| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/25/2014 10:40:59 AM · #51 |
just to play devils advocate here, it's pretty easy to see both sides: using a print-out that you would not normally be able to get away with under advanced editing, or that you didn't shoot on your own in the timeframe (or at all) is definitely a strong consideration for the SC; and even with changes made if someone bypasses what is allowed (intentionally or not) and it gets caught by the SC and dq'd after rewording the rule then all hell will break loose with the gates being stormed in a member-exodus-threat.
On the other hand, if the person does shoot something and edits it legally for the challenge, prints it and uses it as a prop, is it truly any different then going to the store and buying a physical thing to use?
with a modified example in recent collective memory: if art had bought some gears as a prop, painted his head black with make-up and used spirit gum to stick them to his head; or if he had used a picture of the gears - but had taken the image himself and printed it - it still gets to the same place.
One is illegal and the other is not, and that is how i see most of these arguments from the member side.
So, no matter what happens there is bound to be someone who will have a problem now or down the road, and there will be people pushing the boundaries in whatever way they feel they can push (to express their creativity) - that is the nature of many people, and that is an inescapable truth of humanity.
I am going to stop there, i have reread this and edited a few things out, i feel this should be clear enough to highlight considerations on both sides of the fuzzy line. i truly would be happy to see progress, but not for the sake of saying progress was made, but because a better understanding has occured; yet if that is not going to happen, then the existing rule has been in place for a long time and people will continue to find new ways to push that creative envelope or work on the revisionary wording, and that is perfectly fine by me, so long as it doesn't turn into trench warfare. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 11:26:10 AM · #52 |
| You may not: fool voters into voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 11:33:06 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
just to play devils advocate here, it's pretty easy to see both sides: using a print-out that you would not normally be able to get away with under advanced editing, or that you didn't shoot on your own in the timeframe (or at all) is definitely a strong consideration for the SC; and even with changes made if someone bypasses what is allowed (intentionally or not) and it gets caught by the SC and dq'd after rewording the rule then all hell will break loose with the gates being stormed in a member-exodus-threat.
On the other hand, if the person does shoot something and edits it legally for the challenge, prints it and uses it as a prop, is it truly any different then going to the store and buying a physical thing to use?
with a modified example in recent collective memory: if art had bought some gears as a prop, painted his head black with make-up and used spirit gum to stick them to his head; or if he had used a picture of the gears - but had taken the image himself and printed it - it still gets to the same place.
One is illegal and the other is not, and that is how i see most of these arguments from the member side.
So, no matter what happens there is bound to be someone who will have a problem now or down the road, and there will be people pushing the boundaries in whatever way they feel they can push (to express their creativity) - that is the nature of many people, and that is an inescapable truth of humanity.
I am going to stop there, i have reread this and edited a few things out, i feel this should be clear enough to highlight considerations on both sides of the fuzzy line. i truly would be happy to see progress, but not for the sake of saying progress was made, but because a better understanding has occured; yet if that is not going to happen, then the existing rule has been in place for a long time and people will continue to find new ways to push that creative envelope or work on the revisionary wording, and that is perfectly fine by me, so long as it doesn't turn into trench warfare. |
Would you agree,  RyanW, that we need to define the boundaries so that they can be readily understood?
Message edited by author 2014-07-25 11:34:06. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 11:46:23 AM · #54 |
that's the thing with me, i don't think i'd ever try to push that boundry myself, so as a member wanting this worded for my own artistic entries, it doesn't matter; however i do think there is some ground that can be ceded on each side to come to a mutually agreed upon solution.
if i can go out and buy a prop, use it and have it not get me dq'd, i don't see why i can't print out something at home to do the same thing.
that said, i don't expect that i can go buy a framed picture, set it up on my wall, and take a picture of it to enter as a challenge entry; nor do i think i can print out a picture at home to do the same thing; but for the sake of the gears on the head example, i could buy gears and set it up on my head, the same as i can print a picture out and tape that up there; however in the printing the picture, i do think that it should be an image i took within the confines of the challenge, in-so-far as the image being printed will have some relation to the context of the challenge.
