| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 12:17:28 PM · #151 |
A tacky one. Personally I do not see a rule being broken here. Perhaps too creative for the unwary, but within the rules.
Consider the following: you shoot a saxophone in its entirety. You then search for a tiny area that has an abstraction look. You find a small area, blow it up and use it.
Now, it can be argued that the final image contains no saxophone. The final image has no resemblance to the original unless you do a pixel search. It can be argued that you removed the saxophone!
There is a big hole in this logic and it should be reconsidered because there are many more pitfuls ahead. There is no rule against cropping out major elements when we are discarding real estate to concentrate on our image and believe me some originals have little resemblance to the original when a selection is made. This is like shooting a portrait and then using only the retina of the eye and pushing the colors to hide its identity (abstract). The final here has no resemblance to the original. Yet this should be legal.
There is so much confusion because we are now considering degrees to everything. Best to make the rules and then let the voters accept reject the end result provided it meets the rules. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:18:10 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by ursula:
It seems to me that some images are entered with the sole purpose of ridiculing Site Council. It's presented as pushing the rules to the limits, but I think it's more an attempt to show that SC either doesn't really know the rules, or doesn't know how to apply them.
OK, fine, you guys want to ridicule SC, go for it. But you're not learning about photography, or making art in the process. You're just making fun of someone else. Yipee! I do not have much respect for that. |
I believe that most DPC members have a lot of respect for the SC and their onerous tasks. I find it hard to believe that anyone would attempt to ridicule the SC. Disagreement with an SC decision is not ridicule. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:20:33 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Beetle, Spaz wasn't "pushing the rules to their limits", he took a highly original approach that would appear to many of us be viable within the exisiting rules and was VERY challenge-specific; the challenge was "abstraction" and he used NOTHING but the resize function, twice, to make a pure abstraction of his original shot.
R. |
He could have arrived at the same abstract image - colored squares - in photographic ways (as opposed to PP ways) too.
Then he would have had an actual PHOTOGRAPH - something identical to, or at least closely resembling, the thing that his camera produces for him - PHOTOGRAPHS !
We don't allow scanned crayon drawings or paintings on here, either. Yes, they are all images, but they are NOT photos!
This site is not about ANY sort of image, it is all about PHOTOS! |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:25:41 PM · #154 |
Here's what my 2841 x 1831 to 24 blob looks like...
It used to look like this...
Wonder if I can convert the blob back? ;^)
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 12:27:16.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:27:44 PM · #155 |
Three years ago exactly the following image was entered in "Squares" challenge, and Spaz has cited it as his inspiration:
At that time, the image was recommended for DQ and it passed muster with SC. It was created by precisely the technique Spaz used. So here's an example of something that was done and validated and lives as an approved image in the challenge database, and then someone else comes along and does it and gets DQ'd. It boggles the mind, since the actual technique used to accomplish it is not exceptionable.
I am entirely sympathetic to the members' desire to see this site remain a bastion of "true" photography, but surely the way to accomplish this is by the voting, not by creating a steadily-increasing set of legalistic definitions of what is and what is not "photography"?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:31:09 PM · #156 |
I'm gonna throw my voice out there as well that this photo was both within the rules and respectful of them as well.
I do not believe that this picture was taken in this fashion for any reason other than the specific challenge.
In any other challenge, I'd say sure, cry foul, but this was suited for this challenge quite adequately. Might be a really fun thing to try with a morphing program too for a Montage intro.
As far as this being about PHOTOGRAPHS or not, I've got to say that actually this picture was a good demonstration of the medium.
You see, DPChallenge is not Photography Challenge.com, it's DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY Challenge.com. Is there a difference? Yeah, a big one.
Having seen the original, it should be obvious that we are talking about a PHOTOGRAPH. Having seen the finished product, we can clearly see that it is DIGITAL. This is a true digital PHOTOGRAPH indeed.
I say this because of the method used to make the image.
What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger... OK, with a few major exceptions but you get the idea. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:31:37 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Three years ago exactly the following image was entered in "Squares" challenge, and Spaz has cited it as his inspiration: |
Hmmm - precedent. Does the SC take prior precedent into consideration - this looks like a clear example of confirmation that this technique is SC approved. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:32:29 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I am entirely sympathetic to the members' desire to see this site remain a bastion of "true" photography, but surely the way to accomplish this is by the voting, not by creating a steadily-increasing set of legalistic definitions of what is and what is not "photography"?
R. |
I agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:34:17 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Beetle, Spaz wasn't "pushing the rules to their limits", he took a highly original approach that would appear to many of us be viable within the exisiting rules and was VERY challenge-specific; the challenge was "abstraction" and he used NOTHING but the resize function, twice, to make a pure abstraction of his original shot.
R. |
He could have arrived at the same abstract image - colored squares - in photographic ways (as opposed to PP ways) too.
Then he would have had an actual PHOTOGRAPH - something identical to, or at least closely resembling, the thing that his camera produces for him - PHOTOGRAPHS !
We don't allow scanned crayon drawings or paintings on here, either. Yes, they are all images, but they are NOT photos!
This site is not about ANY sort of image, it is all about PHOTOS! |
Yes, sure, I understand that, but my point is NOT that the entry is a good example of "photography", my point is that it uses digital techniques that are otherwise legal to attain its effect. This is a case where the voters should be taking care of guarding the gates, and they WERE! The image was running 4.3...
It's simply not possible, IMO, to seek to continually micro-tune rules to mandate what "sort" of work qualifies as "DPC-approved"; indeed, it's actively dangerous to do so, in terms of long-term health. Look, if you carry this to the extreme, the window of "acceptable" becomes so narrow that everything starts to look the same.
