| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 12:00:07 PM · #551 |
After giving some more thought to my example of the olympics, I have an idea. In the olympics model used, I stated that it would be wrong to not punish dopers in the olympics just because every athlete is not tested. (based on someone saying that it is wrong to punish Marc because he admited in his notes that it was fake, but if he had not admitted it he likely would not have been questioned)
I propose that as well as the top 5 finishers getting validated and of course still the ones questioned by other members....that the SC decides on a percent of entries that should be randomly validated. So if there are 250 entries and they decide on 2% for example, they would validate not only the top 5 finishers and the ones reccomended during the challenge by other voters, but take the remaining (un validated) entries and put the numbers 1-250 in a hat and draw numbers until you get five that have not already been validated for the other two reasons. (2% of 250) The numbers of course corresponding to order of entry in the challenge. (if I was the 64th to enter out of 250 and the # 64 comes up and I have not already been validated by finishing top 5 or request from my peers, then I would be a randonly selected entry for validation)
The idea of this would not be to assume everyone is cheating because I know that very, very few people do that on purpose. Most dq's happen because of misunderdstanding of the rules etc. However if your photo is not top 5 (most of us seldom if ever get there) you may in fact be doing something wrong and never know it if it is not obvious enough to be questioned. On top of that, for the few who do purposely cheat because they want to finish well but not in the top 5 (obviously they would be found out at that point) it might deter them by knowing that they still might randomly get nailed. (just like they do in the olympics, they test the top finishers as well as some random ones)
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:01:26 PM · #552 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by MattO:
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 |
One more Bump hoping for an answer from Shannon.
Matt |
While I stand by my earlier statement that I would not have voted a wine glass in front of a photo, as highly as I would the entire setting as one image, I also feel that it should not have been disqualified. Even more so, since the same photographer took both images, and within the time frame of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:02:42 PM · #553 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Note a small proviso to my earlier analysis;
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing, the qualifier of "Original Photograph" would imply the photo that was included(the photographed photo) in the submitted photo RATHER than the submitted photo itself, this is an important point as it appears that some have tried to imply that this means the photographer can not "Fool" someone into what they are photographing with their submitted image THIS IS HOWEVER AN INCORRECT READING OF THIS TEXT |
Did you not read what AlanFreed stated at the start of this whole mess? Photograph/artwork. According to your definition I could take a photo of a painting and pass it off and that would be ok. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:06:42 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
After giving some more thought to my example of the olympics, I have an idea. In the olympics model used, I stated that it would be wrong to not punish dopers in the olympics just because every athlete is not tested. (based on someone saying that it is wrong to punish Marc because he admited in his notes that it was fake, but if he had not admitted it he likely would not have been questioned)
I propose that as well as the top 5 finishers getting validated and of course still the ones questioned by other members....that the SC decides on a percent of entries that should be randomly validated. So if there are 250 entries and they decide on 2% for example, they would validate not only the top 5 finishers and the ones reccomended during the challenge by other voters, but take the remaining (un validated) entries and put the numbers 1-250 in a hat and draw numbers until you get five that have not already been validated for the other two reasons. (2% of 250) The numbers of course corresponding to order of entry in the challenge. (if I was the 64th to enter out of 250 and the # 64 comes up and I have not already been validated by finishing top 5 or request from my peers, then I would be a randonly selected entry for validation)
The idea of this would not be to assume everyone is cheating because I know that very, very few people do that on purpose. Most dq's happen because of misunderdstanding of the rules etc. However if your photo is not top 5 (most of us seldom if ever get there) you may in fact be doing something wrong and never know it if it is not obvious enough to be questioned. On top of that, for the few who do purposely cheat because they want to finish well but not in the top 5 (obviously they would be found out at that point) it might deter them by knowing that they still might randomly get nailed. (just like they do in the olympics, they test the top finishers as well as some random ones)
Just a thought. |
This is not a good idea, we don't need enforcement of this type, if someone passes it off then so what, plagerists are likely to get caught when another recognizes the work, if someone does try to pass off an old image so what, as long as they don't win a ribbon for it then what does it really matter. If they were smart about it then it will be nearly impossible to tell in the first place so again what is the point. This rule seems to clearly focus on plagiarism and obvious fakery.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:11:48 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Note a small proviso to my earlier analysis;
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing, the qualifier of "Original Photograph" would imply the photo that was included(the photographed photo) in the submitted photo RATHER than the submitted photo itself, this is an important point as it appears that some have tried to imply that this means the photographer can not "Fool" someone into what they are photographing with their submitted image THIS IS HOWEVER AN INCORRECT READING OF THIS TEXT |
Did you not read what AlanFreed stated at the start of this whole mess? Photograph/artwork. According to your definition I could take a photo of a painting and pass it off and that would be ok. |
Reading the rule, it does not address the photo you are questioning in any manner. If it said Photograph or Artwork I would agree but only says photograph.
