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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> Abstract Macro II Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 123, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/10/2006 09:43:07 AM · #1
After a lengthy discussion, the results of the Abstract Macro II challenge have been recalculated. Images that previous placed 190th, 195th, and 277th have been disqualified for violating the literal artwork rule.
10/10/2006 09:51:37 AM · #2
I can see the point in the other two, but how the heck can this one be called a "literal representation" of an existing artwork?

400232.jpg

Just curious...

R.
10/10/2006 09:55:40 AM · #3
Sorry all.
It never occurred to me that a close-up of a coke can would be considered a literal representation of existing art. I thought it was a close-up of a coke can.

In hindsight, I can see how this can be taken that way.
10/10/2006 10:00:07 AM · #4
I don't often get in on these types of threads, but I'm with Bear on this one... how the heck is that literal representation of artwork?

It's a macro shot of pixels on a TV screen.

Macro shots that render a mundane object undiscernable should fit fairly well into the basic definition of an Abstract Macro.

Besides, we all know that TV shows aren't art. ;)

Seriously though, there is no specific peice of artwork that is being displayed here. If this were a macro shot of a snippet of a dollar bill (as previously used in the examples here) or the Mona Lisa, there would be a tangible, definite peice of artwork. This is using a TV as an object, not as a display of artwork.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 10:01:44.
10/10/2006 10:03:52 AM · #5
(they forgot to put their hand in front of it)
10/10/2006 10:09:04 AM · #6
RGB was DQ'd because the rules include "computer monitors, and televisions".

It's taken this long to get a resolution on the three images because we've been debating the usefulness and purpose of the rule. We are in agreement that the rule itself is a bit flawed for what we want to accomplish with it and will be discussiong how to correct it.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 10:09:42.
10/10/2006 10:13:33 AM · #7
It definately must've been a VERY LONG discussion with alcoholic beverages involved. Never thought that my TV set is an artwork.

LMAO - Great work from the powers to be on this one. i.e. if an entry is too pixelated it might be DQ'd due to it being an artwork.
10/10/2006 10:15:48 AM · #8
Perhaps true, but in this case, there is no recognizable image on the TV, therefore wouldn't this make the image an interpretative display?

I recognized immediately what it was but I don't think that the specific imagery being displayed on screen had anything whatsoever to do with this particular image. It could quite literally have been pretty much anything. This renders the 'literal representation of artwork' inapplicable in my eyes as there is no artwork represented.

In the case of the other examples, there was a specific object that WAS artwork that was both displayed recognizably and literally.

If it had been a label with water drops on it to complement the printed drops, it would have been interpretative. This added dimension would have become interpretative due to the fact that an added element would have been added and the photographic elements would not have been exclusively tied to the identity of the subject.

In a similar way, the RGB image is not tied to the identity of the imagery on the TV, but the electronics of the TV.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see this being directly related.
10/10/2006 10:18:46 AM · #9
Originally posted by langdon:

RGB was DQ'd because the rules include "computer monitors, and televisions".

It's taken this long to get a resolution on the three images because we've been debating the usefulness and purpose of the rule. We are in agreement that the rule itself is a bit flawed for what we want to accomplish with it and will be discussiong how to correct it.


Fair enough. Just for the purpose of contributing to the discussion, my quarrel with DQing this one is the "literal" portion. The artwork is what is projected on the monitor, and what we see here is the artwork distorted, as it were, by the monitor itself, an object that is NOT artwork. We are seeing the projected image filtered through an actual, physical screen. This is in no way a "literal" representation of the artwork itself.

For reference, consider that I could photograph a monitor with nothing being transmitted and it would be legal. It's an object, not an artwork. And I could photograph, say, a billboard through a colander and the fact that the colander was screening the billboard would make the image a not-literal representation. It's my position that in this extreme macro the filter in the TV tube is analogous to that colander, and this is no longer a literal representation.

