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 76 - 100 of 123, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/10/2006 08:52:42 PM · #76
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

...do we know who designed the front of the Tide box...


I do. I've also personally illustrated and/or designed many products we see every day. There are still pen and ink illustrations still used in hardware storees around the country that I drew in high school... mumble,mumble years ago. :-)
10/10/2006 08:54:09 PM · #77
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Our rule is the "artwork" rule, not the "art" rule.


True. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't consider a photo on a monitor screen to be "art" either.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 20:54:20.
10/10/2006 09:08:21 PM · #78
Originally posted by shanksware:

So, here's the original of my shot.



versus the submission



If I hadn't cropped so tightly and smoothed out the lighting that would have been ok? I guess I don't quite get it.

Not complaining here, just trying to get a handle on the rules. A DQ is a DQ.


.... as he patiently waits for someone, anyone, to answer the question, or even make a relevant comment.
10/10/2006 09:25:29 PM · #79
Originally posted by nfessel:

There are too many rules, which is one reason why I don't participate in many challenges here on DPC. Do these challenge rules make me a better photographer? No. They hinder my photographic decisions and make for an unpleasant experience.


Then go read a bunch of tutorials to learn how to photograph better, and put your stuff on a personal website or something.

I know I'm coming across rather harsh but... Rules MAKE the challenges, and that's central to a site called DPChallenge. If people don't like that they can totally leave.

edit: putting this thread on ignore so that I'm not tempted to say anything else.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 21:26:34.
10/10/2006 09:27:52 PM · #80
Originally posted by shanksware:

If I hadn't cropped so tightly and smoothed out the lighting that would have been ok?


No. IMO your original still looks like a flatbed scan of an existing image printed on the can. You need to add something new photographically, like unusual lighting, shadows, depth of field, texture, additional elements... something that might make a viewer remember this as your unique photo of a Coke can rather than an existing label that someone trimmed.
10/10/2006 09:28:58 PM · #81
Originally posted by klstover:

...putting this thread on ignore so that I'm not tempted to say anything else.


Hehe... I'm getting close to that. If I put my two cents in any more, I'll max out my credit card. ;-)
10/10/2006 09:29:11 PM · #82
Originally posted by klstover:



I know I'm coming across rather harsh but... Rules MAKE the challenges, and that's central to a site called DPChallenge. If people don't like that they can totally leave.


The overwhelming support for the status quo is what will keep this site from growing into something that suits everyone.
10/10/2006 09:31:25 PM · #83
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The overwhelming support for the status quo is what will keep this site from growing into something that suits everyone.


I took it to mean that she appreciates having rules. I haven't seen anyone imply that they can't be amended.
10/10/2006 09:36:08 PM · #84
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The overwhelming support for the status quo is what will keep this site from growing into something that suits everyone.


I took it to mean that she appreciates having rules. I haven't seen anyone imply that they can't be amended.


She's right in one way. The amount of rules makes things more difficult rather than simpler. Adding more rules makes them even more complicated to understand. Our entire advanced editing rules could be simplified into two or three sentences where everyone could understand them. It would also give photographers the opportunity to work uninhibited by rules.
10/10/2006 09:40:07 PM · #85
I am completely lost???

We have a challenge (still under voting) full of images that seem like the example above and then all sorts of images like this one (not pointing fingers - just picked this as an example because I remember it OK).


Can somebody in 30 words or less say what is considered a picture of a work of art vs. a legit picture?
10/10/2006 09:46:38 PM · #86
picture of a Piece of Art has flat lighting, it has one object in the frame (the PoA), it shows little or no texture that does not involve the PoA itself

thats 30 words
EDIT: sombody correct me if i'm wrong ;)

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 21:49:52.
10/10/2006 09:50:49 PM · #87
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The overwhelming support for the status quo is what will keep this site from growing into something that suits everyone.


I took it to mean that she appreciates having rules. I haven't seen anyone imply that they can't be amended.


She's right in one way. The amount of rules makes things more difficult rather than simpler. Adding more rules makes them even more complicated to understand. Our entire advanced editing rules could be simplified into two or three sentences where everyone could understand them. It would also give photographers the opportunity to work uninhibited by rules.


Absolutely, three lines max and it would be cut and dry, no doubt about it. The basic may take five lines. I really don't think most DQ's are people trying to get around the confusion of the rules. Heck when ya get good at PS you can almost process a photo to advanced rules quality already. Simplify ... simplify ,,, simplify Please.
10/10/2006 09:53:34 PM · #88
Originally posted by ralph:

picture of a Piece of Art has flat lighting, it has one object in the frame (the PoA), it shows little or no texture that does not involve the PoA itself

thats 30 words
EDIT: sombody correct me if i'm wrong ;)


If that is what is intended with the current rules then it sounds like a reasonable sentence to me. Reasonably clear and easy to understand and short.
10/10/2006 09:54:28 PM · #89
So, if it's the only thing in the photo, it breaks the artwork rule...I'd think almost half of the Soft Drink/Beer Ad entries do that. I dunno....
10/10/2006 09:58:21 PM · #90
Originally posted by cryingdragon:

So, if it's the only thing in the photo, it breaks the artwork rule...I'd think almost half of the Soft Drink/Beer Ad entries do that. I dunno....

umm flat lighting & 2 dimentional objects
cherrypicking a definition is not allowed ;)


10/10/2006 10:00:43 PM · #91
Originally posted by cryingdragon:

So, if it's the only thing in the photo, it breaks the artwork rule...I'd think almost half of the Soft Drink/Beer Ad entries do that. I dunno....


