| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/13/2009 11:29:42 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In advanced and basic, if you include secondary and tertiary images in the composition, there's NO restriction on the author of those images or the time at which they were shot, just on the means by which they are combined in the final image. But under expert editing, you can only include in the photoshop merge images that you actually shot, within the challenge date window. |
There's an inherent conflict between creative freedom and fair play. We wouldn't want people to be able to enter any old image out of their archives, so there's a restriction on dates. However, I don't think we'd want to DQ someone for including a commercial muslin background or "legitimate" printed material just because of dates either...
 |
I'm having a problem with calling the magazine art. It's a prop. Just like a flower arrangement, the dishes, a candlestick. I have no problem with people including these things in a photo, because in this case, the magazine is obviously a magazine.
edited to add: Someone mentioned this earlier, and perhaps it's worth reconsidering--should we be saying "photograph" instead of art? Place the restrictions on the photographs. Then add a separate statement covering artwork. The whole issue is that people shouldn't be able to photograph 2D artwork and claim it as their own. "it is illegal to pass off someone else's art as your own."
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 11:33:18. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:33:46 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In advanced and basic, if you include secondary and tertiary images in the composition, there's NO restriction on the author of those images or the time at which they were shot, just on the means by which they are combined in the final image. But under expert editing, you can only include in the photoshop merge images that you actually shot, within the challenge date window. |
There's an inherent conflict between creative freedom and fair play. We wouldn't want people to be able to enter any old image out of their archives, so there's a restriction on dates. However, I don't think we'd want to DQ someone for including a commercial muslin background or "legitimate" printed material just because of dates either...
|
Oh, I understand that. But here's my point: if you do the merge in-camera, there are NO restrictions on date. If you do the merge in photoshop, under expert rules, all merged components have to be shot by you, within the challenge dates. It's just an anomaly... A very odd one...
The example you've thumbed above is irrelevant to what I'm discussing; there's no "merge" taking place at all, it's a shot of a woman holding a magazine to her face.
R. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:46:32 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
if you do the merge in-camera, there are NO restrictions on date. If you do the merge in photoshop, under expert rules, all merged components have to be shot by you, within the challenge dates. It's just an anomaly... A very odd one... |
Not really. They're editing rules, and thus only apply to changes made after you take the photo. More importantly, we have no practical way to know what you did before pressing the shutter button since the scene appears as-is in the original.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The example you've thumbed above is irrelevant to what I'm discussing; there's no "merge" taking place at all, it's a shot of a woman holding a magazine to her face. |
Oy. Like this. It looks like a real brick wall, but it's really a commercially printed backdrop. Since it serves as a background and the voters would primarily be judging the portrait, is this sort of use really inappropriate? |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:00:16 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
if you do the merge in-camera, there are NO restrictions on date. If you do the merge in photoshop, under expert rules, all merged components have to be shot by you, within the challenge dates. It's just an anomaly... A very odd one... |
Not really. They're editing rules, and thus only apply to changes made after you take the photo. More importantly, we have no practical way to know what you did before pressing the shutter button since the scene appears as-is in the original. |
Look, Shannon: in basic and advanced both, I can use last year's shot of, say, a sunset, and print it out, and photograph an object in front of the print, and (broadly speaking) that's legal. It's an in-camera merge. Under expert editing, I can't photograph the object and then overlay it, in photoshop, on the sunset shot, and the only reason I can't do it is because the sunset wasn't shot within the challenge dates. The in-camera merge would still be legal, but the photoshop merge would fall afoul of the rules. In other words, your flying carpet scene could not have been duplicated, under expert editing, using a photoshop merge of the images. And yet, the goal of the expert editing ruleset (or one of the goals anyway) was to facilitate occasional challenges where photoshop merging is permitted.
If you don't see this as an anomaly, well...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 12:01:43. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:09:01 PM · #80 |
with the expert rules - don't you have to submit all images used in the montage for validation if requested ?
why couldn't the same be true if a printed photo is used in basic and advanced rules ?
there is no perfect answer - but i see where Bear_Music is coming from.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:13:33 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The in-camera merge would still be legal, but the photoshop merge would fall afoul of the rules. |
Again, they're editing rules. Likewise, you could take a multiple exposure even in Minimal Editing by covering your lens with the shutter open, but you can't overlay two dissimilar images in Photoshop even in Advanced (even though the result may be identical). |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:25:13 PM · #82 |
Pretty simple solution...
Anything visible in front of the camera should be allowed provided there is a real and photo-significant item also in the image.
