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

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> existing artwork question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/27/2012 10:07:30 AM · #1
I notice that this photo was dq'd , despite the nuances of photographing the screen, and details regarding more than simple post processing.

I also noticed that this shot, was not dq'd, despite that fact that it consists entirely of an existing artwork(and a great idea and execution btw).

Now, I understand it's not a hard and fast rule, but the difference, as far as I can tell, is that the lighting, exposure and shadows make it legal?
(and if you read the description, it actually says that the papers used are different colors, light and dark, so its a situation where lighting actually wasn't that important.) To me, it can't be a defense that it was "created for this challenge."

I would like to hear what people have to say, especially as to why the latter is not simply a work of art, in its entirety, photographed. And how would that be different than painting an oil painting, with impasto technique, and shining dramatic spotlighting on the painting, yet only the painting in the frame?
12/27/2012 10:23:11 AM · #2
Gyaban work wasn't circumventing any rules.

The first one was created on a screen and then photographed, as an effort to bypass the adding text rule.
12/27/2012 10:24:38 AM · #3
In Gyaban's case the existing artwork (created by him) is a sculpture; it's 3-dimensional. He then lit the sculpture and photographed it. We've always been allowed to enter photos of sculptures and other 3-dimensional works, such as architecture.
12/27/2012 10:25:01 AM · #4
I think the first one may have been DQ'd becuase of the text that was added??

and Christophe's is obviously artwork

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.

Now if it was a picture of...well, "a picture", I think that is where the line is drawn.

12/27/2012 10:26:55 AM · #5
So if he printed it out then took a shot of it would that be OK?

Message edited by author 2012-12-27 10:27:06.
12/27/2012 10:30:43 AM · #6
well whenever you compose a shot even if its a work of art in its own right your actually still taking a new composition that while not a candid shot is much like any other photograph that is conceived and pre-composed... this is just how i interpret it and if not post processed then it meets the criteria based on editing rules...

when it comes to the photoshop challenge(sorry the expert editing challenge) i think sometimes they just make it up as they go along as to whether you've stuck to the challenge rules or not lolal but seriously

looking at all the above the text rule is the big problem here... so there you go!

Message edited by author 2012-12-27 10:34:12.
12/27/2012 10:32:26 AM · #7
Originally posted by nygold:

So if he printed it out then took a shot of it would that be OK?


Nope - if he printed it, then took a photo of the print, it wold circumvent. Maybe if he crumpled it up, lit it well, and made the print an art object it could pass. At least that's how I see it.
12/27/2012 10:54:05 AM · #8
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

Originally posted by nygold:

So if he printed it out then took a shot of it would that be OK?


Nope - if he printed it, then took a photo of the print, it wold circumvent. Maybe if he crumpled it up, lit it well, and made the print an art object it could pass. At least that's how I see it.


I've seen a few shots that had signs and things that were printed out and used in the shot. I thought that was OK.
12/27/2012 10:56:56 AM · #9
Originally posted by nygold:


I've seen a few shots that had signs and things that were printed out and used in the shot. I thought that was OK.

As long as they're not the WHOLE shot...
12/27/2012 10:58:48 AM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by nygold:


I've seen a few shots that had signs and things that were printed out and used in the shot. I thought that was OK.

As long as they're not the WHOLE shot...


Thanks Bear.
12/27/2012 11:01:37 AM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In Gyaban's case the existing artwork (created by him) is a sculpture; it's 3-dimensional. He then lit the sculpture and photographed it. We've always been allowed to enter photos of sculptures and other 3-dimensional works, such as architecture.


I wasn't trying to imply it should be dq'd, just trying to figure it out for myself.

So the fact its 3D, and the lighting of the artwork/sculpture/architecture are important parts?
12/27/2012 11:08:41 AM · #12
i will pose one thing on the photographing of a 3d artwork on a computer screen... and that is you then have two-three sources of light the artificial light source in the 3D image created by the computer and rendered by its engine to give accuracy based on the parameters of the artist...

then you have a second source of light from the monitor itself in displaying the image, then you may have a third light source that may come from another well....light source in the room if not pitch black and the frame rate and resfresh rate doesnt get caught on camera when you take the photo... so are we seeing a composite, a faked photo, or are we seeing something that is trying to fool people into thinking that the image only has one light source? these can be questions you might want to ask on those types of works? because that will be an issue, as far as i can tell.... ;O)

