| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2010 12:45:58 PM · #26 |
Before this discussion, I'd not considered this new image to be even possibly valid for a DQ. But, then again, I'd not considered my "Feast" entry brought up again as comparision (I don't mind at all) as valid for DQ.
What does bother me about this discussion is that in the Feast entry, Shannon basically said that if the feast part of the feast had been real and the wine glass the photo being photographed, then it would have been legal. But that I used prior artwork to make it fit the challenge topic.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Does it not bother you at all that she essentially placed a glass in front of a photo of a feast and ribboned in Feast? Is that really where you want to see DPC go? If the artwork is just a background and voters are primarily judging the foreground as the main subject, then it's only a supporting element. |
and
Originally posted by scalvert:
The challenge was Feast. The feast was a photo, with a glass placed in front of it. |
In the new image:
The challenge was Out of the Ordinary. The Out of the Ordinary part is a photo, with a person placed behind it.
I'm sorry to call Shannon out specifically on this one, but I can see no other way to say that in this current image in Out of the Ordinary, the unordinary part is what the image is about AND IT'S PRIOR ARTWORK (not live at the time of the shoot).
According to Shannon's verdict on Feast, if the challenge topic had been Wine, my feast image would have been legal since the wine glass was 'live' at the time of the shot and the non-focal point was prior artwork. But, since the challenge topic was Feast and the feast part was 'prior artwork', that's what it was DQd about. The part that people were voting on the image to make it fit the challenge was a photo.
Same goes for this incredibly imaginative and very well carried out image:
Do I want this image to be DQ'd? Nope. But, if it's not, I want my ribbon back on Feast. *grin*
eta:clarity
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 13:03:05. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 12:49:43 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
The problem I see is that with any artwork added to an image there is no way to validate whether the steps taken to create that artwork are legal or not. I agree with Robert though. If its evident that the artwork was added in order to circumvent editing rules it should be DQ'd. |
I am NOT saying it should be DQ'd. That clause is no longer part of the rules. The image is legal as the rules are currently written.
My point is, I think it's a logical inconsistency in the rules; we basically say "you're not allowed to do "x" to an image in advanced editing", and the validation of this image is telling us "if you want to do "x" to an image in advanced editing, just print the image out then hold it up and take a picture of yourself holding it up, THAT's fine!"
And, personally, I think that's kind of ridiculous. But I wouldn't make a federal case of it, I'm just bringing it up to see what people think. And I DEFINITELY don't think the photographer did anything wrong, he followed the rules as written....
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 12:50:00 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is interesting. The former Advanced Ruleset, if I'm not mistaken, included wording that artwork is allowable as long as it was not (among other things) an attempt to circumvent the editing rules. No trace of that wording remains in the rule as written. So we come up with things I consider "legal anomalies", like this image.
What we have here is an image that is "illegally edited" and then used as the focal point of a larger image. Without this image in it, the picture is basically nothing, in terms of the challenge topic. That topic is "Out of the Ordinary", and the only thing out of the ordinary in this image is the eyeball showing through the fingers, and that was only allowable BECAUSE the picture-within-a-picture is not required to follow the editing rules :-(
In the meanwhile the current rules say "Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
Think about that for a minute. everything after "but" is modifying everything BEFORE "but", so the issue of "judging a photo within a photo" is apparently only relevant IF the photo within the photo could be mistaken for a "real object" in the scene, which this can't be because we can see the border of it and the slight misalignment of the arms. So what we have here, based on Alan's statement that the image was unanimously validated, is case where the photographer is presenting to us a multi-image composite (which would be illegal if it were entered on its own except in expert editing) and he is doing it in such a way as to circumvent the editing rules, and we are judging the image based on this composite (it's the only thing out of place, that eyeball-in-the-fingers) and this is apparently OK.
Now I don't "blame" the photographer (it's within the rules as currently written, and it's an excellent image to boot), but it seems to me this is sort of a glaring hole where, if people want to do photoshop trickery that would otherwise be illegal, all they have to do is make a printout and hold it up for the camera... If I haven't got that right, someone please tell me where I'm missing the point...
R. |
AGREE 100%... Thanks you for this post. You put it into words that everyone should understand and hopefully SC will look at narrowing this loop-hole.