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.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:12:18. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:12:58 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Note a small proviso to my earlier analysis;
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing, the qualifier of "Original Photograph" would imply the photo that was included(the photographed photo) in the submitted photo RATHER than the submitted photo itself, this is an important point as it appears that some have tried to imply that this means the photographer can not "Fool" someone into what they are photographing with their submitted image THIS IS HOWEVER AN INCORRECT READING OF THIS TEXT |
Did you not read what AlanFreed stated at the start of this whole mess? Photograph/artwork. According to your definition I could take a photo of a painting and pass it off and that would be ok. |
I did read, HOWEVER the interpretation as offered is not supported by the text of the rule, I suspect it would be awfully hard to pass a painting off as an actual photo as very few paintings look photorealistic. Additionally IF YOU READ THE RULE the qualifiers apply ONLY TO PHOTOGRAPHS and artwork is not included thus you may photograph artwork to your hearts content AS THE RULE IS WRITTEN.
Your comments offer a secondary question, What if I was the one who created the artwork that I later photographed and submitted?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:13:55 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing |
No, it doesn't. IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OWNERSHIP!!! Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero. The artwork rule, is not now, and never has been, an issue of ownership. It's a restriction on how the artwork is used, not who made it, and even the old rules referred to "existing works of art (including your own)." Plagiarism and copyright are covered separately as a ToS violation. That line refers to fooling the voters into thinking you actually captured the content of the artwork... HERE, live, as real 3D objects in THIS entry. Could the wording be improved? Absolutely, and it's already been proposed that it be rephrased to something like, "...fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph as a live scene.â I think that would go a long way toward resolving the apparent confusion. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:16:06 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing |
No, it doesn't. IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OWNERSHIP!!! Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero. The artwork rule, is not now, and never has been, an issue of ownership. It's a restriction on how the artwork is used, not who made it, and even the old rules referred to "existing works of art (including your own)." Plagiarism and copyright are covered separately as a ToS violation. That line refers to fooling the voters into thinking you actually captured the content of the artwork... HERE, live, as real 3D objects in THIS entry. Could the wording be improved? Absolutely, and it's already been proposed that it be rephrased to something like, "...fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph as a live scene.â I think that would go a long way toward resolving the apparent confusion. |
And I believe that is all anyone is suggesting. As it stands, worded, jhomrighaus' 'interpretation' stands as more correct than SC's.
