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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> "Wheels" challenge results recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 156, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/19/2014 01:19:10 AM · #26
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

If Art had gone to a tattoo parlour and had those wheels tattooed on his head would that be legal?

As a "real object" in the scene, I'd say yes (personal opinion). The intent is not to exclude found environmental images, but to limit passing off other photographers' work as an implied capture or using prints and monitor images as a way of circumventing date or editing rules.

Message edited by author 2014-07-19 01:22:14.
07/19/2014 02:28:18 AM · #27
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

If Art had gone to a tattoo parlour and had those wheels tattooed on his head would that be legal?

As a "real object" in the scene, I'd say yes (personal opinion). The intent is not to exclude found environmental images, but to limit passing off other photographers' work as an implied capture or using prints and monitor images as a way of circumventing date or editing rules.

a continuation question then: It would be legal if Art would have drawn the wheels himself (because the artwork would have been Art's work, and the reason to do it would not be to circumvent the date or editing rules), correct?
07/19/2014 02:41:05 AM · #28
Originally posted by mitalapo:

It would be legal if Art would have drawn the wheels himself (because the artwork would have been Art's work, and the reason to do it would not be to circumvent the date or editing rules), correct?

As noted earlier, the author doesn't matter. Something that looks like an illustration would be exempt as obvious artwork (the voters understand what they're looking at), while photorealistic artwork "must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
07/19/2014 07:55:50 AM · #29
Damn. I thought it was real....
07/19/2014 08:27:30 AM · #30
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mitalapo:

It would be legal if Art would have drawn the wheels himself (because the artwork would have been Art's work, and the reason to do it would not be to circumvent the date or editing rules), correct?

As noted earlier, the author doesn't matter. Something that looks like an illustration would be exempt as obvious artwork (the voters understand what they're looking at), while photorealistic artwork "must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."


So even if Ken would have taken the picture of the wheels himself, printed it and stuck it on his head...he would have been Dq-d although he had the prove that he actually shot the wheels?
07/19/2014 09:03:00 AM · #31
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mitalapo:

It would be legal if Art would have drawn the wheels himself (because the artwork would have been Art's work, and the reason to do it would not be to circumvent the date or editing rules), correct?

As noted earlier, the author doesn't matter. Something that looks like an illustration would be exempt as obvious artwork (the voters understand what they're looking at), while photorealistic artwork "must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."


So even if Ken would have taken the picture of the wheels himself, printed it and stuck it on his head...he would have been Dq-d although he had the prove that he actually shot the wheels?

Or if he had shaved his head and had an artist draw the wheels and cogs directly on his skin? Still a DQ? And where does this lead for images of tattoos?
07/19/2014 09:05:37 AM · #32
Originally posted by Nadine_Vb:

So even if Ken would have taken the picture of the wheels himself, printed it and stuck it on his head...he would have been Dq-d although he had the prove that he actually shot the wheels?

Correct. The intent is not to exclude found environmental images, but to limit passing off other photographers' work as an implied capture *OR* using prints and monitor images as a way of circumventing date or editing rules. The rules wouldn't allow you to combine separate shots of the head and wheels in Photoshop outside of Expert Editing, so why would doing the same thing with artwork be acceptable? Likewise, you couldn't take a shot of a terrific wheels photo from 2008 on your monitor to get around the date requirement even if the old artwork was your own.

Message edited by author 2014-07-19 09:12:27.
07/19/2014 09:06:21 AM · #33
Originally posted by pamb:

Or if he had shaved his head and had an artist draw the wheels and cogs directly on his skin? Still a DQ? And where does this lead for images of tattoos?

I already answered the tattoo question several posts back.
07/19/2014 01:36:01 PM · #34
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

If Art had gone to a tattoo parlour and had those wheels tattooed on his head would that be legal?

As a "real object" in the scene, I'd say yes (personal opinion). The intent is not to exclude found environmental images, but to limit passing off other photographers' work as an implied capture or using prints and monitor images as a way of circumventing date or editing rules.


Thanks for the explanation this gives me more insight into my dq which I hold no bitterness over just want to clarify to prevent this happening again.

This is how I fell afoul of the editing rules with my reaper shot! Under expert editing. Which incidentally was a drawing not a picture as mentioned in the DQ notes.