There should be no difference between my using a photo I took 10 years ago as a backdrop or using someone else's printed fabric material, magazine ad, etc. The penalty is that since it's my own work (meaning any photographer of course), I'm being penalized. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:28:28 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The in-camera merge would still be legal, but the photoshop merge would fall afoul of the rules. |
Again, they're editing rules. Likewise, you could take a multiple exposure even in Minimal Editing by covering your lens with the shutter open, but you can't overlay two dissimilar images in Photoshop even in Advanced (even though the result may be identical). |
Shannon, you're missing my POINT! I'm well aware they are editing rules, sheesh. Do you really not see what I'm getting at?
R. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:29:29 PM · #84 |
they are editing rules that also dictate what may or may not be used in the original capture... that goes a bit beyond editing IMO.
really this thread is about what you may or may not include as far as pre-existing artwork is concerned. and that has nothing to do with editing...
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:37:23 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Shannon, you're missing my POINT! I'm well aware they are editing rules, sheesh. Do you really not see what I'm getting at? |
...and you're missing mine. Aside from some visual restrictions on content (nudity, etc.) we can't know what goes on before you press the shutter button, so the rules are mostly concerned with what happens in editing. If we say you can't use an old photo in-camera, then how could we ever hope to enforce that when all we have is a single EXIF? On the flip side, if we drop the date restriction in Expert, then there'd literally be no need to take a photo at all for the challenge... just assemble an entry in Photoshop from your library of old shots.
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 12:44:47. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:45:11 PM · #86 |
do you have exif for all 19 of the photos used in Judi's MJ entry ?
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:45:41 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by soup:
do you have exif for all 19 of the photos used in Judi's MJ entry ? |
Yep. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:49:58 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Shannon, you're missing my POINT! I'm well aware they are editing rules, sheesh. Do you really not see what I'm getting at? |
...and you're missing mine. Aside from some visual restrictions on content (nudity, etc.) we can't know what goes on before you press the shutter button, so the rules are mostly concerned with what happens in editing. If we say you can't use an old photo in-camera, then how could we ever hope to enforce that when all we have is a single EXIF? On the flip side, if we drop the date restriction in Expert, then there'd literally be no need to take a photo at all for the challenge... just assemble an entry in Photoshop from your library of old shots. |
Right, that's the anomaly right there:-) In minimal, basic, and advanced editing a "single capture" is required. People want to make montage images, so they circumvent the prohibition against them by doing them in camera. The way the rules are written, they are allowed to circumvent both the date and authorship restrictions when they do that. On the other hand, in expert editing the "single capture" rule is eliminated, BUT we are stuck with the date and authorship restrictions as a result.
That's an anomaly, and that's all I'm saying... I don't have a ready answer to this, it's just obviously an anomaly, OK?
Go ahead and admit it, you'll feel better :-)
R. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:51:52 PM · #89 |
so why not promote creativity in basic and advanced rules by requiring exif for any images used in the entry ?
ETA - you'd have to think real hard to pull off that magic carpet shot... no ? :)
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 12:54:16.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:20:10 PM · #90 |
o.k...lets say you're shooting film, you develop these on a slide, you take 2 slides (lets say one of an over exposed face and one of a green grassy field) and sandwich them together in a single mount, and then project it on a screen and take a digital photo of it.
Would it be legal? |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:27:26 PM · #91 |
I can't think of a way to define the "magic middle ground" that we'd all like to see. It's either:
You may use a pre-existing photograph in your composition only if it's obvious from your composition that the photograph is pre-existing.
With that rule  and would be allowed, but  and  not.
Or it could be:
You may use photographs in your composition, as long as you took them yourself within the challenge dates. You may not pass someone else's photo off as your own.
That way would be allowed - more creatively open, but allowing viewers to be "fooled" (which I'm OK with, BTW).
I agree that this rule should not be known as the "Artwork" rule. Photographs of artwork should absolutely be allowed, otherwise photographs like  would be illegal. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:28:45 PM · #92 |
This thing seems to be running astray, LOL. I don't really see much conflict. My thoughts:
- "Artwork" is *any* drawn, painted, printed (or otherwise reproduced) work. It doesn't have to be *art* per se. What we're really talking about is [i][b]using an "image of an image" whether that is the subject or the background, or both.
- They are editing rules, but I don't agree that we can't know what goes on before the shutter button is pressed. How a shot was produced is often apparent from the recorded original photo (where it might not be apparent from the entry due to editing and re-sizing) and where it is not apparent, the SC has the photographer's details, which they must assume to be honest unless they have evidence to the contrary. So the proposed new rule does in fact consider whether the intent of the submitter was to deceive the voter, and thus implicitly does deal with what went on before the button was pressed.