I believe it's much healthier to allow the occasional rogue image to surface and survive than it is to stifle all urges at exploring the boundaries. That's my bias.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:35:56 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Three years ago exactly the following image was entered in "Squares" challenge, and Spaz has cited it as his inspiration: |
Hmmm - precedent. Does the SC take prior precedent into consideration - this looks like a clear example of confirmation that this technique is SC approved. |
AND the ruleset has changed since that time. Classic ruleset was in place that did NOT include these excerpts from the current rules...
"The advanced editing rules were created to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" to more accurately represent their photographic intent. Since the line between digital artwork and photo correction is often a fine one, there are limitations to what extent certain tools and techniques may be applied to a challenge entry. All disqualifications are determined by the majority vote of the Site Council, so if you are unclear about any part of these rules, you should either err on the side of caution or contact a member of the Site Council or an administrator before submitting. The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules.
Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
edit to italicize advanced editing rule quote
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 12:36:56.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:40:09 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
AND the ruleset has changed since that time. |
point taken. just asked if they take precedent into consideration and hold it in higher regard than the desire to "evolve" the interpretation of the rules as has been alluded to in another thread. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:41:44 PM · #162 |
My arguments here and in other like threads have not necessarily been in favor of the the photograph. In this case, I would have voted it low.
But I am a grown up, probably old enough to be parent to most of you.
I would like to think I have the right to CHOOSE what I think is photograph or what I think is digital art. I may agree with you, but I'm not given the choice to do so by voting.
If merely DQing pictures according to SC tastes, the artistic growth of members becomes stagnant. Exposure to different ideas, all kinds of ideas, teaches each of us and forces us out of the box.
I'd like to think that's good thing.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:45:42 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
AND the ruleset has changed since that time. |
point taken. just asked if they take precedent into consideration and hold it in higher regard than the desire to "evolve" the interpretation of the rules as has been alluded to in another thread. |
not only has the rule set changed, but the SC is vastly different than it was two or three years ago. don't know if that answers any questions, but it *could* explain a difference in opinion. I was born back then (hahaha) so I don't know what the reasoning was for the first one. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:46:06 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's simply not possible, IMO, to seek to continually micro-tune rules to mandate what "sort" of work qualifies as "DPC-approved"; indeed, it's actively dangerous to do so, in terms of long-term health. Look, if you carry this to the extreme, the window of "acceptable" becomes so narrow that everything starts to look the same.
I believe it's much healthier to allow the occasional rogue image to surface and survive than it is to stifle all urges at exploring the boundaries. That's my bias.
Robt. |
My sentiments precisely. Well said, Robt. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:52:37 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by ursula:
It seems to me that some images are entered with the sole purpose of ridiculing Site Council. It's presented as pushing the rules to the limits, but I think it's more an attempt to show that SC either doesn't really know the rules, or doesn't know how to apply them.
OK, fine, you guys want to ridicule SC, go for it. But you're not learning about photography, or making art in the process. You're just making fun of someone else. Yipee! I do not have much respect for that. |
Ridiculing the SC certainly was not my intention with entering this image, nor was it to create another angry thread about DQ's. If that is how my entry and this thread has come across, then I apologize, but doing so was never my intent.
This way of abstracting images is something I have played with off and on over the past few years in a variety of different ways. This shot was my intent from the moment I saw the challenge and given the previous entry from the square challenge, I could foresee no problems with my approach. I am definitely not angry, but I am certainly disappointed that my entry was DQ'ed.
If you look at my other entries, you will see that they are pretty straightforward in their image processing. Indeed, this is my first time putting one of my "abstractions" out for public comment anywhere. I am glad those that enjoyed it for what it is did so, and for those who didn't, I do appreciate your feedback as well.
I know that the SC is sensitive to these "Why was I DQ'ed?" threads, given the typically hostile, "Us vs. Them" nature of such threads. As I stated in my original post, I did not want this discussion to stoop to the same level of hostility and acrimony, but rather be a civilized, spirited debate. I apologize again, to the SC in particular, if, in starting this thread, I have upset you.
Given the nature of DPC and the nature of my entry, I'm not surprised that my entry caused controversy and my only intent with starting this thread was to seek clarity. I don't see the meanness that has permeated those threads, but, I'd rather see it stop before it comes to that. I think I have gotten enough of the clarification I originally sought.
If I may, I would like to request that this thread be locked if it is becoming too contentious.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 12:54:59.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:53:50 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
My arguments here and in other like threads have not necessarily been in favor of the the photograph. In this case, I would have voted it low.
But I am a grown up, probably old enough to be parent to most of you.
I would like to think I have the right to CHOOSE what I think is photograph or what I think is digital art. I may agree with you, but I'm not given the choice to do so by voting.
If merely DQing pictures according to SC tastes, the artistic growth of members becomes stagnant. Exposure to different ideas, all kinds of ideas, teaches each of us and forces us out of the box.
I'd like to think that's good thing. |
Ombra - I like the import of your post, but I think you mistake the age distribution of the population here, well either that or you were a really precocious youth ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 13:01:21. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:56:01 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If I may, I would like to request that this thread be locked if it is becoming too contentious. |
Yay! Lock it. It actually overlaps at least one other thread anyway. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 01:02:03 PM · #168 |
Yes, I take things very personal, and maybe that makes me unfit for SC. I try to be as fair both to the site rules, and to the photographers that enter the images. I am not having much fun coming here lately, this is turning into a rules contest site, not a digital photography contest site. I don't like that.
In this case, what decided it for me is that there is no way to really prove that the final image came from that particular original. I believe it came, but there's no way to validate that.
|
|
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: 04/19/2024 05:37:21 PM EDT.
