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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Use of artwork
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/29/2003 12:49:22 AM · #1
Originally posted by rules:

Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety 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, and computer artwork.


Above is one of the rules for submissions. I mention this in lieu of the current challenge where I find many submissions are simply photos of statues. Granted many use a statue or sculpture as part of a new work, some seam to be nothing more than a picture of a statue. In the latter case, it is the statue that speaks, not the way in which it is photographed. I looked through the alone challenge for an example of what I mean and find this one:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/150/thumb/43392.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/150/thumb/43392.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

First, let me apoligize to lenkphotos, I mean no insult to you. I just needed an example. That being said, I feal that the challenge is being met, not by the photographer, but by the artist of the statuette. Although the added negative space does add artistic value to this photograph.

Likewise in the Grace challenge. Some images have very graceful statues. But it's not the photographer that created the grace, it's the sculpture. The photographer is mearly taking that grace and calling it his/her own.

Am I alone here or have others been wondering the same thing. How else should I interpret the rule? What defines a 'creative depiction'?

Edited to fix quote.

Message edited by author 2003-10-29 01:04:54.
10/29/2003 12:55:05 AM · #2
Did you dag this Pit?Did you made this Glass?
You do it too?!
10/29/2003 12:58:35 AM · #3
What about a photo of a piece of art that the photographer also made?

Same thing with a piece of art the photographer made and the sculpture, or whatever, is then only a part of the end photo.

I see your point there Trinch (and gee are there a lot of statues in this challenge *laugh*) but I still think one can be used as a valid subject for a challenge (and for the record ... I didn;t, so am not trying to justify my entry).
10/29/2003 12:58:56 AM · #4
That's different. The pit was dug to supply water. I used it to symbolize nightmares. The glass was made to hold water. I used it to capture light.

If a statue is sculpted to denote grace, using it to show grace isn't changing anything.
10/29/2003 01:04:38 AM · #5
Originally posted by Trinch:

That's different. The pit was dug to supply water. I used it to symbolize nightmares. The glass was made to hold water. I used it to capture light.

If a statue is sculpted to denote grace, using it to show grace isn't changing anything.

If I put one of my photos in the city park or on building facade,anyone can take photo of that and rightfully use it!
10/29/2003 01:06:33 AM · #6
Originally posted by pitsaman:

If I put one of my photos in the city park or on building facade,anyone can take photo of that and rightfully use it!


Then what is the purpose of the submission rule stating that photographic representations of other pieces of work are not valid?
10/29/2003 01:11:49 AM · #7
Originally posted by Trinch:

Originally posted by pitsaman:

If I put one of my photos in the city park or on building facade,anyone can take photo of that and rightfully use it!


Then what is the purpose of the submission rule stating that photographic representations of other pieces of work are not valid?

Than go ahead and recommend Monumet Challenge photos to be disqualified!
10/29/2003 01:12:02 AM · #8
however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible

It all depends on how something is lit and shot or course...
10/29/2003 01:16:43 AM · #9
I think that using a painting, drawing, statue, or statuette to 'interpret' the challenge is fine, as long as you the photographer have inputted your own interpretation in some way.

For example: taking a photo of the Mona Lisa, full shot, no creative interpretation, and submitting it to a 'Smile' challenge, would be against the rules.

However: taking a photo of the Mona Lisa, using the wall as 'negative space', or showing sight-seers in the shot, and submitting it to an 'Art Appreciation' challenge, would be fine.

A statue, for the sake of the statue alone, is boring. A statue, for the way its gentle curves glow in the light, is interesting.
10/29/2003 01:20:36 AM · #10
The challenge says to "photograph something that personifies or represents grace." The rules state that you cannot use "the entirety of existing works of art." Within those guidelines are many artisitic things that can be done with a statue. A bad photographer will take a boring snapshot. A good photographer will make an art work out of an art work...
10/29/2003 01:24:18 AM · #11
That goes back to what I was saying. Using a statue as part of a new work is fine. Adding grace to a statue by using light, crop, background, etc is acceptable. My gripe is with some pictures that, imho, fail to do that. Basically, it's the "Hmmm, that statue looks graceful," <SNAP> "I made a graceful photo" type picture.
10/29/2003 01:37:12 AM · #12
There's always the DQ button. If in doubt let the experts decide if it violates the rules.
10/29/2003 01:37:55 AM · #13
If you question the shot, do what the rules say to do: vote on the shot as if it is legal in every way!
Then recommend it for disqualification.


Message edited by author 2003-10-29 02:31:01.
10/29/2003 01:38:57 AM · #14
Photography, by its very nature, involves itself with capturing some aspect of the physical reality. A distinction needs to be drawn between the photographic object and the technique of capturing it. The former is a matter of subject choice, the latter of photographic skill. It is possible, of course, to take a bad photograph of a beautiful object. (Like most of my work, for example.) Likewise, it is possible to render an otherwise dull object very interesting through photography.

In this present discussion, I think that we need to be clear on some basic points and clarify the parameters we're talking about. Photographic technique includes lighting, framing, composition, exposure, focus and so on. Changes made by the photographer to any of these are, necessarily, photographic decisions. Including a statue within a frame assumes compositional considerations, a photographic domain. So, too, is choosing the lighting, and so on with the other factors. Banned within DPC rules is, I believe, simply copying (albeit within photographic conventions) artworks so that they occupy the entire frame and are complete as in the original.

