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 176 - 200 of 207, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/09/2009 05:07:02 PM · #176
I've heard several people mention that it should be obvious that the shot has existing artwork, how about putting that in the rule.

...include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not consist predominantly of a pre-existing photograph with the effect of circumventing date or editing rules or fooling the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph, it must be obvious to the voter that existing image/artwork is present.
 07/09/2009 05:23:06 PM · #177
Originally posted by taterbug:
I've heard several people mention that it should be obvious that the shot has existing artwork, how about putting that in the rule.

That's only true if the entry is essentially a photo of a photo. As a minor part of a larger composition, the artwork can be totally realistic. Also note that most uses of existing artwork could be construed as circumventing the editing rules (especially Basic), and that the date and author of the artwork aren't really an issue aside from copyright concerns, so there's certainly room for improvement on this rule. As noted, we're working on revised wording to make the restriction and intent clear. I think we're close. :-)
 07/09/2009 07:52:45 PM · #178
Originally posted by JulietNN:
they are foul foul looking things. NOt at all like the ones that Lydia posts. These are teh distant relatives of the Ugly Stick family.


They can grow to the size of a dinner plate. They are also toxic to animals. But, if you squeeze the diamond shape sacks of poison and then dry the toxin out, you have your own LSD. Just foul.

I really (and maybe Lydia can tell me) how the heck they got into my yard. No standing water, only an inch gap in the gate and the rest of it is brick wall.


Ewwwww.... nasty, indeed. *cringing here*

I've NO idea how they got there.

Move.

07/09/2009 09:49:50 PM · #179
Originally posted by muckpond:
note, too, that we have an SC thread going that basically mirrors this one with a lot more four letter words. :)


UNFAIR, why cant we be allowed to use four letter words too?
THIS ISNT FAIR (there u go)
 07/09/2009 11:07:33 PM · #180
Here is the shot I didn't enter in SPAM for fear of running afoul of the existing photo rule.

Just out of curiosity, I asked the SC if I was right to be concerned about it. I just got the following answer back:
Originally posted by muckpond:
you've split us, but the slight majority feels that this shot is OK. in light of the artwork rule discussion going on in the public forums now, perhaps you can post this shot out there and see what other users have to say about it?

Having run afoul of the rule before (my only DQ so far), I am a bit skittish about this, and agree that the rule, as written, is insufficiently clear about its intent.
For those unfamiliar with Monty Python, this shot is of the album (yes, vinyl record album) cover.
So, what do you think of this shot, and whether or not it should be DQ'd if you were on the SC? Why or why not?

Message edited by author 2009-07-09 23:08:13.
 07/09/2009 11:21:27 PM · #181
I like where the draft was going, but would like to offer the following suggestion:

may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not consist predominantly of the pre-existing images or artwork, attempt to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the entire entry without inclusion of pre-existing images or artwork.


This wording does the following (for me, at least):
1) clarifies that if the image consists predominately of the external image, it is grounds for DQ
2) clarifies the extent to which external image may be used - if it is obvious that you used it, it is OK - if not, DQ.

My Monty Python album cover would clearly be DQ'd under this wording. Not sure I like that...
07/09/2009 11:23:47 PM · #182
Originally posted by dtremain:

...what do you think of this shot, and whether or not it should be DQ'd if you were on the SC? Why or why not?

If I were on the SC, I'd say you have nothing to worry about. It's obviously artwork and therefore exempt from a rule designed to keep people from passing off an existing image as if it were a "first generation" photo for the challenge. The voters can clearly see that's it's printed material and can judge it accordingly.
 07/10/2009 12:53:49 AM · #183
Originally posted by scalvert:
If I were on the SC, I'd say you have nothing to worry about. It's obviously artwork and therefore exempt from a rule designed to keep people from passing off an existing image as if it were a "first generation" photo for the challenge.

So the uncropped version of my entry is legal, by your interpretation ... I only need a common two-letter abbreviation to express my disdain for this idiocy ... :-(

Message edited by author 2009-07-10 00:54:14.
 07/10/2009 01:06:51 AM · #184
Okay, seriously, I don't get what the argument is about here. As I sit here drunk and watching the Marlins on the west coast, I can't help but wonder why this thread is still going.

I think the argument is as simple as this. If you shoot a photo of an existing artwork, that is fine. When you try to pass the artwork off as a new piece of material through the photograph, then there is an issue. Beyond that, as I mentioned before, what the OP did with their entry is, skate around the rules of basic editing. Whether you selectively cut and paste in photoshop, or physically do it in the real world, you are still using selective editing. That is illegal under the rules of basic editing. Case closed!
 07/10/2009 01:33:28 AM · #185
Originally posted by Phil:
Just to make sure I am understanding the current rule.

Shannon's image would be dq'd if the subject was an airplane instead of a girl on a magic carpet since we would be fooled into thinking the airplane was flying over a "real" earth. Is that correct?


I'd love to hear some clarification from SC on this, as I have based some of my own entries on this particular allowance. My understanding was that as long as it was a "background" and not the "subject" that it was okay. That was "my" interpretation based on what was written (especially when the background was a shot that you had taken yourself).