- Robert's assertion that set-up shots using photos as backgrounds are "broadly legal" is relatively true under today's rule, most especially if the rule is read precisely (the "appears to consist entirely" language). Under the proposed rule, there should be far less confusion about how much "background fabrication" is allowed, although there would still be some subjectivity. The only way to eliminate subjectivity is to either allow Any and all artwork, including outright photo-of-a-photo(not something we want) or allow *no* artwork content, which is completely unworkable (would eliminate a positively huge number of entries).
- As a group, we must recognize that no rule will be interpreted exactly the same by everyone under all conditions. While we should strive for objectivity, reducing subjective calls to the minimum, we need to recognize that reducing subjectivity gets exponentially harder as we approach the goal. I do believe the proposed rule, as written, is a significant step forward. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:02:15 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The in-camera merge would still be legal, but the photoshop merge would fall afoul of the rules. |
Again, they're editing rules. Likewise, you could take a multiple exposure even in Minimal Editing by covering your lens with the shutter open, but you can't overlay two dissimilar images in Photoshop even in Advanced (even though the result may be identical). |
Shannon, you're missing my POINT! I'm well aware they are editing rules, sheesh. Do you really not see what I'm getting at?
R. |
I agree with what you're saying. It's silly that the flying carpet photo wouldn't be allowed under expert editing yet would be under the others. That flies in the face of the whole expert editing concept, which was suppose to allow for more creative freedom not less.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:05:17 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Shannon, you're missing my POINT! I'm well aware they are editing rules, sheesh. Do you really not see what I'm getting at?
R. |
I agree with what you're saying. It's silly that the flying carpet photo wouldn't be allowed under expert editing yet would be under the others. That flies in the face of the whole expert editing concept, which was suppose to allow for more creative freedom not less. |
Right. But with the caveat that the flying carpet image actually IS legal under expert editing as shot, it's just that it couldn't have been done by layering in photoshop, because the landscape image was shot prior to the challenge window.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 14:05:58. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:22:44 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Shannon, you're missing my POINT! I'm well aware they are editing rules, sheesh. Do you really not see what I'm getting at?
R. |
I agree with what you're saying. It's silly that the flying carpet photo wouldn't be allowed under expert editing yet would be under the others. That flies in the face of the whole expert editing concept, which was suppose to allow for more creative freedom not less. |
Right. But with the caveat that the flying carpet image actually IS legal under expert editing as shot, it's just that it couldn't have been done by layering in photoshop, because the landscape image was shot prior to the challenge window.
R. |
Right. I should have included the part about it being recreated in photoshop, which in the real world would have been the preferred way of doing it unless you just happen to have the large printout already lying around.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:40:25 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, Shannon: in basic and advanced both, I can use last year's shot of, say, a sunset, and print it out, and photograph an object in front of the print, and (broadly speaking) that's legal. It's an in-camera merge. |
Apparently it's not legal if your added object is SPAM ... |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:48:31 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, Shannon: in basic and advanced both, I can use last year's shot of, say, a sunset, and print it out, and photograph an object in front of the print, and (broadly speaking) that's legal. It's an in-camera merge. |
Apparently it's not legal if your added object is SPAM ... |
Jejejeâ„¢ Yours is why I added the caveat "broadly speaking"...
R. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:49:31 PM · #98 |
What I've noticed since I've been here is the rules have always been far tougher on digital darkroom techniques than in-camera techniques. The artwork rule is just a reflection of this. As Bear pointed out the date rule is another good example, where the rule is more harshly applied to the editing side of things. The fact that you must do your own editing is another requirement that has no equivalence with in-camera technique. There's no requirement that you must light your own studio portrait or that you even have to be the person taking the picture. Sure there are in-camera rules but when compared to editing rules they are night and day. It's like comparing the rules at a country resort to a maximum security prison. Perhaps if there was more representation on the SC that balanced the two aspects of photography this wouldn't be a problem.
[/personal opinion]
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 15:32:40.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 03:43:35 PM · #99 |
|
|
|
07/15/2009 12:57:15 AM · #100 |
Really, Langdon?
Are we REALLY having a challenge topic, using a specfic image as an example of what to do for the topic, when that very same image is in this thread as an "Is this image legal?" image?
Really?
I am having a hard time understanding the logic behind this.
Is SC just BEGGING for more work?
I, for one, will be sending my image in with a ticket before entering. And I have NO idea what my image will be.
Really, Langdon?
REALLY!??
(I've not questioned the topics before, but this one... I'm just shaking my head over this.)
Message edited by author 2009-07-15 00:58:41. |
|