For what that's worth in your discussions :-)

R.
10/10/2006 10:19:04 AM · #10
I am going to raise some objection and insight as I have taken a similar type of photograph.

313976.jpg

Now, it may have some differences. (Mine was an LCD screen and not a CRT.) However, from my experience I would state that I would find it very hard to accept a call of literal representation.

In my piece I did create a couple of lines in the background and photographed it at an angle. And that may diferrentiate mine from the other work.

That said, I had several outtakes. And one aspect I was reviewing in my selection was the variety of moire that occurred. The shots could vary quite a bit, especially dependent on just what angle I took it. As well as some timing elements.

Sadly, the moire was much diminished when I resized my photo to 640 pixels. It may seem from looking at such a screen shot that it was simply a photo of a literal work. But the fact that there was such a variety in my outtakes says differently. And composition was definitely a strong element.

(Side note regarding low-quality of above image. The entry was taken with a small camera phone during one of the many periods when my DSLR was in the shop, but since it had date exif info I submitted it. The quality was rather poor. But I felt that with the tools I had it was an excellent take.)

That said, I do not know if 21.gif shanelighter's entry had the same aspects involved. I think if the user could show various outtakes that differ in moire and pattern then I'd lean to the thought that it was not simply prior art.

That's just me, but I'd suggest such for consideration on the part of the Site Council. If not for this entry, than for future entries of a similar nature.


10/10/2006 10:29:40 AM · #11
As Langdon said, we're discussing the artwork rule and extreme macros that render the artwork unrecognizable will likely be legal if/when the rule is revised. FWIW, we never really reached a conclusion on your monitor shot Jason, but the moire visible on just one side probably made the difference since that's a result of the camera rather than the monitor. All just my opinion.
10/10/2006 10:31:53 AM · #12
Originally posted by langdon:

RGB was DQ'd because the rules include "computer monitors, and televisions".

It's taken this long to get a resolution on the three images because we've been debating the usefulness and purpose of the rule. We are in agreement that the rule itself is a bit flawed for what we want to accomplish with it and will be discussiong how to correct it.


Great, about time there may be consistancy now. No more using a tv or computer monitor to display a picture that is used as a background for another picture because a major part of the photo would be using literal art. So are we going to be consistant on this aspect?
10/10/2006 10:34:41 AM · #13
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Originally posted by langdon:

RGB was DQ'd because the rules include "computer monitors, and televisions".

It's taken this long to get a resolution on the three images because we've been debating the usefulness and purpose of the rule. We are in agreement that the rule itself is a bit flawed for what we want to accomplish with it and will be discussiong how to correct it.


Great, about time there may be consistancy now. No more using a tv or computer monitor to display a picture that is used as a background for another picture because a major part of the photo would be using literal art. So are we going to be consistant on this aspect?

Use a monitor as a background (with a foreground subject) is always ok. It's when there's *only* what's being displayed on the screen in your image that we're enforcing here.
10/10/2006 10:34:47 AM · #14
...

I don't really see how a soda label is artwork while a sculpture isn't, but I'll take the DQ.
10/10/2006 10:36:39 AM · #15
Originally posted by MrXpress:

...

I don't really see how a soda label is artwork while a sculpture isn't, but I'll take the DQ.


Sculptures exist in three dimensions, but the photographer is translating it into two dimensions. Of course, 99% of sculpture shots are pretty much displaying the sculpture exactly as the sculptor intended, but that's a judgement call for the voter.
10/10/2006 10:36:49 AM · #16
So lets get this straight. A closeup of a coke can is illegal but the entire coke can and very little else is legal?

A photo of a hand and nothing else is legal but a small portion of the hand ... the fingerprint is illegal?

Wow guys and gals at the SC, you are doing a great job but the rule revision really must come out soon ... please ;)
10/10/2006 10:43:12 AM · #17
Originally posted by Manic:

Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Originally posted by langdon:

RGB was DQ'd because the rules include "computer monitors, and televisions".