I'm happy that a re-wording is being undertaken.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:16:16. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:23:36 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by basssman7:
After giving some more thought to my example of the olympics, I have an idea. In the olympics model used, I stated that it would be wrong to not punish dopers in the olympics just because every athlete is not tested. (based on someone saying that it is wrong to punish Marc because he admited in his notes that it was fake, but if he had not admitted it he likely would not have been questioned)
I propose that as well as the top 5 finishers getting validated and of course still the ones questioned by other members....that the SC decides on a percent of entries that should be randomly validated. So if there are 250 entries and they decide on 2% for example, they would validate not only the top 5 finishers and the ones reccomended during the challenge by other voters, but take the remaining (un validated) entries and put the numbers 1-250 in a hat and draw numbers until you get five that have not already been validated for the other two reasons. (2% of 250) The numbers of course corresponding to order of entry in the challenge. (if I was the 64th to enter out of 250 and the # 64 comes up and I have not already been validated by finishing top 5 or request from my peers, then I would be a randonly selected entry for validation)
The idea of this would not be to assume everyone is cheating because I know that very, very few people do that on purpose. Most dq's happen because of misunderdstanding of the rules etc. However if your photo is not top 5 (most of us seldom if ever get there) you may in fact be doing something wrong and never know it if it is not obvious enough to be questioned. On top of that, for the few who do purposely cheat because they want to finish well but not in the top 5 (obviously they would be found out at that point) it might deter them by knowing that they still might randomly get nailed. (just like they do in the olympics, they test the top finishers as well as some random ones)
Just a thought. |
This is not a good idea, we don't need enforcement of this type, if someone passes it off then so what, plagerists are likely to get caught when another recognizes the work, if someone does try to pass off an old image so what, as long as they don't win a ribbon for it then what does it really matter. If they were smart about it then it will be nearly impossible to tell in the first place so again what is the point. This rule seems to clearly focus on plagiarism and obvious fakery. |
It was not just about the artwork rules. It was about all rules. Taken within the time of the challenge, editing rules etc etc. I am sorry I did not make that more clear, that particular thought was not just about the artwork issue. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:24:00 PM · #560 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing |
No, it doesn't. IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OWNERSHIP!!! Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero. The artwork rule, is not now, and never has been, an issue of ownership. It's a restriction on how the artwork is used, not who made it, and even the old rules referred to "existing works of art (including your own)." Plagiarism and copyright are covered separately as a ToS violation. That line refers to fooling the voters into thinking you actually captured the content of the artwork... HERE, live, as real 3D objects in THIS entry. Could the wording be improved? Absolutely, and it's already been proposed that it be rephrased to something like, "...fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph as a live scene.â I think that would go a long way toward resolving the apparent confusion. |
Good to have this interpretation, now I would challenge you to defend why an artistically oriented photographic contest site would ever contemplate including such a rule in the first place? This leaves open MASSIVE restrictions on what and how one could take photographs that are MASSIVELY subjective and require not only that the Viewer be deceived but also the the Photographer have INTENDED to deceive the viewer. This further disqualifies a HUGE number of photographs that have been submitted here and would seem to block out all textures, overlays, props(photo or art based) and any type of composed or composite image.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:24:47 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
As it stands, worded, jhomrighaus' 'interpretation' stands as more correct than SC's. |
A fair point, but it does depend upon where you're reading the emphasis...
...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. = were you the one who created the artwork?
...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. = did you actually shoot what we're looking at as a physical scene?
Again, do agree the wording should be improved because the latter interpretation was the intent, as demonstrated by the fact that ownership is a non-issue in all prior versions of this rule. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:25:05 PM · #562 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Note a small proviso to my earlier analysis;
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing, the qualifier of "Original Photograph" would imply the photo that was included(the photographed photo) in the submitted photo RATHER than the submitted photo itself, this is an important point as it appears that some have tried to imply that this means the photographer can not "Fool" someone into what they are photographing with their submitted image THIS IS HOWEVER AN INCORRECT READING OF THIS TEXT |
Did you not read what AlanFreed stated at the start of this whole mess? Photograph/artwork. According to your definition I could take a photo of a painting and pass it off and that would be ok. |
Reading the rule, it does not address the photo you are questioning in any manner. If it said Photograph or Artwork I would agree but only says photograph.
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. |
Once again, I was referring the the interpretation of the rule as told to us at the start of this mess. I was not referring the wording of the rule, I was referring to the interpretation of it. (both in the past and at present) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:29:25 PM · #563 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
As it stands, worded, jhomrighaus' 'interpretation' stands as more correct than SC's. |
A fair point, but it does depend upon where you're reading the emphasis...
