| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 10:59:09 AM · #401 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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. :-) |
When someone shoots a piece of architecture then....it's a man-made architectect's piece of work....without standing something in front of it....does that mean that by your agreeance on Shannon's point, IT should also be DQ'd?! :)
Ok, getting confused here on who said what! :P
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 11:01:32. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:01:19 AM · #402 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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. :-) |
When someone shoots a piece of architecture then....it's a man-made architectect's piece of work....without standing something in front of it....does that mean that by your agreeance on Shannon's point, IT should also be DQ'd?! :) |
Shannon is saying that its not to be DQ'd and is legal. I think you need to step back and re-read his statement.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:02:24 AM · #403 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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. :-) |
When someone shoots a piece of architecture then....it's a man-made architectect's piece of work....without standing something in front of it....does that mean that by your agreeance on Shannon's point, IT should also be DQ'd?! :) |
Shannon is saying that its not to be DQ'd and is legal. I think you need to step back and re-read his statement.
Matt |
Yes, sorry, just realized who it was that said it...sorry, Shannon, my apologies! :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:08:19 AM · #404 |
You know what, Shoot for the challenge. If you like it, then that is what counts.
All this about being DQ'd and what is and what isn't allowed, SAPS the life out of taking photographs and having fun with them.
You do know that this is NOT real LIFE This is NOT going to affect your real life in anyway, shape or form and if it does, then you need to go out and get a life. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:12:35 AM · #405 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
You know what, Shoot for the challenge. If you like it, then that is what counts.
All this about being DQ'd and what is and what isn't allowed, SAPS the life out of taking photographs and having fun with them.
You do know that this is NOT real LIFE This is NOT going to affect your real life in anyway, shape or form and if it does, then you need to go out and get a life. |
For the most part, I totally agree with you here! :) The problem was that this misunderstanding of a rule created a DQ for a ribbon this time. It affected other people as well in so far as it moved a considered "legal" entry down to 4th place and it's still being debated as to whether the ribbon winning shot should have been DQ'd because the rules were open to interpretation. It's more about future shots than anything else.
What if yours were to ribbon and you found out that your interpretation of an ambigious rule were wrong and you lost that ribbon? A bit disappointing, wouldn't it be? :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:14:50 AM · #406 |
All these pages later and I STILL think that the rule we have right now (ambiguous areas and all) is still way better than the two possible alternatives of allowing either all or nothing.
If you're worried about a DQ, just present the shot in a "safe" way.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:16:02 AM · #407 |
My problem with this shot is that it's only 660px wide. No wonder  Langdon won't give us bigger challenge entries. People don't even use what's available now! But that's a rant for a different thread.
Anyway, I thought I'd come at this thing from a different angle that's not getting a lot of air time here. Namely, why does the artwork rule exist in the first place? It's been brought up already that without it, anything goes. In other words, the rules in their entirety become worthless. Took a perfect shot for the challenge last month? No problem, just shoot that photo today and you are good to go. Can't get the look you want in Basic? No problem, edit it however you want and just shoot that edited photo. Want to do a composite of 47 different images? Go for it! Just shoot the result and you're good to go.
I think that the rule as it currently stands does a fantastic job of preventing those undesired situations while minimizing restrictions on creativity. So, thinking along those lines, does it make sense for the manatee shot to be illegal? Not to me. The photographer of such a scene isn't effectively getting around other rules by shooting it, so it's ok in my book. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:25:24 AM · #408 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...What if yours were to ribbon and you found out that your interpretation of an ambigious rule were wrong and you lost that ribbon? A bit disappointing, wouldn't it be? :) |
I think you're coming at this the wrong way. The rule isn't ambiguous, it's subjective. I think there's a big difference there. I'd even go so far as to say that most everyone that has been DQed as a result of this rule (even you) understands the rule. Each individual, though, may or may not agree with the subjective decision made by SC. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:28:51 AM · #409 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
What if yours were to ribbon and you found out that your interpretation of an ambigious rule were wrong and you lost that ribbon? A bit disappointing, wouldn't it be? :) |
Of course I would be, but it's STILL NOT REAL LIFE, my knickers would not get that twisted |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 11:30:45 AM · #410 |
Well said Juliet!
Originally posted by JulietNN:
You know what, Shoot for the challenge. If you like it, then that is what counts.
All this about being DQ'd and what is and what isn't allowed, SAPS the life out of taking photographs and having fun with them.
You do know that this is NOT real LIFE This is NOT going to affect your real life in anyway, shape or form and if it does, then you need to go out and get a life. |
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:05:00 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
What if yours were to ribbon and you found out that your interpretation of an ambigious rule were wrong and you lost that ribbon? A bit disappointing, wouldn't it be? :) |
Of course I would be, but it's STILL NOT REAL LIFE, my knickers would not get that twisted |
Well, BRAVA! That's the attitude that we all should have, but obviously, that's not what a number of people would feel. :) I think that it boils down to the idea that putting in a shot means that there was at least some time and some effort involved and for the most part, when there's that involved, there's a personal "tie" to an entry to some level or another. Some, more than others and some, very little. The bottom line here is that you aren't seeing it as a problem and while that is probably the sanest way of dealing with anything along these lines and are correct in saying that it's not real life (very true), people in here DO go to elaborate lengths to get shots. DeSousa has proven that, time and time again. So, where does the line get drawn in saying that it should be brushed off if a DQ feels unfair? If you rent a studio, hire models, spend money etc. to get a shot? (Even then, I'm sure that DeSousa wasn't shooting his shots solely for DPC challenges in doing all of this! :)) Or, do you say that someone like, Lydia who spent far less time and energy in taking a shot should brush it off? It's all rather subjective in and of itself, isn't it?