with gears, i can take a picture of the gears, edit and upload on it's own, or i can print it out and tape it to my head. it's still my image, i'm using it to create a scene in which it is given context outside of "a few spiky wheels that spin around and make each other move". i'm not taking credit for something that another person shot and/or edited, and i'm still in control of the final scene and the way they are depicted, as such i do think that should qualify if i can provide proof to the SC that I took the picture of the aforementioned gears within the specified dates, as well as editing on them - the same as if i used them as a component of an expert editing image. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 11:58:35 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
if i can go out and buy a prop, use it and have it not get me dq'd, i don't see why i can't print out something at home to do the same thing... i do think that should qualify if i can provide proof to the SC that I took the picture of the aforementioned gears within the specified dates, as well as editing on them - the same as if i used them as a component of an expert editing image. |
That's exactly why we HAVE Expert. The complication in other rulesets is that this technique allows you to use different lighting and camera settings or extensively Photoshop the "prop" beforehand and essentially combine frames from different scenes, so it's quite different from using a real object. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 12:16:10 PM · #56 |
Not disputing that at all, and there are more expert challenges in the past year then ever before.
I was asked for an opinion and I provided mine. It may not be the solution to the problem, some may not see a problem, and others may have more extreme views than me, I like to think im pretty level headed, and nothing I say here should be taken as anything but the words I use; I am not upset or angry over any of it, and I wont be offended by an opposing point.
I truly feel bad for the sc members in being in this situation, I don't see a happy ending for all parties coming from this - someone isnt going to like how this ends, or possibly the process in which and end was decided upon.
----------
One thing on re-reading, you said they could photoshop the hell out of it, but what I said in my statement was that they edit the image under the same constraints as the ruleset - it could be entered on its own and be legit, that is different from editing the hell out of it before printing it as a prop.
Message edited by author 2014-07-25 12:19:35. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 12:23:02 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
You may not: fool voters into voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
oh, sweet, I like it! |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 12:51:21 PM · #58 |
I'm just pointing out the holes since the SC has already spent months having this conversation.
Originally posted by RyanW:
I said in my statement was that they edit the image under the same constraints as the ruleset... |
Combining two frames of different scenes is itself an illegal edit. This means either amending the rules to allow combining different scenes or a major loophole for dodging that guideline. Moreover, even if the edits are legal for each source image, prints could be used at a different scale for a result that goes beyond even illegal multiple exposures. If this sort of thing is OK, then why not just allow it in Photoshop? That's why we have Expert Editing. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 01:19:59 PM · #59 |
| I keep telling yo guys to just make all challenges expert editing. You dont want to listen. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 01:22:34 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Mike:
I keep telling yo guys to just make all challenges expert editing. You dont want to listen. |
Correct. If we become another Worth1000, then we're each only worth 500. Everybody loses. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 01:37:46 PM · #61 |
call me crazy, but the wording is not the important thing here, the important thing is the "legislative history"- the reason why the rule is in effect.
That is what we need to hammer out.
So, we want to prevent someone using a whole photo taken out of the challenge dates? ...and prohibit someone from expert editing a photo, and then entering it by taking a picture of it?
We can do that and even agree on that-
If I take a picture of a picture of a black wall, photoshop it to be really black, and then cut out a strip, and place it over my eyes in a photo, is that illegal?
Are we really trying to prevent this? Is it really the same as "expert editing" to add, say, flaming wings? The challenge could be "censorship" but it has nothing to do with judging another photo or artwork. The truth is that 95 % of these insertions would be allowed. the paperclip on the eyeball, we need to lighten up.
I don't agree that there are "better ways" to fool the viewer. as long as there is no blatant picture of a picture, let the viewer be fooled a bit.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2014 01:59:04 PM · #62 |
For me, there is a difference between a photo of a photo (the view from Bear's living room) and a photo of a drawing (the inner workings of Art's brain). Seems to me most of the concerns arise from the former, not the latter. I think most of the voters are savvy enough to recognize a drawing, oil painting, graffiti whatever for what it is. So how about we start by making that legal:
You may: ... include original artwork, other than a photograph, in your entry, whether created by you or someone else, and regardless of when it was created.
But wait, you say, what if you trotted down to the museum last week, took a picture of a de Zurbaran still life, desaturated it, and entered it and won a blue ribbon in Black & White still life? I'm OK with that, and lucky for you to live near such a nice museum. Seems to me the challenges in which you could actually pull something like that off are few and far between, and I am much more worried about dampening creativity of the type Art used in his shot. So, on balance, perfection being unattainable, I say do away with the artwork rule for everthing except photographs.
