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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> Hot II Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 77, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/14/2010 11:21:11 PM · #26
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The rule is there to prevent people from 'fooling' voters. Which is another discussion in and of itself.

I'm surprised at your reaction on this. The rule is intended to prevent people from circumventing the date, editing, authorship and single image rules. Without it, people would be free to edit however they like using legacy images or employ multi-image composites. Originally, artwork was fair game as long as something real was included in the composition, but the rule was modified to allow obvious artwork (illustrations, etc.) and also prevent photo-realistic artwork from doing the "heavy lifting" of the entry (compelling the voters to unwittingly rate a photo of a photo). Why would you be opposed to this?
 02/14/2010 11:25:20 PM · #27
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The rule is there to prevent people from 'fooling' voters. Which is another discussion in and of itself.

I'm surprised at your reaction on this. The rule is intended to prevent people from circumventing the date, editing, authorship and single image rules. Without it, people would be free to edit however they like using legacy images or employ multi-image composites. Originally, artwork was fair game as long as something real was included in the composition, but the rule was modified to allow obvious artwork (illustrations, etc.) and also prevent photo-realistic artwork from doing the "heavy lifting" of the entry (compelling the voters to unwittingly rate a photo of a photo). Why would you be opposed to this?


I'm opposed to the application of it in relation to such images as was disqualified recently, which I know you know. Yes, I'm opposed to the final description you use. I honestly don't care if photo-realistic artwork is doing the 'heavy lifting' of the entry. I honestly don't. I, personally, applaud the creativity.
 02/14/2010 11:26:56 PM · #28
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

a photo of a photo is NOT combining two photos in the spirit of that rule.

How is this NOT combining multiple photos? The glass was added to an existing image just as surely as if you had pasted it in Photoshop.
 02/14/2010 11:42:33 PM · #29
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'm opposed to the application of it in relation to such images as was disqualified recently, which I know you know.

Um, no... or I wouldn't have asked the question. I obviously applaud the creativity, too (given my history on this particular issue). However, is it really fair to voters and competing photographers to be wowed by a photographer's great lighting, exposure, DOF or amazing capture when it's an existing image? For example, capturing a sharp image of a hummingbird is tough, but to get a perfect composition in front of n eagle about the snatch the bird out of midair would be virtually impossible. Should we be equally impressed by the feat if the eagle was actually an existing National Geographic image placed behind the feeder? Would the current blue ribbon be the same to you if it was just a ring placed on a monitor?
 02/14/2010 11:52:42 PM · #30
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'm opposed to the application of it in relation to such images as was disqualified recently, which I know you know.

Um, no... or I wouldn't have asked the question. I obviously applaud the creativity, too (given my history on this particular issue). However, is it really fair to voters and competing photographers to be wowed by a photographer's great lighting, exposure, DOF or amazing capture when it's an existing image? For example, capturing a sharp image of a hummingbird is tough, but to get a perfect composition in front of n eagle about the snatch the bird out of midair would be virtually impossible. Should we be equally impressed by the feat if the eagle was actually an existing National Geographic image placed behind the feeder? Would the current blue ribbon be the same to you if it was just a ring placed on a monitor?


Is it really fair for a photographer to be beat out by a million little things that photographers get beat out by on a weekly basis here? Yes. It's just as fair as a person living by the seaside has the advantage in a Free Study over someone living in Kansas. The onus is on the photographers to be creative enough to wow their audience.

I'll say this for the final time, knowing that it'll never be changed, because too many people are too worried about 'being fooled' to have it so, I don't care how the photographer achieved the image (outside of putting objects in after the photo was taken). It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Period.
 02/15/2010 12:03:07 AM · #31
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

a photo of a photo is NOT combining two photos in the spirit of that rule.

How is this NOT combining multiple photos? The glass was added to an existing image just as surely as if you had pasted it in Photoshop.


Not at all. It's a photo of a glass in front of a photo of a family.

COMPLETELY different from a photoshop hack.
 02/15/2010 12:11:36 AM · #32
I too, don't mind being fooled(at least in this context). I have more appreciation for the technical prowess required to use actual fire instead of a picture of fire, but I don't resent the fact that Raj's photo fooled me. Big Deal.

