| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 02:57:43 PM · #451 |
| If you look at this photo of the display (not inserted directly cause it is too large for thread insertion) you can see that there likely is glass there. This means the only way you can photograph this is directly head on. Not really much in the way of artistic choices. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:59:21 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
....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? .... |
And how is that different from those who have long ago mastered a particular (and very narrow and specific) technique, yet keep on entering the same old thing over and over and over again?
I am SO sick of seeing those ones, I wouldn't dare vote on them anymore for fear of being "unfair".
I would much rather see different museum displays, wonder if it is real and how it was done, than to see the almost EXACT same thing ribbon week after week.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:59:31 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? |
Because it was a photo of manatees, not a photo of rock and fish. Who made the artwork is irrelevant... are you're planning to personally build a skyscraper for the next architecture challenge? |
Taking a photo of a skyscraper is something that is real, not passed off as being real when it is really fake. Wasn't that your whole point before? that the backgrounds that are passed off as being part of the real scene is what the problem is? |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:59:36 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? |
Because it was a photo of manatees, not a photo of rock and fish. Who made the artwork is irrelevant... are you're planning to personally build a skyscraper for the next architecture challenge? |
And her photograph was one of a wine glass (ie the toast). So where is the difference?
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 02:59:52 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
If you look at this photo of the display (not inserted directly cause it is too large for thread insertion) you can see that there likely is glass there. This means the only way you can photograph this is directly head on. Not really much in the way of artistic choices. |
... and yet YOU managed to get an angle and lighting that's very different from Marc's. Hmm. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:03:11 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by basssman7:
....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? .... |
And how is that different from those who have long ago mastered a particular (and very narrow and specific) technique, yet keep on entering the same old thing over and over and over again?
I am SO sick of seeing those ones, I wouldn't dare vote on them anymore for fear of being "unfair".
I would much rather see different museum displays, wonder if it is real and how it was done, than to see the almost EXACT same thing ribbon week after week. |
Well, taking the same type of photo over and over again is at least technically a different shot. The splash or whatever is different. It totally lacks creativity for sure. However passing off a museum display as real wildlife (while voting you would not know it was a museum display, that is the whole point) is a total disgregard for ethics and is a totally different thing. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:03:41 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? |
Because it was a photo of manatees, not a photo of rock and fish. Who made the artwork is irrelevant... are you're planning to personally build a skyscraper for the next architecture challenge? |
I sense a pattern here, Shannon. You seem to not only want to argue the case for this photo, but to argue that it's an open-and-shut case. But as I said before, every ruleset has an edge, and this photo is right on it, imho. For me it's a DQ based on the spirit of the rules. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:05:20 PM · #458 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by basssman7:
If you look at this photo of the display (not inserted directly cause it is too large for thread insertion) you can see that there likely is glass there. This means the only way you can photograph this is directly head on. Not really much in the way of artistic choices. |
... and yet YOU managed to get an angle and lighting that's very different from Marc's. Hmm. |
First of all it was not me. Secondly the angle and lighting is pretty much the same, the only difference is the shot I just put up there is not as good for one thing, photographically speaking and not properly processed. The first shot that I inserted in the thread was taken at the same angle and similar processing....I would venture to say that was the primary place to take the picture from for least amount of glass interferance. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:08:39 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
You seem to not only want to argue the case for this photo, but to argue that it's an open-and-shut case. But as I said before, every ruleset has an edge, and this photo is right on it, imho. For me it's a DQ based on the spirit of the rules. |
I never said it was an open and shut case. In fact I noted that it was a split decision in my second post to this thread. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:09:08 PM · #460 |
The Administrator Announcements title for this thread is âNotes on the Artwork Ruleâ
Yet it continues to be a SC defense of the DQ given out on the Feast image. (With the exception of Konador who disagrees with the SC position).
