| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/24/2004 11:02:47 AM · #1 |
between taking a photo of a statute or piece of artwork/ sculpture
with a sunset/field/serendipitous backdrop to taking a studio shot
of a fizzy drink bottle/item of clothing?
is there a difference?
|
|
|
|
04/24/2004 11:09:15 AM · #2 |
that is kind of a vague question.
the 1st thing that comes to mind as being deifferent are the subjects...
|
|
|
|
04/24/2004 01:35:50 PM · #3 |
| Hmmmmmmmmm.........tuff question. One is indoors and the other is outdoors? |
|
|
|
04/24/2004 01:38:21 PM · #4 |
The way you say it, both sound fearfully unexciting. ;-)
|
|
|
|
04/24/2004 01:51:06 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by goodman:
is there a difference? |
Are you asking from a DPC "content rules" point of view? Or is this a question intended to comment on the merits of one over the other? |
|
|
|
04/24/2004 03:11:41 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by goodman:
between taking a photo of a statute or piece of artwork/ sculpture
with a sunset/field/serendipitous backdrop to taking a studio shot
of a fizzy drink bottle/item of clothing?
is there a difference? |
No difference in any of them whatsoever, unless “serendipitous backdrop” means as the photographer was shooting, this thing walked/materialized/slid through the image, either foreground or background, which can be by “the quality of being discerning, [and] sound in judgment, and farsighted; [with] wisdom[1]” the author deemed it a significant experience. If your question was about serendipity, it probably is not limited to a visual experience; and most experiences are just common and normal, not serendipitous even if fortuitous.
[1] Microsoft Bookshelf 95, 1995.
Message edited by author 2004-04-24 15:12:41. |
|
|
|
04/24/2004 03:32:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by goodman:
between taking a photo of a statute or piece of artwork/ sculpture
with a sunset/field/serendipitous backdrop to taking a studio shot
of a fizzy drink bottle/item of clothing?
is there a difference? |
Well I guess it's against the rules to take a picture of a piece of arts
Originally posted by rules:
Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety 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, and computer artwork. |
|
|
|
|
04/24/2004 03:43:44 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MotoCycleBoi:
Well I guess it's against the rules to take a picture of a piece of arts |
Only if it is a literal representation -- meaning there are no other elements in the photo, and it is composed in such a way as to compel the viewing to vote on the "art" instead of on the composition, lighting, etc. |
|
|
|
04/24/2004 03:57:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by MotoCycleBoi:
Well I guess it's against the rules to take a picture of a piece of arts |
Only if it is a literal representation -- meaning there are no other elements in the photo, and it is composed in such a way as to compel the viewing to vote on the "art" instead of on the composition, lighting, etc. |
Are there not others aspects to consider also?
I don't know about other contries. But in my country the artists are strongly orginized. If you publish a photograph of another piece of art without the artist permission it can get very expensive.
Artistic work have strong protection from copyright law. |
|
|
|
04/24/2004 04:05:40 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MotoCycleBoi:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by MotoCycleBoi:
Well I guess it's against the rules to take a picture of a piece of arts |
Only if it is a literal representation -- meaning there are no other elements in the photo, and it is composed in such a way as to compel the viewing to vote on the "art" instead of on the composition, lighting, etc. |
Are there not others aspects to consider also?
I don't know about other contries. But in my country the artists are strongly orginized. If you publish a photograph of another piece of art without the artist permission it can get very expensive.
Artistic work have strong protection from copyright law. |
Entering it as a photo here is allowed under the "fair use" doctrine as personal or educational use. If you try to SELL copies of an image you could be in trouble, although there are many provisions (journalistic or satiric use) which would allow that as well.
If you use an existing piece of art within the strictures of the DPC rules/guidelines you will not be liable for copyright infringement. |
|
|
|
04/24/2004 04:50:03 PM · #11 |
This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork.
doesnt make sense....
one of the best photos in my opinion in this challenge involves a
sculpture, very famous one.
will be interesting to see if its allowed.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2004 06:50:09 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by MotoCycleBoi:
Well I guess it's against the rules to take a picture of a piece of arts |
Only if it is a literal representation -- meaning there are no other elements in the photo, and it is composed in such a way as to compel the viewing to vote on the "art" instead of on the composition, lighting, etc. |
I'm against the entering of art here, i mean photos of artwork. 'other elements' could be broad or narrow (sky, lightpole, building in background,etc) - it may not be possible to picture such artwork without these items so that there are 'other' items is moot in my opinion.
As to judging hte light/composition, etc, - well, by definition ALL photographs have that, so then ALL photos of art could be permitted if we restrict our 'viewing' to the technical aspects the photo.
What I have seen most often, and object to most strongly, is when a photo of a sculpture of is used to represent the idea of the challenge - for example -  for strength. So this is only part of art item, and the colors and angle are 'creative' - but is it a fair and just entry? The sculpture was used to represent 'strength'. Had there been a grand sunset and the challenge 'sunset' then perhaps it would be permissable. Same for the pics of the red phone booths in england that i have seen a couple of times in different challenges. (i did not know it was 'artwork' when I saw it. I know now)
If the challenge was 'Smiles' and i submitted a photo of the mona lisa - be it all of the painting, the head or mouth only, or tweaked the colors or made it b&w, or turned it upside down - it is still a photo of someone's art and not allowed under the 'no art' rule. If it was in the background of a model smiling or pretending to imitate the mona lisa smile, then that might be permissable.
As for a pic of a pop can or what have you - that is slightly different. The pop can 'design' while trademarked or copyrighted was not made to be 'art' in the fine art/display/exhibition category of art. It is more advertising/commercial/industrial art.
However, if the challenge was Strength and the only item in hte photo as a bottle of 100 proof whisky (strong drink) then it might be a DQ candidate. Add a shot glass or otehr items in the pic so the subject changes form the 'item' to the 'idea' and then it is more acceptable (to me).
'Open to Interpretation' is open to argument and discussion as well!
|
|
|
|
04/24/2004 09:15:32 PM · #13 |
Literal means just that. There is no other component of the image other than the art itself. With any form of sculpture, a photographer can change angles to evoke different moods. Different lighting adds shadow and depth to the image.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/12/2025 11:30:26 PM EDT.