If the winners of this challenge are ones with statues, they will be ones which have incorporated the statue artistically within the frame and will have included other elements to emphasise the sense of grace: for example, a neat sky, effective lighting, appropriate dof and so on.

---------
Jim
the forum killer
---------
10/29/2003 01:49:09 AM · #15
I agree with you here Jim (Koriyama)

There are so many ways to take a bad photo of someone else's art.

When you take a great shot of someone else's sculpture, didn't you in essence add some artistic quality to the original? Just the accomplishment of shooting only 1 side of 3-demential work would require an artistic quality to do it well.
10/29/2003 02:15:56 AM · #16

If a statue is sculpted to denote grace, using it to show grace isn't changing anything.

And if the intent of the photographer is to show the grace of the sculptor, would it really matter what the statue was?

If the Photographer took a very poorly lit subject and managed to light it so it looked very natural, how would you know there was an artistic element added at all without seeing the original? I would see this as an improvement on the original, but how would anyone know it?
10/29/2003 04:46:14 AM · #17
Originally posted by Gringo:

If the Photographer took a very poorly lit subject and managed to light it so it looked very natural, how would you know there was an artistic element added at all without seeing the original? I would see this as an improvement on the original, but how would anyone know it?


The it wouldn't be a poorly lit subject anymore.

This is difficult territory, and the DQ considerations must be really tricky. I think the rule is to stop people taking full on copy-photos of other shots (you could simply photograph a previous photo of yours, and it would otherwise be valid), or of paintings. Shots of three dimensional art inevitably bring something else to the piece, as it's a two-dimensional representation. I've done copy-work, for artists, and it isn't as easy as most would think (not that it's hard): that would show up the sheep from the goats here, a Copy challenge :-)

Ed
10/29/2003 08:13:27 AM · #18
Originally posted by Trinch:

Originally posted by rules:

Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety 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, and computer artwork.


Above is one of the rules for submissions. I mention this in lieu of the current challenge where I find many submissions are simply photos of statues. Granted many use a statue or sculpture as part of a new work, some seam to be nothing more than a picture of a statue. In the latter case, it is the statue that speaks, not the way in which it is photographed. I looked through the alone challenge for an example of what I mean and find this one:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/150/thumb/43392.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/150/thumb/43392.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

First, let me apoligize to lenkphotos, I mean no insult to you. I just needed an example. That being said, I feal that the challenge is being met, not by the photographer, but by the artist of the statuette. Although the added negative space does add artistic value to this photograph.

Likewise in the Grace challenge. Some images have very graceful statues. But it's not the photographer that created the grace, it's the sculpture. The photographer is mearly taking that grace and calling it his/her own.

Am I alone here or have others been wondering the same thing. How else should I interpret the rule? What defines a 'creative depiction'?

Edited to fix quote.


Hey Art Professor,my photo was doing fine (6 something) until you started this thread and now is at 4.How about if you shut up your keyboard and go back to the hole until Challenge is over and rhen start crying about individual photos and ideas?
(Done ranting,back to sleep!)
10/29/2003 09:41:12 AM · #19
Unbeleivable. All I asked was for other's opinions about one of the rules. I made NO reference to individual photos or individual ideas with the exception of one that was in a previous challenge. And in that one, I also pointed out that the photo is more than just a picture of the statuette.

I have no intention on filling DQ requests on anyone. And actually, given my opinions in this matter, I am not going to vote on any of the photos in the grace challenge since I seam to be in a minority.

That being said, I still stand by my opinion. An artist has to create the mood he/she is trying to achieve. Taking a picture of something where that mood was created by another artist is not, in my opinion, artful unless it was done in such a way as to magnify or build upon that particular mood.
10/29/2003 10:01:24 AM · #20
I am getting so tired of all the whining and rules lawyers on this site I believe I may just not return or use it anymore. The constant quibbling and bitching is really starting to make this a most unpleasant site to visit.
10/29/2003 10:11:03 AM · #21
The easiest way to have fun at this site is not to read the forums. Or at least to read the forums and then promptly forget what you read.
10/29/2003 10:37:25 AM · #22
I am also getting tired of the people who moan and whine about the people who care enough about this site to question the validity of some submissions. There is nothing wrong with clarifying or trying to gain further understanding of the rules. If rules bother you, then join another photo site where you can submit what you like. Some of the rules are difficult to define, so there are bound to be disagreements. I think disagreeing is fine. Whinging about the fact that people disagree here is less understandable.
10/29/2003 10:55:07 AM · #23
There is nothing wrong with having a discussion on problem areas of photography in general. (I feel that's what this topic is about). There are so many ways to take a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge, But isn't it really someone else's art?

I have had shots in the past hit hard with low scores simply because the commenter felt it didn't meet the "spirit of the challenge"

I think if it breaks the rules, DQ it, but give it a real score before you do. I would love to see the rules modified in this section to allow 3-dementional works as legal. A photograph is not 3-dementional. So where does one draw the line?

I would love an official ruling on this prior to the "still life" challenge.
10/29/2003 11:12:44 AM · #24
As a photojournalist, I've been bitten several times by the copyright laws in this respect. it basically boils down to this: If the photographer adds anything to the artwork (spectacular lighting, special angle, etc), it is his / her own work.

Which of course makes you ask: What about landscapes?

Complicated matter, this is.
10/29/2003 11:27:15 AM · #25
man that pitsadude has some attitude:o
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/20/2021 12:25:21 PM

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 © 2001-2021 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: 01/20/2021 12:25:21 PM EST.