I also want to state I don't blame the photographer. It is a good photograph and the rules as stated doesn't seem to have been broken. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 12:52:21 PM · #29 |
With the "artwork" rule, everytime we "narrow a loophole" another one seems to open up. :/
It's the aggravatingest thing. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 12:53:32 PM · #30 |
| So for the landscape challenge, I could use a picture of this beautiful landscape that I already have, set it up outside so there is a tree on each side or something like that and it would be legal? |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 12:55:29 PM · #31 |
WTG Lydia! That's exactly what was troubling me and started my post: the artwork itself is the only unusual part of the image. Crop it out so the image is ONLY the artwork and it would be just as relevant to the challenge topic. But illegal. Illegal either way: illegal because it's all artwork, or illegal because of the editing.
I think this is a huge loophole in this rule as it stands. Poor karma, I agree with her wholeheartedly :-(
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 12:56:10 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by karmat:
With the "artwork" rule, everytime we "narrow a loophole" another one seems to open up. :/
It's the aggravatingest thing. |
I understand that and I know a SC members responsibilities are not easy. I bet all of you want to pull your hair out all the time :P
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 13:01:57. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 12:58:28 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by SDW:
I bet all of you want to pull your hair out all :P |
Some of them have no hair left... :-)
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:01:12 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is interesting. ....
Now I don't "blame" the photographer (it's within the rules as currently written, and it's an excellent image to boot), but it seems to me this is sort of a glaring hole where, if people want to do photoshop trickery that would otherwise be illegal, all they have to do is make a printout and hold it up for the camera... If I haven't got that right, someone please tell me where I'm missing the point...
R. |
Yes, Robert, it IS interesting... Don't think even Solomon, in his alleged wisdom, could make it through this one: what is the difference between photoshopped photographs and any other artwork as elements in a photo? |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:04:35 PM · #35 |
After reading  Bear_Music's and  LydiaToo's responses I can't see how anyone can justify the fact that one photo was DQ'ed and another was not. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:09:07 PM · #36 |
| Bear_Music and LydiaToo, both of you should start a blog or thread dedicated to understand rules. You both do a great job of analyzing the rules (the good and bad) and what can or should be done about certain rules that may need to be revisited and possibly amended or updated. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:11:09 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
if the challenge topic had been Wine, my feast image would have been legal since the wine glass was 'live' at the time of the shot and the non-focal point was prior artwork. But, since the challenge topic was Feast and the feast part was 'prior artwork', that's what it was DQd about. |
You're still missing the point completely, which is utterly incredible after all this time. From the rules: You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.
In phlover's case, the image is clearly recognizable as artwork. As if the eye through the hand wasn't obvious enough, you can clearly see the edges of the photo and that they don't line up exactly with the arms. Obvious artwork is specifically allowed per the first sentence of the rule, and because it's obviously artwork, the image would not be mistaken as real objects so the rest of the rule does not apply. In your case, there is absolutely nothing to tip the viewer off that any part of the image is artwork, so the second part of the rule applies and the artwork WAS so prominent that the voters were primarily judging the existing artwork as a live photo.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 13:12:12. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:18:39 PM · #38 |
| I'm with Karen on this one. I thought the eye through the hand was achieved with a double exposure, which is why I gave it a high score. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:24:16 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're still missing the point completely, which is utterly incredible after all this time. |
Yup. I'm an imbecile.
Carry on... |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:33:47 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm with Karen on this one. I thought the eye through the hand was achieved with a double exposure, which is why I gave it a high score. |
Yes, but some people keep telling us that it is obviously a photo of a photo and therefore it's not tricking anyone......well I must be an imbecile too, because I didn't know if it was a photo of a photo or a double exposure. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:35:12 PM · #41 |
I actually thought it was a photo of a photo.
And yet, I wasn't smart enough to figure out that I'm an imbecile until Shannon pointed it out to me.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:43:51 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're still missing the point completely, which is utterly incredible after all this time. |
I suppose people will continue to 'miss the point' until the point becomes crystal clear.
The fact that these threads continue would suggest that the time has not yet arrived.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:48:32 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
I suppose people will continue to 'miss the point' until the point becomes crystal clear.
The fact that these threads continue would suggest that the time has not yet arrived. |
You have made it your mission to complain about this rule every time it has been brought up in discussion, and we have asked you for your solution to make it better, to which you have had no answer. When you are ready to make it crystal clear, we are here with open ears. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:53:24 PM · #44 |
I think it's obvious this thread has clearly explained the need to add this section of the previous rules back into the current rules.
"in order to circumvent date or editing rules" |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 01:59:35 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
I think it's obvious this thread has clearly explained the need to add this section of the previous rules back into the current rules.
