| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2005 09:49:15 PM · #1 |
Its very dissapointing to see that there is wide acceptance of taking "photos of photos", and the 7.2 nicoblue mentioned in this thread proves that, along with scalvert's Nightbulb, I mean it was pretty obvious (to me at least) that they were photos of a photos.
They simply aren't "just backgrounds" as some have already argued, they are where the main impact of the photo is.
nicoblue also mentioned that he saw people doing it and thought he would do it himself too. If this continues, I'm sure a lot of people will start doing it, and that definitely won't be good.
I have nothing personally against people who do it, I just don't support it, I guess I'm in the minority :-/
Do you support this?
Edit: I'd also like to know the SC's opinion on this, and if they are considering introducing a new rule where we can't take "photos of photos" where the main impact of the photo is.
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 22:02:14. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 09:54:11 PM · #2 |
| I think that if it is a "Major Element" of the photo it should not be allowed. Can someone take a picture, do all they editing they want and then take a picture of it again and submit it in basic editing? How much of the photo must be real? There must be a line somewhere and there may need to be a rules revision. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 09:58:09 PM · #3 |
If the photo is used only as background, then I guess it would be ok (note that even then I am not exactly thrilled about it).
If however, that photo is a major part - or even worse THE SUBJECT - then it is very much a no-no.
Photos of photos can be rather ingenious (e.g. Scalvert's brilliant moon photo), but I agree with you, tyt2000, it would only get worse and worse.
It's easy to edit it like crazy, then take a photo and say you didn't edit the endresult.
Sorry, but to me that is cheating. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:02:04 PM · #4 |
I have been a little uncomfortable with the rules about this. On the surface they seem clear, cogent, and well meaning. And I have little doubt that people who've been at the site for a really long time and have seen what flies and what does not are reasonably comfortable with them. But for myself, I had to learn by creeping up to the boundary and then crossing it and getting DQ'd.
My own completely unofficial take on the rules is that if you use a photo as a background element with real 3 D objects in front of it it usually flies ( not sure why not in the Nico Blue case). Other treatments are deemed 'literal representations' by the SC and DQ'd. Been trying to get clarification on this.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:02:10 PM · #5 |
I dont know whether I would have supported it a year ago or not... but it is something I have learnt while on dpc and have also learnt to accept. I have only used it in one entry duck thread which got dq'ed for this reason though in another context. I think it is worthy to mention that one of the biggest influences on my duck 'photo of a photo' was scalvert's nightbulb.
Back to whether I support it or not... I think that adding more rules and regulations will only lead to more confusion and problems. For example would all pictures be banned? Would only pictures that constitute a 'major element' of a photo be banned? Would only photos on digital media be banned? But would that be unfair?
... I dont know.
I think that pictures at this point fall under the artwork clause in the rules and we should leave it as it is.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:03:09 PM · #6 |
"Artwork: Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."
So it is legal, a picture of just a print-out or screen is not allowed |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:03:24 PM · #7 |
I dont think anything from the internet should be allowed in our photographs. Some of the incredible artwork-photoshopped images on the net will change the photo dramatically, major or minor....if done right of coarse.
So I say none...no matter how big or small.
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 22:04:01. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:05:39 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by tyt2000:
If this continues, I'm sure a lot of people will start doing it, and that definitely won't be good. |
I think "In the beginning..." challenge already has a few entries which use such backgrounds... |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:06:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
I dont think anything from the internet should be allowed in our photographs. Some of the incredible artwork-photoshopped images on the net will change the photo dramatically, major or minor....if done right of coarse.
So I say none...no matter how big or small. |
But what if you print out the picture (even though it came from the internet)? Is it still from the internet?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:08:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by Riggs:
I dont think anything from the internet should be allowed in our photographs. Some of the incredible artwork-photoshopped images on the net will change the photo dramatically, major or minor....if done right of coarse.
So I say none...no matter how big or small. |
But what if you print out the picture (even though it came from the internet)? Is it still from the internet? |
Yeah, I think so.....
