| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 09:39:03 AM · #376 |
Originally posted by Konador:
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) |
I have no issue whatsover with the change in the way it is interpreted, and I do not question that what you did was at that time legal. My question on the above statement is: How is the average member supposed to know that a rule which has NOT been reworded is now being interpreted differently?
Should the rule not have been re-written in such a way that the average member would know that it is now a different situation then it was before? (in regards to the rule in question which is still worded the exact same, but interpreted differently) It is only logical that someone looking to examples from the past of previous entries would look at that and think that it is still ok, since the rule pertaining to that area is still worded exactly the same. hmmmmmm |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 09:39:44 AM · #377 |
Originally posted by Konador:
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) |
Just to make sure we are clear on the rules used.
Your image under these rules version V
The current image under Jan 14th Advanced editing
Both appear in the same You must, you may, you may not format. The wording in question is word for word the same. I'm still not sure I understand.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand what changed.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:12:06 AM · #378 |
So they are, I was confusing them with the old(er) ones and assuming the new ones had "entirely" taken out since the feast shot was DQd. The way it is worded in the current ones and the old ones under which I submitted my photo both say "entirely" of, which I would argue makes all the shots in this thread legal, since they involve other elements. Sorry to the other SC members if me saying that makes things complicated. We definitely agreed to make the change to our interpretation of the artwork rule internally but it appears we didn't put that change clearly into the rules.
Like I say, I've been away from it for a while, answering tickets when I get time and popping quickly into the forums every now and again. I haven't been active in DQ discussions as I tend to get sucked in (like now when I should be working!).
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:18:51 AM · #379 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
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..... |
It's already been established in the past that the "artwork rule" does not apply to 3-dimensional artworks. That is to say, it's perfectly OK to take a picture of, say, Michelangelo's "David" and enter it in a DPC challenge. This is because the photographing of sculptures allows for choices in lighting and angle that make the image the photographer's *interpretation* of the art work. If we didn't allow this, then we'd have a huge gray area where images of things like, say, the Eiffel Tower or the Gehry-designed museum in Bilbao or the Gateway Arch would arguably not be legal entries in our challenges.
So now, what you're saying is that this particular installation (the shooter went to the museum, liked what he saw, and photographed it) should be disqualified because it fooled everyone into thinking it was real?
Based on what SC has said about the Lydia image, I can see where you're coming from, but don't you see the problem with this? What about zoo shots that fool the viewers into thinking they're *real* wildlife shots? How about if I find a very realistic taxidermied red fox and use it in my pictures?
I just don't see how we can start policing entries based on the "don't you dare fool me!" criterion. Heck, when I did long-range fishing for giant tuna, we ALWAYS took the trophy pictures from a low angle; made the fish look bigger relative to the fisherman, don'tcha know? Photography, it can be argued, is in many ways the art of fooling people, or at least a significant part of it is.
R.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 10:20:37.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:22:57 AM · #380 |
Originally posted by Konador:
So they are, I was confusing them with the old(er) ones and assuming the new ones had "entirely" taken out since the feast shot was DQd. The way it is worded in the current ones and the old ones under which I submitted my photo both say "entirely" of, which I would argue makes all the shots in this thread legal, since they involve other elements. Sorry to the other SC members if me saying that makes things complicated. We definitely agreed to make the change to our interpretation of the artwork rule internally but it appears we didn't put that change clearly into the rules.
Like I say, I've been away from it for a while, answering tickets when I get time and popping quickly into the forums every now and again. I haven't been active in DQ discussions as I tend to get sucked in (like now when I should be working!). |
Actually using this train of thought, the only one not legal would be which is entirely consistant of a setup sculpture including the set lighting, and it fooled the voters, another member of SC has already stated is legal, making this all the more confusing.
Matt
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 10:24:12.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:28:23 AM · #381 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's already been established in the past that the "artwork rule" does not apply to 3-dimensional artworks. That is to say, it's perfectly OK to take a picture of, say, Michelangelo's "David" and enter it in a DPC challenge. This is because the photographing of sculptures allows for choices in lighting and angle that make the image the photographer's *interpretation* of the art work. If we didn't allow this, then we'd have a huge gray area where images of things like, say, the Eiffel Tower or the Gehry-designed museum in Bilbao or the Gateway Arch would arguably not be legal entries in our challenges.