The fact that this thread still has so many passionate readers and posters means this is an important subject to many
Isnât it about time to entertain a discussion on how to make the rules read so that we all can understand them? This would fulfill the actual announced purpose of the thread title.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:10:34 PM · #461 |
Anyways, I have made my points on this photo and have nothing more to contribute to this disussion. Obviously myself, Posthumous, MattO feel one way and Scalvert and Glad2badad feel otherwise. Of course the only one whe gets a real vote is Scalvert. I certainly do not envy his difficult position in these matters because it is a thankless job. I am sure that he will do his due diligence and mention the opposing arguements presented as well as his own during the debate, for those SC that have not read this thread. :)
I hope it generates lively debate in the dq discussion amongst the SC's. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:10:48 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
...passing off a museum display as real wildlife (while voting you would not know it was a museum display, that is the whole point) is a total disgregard for ethics and is a totally different thing. |
I'm pretty sure someone actually entered a museum diorama shot in one of the Wildlife/Animal challenges, but I don't have time to look for it. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:11:39 PM · #463 |
This is what started it. :-)
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I am hoping to help clear up a little bit of confusion regarding one of the rules that appears in both the Advanced and Basic rule sets:
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.
Back in the "old days" of DPC, it was actually illegal to photograph "literal representations of artwork," including currency, other photos, and other works of art. I believe the old rules even prohibited photographing statues as a sole subject of an entry.
We have backed off of that in the most recent rule sets, allowing those things to a degree. The rule as it is written now is meant to prohibit people from using a photograph as a replacement for an actual, integral scene of a submission. In other words, it is not acceptable to make a submission that uses an existing photo (whether it is a new photo, an old photo, or a photo taken by someone else -- it does not matter) as a primary scene in a submission.
Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.
Each of these types of submissions are judged on a case-by-case basis by Site Council in an attempt to be as fair as possible. If you have questions about a submission ahead of time, please remember that uploading an original while submitting does not automatically mean the shot is reviewed before voting begins. Please use our ticket system to contact us well in advance if you are concerned whether you may be crossing the line on this or any other rule. |
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:11:45 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
You seem to not only want to argue the case for this photo, but to argue that it's an open-and-shut case. But as I said before, every ruleset has an edge, and this photo is right on it, imho. For me it's a DQ based on the spirit of the rules. |
I never said it was an open and shut case. In fact I noted that it was a split decision in my second post to this thread. |
Shannon, I think Don was talking about the Manatee and you are talking about the Feast shot. :) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:15:28 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This is what started it. :-)
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.
|
|
Thank you. That is exactly the case in the manatee. it is largely madeup of artwork that is realistic and important enough that folks are judging the photographic qualities of the flat, fake elements to paraphrase. One of the nicest parts of the manatee photo is the beautiful filter light through the ocean depths. which is fake. People voted on that thinking that it was real light coming down (a major photographic quality it lighting) when it was not. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:18:16 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
The Administrator Announcements title for this thread is âNotes on the Artwork Ruleâ
Yet it continues to be a SC defense of the DQ given out on the Feast image. (With the exception of Konador who disagrees with the SC position).
The fact that this thread still has so many passionate readers and posters means this is an important subject to many
Isnât it about time to entertain a discussion on how to make the rules read so that we all can understand them? This would fulfill the actual announced purpose of the thread title. |
The fact that every few pages one of the SC comes around defending inconsistent DQs by morphing the rule statements with their interpretation tells me they need to spend more time putting the rules out there more clearly than arguing here endlessly.
I understand it is hard to bind a subjective art into rules, but at least try to be consistent, and be attentive to what majority of the people here are trying to say. I dont think its the SC that runs this site. DPC is alive because of the warmth of its members and their relationships. I understand SCs are also the members of the community, but they sure dont come across as one.. at least not in this thread.
I hope the SC gets that and rather than standing afar taking an armor and throwing in defenses once in a while, would mingle with the rest of us and try to understand where all this is coming from. It is not from a singled out person. Look at the variety of users who are contributing to this thread.
