts to essentially fake whole photographs (either to pass someone elses shot off as their own, or to get around the date rule). If there were real elements in the photo in front of the backdrop we allowed it as the photographer was adding their own artistic interpretation to the photo.
Now, the rule is in force for a slightly different reason, to stop the photographer fooling the viewer into thinking unreal things are actually real. The wording is similar, but still clear imo. The reason for this change was exactly because of the reactions the older legal shots (like mine and Shannon's) provoked.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:33:39 AM · #368 |
Originally posted by Konador:
I haven't been active in DQ discussions lately due to other commitments |
WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, No way Jose, you are so fired, you so can not have a life outside of this one. This is like where all your energy has to go.
Pfffftttt, 21 and all ready with other commitments. Shame on you!
P.S. (whatcha been doing????????)
lol |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 05:36:43 AM · #369 |
Omg, I can't believe our little Ben is 21 already. Where have the years gone??
/hijack off |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 06:58:18 AM · #370 |
Work, girls [ actually, minus the 's' :) ], Christmas shopping, graduating, etc :P
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:00:37 AM · #371 |
I guess I really have no life. ;)
I just read through this entire discussion. FWIW I will say that I agree that Lydia's shot should have been dq'd. I would have thought at well that it was a live action shot of real people in her dining room behind the wine glass, and the people are to me what makes that particular photo. I think that deception is wrong.
I agree that the rules need to be made more clear in that regard, that if you are including existing works of art in any form, it must be obvious that they are not fooling the viewer into thinking they are part of the capture in real time.
For HotPasta and his fireworks shot, which he said he took in front of a live tv program, I do not see how it makes a difference whether the shot was moving or not. The fact is that it fooled the viewers into thinking it was a real-time/real-life shot, which it was not. Obviously it cannot be dq'd now, but it is a good example of something that should get dq'd if it was done today.
I feel that the manatee photo  is a great example of an image which should be dq'd under this rule. It appears that the photographer took a photo of live manatee, either with an under camera housing, or through the glass of an aquarium, and that the manatee were live before him. It is in fact a photo of either a photo or an artwork display, with nothing in the foreground and no frame etc to indicate it is not a "live, real" photo. As a result of folks thinking they took a "real" photo of manatee, the photographer deceived the viewer. This is wrong. (and has been submitted since it is within one week of the results)
I await the results with interest..... |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:05:02 AM · #372 |
Oh I thought that was real.
It should be DQ'd because, it is totally art work and I gave it a 10 |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:10:56 AM · #373 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Oh I thought that was real.
It should be DQ'd because, it is totally art work and I gave it a 10 |
Thank you. that is my point. :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:15:18 AM · #374 |
Originally posted by Konador:
I haven't been active in DQ discussions lately due to other commitments but regarding the image of mine which has come up in this thread:
At the time, the particular rule was in force to stop people taking flat images of their monitors or printouts to essentially fake whole photographs (either to pass someone elses shot off as their own, or to get around the date rule). If there were real elements in the photo in front of the backdrop we allowed it as the photographer was adding their own artistic interpretation to the photo.
Now, the rule is in force for a slightly different reason, to stop the photographer fooling the viewer into thinking unreal things are actually real. The wording is similar, but still clear imo. The reason for this change was exactly because of the reactions the older legal shots (like mine and Shannon's) provoked. |
Hey Ben,
Long time no see.
The rule as written now, is the same as when your image was entered. I posted both phrases directly from the rules earlier in the post. So are you saying the only difference is how the SC is interpretting it because the wording certainly hasnt changed.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:33:17 AM · #375 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Konador:
I haven't been active in DQ discussions lately due to other commitments but regarding the image of mine which has come up in this thread:
At the time, the particular rule was in force to stop people taking flat images of their monitors or printouts to essentially fake whole photographs (either to pass someone elses shot off as their own, or to get around the date rule). If there were real elements in the photo in front of the backdrop we allowed it as the photographer was adding their own artistic interpretation to the photo.
Now, the rule is in force for a slightly different reason, to stop the photographer fooling the viewer into thinking unreal things are actually real. The wording is similar, but still clear imo. The reason for this change was exactly because of the reactions the older legal shots (like mine and Shannon's) provoked. |
Hey Ben,
Long time no see.
The rule as written now, is the same as when your image was entered. I posted both phrases directly from the rules earlier in the post. So are you saying the only difference is how the SC is interpretting it because the wording certainly hasnt changed.
Matt |
Hey :)
As far as I can remember, when the rules were re-written in the "you may" "you may not" form we changed the way we interpret them to how I outlined above, which actually follows how they're written more closely than our old interpretation. I can't remember specific dates or announcements so I could be getting mixed up, but there was definitely a point where we stopped allowing an object in front of the screen to make the use of artwork legal.
(I've been lurking for a while so take everything I say with some scepticism, I may be wrong and my memory jumbled)
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 12:13:02 PM EDT.