As far as photos go, that will take more discussion as the issues are multi-layered. My two cents is that photography has been used to fool folks since it was invented, and good for you if you can pull that off. So, for me, something like this would be ok
You may not ... include a photograph in your entry in any form, whether printed or digitally displayed, unless your title includes the following at the end: (Includes Another Photo) |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 02:01:58 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
If I take a picture of a picture of a black wall, photoshop it to be really black, and then cut out a strip, and place it over my eyes in a photo, is that illegal? |
A pointless risk when you could just use a strip of black paper.
Originally posted by blindjustice:
the paperclip on the eyeball, we need to lighten up. |
Not sure what you mean here. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 02:35:47 PM · #64 |
I think Art's DQ is unmitigated BS. Shame on every council member that voted DQ.
The intention of the rule was never to be this heavy-handed against creativity. Especially when you put it up against some of the monstrosities you see in the digital artwork rule challenges.
Bleh. Good luck ever getting Scalvert to admit wrong-doing though.
A pox on everyone that thinks Art's entry should remain DQ'd |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 07:15:27 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm just pointing out the holes since the SC has already spent months having this conversation.
|
Without singling you out specifically,  scalvert, and assuredly suggesting that this applies to everyone, please note the introduction to this discussion pleads for constructive consensus as follows:
"Obviously, a fair number of participants feel the rule is ambiguous. With that in mind, and understanding that there have been many tries to reword the rule to make it more transparent to the user, let's try again. (emphasis mine)
Let's try to resolve the ambiguity.
 Bear_Music has suggested we try our hands at fixing the language of this rule. And perhaps others on Site Council will chime in with their thoughts and language.
Let's keep it constructive. If responders agree with proposed wording good, but if we disagree say why and perhaps tell how to effect more easy-to-understand wording."
It may once have seemed unsolvable. However, I and most of those responding to this thread believe this problem can be resolved. With all the brainpower we have on this site we can do it. Already there have been some good suggestions. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 07:24:41 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
It may once have seemed unsolvable. However, I and most of those responding to this thread believe this problem can be resolved. With all the brainpower we have on this site we can do it. Already there have been some good suggestions. |
The problem ay be unsolvable because it is an issue of interpretation and intent -- with reference to Art's recent DQ any disagreement was over whether or not the image broke the rule as worded -- just a difference of opinion.
In virtually every previous forum discussion over a DQ there have been both defenders and detractors of the decision. When the issue is "how much impact" an element has on the finished piece I'm pretty sure you will get a range of opinions, and I don't think you will be able to find a truly objective definition with which everyone can agree ... |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 07:32:20 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by sfalice:
It may once have seemed unsolvable. However, I and most of those responding to this thread believe this problem can be resolved. With all the brainpower we have on this site we can do it. Already there have been some good suggestions. |
The problem ay be unsolvable because it is an issue of interpretation and intent -- with reference to Art's recent DQ any disagreement was over whether or not the image broke the rule as worded -- just a difference of opinion.
In virtually every previous forum discussion over a DQ there have been both defenders and detractors of the decision. When the issue is "how much impact" an element has on the finished piece I'm pretty sure you will get a range of opinions, and I don't think you will be able to find a truly objective definition with which everyone can agree ... |
Okay - and then I'll step back - how do we redefine the 'issue' so that it is not divisive? For example: Is this an 'issue' that is a 'must' in the Artwork Rule.
Why?
Be creative here, people. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 08:09:26 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Okay - and then I'll step back - how do we redefine the 'issue' so that it is not divisive? For example: Is this an 'issue' that is a 'must' in the Artwork Rule.
Why?
Be creative here, people. |
I think the real problem is lack of communication! We still have not got a defined term of artwork! And what is allowed and what isn’t. Shannon gave us a good flow chart on his voting of artwork but is this the benchmark SC works from? And if it is….. why for goodness sake was it never made public?
Are we allowed to photograph print outs ? Yes/no, are screen shots allowed? Yes/no, are drawing allowed? Yes/no. I suggest we draw a line in the sand on these issues and go from there.
My preference would be yes for all of the above only in expert editing and no for all other rule sets.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2014 08:51:21 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Stagolee:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Okay - and then I'll step back - how do we redefine the 'issue' so that it is not divisive? For example: Is this an 'issue' that is a 'must' in the Artwork Rule.