Thats just my thoughts. You had a fantastic shot BTW, I just think it was right to DQ it.
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 22:09:01. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:08:24 PM · #11 |
I personally think creativity should be applauded, but not when it becomes a graphic arts challenge.
It's a photography challenge and with the exception of a portrait, backdrops, monitor images and prints/photos shouldn't be in a background.
I just know as soon as I hit enter, there will be an exception.
We shouldn't have to feel like we live in a land of disclaimers, having an English major and legal representation at our fingertips either.
Spell out the rules for a challenge, adhere to it and go click away. If it doesn't meet the challenge, vote it so. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:11:20 PM · #12 |
As a first take on a rule change, what if only our own photos created during the challenge and under current challenge rules could be quoted as 'major elements' including backgrounds. That would be clear, easy to enforce, and not very much more restrictive than are current rules ( if one factors in copyright and fairness issues )
The fairness issue is this: suppose I have a library of 100,000 of my own digital photos and I use them as backgrounds for all my best photos on DPChallenge... you get the picture.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:11:52 PM · #13 |
So then would something like this be "creative representation"?
"Dead Roses" by JPR
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:17:53 PM · #14 |
I'll throw these up for discussion.
 
The old Indian's mascot is in front of my photo of the new stadium.
The flower is looking at a photo that I took earlier in the day.
Both legal."Artwork: Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:25:38 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by letenele:
So then would something like this be "creative representation"?
"Dead Roses" by JPR
|
Yes. He didn't just lay the magazine cover down and take a snap. He selected just a portion and added the rose petals. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:26:23 PM · #16 |
Marjo, I could live with both of those.
First one: the background complements very well, but the figure is the true subject.
Second one: it is made to be obvious that it is a background via computer, you are not trying to make it appear as if it was real. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:26:41 PM · #17 |
So if I take two existing photos and I take a photo of those together, is the voter rating the result of the juxtaposition or rating the original photos? In other words does the act of combining two or more disparate works of art constitute a de facto creative interpretation or does it require 14 experts sitting around a table to make the determination?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:29:37 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
So if I take two existing photos and I take a photo of those together, is the voter rating the result of the juxtaposition or rating the original photos? |
How could you rate only the juxtaposition without rating the originals, too?
They are too big a part of it to ignore, you'd be left with nothing much more than a concept or an action to rate, rather than a photo. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:31:38 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I personally think creativity should be applauded, but not when it becomes a graphic arts challenge.
It's a photography challenge and with the exception of a portrait, backdrops, monitor images and prints/photos shouldn't be in a background.
I just know as soon as I hit enter, there will be an exception.
We shouldn't have to feel like we live in a land of disclaimers, having an English major and legal representation at our fingertips either.
Spell out the rules for a challenge, adhere to it and go click away. If it doesn't meet the challenge, vote it so. |
Amen, while I don't like the idea of this becoming a photoshop challenge, I really draw issue with some of the SC's decision making power. I honestly believe there are elements here which do attempt to increase scores simply by requesting DQs; in fact, I'd bet many do it simply as a sort of sport. I'm really starting to fall under the idea that if it's too photoshopped let the voter decide and score it appropriately. The rules, regs, and their interpretations are really becoming burdensome. Anyway I'm sure some would argue that it already is a photoshop contest with all of the significant editing that occurs in advanced and basic challenges alike. Power to the people; let the people decide. The date is about the only thing that should be checked.
edit: spelling
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 22:33:40.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:33:16 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
I dont know whether I would have supported it a year ago or not... but it is something I have learnt while on dpc and have also learnt to accept. I have only used it in one entry duck thread which got dq'ed for this reason though in another context. I think it is worthy to mention that one of the biggest influences on my duck 'photo of a photo' was scalvert's nightbulb.
|
I wondered about this also, was the picture that scalvert used was his own that he modified or not. I think that might be the biggest question, is the picture being used in the picture your own or found elsewhere?