For one, being humble and listening to so many people's viewpoints will help.
Isnt there a leader of the council who should consolidate what the whole council thinks and present it here consistently?
Three words: Lack of Consistency. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:18:32 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This is what started it. :-)
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.
|
|
|
Perhaps this could be written into the rules where everyone could see it.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:20:46 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Shannon, I think Don was talking about the Manatee and you are talking about the Feast shot. :) |
Ah, I didn't catch that. If that's true, then it may very well BE an open and shut case. 3D objects have NEVER been considered artwork and it looks like the manatee vote will be unanimously no-DQ. Though it's a fair point, I'm not even sure it would violate the spirit of the rules since entering a non-living animal in wildlife would only be a DNMC. As noted, I think it's actually been done before, and that's perhaps no more against the spirit of the rules than something like this:
 |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:20:54 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
You seem to not only want to argue the case for this photo, but to argue that it's an open-and-shut case. But as I said before, every ruleset has an edge, and this photo is right on it, imho. For me it's a DQ based on the spirit of the rules. |
I never said it was an open and shut case. In fact I noted that it was a split decision in my second post to this thread. |
Shannon, I think Don was talking about the Manatee and you are talking about the Feast shot. :) |
The SC has lost it.. there is lack of consistency.. there are revisions to earlier statements... there are defenses.. there are individual arguments.
This is far from notes on the artwork rule.
If there is a thing like an SC leader, he/she should take charge and present consistent input here.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:22:22 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This is what started it. :-)
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.
|
|
|
Perhaps this could be written into the rules where everyone could see it. |
RIGHT ON!!!!
Nobody in the SC is willing to do anything like that. They dont understand that no matter what and how they admit and revise here, its not going to be a precedent for future such issues.
They just become defensive of their own pictures. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:23:51 PM · #471 |
Ive tried to read through all this and there are a couple of points I want to make for the record.
The rule in question here seems to me as a newer member to be a rule put in place to prevent me from taking a picture of
A) one of my old pictures taken outside the time frame of the contest or
B) some other photographers photo and pass it off as my own.
I did not interpret this rule to mean that I could not take a series of photos and use them in a creative way to create a certain type of image or impression with the photo. I was under the impression that if i were to use such a technique that I would need to prove that;
1) I took all of the photos used
2) I took them all within the designated time frame for the contest
3) That the final photograph was a single scene that was captured(or perhaps multiple exposures of a single scene)as opposed to a photoshopped collage of different images.
Under this concept I could take 100 different pictures then cut them out and assemble them together, then photograph the final result as long as I could prove it was all my work. To this end one of the things I have done if I try something unique that involves sleight of hand(strings or supports from behind) is that i take an off axis photo to show how I achieved the effect that is pictured so I can show that the image is legit.
Is this interpretation completely incorrect? If it is then I find that very disturbing and also very limiting as many photographs use these sorts of techniques.(there was one in the woody challenge as well that used such a technique, the one with the hat and flowers which was validated)
As to the photo that was DQed it would seem to me that the background photo was also captured by the photographer and it was captured within the time window for the contest at which point why can she not simply submit the orginal photo of the background for validation as well as then it is an artfully constructed image that does exactly what was intended which was to give the impression of a feast. Now if the background was say a photo of a Norman Rockwell painting or an image of same on the monitor then I would agree with the DQ as the image was passed off as the photographers own work. In this circumstance the only way it appears that anyone knows that this is a composite is that the Photographer said so in the description.
As to commentary about deceiving people, is that not one of the primary goals of many photographs that are taken, to show people something that looks more dramatic than it really is? A good photograph gives the impression of something(think like every food photo you ever saw in a magazine, it is a construction, not the real thing). The issue is not fooling the viewer into seeing something more than what is really there, it is passing off the work of someone else as your own, or passing off images that are old as current.
Thoughts?