Message edited by author 2012-12-27 11:09:13.
12/27/2012 11:34:22 AM · #13
"Existing art" doesn't mean recognizable art. Christophe created his replica from scratch. I recreated the Mona Lisa. While both the original photo of Einstein and the Mona Lisa painting are "existing" works of art, recreating them is a different thing. The rule is meant to address a situation where someone takes a picture of a billboard, or poster or some other printed matter, and uses it either in its entirety, or as a major portion of, their entry.
12/27/2012 12:08:04 PM · #14
Lets face it--most photography is replicating existing art. The beautiful sunset is God's art, the beautiful model is also his (along with the makeup artist). The great setups we see here are existing art. The rule of existing art applies to two dimensional existing art. Three dimensional existing art is excluded. The rules should state this. It would make the rule clear and easy to apply.
12/27/2012 12:19:20 PM · #15
Originally posted by GAP2012:



then you have a second source of light from the monitor itself in displaying the image, then you may have a third light source that may come from another well....light source in the room if not pitch black and the frame rate and resfresh rate doesn't get caught on camera when you take the photo... so are we seeing a composite, a faked photo, or are we seeing something that is trying to fool people into thinking that the image only has one light source? these can be questions you might want to ask on those types of works? because that will be an issue, as far as i can tell.... ;O)


some DQ'd examples to clarify:



took a photo of a poster and applied a tilt shift effect.



used another image as a background.



using an image taken earlier to circumvent replacing a background.

the rules are much stricter than they used to be:

- 2002

- 2005

Message edited by author 2012-12-27 12:20:29.
12/27/2012 12:48:17 PM · #16
not DQed

12/27/2012 01:44:43 PM · #17
Originally posted by blindjustice:

I notice that this photo was dq'd , despite the nuances of photographing the screen, and details regarding more than simple post processing.

I also noticed that this shot, was not dq'd, despite that fact that it consists entirely of an existing artwork(and a great idea and execution btw).

Both images are non-photorealistic, so they are "clearly recognizable as existing artwork," however the one that was DQ'd was photographed entirely off a monitor screen. If it had been an actual strip of film, that would have been OK, but this was a photo of a photo of artwork, and you can't enter a straight photo of a photo in a photography contest. A cropped, non-obvious photo of a monitor image has NEVER been allowed under any DPC rules.

Message edited by author 2012-12-27 13:46:14.
12/27/2012 02:04:07 PM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:

A cropped, non-obvious photo of a monitor image has NEVER been allowed under any DPC rules.


doesn't yours fall into this category?
12/27/2012 02:06:23 PM · #19
Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by scalvert:

A cropped, non-obvious photo of a monitor image has NEVER been allowed under any DPC rules.


doesn't yours fall into this category?

I've never entered a straight monitor image.
12/27/2012 02:10:28 PM · #20
i see what you are saying now.

just curious if the recent DQ had been a shot composed entirely if film as you say, that would be legal? not trying to be difficult, im just trying to understand the line. how would that be different? in both cases arent they shooting existing artwork and passing it on as your own?

12/27/2012 02:24:31 PM · #21
Originally posted by mike_311:

just curious if the recent DQ had been a shot composed entirely if film as you say, that would be legal?

Yes, "you may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry." An entry may consist entirely of a non-photorealistic illustration, sculpture or even a screen shot IF part of the monitor or obvious pixels are clearly visible. The voters understand that they're judging a photo of artwork and can score as they see fit. You can't, however, enter a straight photo of a photo under any circumstances. Even though they're both artwork, there's no way for voters to know they're judging a PHOTO OF a photo of artwork rather than a capture of the artwork itself. To allow that would literally mean throwing all the rules out the window since you could take an image from any date and edit it without restriction and then take a shot of your monitor.
12/27/2012 02:26:21 PM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by nygold:


I've seen a few shots that had signs and things that were printed out and used in the shot. I thought that was OK.

As long as they're not the WHOLE shot...


that reminded me of a challenge suggestion which never got off the ground.
Thanks :)

Message edited by author 2012-12-27 14:26:36.
12/27/2012 02:27:21 PM · #23
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mike_311:

just curious if the recent DQ had been a shot composed entirely if film as you say, that would be legal?

Yes, "you may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry." An entry may consist entirely of a non-photorealistic illustration, sculpture or even a screen shot IF part of the monitor or obvious pixels are clearly visible. The voters understand that they're judging a photo of artwork and can score as they see fit. You can't, however, enter a straight photo of a photo under any circumstances. Even though they're both artwork, there's no way for voters to know they're judging a PHOTO OF a photo of artwork rather than a capture of the artwork itself. To allow that would literally mean throwing all the rules out the window since you could take an image from any date and edit it without restriction and then take a shot of your monitor.


ok, i see, becuase one can see it would have been a piece of film.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:49:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:49:05 AM EDT.