However, all of that said, you are right in saying that we should all just take this place as a place to goof around in with photos. :) I just don't think that a lot of people look at it that way. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:07:31 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
...What if yours were to ribbon and you found out that your interpretation of an ambigious rule were wrong and you lost that ribbon? A bit disappointing, wouldn't it be? :) |
I think you're coming at this the wrong way. The rule isn't ambiguous, it's subjective. I think there's a big difference there. I'd even go so far as to say that most everyone that has been DQed as a result of this rule (even you) understands the rule. Each individual, though, may or may not agree with the subjective decision made by SC. |
Actually, I thought that I did understand the rule! Obviously, the "subjectivity" factor created the ambiguity. How's that? :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:39:12 PM · #413 |
Strangely all these pages later and we haven't heard from the Tog who took the shot.
I am not suggesting for one second that Lydia submitted the image knowingly breaking the rules in fact I believe the exact opposite to be true, but I would be really interested to hear if she now believes the SC's decision to be right / wrong regarding the DQ.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:41:35 PM · #414 |
Lydia responded yesterday  Mark-A
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
This is the last Iâll say on the subject here, but itâs apparently being assumed by my silence that Iâm ok with the disqualification of my image, and Iâd like to make a statement, if I may.
I know that being on the Site Council and defending any ruling is a difficult position to be in and I assume this decision was not lightly made.
The one-sentence reason stated for the disqualification is: âYou 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 photographâ¦â
My entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph. This alone should be enough to fit the rule, but even if that oneâs not clear:
â⦠in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.â
The original photograph was legally taken during the valid dates; It was not edited; and I took it.
I have used the same technique on several of my images that SC has validated such as these:
 and 
SC has basically said on this thread that the problem with my image was that it was believable and thatâs what makes it illegal. Please tell me how a member is supposed to know, reading the existing rules, that it is really a rule about believability/make-believe. If I made the image believable, it is not legal. WHY would anyone put an unbelievable image⦠say a well-taken photo of a bear⦠behind the wine glass for their "Feast" entry? They wouldnât, of course. Theyâll use the photograph best suited to make the image believable, of course.
I responded eleven minutes after the Validation request was sent to me (11/29/2008). It took SC until this morning (ten days later) to determine that they thought I'd broken a rule. If SC can't determine clearly and promptly if I broke a rule, then how are we, mere members, to determine it ourselves with the current wording? (Yes, there is the option of sending a request, but understandably that's not guaranteed for a timely response... especially in a 48-hour challenge as this one was.)
It is my opinion that the rule needs to be changed FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. A distinction is being made on the existing rules that it took ten days to determine violation. Obviously, this needs to be clarified. Perhaps if the rule is adjusted to read: â⦠in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph [b]at the time of the entry photograph.â
I agree with the principle behind the necessity of rule change here. I understand the need to control the issue of including prior artwork and I agree with it. Change the rules if you like, thatâs certainly SCâs prerogative and a required function of the office, but make them apply only to new images submitted.
It is not a virtual ribbon that I am mourning here⦠itâs my loss of the sense of consistency . Being consistent is very difficult, but entirely necessary.
Everyone makes mistakes, myself included of course, and Iâll still be here either way⦠but I do disagree that any of the current rules were broken on my image.[/b] |
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 12:44:06 PM · #415 |
Oh Thanks Sarah, I have read the whole thread (much of it several times - sad I know) and still do not know how I missed that :s
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:16:07 PM · #416 |
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. |
It had a real glass in it!!! (Still defending Lydia's shot.) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:31:31 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Strangely all these pages later and we haven't heard from the Tog who took the shot. |
Well, I guess it's time I chime in. I was waiting to see what the SC would do.
I go to the museum all the time. I have a membership. There are all sorts of displays and I use them to experiment with different settings and lenses. Yes, it's all museum controlled lighting. That's what I like about it. Now about this picture. I went down with a friend and his daughter to kill an afternoon. Wasn't even planning anything for the FS from this trip. I had something else in mind. Since I really liked how this one came out, I decided to enter it. I could have shot this from about 4 different angles. This one is not straight on, it's from the lower left. As it was, I only took one shot of this display. Yes, I shot it, and many others, to try and make it look real. If my intent was to deceive people, I would not have put in my notes that it was a museum display. I would have only put in my joke comment about diving. I actually expected people to see that it was fake, and get my usual low 5 score. That's why I made the guilty comment. About the score, If this didn't do so well, would we even be having this discussion?
Are people upset because it fooled them? If any picture that fooled the viewer should be DQ'd then I can point out quite a few pictures that fooled people. Ribbon winners even.