Ironically the image of the reaper was from a tattoo a friend has…..I tried to meet him and photograph his tattoo but distance prevented this so he sent me a copy of the original drawing used by the tattooist. Looks like if I did photograph the tattoo it would still be illegal.
I thought with the changes I had made to the original image and using it in a low transparency layer it would be legal…..silly me!

So other than finding myself a real-life reaper or having a model dress-up as a reaper how else can I take a photograph of the mythical reaper to be added to another image under expert editing? Can I use a toy, stature or sculpture? Of course these are other peoples artwork created before the challenge date or is the term “artwork” only relevant to photos, drawings and tattoos?

I think if I traced the original drawing and created my own drawing and then photograph it I would be legal by the artwork rule…..is this correct?

Originally posted by scalvert:

*OR* using prints and monitor images as a way of circumventing date or editing rules


Under expert editing it states no text can be added but site council has in the past recommended and condones the use of text in expert editing via using monitor shots! Isn’t this just another method of circumventing the editing rule that no text to be added?
07/19/2014 02:30:21 PM · #35
but if he had a tricky lens cap and million dollar light set up, and did a gimmicky double exposure, we would slap him on the back for circumventing the editing rules in a "legitimate" way?
07/19/2014 02:37:19 PM · #36
Lucky that graphicfunk doesn't participate anymore.
07/19/2014 02:49:10 PM · #37
Originally posted by blindjustice:

but if he had a tricky lens cap and million dollar light set up, and did a gimmicky double exposure, we would slap him on the back for circumventing the editing rules in a "legitimate" way?

What rule does a multiple exposure of real objects achieved in a single frame circumvent?
07/19/2014 03:15:00 PM · #38
Originally posted by Stagolee:

I think if I traced the original drawing and created my own drawing and then photograph it I would be legal by the artwork rule…..is this correct?
It simply has to be legal - there are tons of photos here that feature drawings.

Art's DQ doesn't make much sense to me. If we argue that he is circumventing dates by including a drawing, what about all the other myriad entries that use or even hinge on drawings. If we argue that wheels were the topic and wheels were depicted in the drawing - I would stress that despite the title of the challenge, his image was the illustration of a concept, first and foremost. The focus was on the metaphor, not the picture of wheels. Think about it, he could have simply shown a picture of his head, and given his title, you would have understood the point. And what if instead of wheels, he displayed his drawing of a brain. Is it still a dq?

Taping a picture of something, to something, was a classic DPC workaround for the non-expert editing challenges. Now it's like a picture of a bird that just flew out the window.

07/19/2014 03:28:01 PM · #39

everything that Skewsme says.

Gimmicky double exposure circumvents the editing rules,albeit in an analog way, whether it is legal or not.
07/19/2014 03:53:50 PM · #40
If someone took a photo of a head and pasted a Google image of gears over it in Photoshop to win an Advanced Editing challenge, there would be pitchforks, torches and possibly Godzilla in the forums screaming for a DQ. Do the exact same thing with a print, however, and it's OK? I don't think so, and it's no more acceptable if the pasted photo is your own. That's why we have Expert Editing. "Taping a picture of something, to something, was a classic DPC workaround for the non-expert editing challenges." Yes, it was... a legal workaround for the creation of otherwise-illegal composites that drew considerable ire as a gaping loophole in the rules. Trust me on that one.

A "gimmicky double exposure" achieved by manipulating light during the capture of a single frame is NOT editing. It's a difficult and purely photographic use of the camera with a long history from the early days of film. Lucky that graphicfunk doesn't participate anymore.

Message edited by author 2014-07-19 16:00:40.
07/19/2014 04:19:07 PM · #41
I understand the DQ if you use another photographers image, to lets say glue gears to your head, but it would be just as illegal if the gears were your image, taken that week? That puzzles me. As I understood it the rule about using existing artwork was to avoid tricking the viewer into believing that what was a photograph was a real thing that occurred during the challenge week, But with work like Art's, are we to DQ it because the viewers were likely to think that the photo he pasted on his head was really a set of gears he had installed in his skull? I'm not sure many people who voted on it had the wool pulled over their eyes.
07/19/2014 05:25:14 PM · #42
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

As I understood it the rule about using existing artwork was to avoid tricking the viewer into believing that what was a photograph was a real thing that occurred during the challenge week... I'm not sure many people who voted on it had the wool pulled over their eyes.

