| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2019 09:40:30 PM · #26 |
So, as I understand it, Bear... If I had not done as well at my post processing then the image would be legal?
If it were clearly not an actual rat, but a photo of one that takes up less than a quarter of the whole image?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2019 09:41:32 PM · #27 |
It's the finished product that SC is objecting to? Not the original?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2019 10:50:24 PM · #28 |
What part of this is not clear?
"Photo-realistic artwork such as printed photos, monitor images or realistic illustrations must either be clearly presented as artwork or used only as a minor supporting element. Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification."
|
|
|
|
09/05/2019 11:51:08 PM · #29 |
It's easy to cross this line. I was sure that people would realize that I didn't actually get a group of young ladies to pose holding 15 pounds of ground meat on sticks, but I was (apparently) wrong ...
  |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 01:53:37 AM · #30 |
A couple of things:
First, we're sorry about the DQ. We hate giving them out more than you hate receiving them.
I want to address the "percentage " of the image issue. It isn't how much of the image the art occupies, as in an image of a couple hugging in front of a giant photo poster, the poster would clearly be identified as existing art. It's when the impact of the image depends on artwork that can't be identified as such, it becomes a problem.
In both your planet and chicken images, both artworks were very obviously art. But your rat photo was very well and cleverly processed to look "real". So yes, you processed the artwork "too well", and it became "deceptively " real. Had you used a fake rubber rat, this thread would not exist. |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 02:05:53 AM · #31 |
If that rat looks real, explain what's going on with its front legs. I think both the chicken and the rat look similarly believable with a quick glance, and less so with longer study. Do not understand why these two entries were treated differently. :P
Message edited by author 2019-09-06 02:06:29. |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 03:08:43 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
If that rat looks real, explain what's going on with its front legs. I think both the chicken and the rat look similarly believable with a quick glance, and less so with longer study. Do not understand why these two entries were treated differently. :P |
The rat looks a bit more real than the chicken, IMO. Yes, it is a gray area (what is believable to one may not be believable to another), but the line between permissible and non-permissible ought to lie in there somewhere, so two similarly constructed entries may end up on different sides of that line. Deal with it. The obvious way to avoid the chance of DQ is not to thread dangerously close to this line.
Message edited by author 2019-09-06 10:51:28. |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 03:45:52 AM · #33 |
I remember feeling that there was something 'wrong' with the rat in the scene (subtle lighting anomaly) but I voted this as one of my picks for a 'ribbon' - My comment "love it.. should be up there in the top IMO"
I might have even up-voted had I taken more time to consider how it was created. DPC to me is at it's best when photographers go the extra mile to find innovating ways to create an image. Anyone remember the masterpieces posted by graphicfunk ? - 
If it makes any difference I would be happy to have this image re-instated and relinquish my HM.
Chris
Message edited by author 2019-09-06 03:52:45. |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 06:31:52 AM · #34 |
| I say reinstate Lydia’s entry and tighten up the rules for the future if need be to clarify intentions. This is obviously a grey area. |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 06:39:34 AM · #35 |
Not that I have a horse in this race, but I do think it's funny that I found the rat instantly obvious, and think the chicken is very realistic. LOL.
Also, I recall once causing a bit of a stir by photographing an image on my monitor that was illuminating a sheet of scratched up dirty mylar ..
Wonder if that would still pass muster today?
Message edited by author 2019-09-06 06:39:53. |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 08:26:08 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by GolferDDS:
I say reinstate Lydia’s entry and tighten up the rules for the future if need be to clarify intentions. This is obviously a grey area. |
Again, what part of this is NOT clear?
"Photo-realistic artwork such as printed photos, monitor images or realistic illustrations must either be clearly presented as artwork or used only as a minor supporting element. Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification."
|
|
|
|
09/06/2019 09:09:19 AM · #37 |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 10:36:54 AM · #38 |
| Seriously, we need art and his Pitchfork roasting popcorn! (Or something like that) :) |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 01:25:15 PM · #39 |
| I thought Rattie looked very benign; only long after did it occur to me that he was prolly not "real." Couldn't get too worked about it. The chicken in the pot, however, was impudently "unreal," contributing enormously to its charm. As for rules, I think they are there so we can keep our bearings, not to get us too cut up about it. Thread lightly indeed as Lev said. |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 02:11:28 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Even if she HAD shot the rat herself, inserting a print of it into the scene in such a way that we couldn't tell it was artwork would not be legal. |
Why would she want to do that if she shot the poor rat herself? |
|
|
|
09/06/2019 06:24:04 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Again, what part of this is NOT clear?
"... Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification." |
That is quite clear, actually.
What's NOT clear is that I used "photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects that provided the primary impact" of THREE entries (the world, the chicken, and the dancers) and none of those were disqualified.
In fact, TWO were validated by the Site Council. (The third didn't score well enough to be asked for validation.)
Those validations made it clear that using a photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects that provide the primary impact in a scene is legal.
Now I used photo-realistic artwork a fourth time to simulate a physical object that provided the primary impact of my rat image and it was disqualified.
That is what is not clear.
I talked to my attorney about this today (not kidding!) and was told that I am correct. Site Council has set a precedent by validating the others, and my rat entry should be validated as the others were. The rules can change AFTER that, or they can be made "unprecendented" with an announcement for the future.
(Does it matter that my attorney is my lawyer daughter who was just calling to chat with her mom on her way home from work today?) *grin*
But, she did give me sound legal advice. And I didn't even have to pay her (or even feed her)!!
:D
|
|
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: 04/18/2024 01:55:05 AM EDT.