So now, what you're saying is that this particular installation (the shooter went to the museum, liked what he saw, and photographed it) should be disqualified because it fooled everyone into thinking it was real?
Based on what SC has said about the Lydia image, I can see where you're coming from, but don't you see the problem with this? What about zoo shots that fool the viewers into thinking they're *real* wildlife shots? How about if I find a very realistic taxidermied red fox and use it in my pictures?
I just don't see how we can start policing entries based on the "don't you dare fool me!" criterion. Heck, when I did long-range fishing for giant tuna, we ALWAYS took the trophy pictures from a low angle; made the fish look bigger relative to the fisherman, don'tcha know? Photography, it can be argued, is in many ways the art of fooling people, or at least a significant part of it is.
R. |
Boldness to some text added by me. :)
In this case the lighting and angle are already predetermined. It is in a "set" which is pre-lit, with a background. There is no interpretation by the photographer.
ETA: if the photographer themselves had been responsible for positioning strobes etc above the artwork to create the impression of the light from above then I would agree with Bear. However they did not. It was already "prepackaged" and the photographer merely copied what was visually presented to them.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 10:30:23. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:30:16 AM · #382 |
I can't find which image from Konador has been discussed. Can someone please repost?
Thanks.
Oh, and I apologize for raising my image a second time. I missed a whole page of discussion where it had already been put out there.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:31:40 AM · #383 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Actually using this train of thought, the only one not legal would be which is entirely consistant of a setup sculpture including the set lighting, and it fooled the voters, another member of SC has already stated is legal, making this all the more confusing. |
Every part of that photograph is a real, 3-dimensional scene, even if the animals are not live. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:31:44 AM · #384 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I can't find which image from Konador has been discussed. Can someone please repost?
Thanks.
Oh, and I apologize for raising my image a second time. I missed a whole page of discussion where it had already been put out there. |
 |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:36:57 AM · #385 |
I UNDERSTAND NOW!!!!
If it is stuffed and has more than 3 sides it is ok.
If it is flat it is not okay.
Seriously, I think that is it, cos paper has two sides
See, Just summed up o34851039485109438 pages of discussion with two lines.
Now I am off to go WHooohohohoo and pat myself on the back! |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:38:44 AM · #386 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
Actually using this train of thought, the only one not legal would be which is entirely consistant of a setup sculpture including the set lighting, and it fooled the voters, another member of SC has already stated is legal, making this all the more confusing. |
Every part of that photograph is a real, 3-dimensional scene, even if the animals are not live. |
That is ridiculous! What happened to your interpretation of something to the effect of not being able to fool the voter into thinking that the scene they are seeing was real and in front of the viewer? If this was just an obvious sculpture I would have no problem with it. However this is a "set" complete with lighing etc. There is no room for the photographer to add their own interpretation to the artwork. They are merely reproducing an artwork by someone else. It was photographed from an angle which is head on, and purposely intended to make it appear as a real manatee. The photographer did no interpretation and and did not include any outside objects to let us know it was not real.
When you photograph a sculpture there is usually outside elements around it to show that it is a sculpture. This is more like taking a direct photo of another photo, regardless of whether it is 3d or not. NOthing to show it is not a real manatee. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:39:02 AM · #387 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
Actually using this train of thought, the only one not legal would be which is entirely consistant of a setup sculpture including the set lighting, and it fooled the voters, another member of SC has already stated is legal, making this all the more confusing. |
Every part of that photograph is a real, 3-dimensional scene, even if the animals are not live. |
This is artwork correct? And the rule states
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.
This is entirely made up of artwork, with no changes, no lighting, no inclusions into the photograph to make me think its not a real scene or that the photographer took his own "spin" on it. The photographer did nothing with lighting or made any other changes to the scene to make this anymore then a photograph of an existing artwork.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:41:02 AM · #388 |
| Using your 3d explanation then I could take a photo of any painting and use it? A painting has raised edges from the brushmarks, therefor making it 3d. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:44:41 AM · #389 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
Actually using this train of thought, the only one not legal would be which is entirely consistant of a setup sculpture including the set lighting, and it fooled the voters, another member of SC has already stated is legal, making this all the more confusing. |
Every part of that photograph is a real, 3-dimensional scene, even if the animals are not live. |
This is artwork correct? And the rule states
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.