"in order to circumvent date or editing rules" |
Makes sense to me.
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:04:08 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sfalice:
I suppose people will continue to 'miss the point' until the point becomes crystal clear.
The fact that these threads continue would suggest that the time has not yet arrived. |
You have made it your mission to complain about this rule every time it has been brought up in discussion, and we have asked you for your solution to make it better, to which you have had no answer. When you are ready to make it crystal clear, we are here with open
ears. |
This is completely uncalled for! What is this, bash-the-members day for SC? First Shannon belittles Lydia and now you are putting down Alice?
It is NOT a requirement for complaining that one have a solution in hand. Never has been, never will be. That's the job of the people who (supposedly) are in a position of power BECAUSE they are good at stuff like this. Alice is just noting, like I was, that the rule seems out of whack as written, and that maybe Lydia is missing the point because the point isn't obvious.
Why does that deserve an attack?
R.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 14:04:30. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:09:05 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sfalice:
I suppose people will continue to 'miss the point' until the point becomes crystal clear.
The fact that these threads continue would suggest that the time has not yet arrived. |
You have made it your mission to complain about this rule every time it has been brought up in discussion, and we have asked you for your solution to make it better, to which you have had no answer. When you are ready to make it crystal clear, we are here with open ears. |
Alanfreed, in all my discussions with Site Council and with other members of DPC I have always tried as carefully as I can to be polite and respectful. I never expected the reply you made above.
To answer your odd observation, please refer to [url=thread :]This thread. [/url]
Specifically:
07/12/2009 09:33:01 PM â€Â˘ #102
Scalvert has presented a rule change for discussion that reads:
"You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
GeneralE presents a rule change as follows:
You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph
Scalvert's wording still requires subjective decisions.
GeneralE's wording does not.
Although I would go even further and spell it out thusly:
“Existing artwork may be included as long as your submission does not consist entirely of pre-existing artwork.”
I don’t think there is any wiggle-room in that. Do you?
and another from that thread:
07/12/2009 10:06:49 PM â€Â˘ #93
There are people on this site who will run out to the end of the smallest branch and jump up and down to see if it will hold. If it does, they win. If it doesn’t, they pick themselves up off the ground and find another branch to tromp on.
There are other people who read the rules carefully and interpret the rules to the best of their ability. They don’t want to make a mistake; take a fall. They want to understand the rules without trial and error.
I personally don’t care what this or any other rule specifies; I do care enormously that all participants can understand the rule and abide by it without guesswork.
I'm not sure Scalvert's presentation fits this description. I do however, appreciate the time he and others have taken to formulate the wording. It's a tough one.
Edited to add that the bolded quotes above are mine.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 14:46:10.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:16:47 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Alice is just noting, like I was, that the rule seems out of whack as written |
How so? You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. The SC unanimously understood the misaligned paper edges to be a printed photo held in front of the model, so it was clearly recognizable as existing artwork (at least to us), and legal per the rule. Lydia's was NOT clearly recognizable as existing artwork, so that one was subject to an additional condition: Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo. Since the entire scene aside from an empty foreground wine glass was artwork, we felt that the voters WERE basically judging a photo of a photo, and that's a DQ. So how is this out of whack? |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:22:35 PM · #49 |
| I didn't vote in that challenge but for what it's worth I thought the eye was real, as seen through a cutout or some such. Only through reading this thread do I see it was a photoshop job, which if used in the actual capture would have been illegal. Great idea and well executed, but clearly obvious why this would lead to a discussion. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:23:07 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Alice is just noting, like I was, that the rule seems out of whack as written |
How so? You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. The SC unanimously understood the misaligned paper edges to be a printed photo held in front of the model, so it was clearly recognizable as existing artwork (at least to us), and legal per the rule. Lydia's was NOT clearly recognizable as existing artwork, so that one was subject to an additional condition: Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo. Since the entire scene aside from an empty foreground wine glass was artwork, we felt that the voters WERE basically judging a photo of a photo, and that's a DQ. So how is this out of whack? |
You're kind of missing the point some of us are trying to make: in my case, that the current image clearly IS legal as the rules are written but it leads to an inconsistency where you can basically edit an image any which way you want then hold it up and photograph yourself holding it and it becomes legal, even if the original editing was not; in Alice's case, that clearly there is enough confusion about what the rule is meant to do that people are misunderstanding it, so it's not as clear as you are claiming it is. Put the two together, and we have problems. None of which are solved by belittling the people who don't understand, I might add.
R. |
|