My interpretation of the rule is that it's to prevent people from photographing another picture and claiming it as their own. The rules state, "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." Key word there, photograph.
So really it's out of my hands. I'm just waiting to see what the SC decides. Personally, I don't feel I violated any rules. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:38:32 PM · #418 |
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. |
sorry. that was sarcasm. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:41:05 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by Marc923:
... So really it's out of my hands. I'm just waiting to see what the SC decides. Personally, I don't feel I violated any rules. |
???! You've been asked to submit validation on it? If yes, I wouldn't sweat it, you're free and clear - no problem whatsoever IMO (based on content). |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:53:35 PM · #420 |
So then a person that lived near one of these museums that have displays that are all pre-lit etc could go there and shoot a different one every month, never learning anything other than how to bracket exposures...enter them into the FS's and likely win the FS marathon and some ribbons along the way? All on the back of the REAL artists that created, composed, and lit the displays that the photographer is taking snap shots of? Supposedly that should be allowed in the rules?
The interpretation about 3d art like sculptures was intended (IMHO) to allow sculptures and 3d art that you can walk around and examine from multiple sides.Find the best angle or time of day for light etc and try to give your own interpretive take on the original artist's creation. This snapshot does none of that. Is the small fish at the back of the fake tank a real fake, and the rocks back there? Or are they painted into the background.
A sculpture generally does not have a photo-realistic (pun intended) painted background! |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:55:25 PM · #421 |
Hey, Laurie  L2....I just went back to your profle to check the proper spelling of your name in order to ask a question from last night's discussion and in doing so, ironically, noticed a shot in your portfolio in which you had used "artwork" as the main portion of your photo.
Ironically, one of the things discussed last night was the idea of not putting in photog notes or not and how it can work against an entrant if there isn't any. I noticed that there wasn't really any notes or comments by you as the photog on this shot.
So, just out of curiosity, was that a photo of you or the real you behind the photo which encompasses the entire photo? See, I'd be lulled into being subjective with this shot because I'd have to wonder if that was a photo of you behind the photo of you? I'd have to wonder if you really had been behind that photo and photographed yourself behind it or, whether you'd put a photo of yourself behind the photo of yourself??? In either case, pretty much the ENTIRE shot is a photo. So, it's a photo of a photo for all intents and purposes. But, I also recognize that from the date on the shot's entry, perhaps, the "old rules" were in effect. And, ironically, the old rules, seem to state the exact same thing as the "new rules".
In essence, just as was being stated last night, with almost NO photog notes or comments in this and facing the same situation, it's ironic that you'd be fighting and defending SC's stance against this type of thing as well as the idea that not entering notes also puts one in a more precarious position of asking for validation. How is it that it's ok for one, but not for another? Just wondering here.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 01:58:20 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
So then a person that lived near one of these museums that have displays that are all pre-lit etc could go there and shoot a different one every month, never learning anything other than how to bracket exposures...enter them into the FS's and likely win the FS marathon and some ribbons along the way? All on the back of the REAL artists that created, composed, and lit the displays that the photographer is taking snap shots of? Supposedly that should be allowed in the rules?
The interpretation about 3d art like sculptures was intended (IMHO) to allow sculptures and 3d art that you can walk around and examine from multiple sides.Find the best angle or time of day for light etc and try to give your own interpretive take on the original artist's creation. This snapshot does none of that. Is the small fish at the back of the fake tank a real fake, and the rocks back there? Or are they painted into the background.
A sculpture generally does not have a photo-realistic (pun intended) painted background! |
Well, the museum photographer would have to deal with glass reflections, people in the way, and low light hand-held (usually no tripods allowed) shooting. :-) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:02:09 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
... But, I also recognize that from the date on the shot's entry, perhaps, the "old rules" were in effect. And, ironically, the old rules, seem to state the exact same thing as the "new rules". ... |
February 2005, there is a link next to every challenge photo ever taken that takes you to the ruleset in effect at that time.
From the rules for that photo (Advanced Editing IV):
"Artwork. Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."
ETA - Current ruleset reads (Advanced Editing - Jan 14th):
"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."
Seems they do read a little differently, eh?
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 14:05:23. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:04:04 PM · #424 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
It had a real glass in it!!! (Still defending Lydia's shot.) |
Only the glass was real, not the scene. To use Jorge's entry as an example again, if only a small foreground part of his shot was real, then the scene would consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph with an object placed in front of it. Take away that real part (or replace Lydia's glass with a candle) and the scene/entry remains all about the artwork. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:09:27 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
It had a real glass in it!!! (Still defending Lydia's shot.) |
Only the glass was real, not the scene. To use Jorge's entry as an example again, if only a small foreground part of his shot was real, then the scene would consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph with an object placed in front of it. Take away that real part (or replace Lydia's glass with a candle) and the scene/entry remains all about the artwork. |
I guess that the glass can be half empty of half full because given that the background was oof and off in the distance, one could also say that the focus was on the glass not the background. And, yes, if that was the thinking of the viewer then it would make it a shoehorn entry but, not illegal. It's all subjective to where one's attention is and how one views it then. |
|
