| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2002 06:05:02 AM · #26 |
| It was a bottle of liquor lit up with a green light inside a circle of light. It was an attractive photo but was disqualified over digital editing (I'm guessing since it wasn't lude). |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 06:20:14 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by shortredneck:
The caption was 100% British Beef. The was kind of a derogatory reference to Mad cow disease. I'm sure that would be offensive to our European members. I thought it was offensive because anytime I see a partial carcus, I think poachers. In the hunting community, that is the lowest kind of person there is.
No offence taken what so ever.. Not sure what the photographer was trying to portray.. but I kinda liked the picture.. I kinda took it along the lines of an ad campaign here, where they just had a raw steak layed on a white counter, and 100% British Beef as the caption line. How was it a derogatory reference to mad cow disease? Perhaps vegetarians did have a difference view of it.
I do like the idea of a gallery of DQ'ed pictures.. or at least a seperate bit at the bottom of the results, (after the pictures that come in last) That show the pictures, and instead of their rank, Just Disqualified. It bugs me when I glance through the thumbnails, and can never remember which ones are gone..
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 06:36:55 AM · #28 |
It didn't bother me enough to disqualify it even though I didn't like it. However, it must have bothered somebody bad enough cause it's gone now.
For the record, I didn't vote to disqualify that or any other photo in this challenge. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 07:19:33 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by insipidangel:
No offence taken what so ever.. Not sure what the photographer was trying to portray.. but I kinda liked the picture.. I kinda took it along the lines of an ad campaign here, where they just had a raw steak layed on a white counter, and 100% British Beef as the caption line. How was it a derogatory reference to mad cow disease? Perhaps vegetarians did have a difference view of it.
I think most vegetarians, like myself, would have... well, not laughed at it, but found it funny. That's what beef is, dead cow. Anyone who can't handle that, or think it's offensive, shouldn't eat it. I have a feeling the photographer might be a vegetarian trying to make exactly that point, but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 07:28:52 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by insipidangel:
[i]No offence taken what so ever..
I'm British, I even grew up in the countryside and I don't see how someone would find what was described offensive. I'm not impressed/ sad that millions of cattle were slaughtered, but a picture of one isn't offensive.
The large funeral pyres of thousands of cattle being burnt were offensive, but that was mainly the smell.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 08:41:15 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by insipidangel:
I do like the idea of a gallery of DQ'ed pictures.. or at least a seperate bit at the bottom of the results, (after the pictures that come in last) That show the pictures, and instead of their rank, Just Disqualified. It bugs me when I glance through the thumbnails, and can never remember which ones are gone..
This has been brought up before, and it was decided that users who accidentally broke the rules could be embarassed by having their photos put on display like that -- here, look who f'ed up.
Drew |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:25:56 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by insipidangel:
[i]I do like the idea of a gallery of DQ'ed pictures.. or at least a seperate bit at the bottom of the results, (after the pictures that come in last) That show the pictures, and instead of their rank, Just Disqualified. It bugs me when I glance through the thumbnails, and can never remember which ones are gone..
This has been brought up before, and it was decided that users who accidentally broke the rules could be embarassed by having their photos put on display like that -- here, look who f'ed up.
Drew[/i]
Hey it'll give more activity in the forums so we can all laugh at that person. ;) Actually could you maybe display it and leave it anonymous? I think alot of people are really curious about what is being disqualified.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:48:29 AM · #33 |
Hi everyone
I am the photographer of one of the banned photographs: British Beef
Firstly I would like to thank everyone that offered support over my disqualification.
I’m not writing to dispute this decision but only feel it’s fair that I should be given the chance to explain my feelings and thinking behind my entry.
As Lisa correctly assumed I am a vegetarian and have been for most of my life and personally feel that there is little difference in imagery of my photograph than that of the advertisements that fill magazine pages and television with DEAD animals claiming it to be meat. Not only that but appetizing!!!!!
I’m not about to jump on my soapbox and condemn all meat eaters, that was not my objective, it is their personal choice and I can respect that.
However with my photograph and its surrounding issues I wanted to make a statement about those who find slaughtering of innocent animal as offensive but are still happy to see the advertisements and go to there local supermarket and buy a nice pre-packed lump of animal. In my humble opinion pretty hypercritical. Sorry if I offended anyone with my image it wasn’t attention in any way.
Just for the record this image has nothing to do with mad cows dieases
And was taken at a wild life park where the carcass was in fact food for the wolfs.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 10:19:02 AM · #34 |
karmakiller...
