DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> What Do You Think Of This Disqualification?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 207, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/08/2009 01:13:27 AM · #1
This picture was (apparently fairly unanimously) DQ'd for violation of the "Artwork Rule" ...

Obviously, if I'd had any thought that it might violate either the letter or spirit of this rule, I would have done things differently.

I'm curious as to how the rest of you would apply this rule to this image. Consider this your chance to "play SC for a day" or something.

Any constructive comments are welcome, anything else is not. Thanks.

Originally posted by The Basic Rules:
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.

Disqualified entry: Resized original:
07/08/2009 01:18:19 AM · #2
That adds a whole new dimension to adjustment layering. You were unjustly punished for being a purist IMO! ;-)
 07/08/2009 01:22:09 AM · #3
hmm, i probably would have DQ'ed you as well. i try not to mess with the artwork rule, it can get dangerous(obviously). sorry for your DQ, but i agree with SC
 07/08/2009 01:23:56 AM · #4
Though creative, I have to agree with the DQ. Same issue as with this one

07/08/2009 01:31:53 AM · #5
Looks pretty consistant to the reasoning for the thanksgiving photo DQ that happened last year, not sure I totally agree with the DQ rule itself but seems to be consistant with the last ruling of this sort. My problem with the rule is you can take a photo of a sculpture with noting changed but can not use a piece of art work with added features.

07/08/2009 01:33:57 AM · #6
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Though creative, I have to agree with the DQ. Same issue as with this one


Ditto.

ETA: I think the precedent was set pretty specifically on that one, and to me, doesn't have a whole lot of gray area in regard to your entry.

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 01:35:26.
 07/08/2009 01:36:47 AM · #7
If you had taken the shot of the girls within the time period, then added the SPAM and reshot, I'd say it should not be DQd, since you wouldn't have been trying to fool us into thinking you took the original artwork nor would you been trying to get around the dates requirements.

If you did not take the original artwork within the same period, I'd have to agree with the DQ.

ETA: BUT, according to SC, even if you had done the above, it would have been DQd. The wording on "the artwork rule" is incorrect according to SC's intentions and needs to be changed. But, I think we've been over that before. *grin*

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 01:40:29.
 07/08/2009 01:39:00 AM · #8
I'm curious as to how you all think it violates the rule.

Obviously, as I parsed the sentence, it does not, so it would be helpful to see what specific part(s) of the rule you cite to arrive at your conclusions, and why that justifies a DQ, rather than it being left to the voters to assess its worthiness.

I'll try (honest!) not to argue with anyone's opinion ... ;-)

ETA: Thanks LydiaToo -- I was writing while you posted.

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 01:40:55.
 07/08/2009 01:45:16 AM · #9
And, learn this from your experience: Never write anything at all about your photo in the description area. Just babble there if you feel it's necessary to put anything there at all. *smile*
 07/08/2009 01:45:33 AM · #10
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm curious as to how you all think it violates the rule.

Ah. I understand your question now. I think how it violates the rule, is that it attempts to make the viewer believe this was all part of one scene and a single image capture, when in fact it is not.
 07/08/2009 01:49:51 AM · #11
Hmmmm SC doubting the judgement of SC eh.... look out anarchy here we come :)
 07/08/2009 01:51:51 AM · #12
I do not think I agree with the rule or how it is applied but earlier rulings have been consistant with this ruling. To me you made a new object when you added the spam so it is no longer a copy and should have been fine but in Lydia's case she did the same thing with her thanksgiving entry so when I know that is how the rule is going to be applied I would think it should be DQ'd.
 07/08/2009 01:53:14 AM · #13
Is photographing a photo photography?
Should I mold Da Vinci's David?
In response to taking the initial photo yourself within the dates....
It appears to me as an attempt to get around basic rules.
I would say your spam application is certainly selective.
If you truly wanted spam in your photo like this, the approach would be to give them spam fans, not create it afterwards.
The approach here (and I think why many object to it) is more akin to mixed media and/or graphic design, and then simply shoehorning the end product into a photography contest because you took a photo of what you made already.
 07/08/2009 01:55:09 AM · #14
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
well it's not that since what you did could not be done in real life anyhow. Even if you took the shot a second before.

- or fool the voters
I guess you announced it, so no fooling...

- or to circumvent editing rules
well they state: "you may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as vignettes, lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture."

So the question is: did you take a picture of Spam and enhanced it with artwork or did you take an image of dancers and edited it with spam?

Well the entire image except the details of the fan exist out of the previous picture.
I would say laying spam on your image and putting saran wrap on it clearly edits the image... just because it's not done in a computer, doesn't mean it's ok. And I do not think that saran and spam is to be considered artwork.