My daughter's very first entry was DQ'd because she merely took a picture of a chalk drawing she had made herself but it was considered artwork and therefore not eligible.
Deannda
Interesting |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:45:01 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
So if I take two existing photos and I take a photo of those together, is the voter rating the result of the juxtaposition or rating the original photos? |
How could you rate only the juxtaposition without rating the originals, too?
They are too big a part of it to ignore, you'd be left with nothing much more than a concept or an action to rate, rather than a photo. |
Yes. And the way existing rules are interpreted I think this happens all the time. In other words while I agree with your reason, I don't recognize it to be the same reasoning that is used to interpret the rules.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:46:11 PM · #22 |
Deannda, In reference to your comment: My daughter's very first entry was DQ'd because she merely took a picture of a chalk drawing she had made herself but it was considered artwork and therefore not eligible.
If I just took a picture of my photo of the flower on the screen it would be dq'd. That would mean I was reproducing or duplicating artwork (ha ha) exactly as it looked...which is a no-no!
It doesn't matter that it was my photo. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 10:57:44 PM · #23 |
| Deannda, It would have worked if your daughter would have used the self timer and maybe set the artwork on the desk and pretended to be working on it, or even held it in her hands as the proud artist. But just taking a photo of the artwork would get dq'd (and probably sued if it belonged to someone else). |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 11:11:36 PM · #24 |
Looks like I've opened a can of worms, though I'm not exactly sure why. Created backgrounds that form major elements are nothing new. This image dates back to 2002 and, while it's not a monitor background, it certainly could have been- both backgrounds are works of art used as main elements in the final composition.
Like Tim's image, my background is meaningless on its own. Without the lightbulb base, the manipulated moon looks much more like a pear than a lightbulb. Only by photographing the parts together do you create a new composition that tells the story. The impact is derived from the combination, NOT the individual elements, and the actual photography of this setup was fairly difficult.
How about this ribbon winner? It's nothing without the monitor background, yet note how overwhelmingly favorable the post-challenge comments are.
Regarding Nicoblue's duck shot, it was NOT disqualified for being literal arkwork (I think). It was DQ'd because he didn't take a photo of a rubber ducky, as required in that particular challenge. He took a photo of a photo.
I think many people get uptight when the word Photoshop is involved, as if you are somehow editing a photo that hasn't even been taken yet. There are plenty of ways to alter a background or scene that don't involve Photoshop, and whatever you do before you take the picture is a non-issue as far as the rules are concerned. If monitor backgrounds are banned, then illustrated backgrounds (like Tim's) would logically follow as it's the exact same principle. After that, perhaps painted commercial backdrops or juxtapositions over a background billboard should go. Slowly, inexorably, we limit ourselves to snapshots of cats, kids and flowers. ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 10:00:11. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 11:22:52 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
Originally posted by BradP:
I personally think creativity should be applauded, but not when it becomes a graphic arts challenge.
It's a photography challenge and with the exception of a portrait, backdrops, monitor images and prints/photos shouldn't be in a background.
I just know as soon as I hit enter, there will be an exception.
We shouldn't have to feel like we live in a land of disclaimers, having an English major and legal representation at our fingertips either.
Spell out the rules for a challenge, adhere to it and go click away. If it doesn't meet the challenge, vote it so. |
Amen, while I don't like the idea of this becoming a photoshop challenge, I really draw issue with some of the SC's decision making power. I honestly believe there are elements here which do attempt to increase scores simply by requesting DQs; in fact, I'd bet many do it simply as a sort of sport. I'm really starting to fall under the idea that if it's too photoshopped let the voter decide and score it appropriately. The rules, regs, and their interpretations are really becoming burdensome. Anyway I'm sure some would argue that it already is a photoshop contest with all of the significant editing that occurs in advanced and basic challenges alike. Power to the people; let the people decide. The date is about the only thing that should be checked.
edit: spelling |
If we follow that path this site will become just another photo contest site, losing it's unique appeal and it's educational value. Power to the people is a catchy slogan but the people need to be educated about the mission of the site.
|
|