It's taken this long to get a resolution on the three images because we've been debating the usefulness and purpose of the rule. We are in agreement that the rule itself is a bit flawed for what we want to accomplish with it and will be discussiong how to correct it.


Great, about time there may be consistancy now. No more using a tv or computer monitor to display a picture that is used as a background for another picture because a major part of the photo would be using literal art. So are we going to be consistant on this aspect?

Use a monitor as a background (with a foreground subject) is always ok. It's when there's *only* what's being displayed on the screen in your image that we're enforcing here.


I understand it's allowed but the issue is without using the monitors artwork the photo would not be sucessful. The major part of the photo is usually the "artwork" of the monitor and the fill in to give it character is the small insignificant thing placed in front of the monitor. I understand using a big billboard sign as a background because the photographer does not own the "artwork" and has not processed it into a double photo. Without the monitor artwork that has been enhanced and processed beforehand, most pictures could not or would not be sucessful. No matter how you look at it, it's using someone elses processed artwork as a major or primary part of the picture.

Don't want to offend anyone who does it, in fact photos that use this technique are great and without doing it would be almost impossible. Great art work and though to put them together!
10/10/2006 10:43:39 AM · #18
Originally posted by MrXpress:

...I don't really see how a soda label is artwork while a sculpture isn't, but I'll take the DQ.


A sculpture IS artwork, but its 3D nature means that the lighting/shadows and point of view are inherent photographic decisions, so it's not literal. Showing enough of the Coke can that the lighting and shadow comes into play likely would have made the entry legal under the current rule IMO.

Phantom- a macro of a finger showing the ridges would be legal, but a straight-on shot of a print (ink on paper and nothing else) would be DQ'd as artwork.
10/10/2006 10:44:10 AM · #19
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:


Wow guys and gals at the SC, you are doing a great job but the rule revision really must come out soon ... please ;)


We keep finding stuff to argue about. :P
10/10/2006 10:58:09 AM · #20
Personally i find the DQ of the monitor image a stretch of the rules to DQ an image..IMHO a monitor is a subject to photograph specially in Abstract macro as it is showing the monitor and not the imaged displayed

I suggest that the SC reconsider this desicion
10/10/2006 11:01:33 AM · #21
I seem to remember when I first joined discussions about a pending rules rewrite. What is the status of this rewrite?
10/10/2006 11:04:25 AM · #22
Originally posted by scalvert:



A sculpture IS artwork, but its 3D nature means that the lighting/shadows and point of view are inherent photographic decisions, so it's not literal. Showing enough of the Coke can that the lighting and shadow comes into play likely would have made the entry legal under the current rule IMO.


I guess what I'm failing to see is how taking a shot of 'artwork' so close that it becomes largely unrecognizable is still literal. I honestly don't think it would have been DQ'd if I hadn't written in the description what it was. Ah well, lesson learned.

I do appreciate the effort of the Site Council and such, and while I don't necessarily agree with the decision I still respect it and will keep a more careful eye on things in the future.
10/10/2006 11:06:32 AM · #23
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:

Without the monitor artwork that has been enhanced and processed beforehand, most pictures could not or would not be sucessful.


You may be overstating the issue. Very often, the monitor "artwork" in such entries would not be successful without the added elements either, so the total impact comes from the overall composition rather than any single element.
10/10/2006 11:14:51 AM · #24
I can understand why we might not want to see an onslaught of photos of monitors with something token in the foreground, however, if the pivotal issue is whether or not there is a 3d object in the photo, regardless of accompanying 'artwork' - why not just state it in the rule? As the rule stands, it sounds (deceptively) like a person is allowed to 'creatively interpret' existing artwork, even in 2d, without being summarily dq'd.
10/10/2006 11:16:47 AM · #25
I have to say I don't agree with the SC decision in these cases. The artwork is not represented in total and therefore has at least some of the photographers 'interpretation' associated with it.

Bad call in my opinion.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/17/2019 07:31:04 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 © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/17/2019 07:31:04 AM EDT.