This is entirely made up of artwork, with no changes, no lighting, no inclusions into the photograph to make me think its not a real scene or that the photographer took his own "spin" on it. The photographer did nothing with lighting or made any other changes to the scene to make this anymore then a photograph of an existing artwork.
Matt |
The photographer made choices in the composition; selecting the POV (positioning, angle, etc...). |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:44:53 AM · #390 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Using your 3d explanation then I could take a photo of any painting and use it? A painting has raised edges from the brushmarks, therefor making it 3d. |
No you may not, it still has only two sides and they are both flat. LOl |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:46:20 AM · #391 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The photographer made choices in the composition; selecting the POV (positioning, angle, etc...). |
Really, it kinda looks like he stood in front of the stuffed display model and shot it. Even the photographer in his comments says he now feels bad that so many people thought it was real. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:46:56 AM · #392 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
Actually using this train of thought, the only one not legal would be which is entirely consistant of a setup sculpture including the set lighting, and it fooled the voters, another member of SC has already stated is legal, making this all the more confusing. |
Every part of that photograph is a real, 3-dimensional scene, even if the animals are not live. |
This is artwork correct? And the rule states
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.
This is entirely made up of artwork, with no changes, no lighting, no inclusions into the photograph to make me think its not a real scene or that the photographer took his own "spin" on it. The photographer did nothing with lighting or made any other changes to the scene to make this anymore then a photograph of an existing artwork.
Matt |
The photographer made choices in the composition; selecting the POV (positioning, angle, etc...). |
Using that logic its still illegal based on the "fool the voter" rule. Even in his photographers comments it tells you his thinking that he was trying to fool the voters.
"I shot this while scuba diving in the Florida Keys. I used an underwater housing for my Pentax. "
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:47:29 AM · #393 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Using your 3d explanation then I could take a photo of any painting and use it? A painting has raised edges from the brushmarks, therefor making it 3d. |
No you may not, it still has only two sides and they are both flat. LOl |
Edited to add, you can go about getting some road kill, stuffing it, sticking it in a picture frame and it would nto be so flat anymore. Mind you that also depends on the size of the tire that squished it, btu it would be 3D |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:49:00 AM · #394 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Konador:
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) |
Just to make sure we are clear on the rules used.
Your image under these rules version V
The current image under Jan 14th Advanced editing
Both appear in the same You must, you may, you may not format. The wording in question is word for word the same. I'm still not sure I understand.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand what changed.
Matt |
I agree with you on this Matt. The wording is exactly the same. The only difference seems to be in how it is being interepretted now.
The other point that comes into play here is the idea that having talked to Lydia last night and reading her notes, she did not intend on "fooling" anyone with her shot. The same held true for an entry that I put into a current challenge and have been DQ'd for (just yesterday) in using the same technique as Lydia and others in here. I had NO intention on "fooling" anyone with my shot (didn't think anyone would believe or think that I'd captured a live sunset with a woody in front of it LOL). Lydia stated that she felt that people would recognize (by the DOF etc.) that it was not real. The same holds true of my shot (since it's now out of voting anyways...consisted of a woody in front of a sunset shot on my monitor). Lydia also stated that the photograph on her monitor was HER photograph, taken only hours prior and put up on her monitor. The same held true for mine.
This rule needs to be restated because it is the same wording in both time spans but, just being judged differently. Secondly, the "fooling" anyone portion also needs to be changed because not many are out to "fool" anyone with their shots. It may be obvious to the person entering the photo that it's not "real" and therefore, they don't consider it that they are fooling anyone. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever and neither did Lydia.