The requirement that your entry be composed of photos taken during the submission period (even in Expert) is a separate rule. The point here is to avoid "images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene," and at least one commenter apparently thought it was a real tattoo in the scene. A similar effect could have been achieved with a mirror, trick exposure, or even a section of gears, too. When you're dealing with non-obvious photorealistic artwork, you have be be careful that a photo of a photo is not the main impact of the entry.
07/19/2014 06:41:04 PM · #43
let me just ask one more nuanced questioned about this...

if Art had just hand drawn some gears and pasted those to his head, as opposed to using a photorealistic print... i.e., it was absolutely clear the gears are not real, they may even look cartoonish... would that have been legal?

-m
07/19/2014 06:48:57 PM · #44
Originally posted by mefnj:

if Art had just hand drawn some gears and pasted those to his head, as opposed to using a photorealistic print... i.e., it was absolutely clear the gears are not real, they may even look cartoonish... would that have been legal?

Originally posted by Da Rulez:

You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry.
07/19/2014 07:10:57 PM · #45
The DQ surprises me. I know there are no gears inside Art's head. Jeez. He has green cheese inside his head, just like everybody else. So I knew it was an artwork of some kind. For me, it wasn't circumventing anything. And the method Art used also has a long photographic history.
07/19/2014 10:51:03 PM · #46
Originally posted by scalvert:

with a long history from the early days of film


Don't bother with historical arguments. Besides the fact that history upholds every sort of trickery, DPC has no interest in history.
07/19/2014 11:28:13 PM · #47
Originally posted by scalvert:

If someone took a photo of a head and pasted a Google image of gears over it in Photoshop to win an Advanced Editing challenge, there would be pitchforks, torches and possibly Godzilla in the forums screaming for a DQ. Do the exact same thing with a print, however, and it's OK? I don't think so, and it's no more acceptable if the pasted photo is your own. That's why we have Expert Editing. "Taping a picture of something, to something, was a classic DPC workaround for the non-expert editing challenges." Yes, it was... a legal workaround for the creation of otherwise-illegal composites that drew considerable ire as a gaping loophole in the rules. Trust me on that one.

If it's actually a rule change, could it have been changed first vs. blindsiding an innocent entrant? And so what if a commenter thought it was a tattoo. That means they understood it was artwork. They didn't assume it was a cranial fistula.
07/19/2014 11:55:16 PM · #48
What about photo realistic Hollywood makeup like used in the movies? And then a fancy set of say, an alien invasion? Is that not fooling the viewer with someone else's artwork? Or the set of a play?
07/20/2014 12:18:57 AM · #49
In 2010 this was DQ'd:

In 2008, this one was:

Notice that the 2010 DQ was under the current ruleset, and the 2008 DQ under the previous artwork rule. There's a certain consistency here, anyway... This is a very difficult area to draw a line in. But the fact is, Art entered somebody else's picture of wheels in a wheels challenge, and people were presumably judging the submission at least to a significant degree based on the fact that those wheels were very cool and it was a wheels challenge, and doesn't it just feel... wrong... to you?

Granted, the rule's so muddy it can be interpreted in different ways, according to your personal bent, but there IS precedent for this DQ and it's hard for me to understand what the fuss is about. Art's been a Mensch about it and acknowledged he knew he was pushing the edge. Shannon's been upfront about explaining, as best possible, why we ruled the way we did. I think all of us would agree to "artwork rule" is far from optimum, and it's been reworked a couple times in the nearly 10 years I've been here.

I have a suggestion: someone, start a thread with a constructive suggestion for a NEW artwork rule that we can slip in that will leave us free to do creative stuff but still require photographers to actually photograph the meaningful, challenge-relevant parts of their entries, OK? Then we can all hash it out with no holds barred.

07/20/2014 12:51:40 AM · #50
If I shoot the back of a girl with tattoos all over her back. Is it considered someone else's artwork?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:46:30 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: 03/29/2024 07:46:30 AM EDT.