Why?
Be creative here, people. |
I think the real problem is lack of communication! We still have not got a defined term of artwork! And what is allowed and what isn’t. Shannon gave us a good flow chart on his voting of artwork but is this the benchmark SC works from? And if it is….. why for goodness sake was it never made public?
Are we allowed to photograph print outs ? Yes/no, are screen shots allowed? Yes/no, are drawing allowed? Yes/no. I suggest we draw a line in the sand on these issues and go from there.
My preference would be yes for all of the above only in expert editing and no for all other rule sets. |
NOW you're talking! Whether yes or no on specific points, these can be debated and decided on.
Perhaps SCalvert will reproduce that flowchart, as I cannot find it in this thread, although I certainly remember seeing it a while back. Then we can look at it, point by point, one more time. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 09:02:44 PM · #70 |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 09:16:35 PM · #71 |
Hmmm...
Do I think that ANY viewer or voter who saw Ken's image thought that they were ACTUALLY seeing inside Ken's head? No.
Do I think that Ken meant to fool us all into thinking that there actually IS something inside of his head? No.
Do I think that there's anything inside Ken's head? I refuse to answer since I love him to pieces (and gears).
Do I think the SC had the right to DQ the image? Emphatically yes!
Do I think the SC should have DQ'd the image? Nope. Not at all, because...
It's clear that there was some artwork involved... Nothing (artwork included) was there that anyone didn't know about when they voted.
*Spoiler Alert!* Ken actually does NOT have gears inside his head. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 09:19:51 PM · #72 |
The story goes that the day after St. Louis pitcher "Dizzy" Dean took a line drive off his cranium, the local paper ran a headline reading XRAY OF DEAN"S HEAD SHOWS NOTHING ...
Message edited by author 2014-07-25 21:20:11. |
|
|
|
07/25/2014 09:23:46 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The story goes that the day after St. Louis pitcher "Dizzy" Dean took a line drive off his cranium, the local paper ran a headline reading XRAY OF DEAN"S HEAD SHOWS NOTHING ... |
Ha! BUT... did you actually EX RAY Ken's head?!? LOL @ your response!!
|
|
|
|
07/25/2014 09:53:26 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
that's the thing with me, i don't think i'd ever try to push that boundry myself, so as a member wanting this worded for my own artistic entries, it doesn't matter; however i do think there is some ground that can be ceded on each side to come to a mutually agreed upon solution.
if i can go out and buy a prop, use it and have it not get me dq'd, i don't see why i can't print out something at home to do the same thing.
that said, i don't expect that i can go buy a framed picture, set it up on my wall, and take a picture of it to enter as a challenge entry; nor do i think i can print out a picture at home to do the same thing; but for the sake of the gears on the head example, i could buy gears and set it up on my head, the same as i can print a picture out and tape that up there; however in the printing the picture, i do think that it should be an image i took within the confines of the challenge, in-so-far as the image being printed will have some relation to the context of the challenge.
with gears, i can take a picture of the gears, edit and upload on it's own, or i can print it out and tape it to my head. it's still my image, i'm using it to create a scene in which it is given context outside of "a few spiky wheels that spin around and make each other move". i'm not taking credit for something that another person shot and/or edited, and i'm still in control of the final scene and the way they are depicted, as such i do think that should qualify if i can provide proof to the SC that I took the picture of the aforementioned gears within the specified dates, as well as editing on them - the same as if i used them as a component of an expert editing image. |
YES!! He could have bought gears years ago... glued them together... (creating his own "artwork") and put them up against his head. Would that have been okay? Even though it was still "artwork" and not actually part of his alleged "brain"?
(Forgive me, Ken.)
|
|
|
|
07/25/2014 10:14:48 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
...Okay - and then I'll step back - how do we redefine the 'issue' so that it is not divisive? For example: Is this an 'issue' that is a 'must' in the Artwork Rule. |
I thought this part at least would do that, but the post above seems to have got lost amid all the finger pointing
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
. . . So how about we start by making that legal:
You may: ... include original artwork, other than a photograph, in your entry, whether created by you or someone else, and regardless of when it was created. |
More reasoning in the prior post, no need to repeat here |
|
