| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2003 09:31:07 PM · #1 |
| This was the comment i just read on my sacred places shot..... "Many people, myself included, feel that to simply take a photo of someone elses art without putting your own creative stamp on it is akin to cheating." Now I am confused, I have seen many shots in many challenges that are of art not make be the person taking the pic..is that cheating? So okay lets say God made trees, if i take a pic of a tree and do not stand on my head while doing is am I cheating? Sorry just a little insulted right now......Opinions? |
|
|
|
11/16/2003 09:37:41 PM · #2 |
There IS a difficult-to-enforce rule about photographic representations of other artwork. However, I feel that to comment that it is cheating borders on the inappropriate, even though it may be that one person's opinion.
If they feel it violates the site rule on this, they should request DQ and vote as if it is legal/acceptable within site guidelines.
Presenting an existing piece of artwork in your own photographic context is legal. |
|
|
|
11/16/2003 09:39:32 PM · #3 |
What the comenter is referring to is this portion of the rules
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.
Now there's a pretty wide gray line with this. If the voter thinks you have violated the rule, then they should request DQ, however it should not affect how they score your photo. Hopefully your commenter followed the procedures.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2003 09:46:26 PM · #4 |
| I think this person was just being a bit harsh in the comment. Once you see my entry I think you will agree that it was kind of uncalled for to go as far as cheating. My shot while not being of a statue falls in the same area. |
|
|
|
11/16/2003 09:59:25 PM · #5 |
I suffered a similar fate when I submitted my image shown below. In fact, the Rodin sculpture is larger than life-size and I tried to show how the late day light cast amazing shadows on the face of the work. I receive a comment in the voting, but I was the recipient of one nasty email / PM from another member that sounded very close to what you are quoting.
?
It is impossible to please everyone. So, just feel successful if you pleased yourself and a few others.
I wonder if the architects who created so many of the wonderful churchs found in the Scared Places challenge are categorized in the same manner as a creator of an art piece or a sculptor? For that matter, what can we actually take images of....virtually everything is created by others? And, I do not even want to consider any religious streams of thought on this point.
All of this thinking makes my head hurt, way too deep, so instead I will trod off to sleep, per chance to dream of DQs (I mean my kind of DQ - Dairy Queen - ice cream - mmmm). |
|
|
|
11/16/2003 10:12:33 PM · #6 |
I'd read the comment you quoted with emphasis on 'without putting your own creative stamp on it' as the gist of the speaker's meaning. Given this idiomatic sample to describe a 'personal style', it is possible that the 'akin to cheating' phrase could be no more than the result of an equally careless diction and deliberation.
In my experience, comments critical of a person, as opposed to being critical of a photograph, denote an inaedequacy on part of the writer. I think it best to discard them and move on.
On the other hand, 'I would' revisit my entry and ask myself, if, in fact, its integrity may be compromised in light of his 'other' observation. If you have taken the photo yourself and considered it for submission, you should have a good sense of whether is observation is speculative or, indeed, based on fact.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2003 09:17:19 AM · #7 |
I have reviewed your "sacred" entry, the comments, and the rest of your portfolio. My conclusion is as follows;
The commenter was using an analogy to convey a point, not suggesting an inappropriate action on your part.
"Church Window" is as many commented, a replication, without your artistic stamp.
In a previous entry with a seashell and frame, you clearly put your own artistic stamp on that arrangement. Regardless on how it was received, It had your signature on it.
"Church Window" does not have that signature, and as artists, reveiwing other artist's art, we look for a "signature" or style or a unique interpretation of a common thing. That is what we judge.
You certainly have the ideas flowing, as in the bathroom shot, the seashell/frame, the recognition of the colors in the church window, etc. It is just a matter now of capturing your vision, via your style/signature.
I am most curious on the lenses that you are using with your D100. I might be able to offer a couple of thoughts for your upcoming entry's.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2003 09:34:05 AM · #8 |
I'm afraid I agree with the comment. I gave your shot a 3, and if I had commented I would probably have said the same thing in a more blunt way. IMO, the comment you didn't like was tactful. Obviously as photographers we are often taking pictures of other people's artwork such as architecture, statues etc. However, it is all relative, and taking a picture of stained glass windows straight on with nothing else in the shot is in my book stealing someone else's creativity as your own. As a snapshot, it's fine but I feel it is not in the spirit of a photographic competition to enter it there.
Sorry!
Bob |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 09:45:19 AM · #9 |
It was my comment and I apologize sincerely for the inapropiate wording:
"Many people, myself included, feel that to simply take a photo of someone else's art without putting your own creative stamp on it is akin to cheating. Perhaps you have selected this area from a larger window pane and perhaps it was challenging to get the correct exposure but that does not show in what you present. There is not much here to make this image yours. Perhaps a different angle?" Score = 4
 
"This is exquisite- I am generaly a "figurine hater" but you have done a wonderful job with this statue - I am also stingy with my tens but this has to be a ten. The lighting, the angle, the cropping, the colors, the background - all lovely." Score = 10
As an explanation I ask: If, instead of a window, someone had taken a similar photo of one of your photographs and entered it in a competition would you be offended? (comments edited to correct spelling only)
Again I am sorry for my poor choice of words - Ellen |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 10:20:58 AM · #10 |
| Well thank you all for the comment, I do get the point. I also think my title did not help the shot, it was kind of "BLAH" maybe if i would have title it something like "The colors of utimate sacrifice" it would not have seemed quite so simple a shot. Still thank you for the suggestions I will kee pthem all in mind for the future, and I will TRY not to be so touchy :) |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 10:31:55 AM · #11 |
emorgan, I'm sure your apology is appreciated. I think it was appropriate for you to do that. But it still leaves the question you raised in your comment of Nukkta's entry unanswered. There is a rule which specifically addresses your objection. Did you use the DQ button? That would have been the proper way to question whether Nukkta was "cheating". The way you choose does not give Nukkta the opportunity to be vindicated. It reminds me of the recent allegation by Shannon against Bitz which was raised in the wrong place, publicly in the forums instead by involving the admins privately. Allegations without final decisions leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Things work better when people use the proper methods to raise questions as serious as an allegation of "cheating" or plagiarism.
Message edited by author 2003-11-17 11:49:03. |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 10:59:16 AM · #12 |
| I do not see that there was an allegation of cheating, perhaps a loaded word to have used, but I, too, have trouble with the pro forma shot of someone else's work but that does not mean that I wish to DQ..it is a personal response. Plagiarism was never mentioned. |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 11:22:55 AM · #13 |
Plagiarism was my word for Shannon's allegation against Bitz.
I stand corrected, ty.
Message edited by author 2003-11-17 11:48:20. |
|
|
|
11/17/2003 11:31:39 AM · #14 |
| oh, sorry. (As a spelling tyrant who can most of the time keep quiet - check spelling of plagiarism) |
|
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 03:04:27 PM EDT.