It looks to me that you took a picture and edited it with the spam.
 07/08/2009 01:57:50 AM · #15
I think this is the most hilarious precedent, btw. No editing using spam.
Out of curiosity, how big was your print that you photographed? I ask because the spam sections seem pretty small, and was wondering about how it was you cut/assembled them.
 07/08/2009 02:30:42 AM · #16
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I think this is the most hilarious precedent, btw. No editing using spam.
Out of curiosity, how big was your print that you photographed? I ask because the spam sections seem pretty small, and was wondering about how it was you cut/assembled them.

It's an 11x17 color laser print -- I made it at three different enlargements, and decided which to use once I figured out how small I could cut the SPAM and have it retain its shape.

I eased it out of the can about 3/16" and sliced it off, running the knife down the can edge (top) to get a slab of even thickness.

I then cut slips of paper the approximate sizes of the pieces I'd need. I used those as a rough template to just cut wedges of the appropriate size, and carefully transfer them into position on top of the plastic-covered picture. I think the longest pieces are about 2-3/4" x 1/4".

I'm not much of a sculptor, in SPAM or any other medium, so I thought of this as a way I could just cut geometric shapes.

I'd say the assembly process took between 25-45 minutes, and took about 1/3 of a can of SPAM (Lite). Isaac and I ate that part of the prop afterwards -- he'd never encountered SPAM before. :-)
 07/08/2009 02:33:27 AM · #17
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Isaac and I ate that part of the prop afterwards -- he'd never encountered SPAM before. :-)


My kids LOVE SPAM, much to my wife's disgust.
 07/08/2009 04:00:37 AM · #18
The rule in question certainly suffers from a lack of clarity - I can construe it in at least 4 different ways without difficulty and there are probably more ways possible.

But on the face of it I can't see how your spam picture or the wine glass contravene the rules since neither picture seems to have been constructed for the purposes mentioned.

Although the rulings are consistent, consistency is not necessarily such a great thing when they also seem to be consistently wrong.

It may also be worth pointing out that even without the 'purposes clause' the picture does not seem to break the rule since it does not consist entirely of a pre exisiting photo, nor does it appear to do so. Again same here for the wine glass.
 07/08/2009 04:31:06 AM · #19
For me here your entry seems to consist of a photograph of a picture that's been edited way outside of the rules of basic editing and then had a few wedges of spam placed on top. I would say it's a clear vialation of the rules, even if the original print had been edited inside of basic editing rules and then printed and photographed again I would say that this is still mainly just a photo of a print.

It certainly goes against the spirit of the ruleset if nothing else.

Just my opinion of course
 07/08/2009 04:51:27 AM · #20
Took me a few looks to actually spot that spam you had overlaid the photo with. Probably my monitor at work (Im hoping my eyes are better than that normally)

Have to say that I agree with the DQ as the rules are worded and as they have been applied in the past. Least its consistent.
 07/08/2009 06:09:20 AM · #21
Before I looked at the description, I thought you had taken a picture of a painting... and that got me thinking:

Could a picture of a painting be disqualified by this rule?

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

It's not a photograph. What about printed computer generated art?

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 06:10:01.
 07/08/2009 06:17:37 AM · #22
Originally posted by hanserik:
Before I looked at the description, I thought you had taken a picture of a painting... and that got me thinking:

Could a picture of a painting be disqualified by this rule?

include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as ...

It's not a photograph. What about printed computer generated art?


Message edited by author 2009-07-08 06:18:36.
 07/08/2009 06:38:53 AM · #23
Yes, it's artwork, but the rule specifies twice that it can't be a photograph. It's not a photograph. It's a painting.

I'm just nitpicking here.
 07/08/2009 08:42:22 AM · #24
Basically, the voters are rating and commenting on the photographic qualities of your entry (lighting, composition, focus and so on). If artwork is photo realistic and forms the primary scene (entirety) of the entry, then the voters will be mostly judging the poses, expressions, costumes, lighting of that artwork as if you shot it "live." In the old days it was sufficient to include anything 3D in the shot since it would throw shadows and create something/anything the photographer could claim as his own new work. The current rule was changed to prevent people from entering essentially a photo of a photo with some minor real objects to get around the rule (the entry in question is a good example of this), and to allow obvious artwork such as money or illustrations that the voters would reasonably know what they're judging. From the public thread announcing this rule:

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.
07/08/2009 09:07:13 AM · #25
Even though the rule does not state it, I assumed that you can't have a photograph as the main subject of the image. In this case, the girls with the fans are the main subject (even though it's been enhanced with spam, you can't have the spam without the girls and the fans)

This is one of my all-time favorite shots in DPC, . I've wanted to try something like this, but I'm not sure it would hold up with today's definition of the rules. In my mind, the wine glass shot is the same as the magic carpet -- the wine glass is the main subject, the background is there to make the story more interesting. But the background isn't the main subject.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 03:29:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/11/2025 03:29:57 AM EDT.