But, to comment on something someone else has asked (not commenting personally, to you, Matt...just a good place to say it :) What is the difference between "fooling" people by altering skies and colors etc through legal editing (lots of photos look drastically different from the original once edited, giving it a totally different appearance...ie: a stormy look on a sunny day shot, which changes quite a bit of context of the shot right there)??? Dolls set up in front of a background scene on a monitor is considered "not fooling" so it's ok? But, put a wine glass in front of one and it's "debatable"? How can anyone decipher this prior to entry, without going through an entire debate???? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:49:14 AM · #395 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
What happened to your interpretation of something to the effect of not being able to fool the voter into thinking that the scene they are seeing was real and in front of the viewer? If this was just an obvious sculpture I would have no problem with it. However this is a "set" complete with lighing etc. There is no room for the photographer to add their own interpretation to the artwork. They are merely reproducing an artwork by someone else. |
Nothing has changed as far as my interpretation. It IS a real scene in front of the viewer, even if the animals are not moving and it was constructed or lit by someone else. It's an available light still life. Your argument would equally apply if another photographer took a shot of De Sousa's cross setup (a situation which has occurred at model and lighting GTGs without complaint). If you replaced Jorge's models with mannequins it would still be a real scene... just not of real people. A photo of a photo, however, is not a real scene. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:53:10 AM · #396 |
Originally posted by Konador:
So they are, I was confusing them with the old(er) ones and assuming the new ones had "entirely" taken out since the feast shot was DQd. The way it is worded in the current ones and the old ones under which I submitted my photo both say "entirely" of, which I would argue makes all the shots in this thread legal, since they involve other elements. Sorry to the other SC members if me saying that makes things complicated. We definitely agreed to make the change to our interpretation of the artwork rule internally but it appears we didn't put that change clearly into the rules.
Like I say, I've been away from it for a while, answering tickets when I get time and popping quickly into the forums every now and again. I haven't been active in DQ discussions as I tend to get sucked in (like now when I should be working!). |
AMEN Ben...that's what most of us are trying to say here! :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:55:17 AM · #397 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
What happened to your interpretation of something to the effect of not being able to fool the voter into thinking that the scene they are seeing was real and in front of the viewer? If this was just an obvious sculpture I would have no problem with it. However this is a "set" complete with lighing etc. There is no room for the photographer to add their own interpretation to the artwork. They are merely reproducing an artwork by someone else. |
Nothing has changed as far as my interpretation. It IS a real scene in front of the viewer, even if the animals are not moving and it was constructed or lit by someone else. It's an available light still life. Your argument would equally apply if another photographer took a shot of De Sousa's cross setup (a situation which has occurred at model and lighting GTGs without complaint). If you replaced Jorge's models with mannequins it would still be a real scene... just not of real people. A photo of a photo, however, is not a real scene. |
Shannon, then there are a LOT of photos that are going to have to be disqualified if you are using the argument that the manatee was man-made/a piece of art. Every gravestone shot was man-made...every lightbulb shot was man-made and a piece of art....every interior shot or architecture shot was man-made! Is that all open to interpretation as well??? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:56:50 AM · #398 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
What happened to your interpretation of something to the effect of not being able to fool the voter into thinking that the scene they are seeing was real and in front of the viewer? If this was just an obvious sculpture I would have no problem with it. However this is a "set" complete with lighing etc. There is no room for the photographer to add their own interpretation to the artwork. They are merely reproducing an artwork by someone else. |
Nothing has changed as far as my interpretation. It IS a real scene in front of the viewer, even if the animals are not moving and it was constructed or lit by someone else. It's an available light still life. Your argument would equally apply if another photographer took a shot of De Sousa's cross setup (a situation which has occurred at model and lighting GTGs without complaint). If you replaced Jorge's models with mannequins it would still be a real scene... just not of real people. A photo of a photo, however, is not a real scene. |
Yep - Like he said. :-) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:57:38 AM · #399 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Shannon, then there are a LOT of photos that are going to have to be disqualified if you are using the argument that the manatee was man-made/a piece of art. |
I have not made that argument. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 10:58:00 AM · #400 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
What happened to your interpretation of something to the effect of not being able to fool the voter into thinking that the scene they are seeing was real and in front of the viewer? If this was just an obvious sculpture I would have no problem with it. However this is a "set" complete with lighing etc. There is no room for the photographer to add their own interpretation to the artwork. They are merely reproducing an artwork by someone else. |
Nothing has changed as far as my interpretation. It IS a real scene in front of the viewer, even if the animals are not moving and it was constructed or lit by someone else. It's an available light still life. Your argument would equally apply if another photographer took a shot of De Sousa's cross setup (a situation which has occurred at model and lighting GTGs without complaint). If you replaced Jorge's models with mannequins it would still be a real scene... just not of real people. A photo of a photo, however, is not a real scene. |
Shannon, then there are a LOT of photos that are going to have to be disqualified if you are using the argument that the manatee was man-made/a piece of art. Every gravestone shot was man-made...every lightbulb shot was man-made and a piece of art....every interior shot or architecture shot was man-made! Is that all open to interpretation as well??? |
He's saying manmade still life IS legal. |
|