Well, if you look at most all the Beer and Soft Drink ad entries, they all atleast have a background and the drink container is offered as a 3D object rather than a 2D view of the artwork on the can.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 22:01:16.
10/10/2006 10:03:22 PM · #92
Originally posted by robs:

Originally posted by ralph:

picture of a Piece of Art has flat lighting, it has one object in the frame (the PoA), it shows little or no texture that does not involve the PoA itself

thats 30 words
EDIT: sombody correct me if i'm wrong ;)


If that is what is intended with the current rules then it sounds like a reasonable sentence to me. Reasonably clear and easy to understand and short.


no i don't believe thats what is intended because it leaves out many of the issues - (but it fits in 30 words ..) things that are missing --
a) replicating a computer screen
b) 2dimentionality of the PoA
c) excepttions/items that are allowed (i.e. of the ilk jumping fish or computer generated lightbulbs) (but they also had a 3dimentional asspect so likely they are covered ... )


10/10/2006 10:15:20 PM · #93
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:

I don't class a coke can as a peice of art.. in fact no one normal would class it as art


Tell that to the illustrator who drew it!


Isn't everything 'artwork' then? Like the person who designed a wine glass, or the person who drew up a building. Heck, even the deity who created the landscapes :)

Most of that is in jest. Like I said, it's hard for me to rationalize the decision, but it's primarily because it's my image and thus I have the instinct to compete the ruling; were it someone elses, I probably would agree.
10/10/2006 10:21:30 PM · #94
FWIW, This challenge, and these shots in particular, have sparked a *very* lively debate about whether the current incarnation of the artwork rule serves the needs of the community. I think it's fair to say that the general consensus has been:
- The rule as currently written is damnably hard to uniformly interpret and enforce
- The rule as currently written may very well be too restricitve in some respects, and perhaps not enough in others; in general, it is too restrictive.
- To be fair, we need to enforce per precedent until we can propose a better solution
10/10/2006 10:32:34 PM · #95
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by shanksware:

If I hadn't cropped so tightly and smoothed out the lighting that would have been ok?


No. IMO your original still looks like a flatbed scan of an existing image printed on the can. You need to add something new photographically, like unusual lighting, shadows, depth of field, texture, additional elements... something that might make a viewer remember this as your unique photo of a Coke can rather than an existing label that someone trimmed.


Thank you
10/10/2006 11:37:43 PM · #96
To those of you claiming that the rules can be broken down into three or five sentences, I invite you to open a ticket and submit your proposed wording(s).

10/10/2006 11:57:09 PM · #97
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.


In that case, please disqualify my entry for challenge 274 and rid me of one less than five score...



10/11/2006 12:58:15 AM · #98
Originally posted by karmat:

To those of you claiming that the rules can be broken down into three or five sentences, I invite you to open a ticket and submit your proposed wording(s).


lol, completely agree. Those that really think the rules can be summed up so easily typically are those who believe the rules should be interpreted how *they* interpret them.

Photography and photo editing in itself is such a subjective topic, I don't see how anyone could say they can state a cut-dry requirement at the same time as being objective to others interpretation.

After all, is red really red to the color-blind? Or is it majority see's red, so yes its red. ;) Interpretation always wins in photography.

I for one fully support the SC and their decisions with the site. They have always proven to me they stride to be objective as possible at the same time keeping the spirit of the site challenge in mind. If only it were so easy...
10/11/2006 01:08:45 AM · #99
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by shanksware:

If I hadn't cropped so tightly and smoothed out the lighting that would have been ok?


No. IMO your original still looks like a flatbed scan of an existing image printed on the can. You need to add something new photographically, like unusual lighting, shadows, depth of field, texture, additional elements... something that might make a viewer remember this as your unique photo of a Coke can rather than an existing label that someone trimmed.


You can do a lot with flatbed scanners.
//www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html
formerly //www.scannerphotography.com/, referened still at //www.lensculture.com/mt_files/archives/000060.html
10/11/2006 04:28:34 AM · #100
The RGB did add something photographically. It used a macro technique to render a common object an abstract and unidentifiable subject.

As was mentioned earlier, it is as much about artwork as would be a picture of a circuit board.

Previously cited examples by Scalvert included identifiable imagery displayed on computer screens, namely the DPC voting screen and an HBO.

There is no similarly indentifiable image of any sort shown on the TV screen of the RGB picture. It could be anything or nothing. Such is the definition of an abstract macro and as such also defies any description including 'artwork'.

As DWTerry and TooCool have both suggested, there IS precendent to allow such an image.

For those who think that the Coca Cola label is not artwork, why don't you use it as a label for something else and market it and see how long it takes before you get called by lawyers from Coca Cola Corporation.

It may not be artwork in an aesthetic sense, but it certainly is in a legal sense. This has already been pointed out elsewhere in the thread.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:34:43 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:34:43 AM EDT.