Too bad your photo was DQ'ed. Whovever requested your photo to be DQ'ed needs to learn a lot about photography as an artform.
I have said it before, I'll say it again, we better be real careful about DQ'ing photos based on disagreements about taste or political stuff. That is a very bad road to start going down as artists.
I hold back on things for this site because I realize there may be folks sharing this site with their kids so I don't post my erotic stuff, my deeply religous questioning stuff that has graphic imaging.
But a dead cow on the side of the road is pretty tame in the big bad world we live in.... |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 10:37:20 AM · #35 |
I bet that most of the DQ requests on that photo were because it was simply offensive to some. I found it offensive but I didn't request DQ on it... "Shock Value" photos have not done well here in the past... If you want to make a statement about your personal views or politics, this site will accept it. If you want to score well in the photo challenges, these items have not done well in the past...
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 10:59:43 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by karmakiller:
Hi everyone
I am the photographer of one of the banned photographs: British Beef
Firstly I would like to thank everyone that offered support over my disqualification.
I’m not writing to dispute this decision but only feel it’s fair that I should be given the chance to explain my feelings and thinking behind my entry.
As Lisa correctly assumed I am a vegetarian and have been for most of my life and personally feel that there is little difference in imagery of my photograph than that of the advertisements that fill magazine pages and television with DEAD animals claiming it to be meat. Not only that but appetizing!!!!!
I’m not about to jump on my soapbox and condemn all meat eaters, that was not my objective, it is their personal choice and I can respect that.
However with my photograph and its surrounding issues I wanted to make a statement about those who find slaughtering of innocent animal as offensive but are still happy to see the advertisements and go to there local supermarket and buy a nice pre-packed lump of animal. In my humble opinion pretty hypercritical. Sorry if I offended anyone with my image it wasn’t attention in any way.
Just for the record this image has nothing to do with mad cows dieases
And was taken at a wild life park where the carcass was in fact food for the wolfs.
I am happy to hear the reason for the photo has nothing to do with the Mad Cow Disease problem. You were making a statement and I am afraid it was lost on me. I respect your feelings on the issue of eating meat even if I don't share your views on the subject. When I saw the ad I thought it was an adolescent style shock photo like we have been getting in every challenge. For that incorrect observation, I apologise. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:04:36 AM · #37 |
karmakiller,
so what was it that you were advertising? why would it be called british beef unless you were expecting people to infer something from it? why not "Beef, It's What's For Dinner"? sounds more to the point of what you were getting at. still, organizations like PETA that really have lost a lot of credibility over advertisements like that weren't going to give you much hope of doing anything else but making people dislike you. you probably don't care, since most veggies have strong views, but maybe a different point of attack would have been better suited for your cause. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:05:51 AM · #38 |
OK
I am one of the people that recommended the "100% B.. Beef" picture to be disqualified and it was not because I found it distasteful. Although I didn't care for the image; and no I don't eat meat either. I recommended it for disqualification because I couldn't think of what it could possibly be selling. I do apologize for my lack of imagination but perhaps a different title suggesting vegetarianism would have been helpful.
Let the attacks ensue. :) |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:16:00 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by karmakiller:
Hi everyone
I am the photographer of one of the banned photographs: British Beef
Firstly I would like to thank everyone that offered support over my disqualification.
I’m not writing to dispute this decision but only feel it’s fair that I should be given the chance to explain my feelings and thinking behind my entry.
As Lisa correctly assumed I am a vegetarian and have been for most of my life and personally feel that there is little difference in imagery of my photograph than that of the advertisements that fill magazine pages and television with DEAD animals claiming it to be meat. Not only that but appetizing!!!!!
I’m not about to jump on my soapbox and condemn all meat eaters, that was not my objective, it is their personal choice and I can respect that.
However with my photograph and its surrounding issues I wanted to make a statement about those who find slaughtering of innocent animal as offensive but are still happy to see the advertisements and go to there local supermarket and buy a nice pre-packed lump of animal. In my humble opinion pretty hypercritical. Sorry if I offended anyone with my image it wasn’t attention in any way.
Just for the record this image has nothing to do with mad cows dieases
And was taken at a wild life park where the carcass was in fact food for the wolfs.
Do you think you can post that picture somewhere for the rest of us to see? I'm very interested in seeing this photograph.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:17:19 AM · #40 |
I think you're wrong, irae. That paragraph is not *all* about copyright. It's also about keeping the challenge a *photography* challenge. The straight-on picture of the poster is less a photograph than it is a poster reproduced digitally.