...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. = were you the one who created the artwork?
...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. = did you actually shoot what we're looking at as a physical scene?
Again, do agree the wording should be improved because the latter interpretation was the intent, as demonstrated by the fact that ownership is a non-issue in all prior versions of this rule. |
Is the onus actually on the user to make sure that they are familiar with all previous versions of the rules and to compare them word for word with current versions of the rules in order to make an informed interpretation of what is possibly meant by the most current version? I don't recall that being set out in the TOS. Another reason, perhaps, why this is becoming such a big mess? Do we, as users, especially new ones, really have to go and read every rule set there ever was in order to fully understand the current ones?
Yikes. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:30:45 PM · #564 |
Shannon since you are now reading this again, please answer a question that MattO has asked you many times in this thread to answer in regards to the manatee situation vs the glass.
"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
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:31:52 PM · #565 |
| They are either both legal or both illegal. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:34:01 PM · #566 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
As it stands, worded, jhomrighaus' 'interpretation' stands as more correct than SC's. |
A fair point, but it does depend upon where you're reading the emphasis...
...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. = were you the one who created the artwork?
...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. = did you actually shoot what we're looking at as a physical scene?
Again, do agree the wording should be improved because the latter interpretation was the intent, as demonstrated by the fact that ownership is a non-issue in all prior versions of this rule. |
You are forgetting that these statements are all proceeded by the statement "...as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to..." This again brings us back to the fact that the submitted photo must consist entirely of the orginal artwork or photograph, thus capturing a Glass in front of a picture in such a way as to make it look like a toast would seem to be Ok(it was after all a live scene of a glass in front of a backdrop), where as photographing an existing picture of a toast would not be acceptable.
Professional Photographers use these techniques everyday by creating sets and using backdrops in the studio, if one dresses up as a Victorian lady then poses in front of a set painted and decorated to look like a Victorian parlor(and the decorating done by another person to boot) is not the intention to fool the viewer into thinking that the photo was taken in the Victorian Era? and again one ask WHY IS THIS NOT ACCEPTABLE?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:39:01.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:35:47 PM · #567 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
As it stands, worded, jhomrighaus' 'interpretation' stands as more correct than SC's. |
A fair point, but it does depend upon where you're reading the emphasis...
...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. = were you the one who created the artwork?
...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. = did you actually shoot what we're looking at as a physical scene?
Again, do agree the wording should be improved because the latter interpretation was the intent, as demonstrated by the fact that ownership is a non-issue in all prior versions of this rule. |
Also, not to be a pa... ok, to be a pain, We're supposed to, as general users, start relying on where we put the EMPHASIS?! |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:36:02 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I would challenge you to defend why an artistically oriented photographic contest site would ever contemplate including such a rule in the first place? |
It is intended to prevent people from entering what is primarily a photo of a photo. It prevents skirting the date rule and matches the similar restrictions on multiple exposures and creating your entry from multiple captures. 3-dimensional props, non-photorealistic textures, obvious artwork and even secondary use as supporting elements are all essentially exempt. It's meant to exclude using existing photorealistic artwork (including your own) as a primary or standalone part of your entry. If your entry is chiefly "about" the artwork and voters are judging the content of that art as if it were actual objects in a scene, then that's a problem. If the artwork is only used as a supporting element, and therefore the voters are judging something else real, then it's fine. Capiche? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:41:17 PM · #569 |
Forgive me, thread too long to read the whole thing.
IMO, artwork rules should be seperated into 4 catagories, two dimensional iconic, two dimensional noniconic, three dimensional iconic, three dimentional noniconic. Iconic meaning something that is universaly recongnized as artwork...eg. dollar bill, Mona Lisa
Two dimensional iconic: Artwork may occupy no more than 75% of submission.
Two dimensional noniconic: Artwork may occupy no more than 25% of submission.
Three dimensional iconic: Artwork may be used as desired
Three dimensional noniconic: Artwork may be used as desired, as long as photographer had control over one major aspect of the photograph, such as point of view, lighting, or arrangement of a scene.