An eagle about to snatch a hummingbird from mid air? haha. I think we'd have seen more entries from Shannon if the interpretation of this rule hadn't changed... Which is one reason why I don't like the strict application.

as a side note-- in the lighting photo shannon linked to in one of his earlier posts, is there anything there besides a picture of a computer screen?
 02/15/2010 12:15:24 AM · #33
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I don't care how the photographer achieved the image (outside of putting objects in after the photo was taken).

A fork and pepper was put in after the photo was taken. ;-)
 02/15/2010 12:15:50 AM · #34
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
It's a photo of a glass in front of a photo of a family.

COMPLETELY different from a photoshop hack.

Wrong on both counts.
 02/15/2010 12:17:21 AM · #35
Originally posted by mpeters:
in the lighting photo shannon linked to in one of his earlier posts, is there anything there besides a picture of a computer screen?

Yep, there's a hand in the bottom left corner. This was one of the photos that prompted the rule changeĂ¢€” the hand was real, but it was only there as an excuse to enter the background photo. That's what the voters were reacting to.
 02/15/2010 12:39:07 AM · #36
rules are rules, i think its a shame i was never fooled by it, what i do think was in poor taste was saying the fire picture was "swiped" from google images, conjures up a not so nice connotation
 02/15/2010 12:41:06 AM · #37
Originally posted by smardaz:
what i do think was in poor taste was saying the fire picture was "swiped" from google images, conjures up a not so nice connotation

What word would you use?
 02/15/2010 12:52:04 AM · #38
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by smardaz:
what i do think was in poor taste was saying the fire picture was "swiped" from google images, conjures up a not so nice connotation

What word would you use?


oh gosh i dont know, how about "the picture that was used as a background"
 02/15/2010 12:56:31 AM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I don't care how the photographer achieved the image (outside of putting objects in after the photo was taken).

A fork and pepper was put in after the photo was taken. ;-)


Don't be so intentionally obtuse.

You know. As long as you're on Site Council on this site, I think I'll never really feel comfortable here.
 02/15/2010 01:27:13 AM · #40
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You know. As long as you're on Site Council on this site, I think I'll never really feel comfortable here.

!!! You would be one of my recommendations. I wasn't being obtuse, I was messing with ya, knucklehead.
 02/15/2010 01:42:17 AM · #41
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
You know. As long as you're on Site Council on this site, I think I'll never really feel comfortable here.

!!! You would be one of my recommendations. I wasn't being obtuse, I was messing with ya, knucklehead.


You can mess with ME, but think of the DPC masses my boy. They aren't so smrt.

(Now I'm really in trouble.)
 02/15/2010 01:54:00 AM · #42
Before submitting this image, I was reading through the administrative announcements and other threads about using a photo or an art-piece. I considered that this does not violate the challenge rules, because I was trying to depict the pepper and fork as main subject and the fire as background only. In the process of analyzing that, I missed a bigger point and forgot the fact that I am using an image, which is not mine. All that I had in my mind was to use a background to suit my subject and nothing else. BIG blunder.

I am not replying in this thread to justify about the shot, because it is already my mistake that I had used an image from the web. I am here to only clarify that it was purely unintentional. Again, I am not trying to safely say that it is only a result of my ignorance. When I participate in a contest, it is my responsibility to be informed about the right and wrong - ignorance also is not acceptable. Reading the discussion here, I completely understand how it would have been, if I see my image as a background on someone else's photograph.

I think this explanation would invite some more discussion in this thread, but I thought I should explain. It's my mistake and I am learning from it now.
 02/15/2010 04:14:52 AM · #43
Originally posted by sekarmalathy:
Before submitting this image, I was reading through the administrative announcements and other threads about using a photo or an art-piece. I considered that this does not violate the challenge rules, because I was trying to depict the pepper and fork as main subject and the fire as background only. In the process of analyzing that, I missed a bigger point and forgot the fact that I am using an image, which is not mine. All that I had in my mind was to use a background to suit my subject and nothing else. BIG blunder.

I am not replying in this thread to justify about the shot, because it is already my mistake that I had used an image from the web. I am here to only clarify that it was purely unintentional. Again, I am not trying to safely say that it is only a result of my ignorance. When I participate in a contest, it is my responsibility to be informed about the right and wrong - ignorance also is not acceptable. Reading the discussion here, I completely understand how it would have been, if I see my image as a background on someone else's photograph.