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 15:27:30. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:29:20 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Nobody in the SC is willing to do anything like that. They dont understand that no matter what and how they admit and revise here, its not going to be a precedent for future such issues. |
Now you're just make stuff up. You have absolutely no idea what we're discussing or willing to do. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:31:49 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by Prash:
... Isnt there a leader of the council who should consolidate what the whole council thinks and present it here consistently? |
Read the OP. The thoughts of "the whole council" were consolidated in the opening post.
They (SC) didn't have to start this thread. IMO I don't know why they did given the jabs that many like to throw at them.
If you get bored, take a look around the Administrator Announcements forum area. You'll find plenty of good reading material and you may even see that for volunteer positions they do an overall splendid job in communicating to the DPC community and that they do care genuinely about fair play for ALL.
edit - typo.
Message edited by author 2008-12-10 15:32:34. |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:33:36 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Ive tried to read through all this and there are a couple of points I want to make for the record.
The rule in question here seems to me as a newer member to be a rule put in place to prevent me from taking a picture of
A) one of my old pictures taken outside the time frame of the contest or
B) some other photographers photo and pass it off as my own.
I did not interpret this rule to mean that I could not take a series of photos and use them in a creative way to create a certain type of image or impression with the photo. I was under the impression that if i were to use such a technique that I would need to prove that;
1) I took all of the photos used
2) I took them all within the designated time frame for the contest
3) That the final photograph was a single scene that was captured(or perhaps multiple exposures of a single scene)as opposed to a photoshopped collage of different images.
Under this concept I could take 100 different pictures then cut them out and assemble them together, then photograph the final result as long as I could prove it was all my work. To this end one of the things I have done if I try something unique that involves sleight of hand(strings or supports from behind) is that i take an off axis photo to show how I achieved the effect that is pictured so I can show that the image is legit.
Is this interpretation completely incorrect? If it is then I find that very disturbing and also very limiting as many photographs use these sorts of techniques.(there was one in the woody challenge as well that used such a technique, the one with the hat and flowers which was validated)
As to the photo that was DQed it would seem to me that the background photo was also captured by the photographer and it was captured within the time window for the contest at which point why can she not simply submit the orginal photo of the background for validation as well as then it is an artfully constructed image that does exactly what was intended which was to give the impression of a feast. Now if the background was say a photo of a Norman Rockwell painting or an image of same on the monitor then I would agree with the DQ as the image was passed off as the photographers own work. In this circumstance the only way it appears that anyone knows that this is a composite is that the Photographer said so in the description.
As to commentary about deceiving people, is that not one of the primary goals of many photographs that are taken, to show people something that looks more dramatic than it really is? A good photograph gives the impression of something(think like every food photo you ever saw in a magazine, it is a construction, not the real thing). The issue is not fooling the viewer into seeing something more than what is really there, it is passing off the work of someone else as your own, or passing off images that are old as current.
Thoughts? |
That's the problem here with this rule. What you are reading/getting out of the rule is what others have also gotten and after this DQ, it's proving not the be the case and thus, the entire nearly 500 posts! :))
I get how confusing this is because I'm confused still myself! :)) |
|
|
|
12/10/2008 03:36:22 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
On the flip side of that, take away the stuffed manatees and you have essentially a photo(the painted background rock and fish. How is this any different? |
Because it was a photo of manatees, not a photo of rock and fish. Who made the artwork is irrelevant... are you're planning to personally build a skyscraper for the next architecture challenge? |
And her photograph was one of a wine glass (ie the toast). So where is the difference?
Matt |
I am going to bow out of this conversation as it seems that no matter how many points are made to the contrary that the mindset of those defending it will never see any angle besides the one they want too.
But I would like an answer to my question above.
Her object is 3 dimensional and so are the manatees, you said take the glass away and its a photo of a photo. I say take the manatees away and its a photo of the background which likely is a painting. You say his subject is the Manatee I say her subject is the glass. How is that any different. Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his. I see no difference in any of this.
Matt
|
|