Maybe more to the point, imagine if the rule didn't exist. You could go through your entire film photograph collection and find one that's really great and fits the challenge. Then just take a picture of it.
Originally posted by irae:
Originally posted by Reuben:
[i]I only noticed one missing. It was the picture of a blue poster. That particular photo is more of a poster than it is a photo.
Notice this paragraph in the rules:
"Photographs including paintings, sculptures, photographs, and other art work must not infringe any copyrights. Moreover, the artwork must not constitute the entirety of the subject of your photograph." (bold added by me)
The photo consisted of the poster and nothing but the poster, and thus was in violation of the rules.
That paragraph is all to do with copyright, and not content. If the poster is your own, you obviously don't violate copyright by making a photo of it. You won't do particularly well in the challenge, as you haven't taken a picture of a product (unless you consider a "for sale" sign a product - Websters says "anything produced"), but I don't think this situation is what the passage above was about.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:18:54 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by CPattee:
OK
I am one of the people that recommended the "100% B.. Beef" picture to be disqualified and it was not because I found it distasteful. Although I didn't care for the image; and no I don't eat meat either. I recommended it for disqualification because I couldn't think of what it could possibly be selling. I do apologize for my lack of imagination but perhaps a different title suggesting vegetarianism would have been helpful.
Let the attacks ensue. :)
Here, here.....
Almost made me want to go vegetarian... almost!
I couldn't figure out what it was selling either!
Anyone British out there who could possibley clear this one up for us? Maybe we Americans just don't get it.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 11:20:47 AM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:19:58 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by CPattee:
OK
I am one of the people that recommended the "100% B.. Beef" picture to be disqualified and it was not because I found it distasteful. Although I didn't care for the image; and no I don't eat meat either. I recommended it for disqualification because I couldn't think of what it could possibly be selling. I do apologize for my lack of imagination but perhaps a different title suggesting vegetarianism would have been helpful.
Let the attacks ensue. :)
Drew has stated that he would not DQ pictures if they didn't fit the challenge. There must have been additional users that requested a DQ because they found it offensive, which is what he stated in a previous post.
Not alot offends me so I'm interested in seeing what the image was for myself.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 11:29:29 AM · #43 |
When you posted this photograph, was your intention to participate in the "Advertisements" challenge or to make a statement about your views on eating (or not eating) meat?
This site is a digital photography contest. Photographs here are judged by voters on their subjects, technical quality, and adherence to the challenge topic.
What was your intention with this photograph?
Originally posted by karmakiller:
Hi everyone
I am the photographer of one of the banned photographs: British Beef
Firstly I would like to thank everyone that offered support over my disqualification.
I’m not writing to dispute this decision but only feel it’s fair that I should be given the chance to explain my feelings and thinking behind my entry.
As Lisa correctly assumed I am a vegetarian and have been for most of my life and personally feel that there is little difference in imagery of my photograph than that of the advertisements that fill magazine pages and television with DEAD animals claiming it to be meat. Not only that but appetizing!!!!!
I’m not about to jump on my soapbox and condemn all meat eaters, that was not my objective, it is their personal choice and I can respect that.
However with my photograph and its surrounding issues I wanted to make a statement about those who find slaughtering of innocent animal as offensive but are still happy to see the advertisements and go to there local supermarket and buy a nice pre-packed lump of animal. In my humble opinion pretty hypercritical. Sorry if I offended anyone with my image it wasn’t attention in any way.
Just for the record this image has nothing to do with mad cows dieases
And was taken at a wild life park where the carcass was in fact food for the wolfs.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:19:26 PM · #44 |
I stand corrected again. Of course, I can't know for sure what Drew's intention was when he wrote that paragraph, but it did sound like an addendum to the copyright issue. I think the prohibition against photos which use the photographer's own artwork as the primary subject is another slippery slope. What if he'd advertised his camera by painting the same thing on the side of a weathered barn instead of drawing it on a piece of paper, or if he'd tacked it up on a tree and shown it in a different context? I've certainly seen plenty of pictures here that used other people's art as the primary subject. No, the artworks didn't make up the entirety of the image, but aside from some cloudless blue sky or a blurred background there wasn't anything else to look at. In general, I don't think 2D art makes a very good subject, and it's a pisser to shoot properly as well. I guess next time he'll leave his hand and/or a pencil in the frame. I do think, though, that the argument that "The straight-on picture of the poster is less a photograph than it is a poster reproduced digitally." is just going to boil down to semantics and personal opinion. Everything you see on this site is just something or other reproduced digitally. If you consider the poster a product rather than art (and I think that's not entirely out in left field), then where are we? There is an entire photographic specialty the purpose of which is to get 2D stuff onto film or into a digital file.