I think this explanation would invite some more discussion in this thread, but I thought I should explain. It's my mistake and I am learning from it now.


What a lovely, humble response! We all make mistakes, and it's great to see that you have taken the DQ so positively.
 02/15/2010 04:44:09 AM · #44
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by vawendy:
agreed. There difficulty of taking a picture of something in front of a print out is nothing compared to the difficulty of photographing something in front of a real flame. Absolutely would have changed my vote significantly had I known.


The reactions like this confuse and sadden me, really. Difficulty. Please. It's results that matter to me, not 'how they got there'.


It's that photography 101 mindset that plagues this site. We are too concern with the basics of photography that we forget what the point is of using the camera. There's absolutely no reason to use a real flame for that stock shot. As far as difficulty is concern does anybody really think sekarmalathy is incapable of exposing for real flame? Unless you're stuck with a mattel barbie camera it's not difficult at all.

Message edited by author 2010-02-15 04:46:35.
 02/15/2010 07:19:12 AM · #45
Originally posted by smardaz:
what i do think was in poor taste was saying the fire picture was "swiped" from google images, conjures up a not so nice connotation

Originally posted by scalvert:
What word would you use?

Originally posted by smardaz:
oh gosh i dont know, how about "the picture that was used as a background"

Would you still use that same word had the image been yours?

Considering the absolute slavering, rabid reactions that occur when an image from here shows up somewhere else, I can't believe that anyone here would have the gall to do the same thing.

You'd really have to have been living under a rock to *not* know that this is prolly one of the most unequivocal no-nos of DPC.
 02/15/2010 07:41:29 AM · #46
Originally posted by albc28:
...we all know that combining two photos is against the rule and this is just a cheat around that rule.

Well said!
02/15/2010 11:01:51 AM · #47
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I'll say this for the final time, knowing that it'll never be changed, because too many people are too worried about 'being fooled' to have it so, I don't care how the photographer achieved the image (outside of putting objects in after the photo was taken). It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Period.


Agree. 100%.

Aside: I never understood the "being fooled" logical fallacy line of reasoning.
 02/15/2010 11:19:19 AM · #48
I wish statues where under the Art work rule too
 02/15/2010 11:34:54 AM · #49
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by vawendy:
agreed. There difficulty of taking a picture of something in front of a print out is nothing compared to the difficulty of photographing something in front of a real flame. Absolutely would have changed my vote significantly had I known.


The reactions like this confuse and sadden me, really. Difficulty. Please. It's results that matter to me, not 'how they got there'.


It's that photography 101 mindset that plagues this site. We are too concern with the basics of photography that we forget what the point is of using the camera. There's absolutely no reason to use a real flame for that stock shot. As far as difficulty is concern does anybody really think sekarmalathy is incapable of exposing for real flame? Unless you're stuck with a mattel barbie camera it's not difficult at all.


I'm sorry you're saddened. I think a photo should be real. I could get some really spectacular shots of my silhouette looking at northern lights in Iceland if I just get a backdrop of northern lights in Iceland. The ends do not justify the means, imo. And for those of us without full home studios, yes, that shot would have been very difficult using a real flame.
02/15/2010 12:13:24 PM · #50
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by smardaz:
what i do think was in poor taste was saying the fire picture was "swiped" from google images, conjures up a not so nice connotation

Originally posted by scalvert:
What word would you use?

Originally posted by smardaz:
oh gosh i dont know, how about "the picture that was used as a background"

Would you still use that same word had the image been yours?

Considering the absolute slavering, rabid reactions that occur when an image from here shows up somewhere else, I can't believe that anyone here would have the gall to do the same thing.

You'd really have to have been living under a rock to *not* know that this is prolly one of the most unequivocal no-nos of DPC.


i'm saying from a standpoint of pointing out rules when you use terms like that it becomes more of an editorial than a statement of what the rules are. All that needs be said is that it cant be the major portion of the image. There is no need to call him a thief which is the image conjured when you use that term. Its like a newscaster offering their opinion on a story, they shouldnt do that, they should just report the news and let the viewer decide.
And quite honestly, given my skill set i would most likely be flattered if anyone felt one of my images was worth "swiping"
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 08:07:21 PM

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: 08/02/2025 08:07:21 PM EDT.