Perhaps I was wrong in that assumption, but I find the distinction between the "accepted" and "DQed" examples COMPLETELY random - and that is not only confusing, disheartening, and a little threatening, but it discourages creativity and artistic license. I don't think that is the intention of this site. Additional clarification would be most welcome.
07/10/2009 01:56:57 AM · #186
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So the uncropped version of my entry is legal, by your interpretation...

If you mean the uncropped original, then sure. The borders and print defects would offer the voters some visual cues that the scene is an existing photo and they could rate it accordingly. However by eliminating those cues in your entry, you're leaving an image that is almost entirely a photo of a photo, yet looks like a "live" scene of dancers with a spam-like texture printed on the fans. Therefore, you are compelling the voters to judge the artwork as if you were controlling the lighting, expressions, poses, composition, etc. in THIS capture. You didn't include artwork as part of your composition... you included something real on a composition that's basically artwork. You just can't seem to grasp that doing so is a problem in a photography contest.
 07/10/2009 02:05:11 AM · #187
Originally posted by SJCarter:
My understanding was that as long as it was a "background" and not the "subject" that it was okay. That was "my" interpretation based on what was written (especially when the background was a shot that you had taken yourself).

Pretty much. Artwork either has to play a supporting role (not form the bulk of the composition) OR be obviously artwork (regardless of who created the artwork).
 07/10/2009 02:47:34 AM · #188
i've gotten on the bullhorn about other rules but for this one I just don't see the issue - seems as clear cut and good policy as is it currently enforced. Don't "fool" people. Easy?
 07/10/2009 07:48:25 AM · #189
Wasn't the purpose of the rule to prevent someone from taking a picture of a picture and by adding a blade of grass or some inconsequential item be able to argue that it didn't consist entirely of a pre-existing image?
I thought one of the purposes of photography was to creatively fool the viewer and/or to present a view of an object that would be pleasing, documentative, or thought provoking. The jumping gold fish shot - a great photograph that should be valid, IMO. Also, the woman walking by the giant billboard (the billboard is the predominant part of the entry, so it would be DQ'd) should be OK. Flying carpet - OK.
I'm not convinced that the "fooling" viewers is the right direction to go on the rule.
I do like the revisions to clarify that we're not just talking about re-using a photograph, but an image (screen shot, print, etc.). Also, that the original authorship of the pre-existing image does not matter.
07/10/2009 02:49:18 PM · #190
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
My understanding was that as long as it was a "background" and not the "subject" that it was okay. That was "my" interpretation based on what was written (especially when the background was a shot that you had taken yourself).

Pretty much. Artwork either has to play a supporting role (not form the bulk of the composition) OR be obviously artwork (regardless of who created the artwork).


So an airplane in the place of your daugher would've been dq'd, right?

ETA. I should word that as "probably would've been dq'd".

Message edited by author 2009-07-10 14:50:12.
 07/10/2009 02:53:43 PM · #191
Originally posted by Phil:
So an airplane in the place of your daugher would've been dq'd, right?

ETA. I should word that as "probably would've been dq'd".

Yep.
 07/10/2009 03:59:36 PM · #192
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Phil:
So an airplane in the place of your daugher would've been dq'd, right?

ETA. I should word that as "probably would've been dq'd".

Yep.


You said earlier that you thought the shot as it was submitted probably wouldn't fly today. Do you personally think that's a good thing or a bad thing?
07/10/2009 05:19:38 PM · #193
Originally posted by yanko:
You said earlier that you thought the shot as it was submitted probably wouldn't fly today.

I said I wasn't sure if it would pass under the current rule. Personally I think it should since the artwork only plays a supporting role, but SC opinions would definitely be split. From my perspective the background is not obviously artwork, so it could fool the voter and therefore comes down to prominence. The entry wasn't really "about" the artwork, so the voters were rating the overall concept (and primarily the real parts) rather than essentially a photo of a photo. If you took out the artwork completely, the entry would still be a girl on a flying carpet... just flying over a white cloud rather than farmland. ;-)
 07/10/2009 05:55:17 PM · #194
Originally posted by scalvert:
If I were on the SC,..........


What do ya mean by this? Your posts indicate you are SC....both of you.
Looks to me like the rules need some work to make them clear.
 07/10/2009 06:09:45 PM · #195
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If I were on the SC,..........


What do ya mean by this? Your posts indicate you are SC....both of you.
Looks to me like the rules need some work to make them clear.


I was wondering about that myself. As far as I know, you ARE on the SC... What gives?

R.
 07/10/2009 06:14:13 PM · #196
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I was wondering about that myself. As far as I know, you ARE on the SC... What gives?

It was a joke. Sheesh!
 07/10/2009 06:36:09 PM · #197
I guess that jester hat has lost it's effectiveness. :P
 07/10/2009 07:05:55 PM · #198
scalvert IS the SC
 07/10/2009 07:12:50 PM · #199
Originally posted by muckpond:
scalvert IS the SC

When did you relinquish your crown?

(jesting - joking - jesting)

We all know ClubJuggle IS the SC.
 07/10/2009 08:26:27 PM · #200
.

Message edited by author 2009-07-10 20:57:23.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 02:19:10 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: 08/12/2025 02:19:10 AM EDT.