Originally posted by Reuben:
I think you're wrong, irae. That paragraph is not *all* about copyright. It's also about keeping the challenge a *photography* challenge. The straight-on picture of the poster is less a photograph than it is a poster reproduced digitally.
Maybe more to the point, imagine if the rule didn't exist. You could go through your entire film photograph collection and find one that's really great and fits the challenge. Then just take a picture of it.
Originally posted by irae:
[i]Originally posted by Reuben:
[i]I only noticed one missing. It was the picture of a blue poster. That particular photo is more of a poster than it is a photo.
Notice this paragraph in the rules:
"Photographs including paintings, sculptures, photographs, and other art work must not infringe any copyrights. Moreover, the artwork must not constitute the entirety of the subject of your photograph." (bold added by me)
The photo consisted of the poster and nothing but the poster, and thus was in violation of the rules.
That paragraph is all to do with copyright, and not content. If the poster is your own, you obviously don't violate copyright by making a photo of it. You won't do particularly well in the challenge, as you haven't taken a picture of a product (unless you consider a "for sale" sign a product - Websters says "anything produced"), but I don't think this situation is what the passage above was about.
[/i]
[/i]
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:28:45 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When you posted this photograph, was your intention to participate in the "Advertisements" challenge or to make a statement about your views on eating (or not eating) meat?
This site is a digital photography contest. Photographs here are judged by voters on their subjects, technical quality, and adherence to the challenge topic.
What was your intention with this photograph?
My intentions were obviously to participate in the "advertisement" challenge. Photography, in my opinion, is an artform influenced greatly by emotions and feelings. In short, my basis around submitting this entry was my personal interpratation of meat advertisments that are currently shown here in the UK that involve showing raw meat. Basically, I was advertising meat, but in more graphic and honest way than the advertisement companies do.
Advertisers succeed in getting their product recognised based on their ability to shock or make you think. Just take United Colours of Benneton for example. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:40:50 PM · #46 |
Warning, This image has been found by the masses to be "blatantly offensive and lude"
:)
Can anyone clue me in on what "lude" means anyways?
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 12:42:48 PM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:48:44 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by karmakiller:
Warning, This image has been found by the masses to be "blatantly offensive and lude"
:)
Can anyone clue me in on what "lude" means anyways
//www.dictionary.com/search?q=lude :)
Well Karma Killer... I don't know what sort of communication happened between you and the admins but from what you explained in this forum, I do not understand why you got DQ'd. I would not have given you a very good grade on your photo though.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:52:27 PM · #48 |
Since some of you wanted to see examples of DQ'd photos I wanted to show you what not to do and how you can be caught. I was the one who took the "Absolut Abduction." photo. Shown here is the original(cropped), the one I submitted, and what it looks like with the levels over-boosted to show you what I did.
If you notice in the original, there is a halo effect around the neck. I tried getting rid of it using level adjustments and the like but couldn't do it. So, stupid me, I figured I'd bend the rules and simply erase it. I regret doing it now obviously (my average vote was around 7!). I don't feel I tried to "cheat" however. Just that this is not something you can do here. I do touch-ups like this for other pictures I post on the web as others do as well. Just let my DQ be a lesson for everyone who thinks they can get away with stuff like this. I'm still proud of the picture and the way it turned out. Anyways, I just wanted to share my woes with everyone and at least put my picture to rest.
-Matt
Original
Submitted
Caught
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 12:55:01 PM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:54:26 PM · #49 |
| if this one goes, so does the peace photo. anyway your photo isn't even that great...not like any of mine are...but you have no advertisement here, by any stretch of the imagination or by any means of interpretation |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 12:57:58 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by chariot:
Originally posted by karmakiller:
[i]Warning, This image has been found by the masses to be "blatantly offensive and lude"
:)
Can anyone clue me in on what "lude" means anyways
//www.dictionary.com/search?q=lude :)
Well Karma Killer... I don't know what sort of communication happened between you and the admins but from what you explained in this forum, I do not understand why you got DQ'd. I would not have given you a very good grade on your photo though.
[/i]
i just can't stand it, i have to correct...:) you guys are trying to say LEWD, not lude, as in quaalude, as in the pill. sorry, i had to jump in!:) karma, when they say lewd, it mainly means obscene. i personally thought it was a little gross, but not anything to get up in arms about.
|
|