IMO, the three dimensional noniconic rule would preclude shooting a museum exhibit. Hope this helps |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:42:44 PM · #570 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I would challenge you to defend why an artistically oriented photographic contest site would ever contemplate including such a rule in the first place? |
It is intended to prevent people from entering what is primarily a photo of a photo. It prevents skirting the date rule and matches the similar restrictions on multiple exposures and creating your entry from multiple captures. 3-dimensional props, non-photorealistic textures, obvious artwork and even secondary use as supporting elements are all essentially exempt. It's meant to exclude using existing photorealistic artwork (including your own) as a primary or standalone part of your entry. If your entry is chiefly "about" the artwork and voters are judging the content of that art as if it were actual objects in a scene, then that's a problem. If the artwork is only used as a supporting element, and therefore the voters are judging something else real, then it's fine. Capiche? |
I have advocated, several times in the past, that the (relatively simply worded) rules as written should also include explanatory text telling us WHY we have the rule and how it was intended to be used. In other words, if the rules as written included an offset, parenthetical explanation like the one you just offered, most of this fuss could have been avoided. It's the same principle as the rules/appeals/decision structure used by golf and yachting, where every time it becomes clear an interpretation is needed the interpretation is codified and becomes a descriptive part of the body of the rules.
R.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:43:12. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:47:07 PM · #571 |
Add a field on the submission page where you can declare artwork in the image. That text is visible on the voting page. Declaring artwork this way gives immunity from DQ on the grounds of using that artwork, unless it is just a photo of a photo in the strictest sense.
i.e either declare and let the voters vote accordingly, or don't and submit to the SC's judgement.
Might even reduce the validation requests for hard-pressed SC members :-)
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:47:47 PM · #572 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Shannon since you are now reading this again, please answer a question that MattO has asked you many times in this thread to answer in regards to the manatee situation vs the glass.
"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 |
Shannon will you please answer this question? I believe this is about the 7th time it has been asked of you. Thank you. :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:49:33 PM · #573 |
Originally posted by MilesW:
Add a field on the submission page where you can declare artwork in the image. That text is visible on the voting page. Declaring artwork this way gives immunity from DQ on the grounds of using that artwork, unless it is just a photo of a photo in the strictest sense.
i.e either declare and let the voters vote accordingly, or don't and submit to the SC's judgement.
Might even reduce the validation requests for hard-pressed SC members :-) |
This is a great idea. If voters had known that the manatee were both fake and that the beautiful light in the scene was a painted background, it would have scored much lower. (and yes I can say that with certainty because folks have been saying that...) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:50:07 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Shannon since you are now reading this again, please answer a question that MattO has asked you many times in this thread to answer in regards to the manatee situation vs the glass.
"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 |
Shannon will you please answer this question? I believe this is about the 7th time it has been asked of you. Thank you. :) |
I think it's possible the manatee image is under review by SC and there won't be an answer here until they have reached a decision.
R. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:52:33 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I would challenge you to defend why an artistically oriented photographic contest site would ever contemplate including such a rule in the first place? |
It is intended to prevent people from entering what is primarily a photo of a photo. It prevents skirting the date rule and matches the similar restrictions on multiple exposures and creating your entry from multiple captures. 3-dimensional props, non-photorealistic textures, obvious artwork and even secondary use as supporting elements are all essentially exempt. It's meant to exclude using existing photorealistic artwork (including your own) as a primary or standalone part of your entry. If your entry is chiefly "about" the artwork and voters are judging the content of that art as if it were actual objects in a scene, then that's a problem. If the artwork is only used as a supporting element, and therefore the voters are judging something else real, then it's fine. Capiche? |
boldness added by me
In the manatee photo, folks were voting partly based on the beautiful light floating down from above and the serene setting of the manatee in their beautiful natural surroundings. You cannot deny that the light from above is in fact an element of the photograph that was being taken into account during voting. It was a painted backdrop, not part of the 3d fake manatee. |
|
