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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> the art of deception , a photograph & a DQ (long)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 237, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/15/2007 07:17:46 AM · #1

when is a photograph a creation and not a copy of an existing background ?
how much do you have to modify an image to not make it a copy of the
original ?

one of the main thrusts of the responses I've had for my DQ is that my background "looked to real" . .
i countered with several examples of false background/foreground (ribbon
winners)where the background/foreground do indeed look real ..

the picture in question was "Who?" generated from a
picture i took last Aug
placed on the screen with binoculars suspended in front from threads
(then cloned out )
angled the camera to the point of getting only part of the owls iris ..
& with LEGAL edits for Advanced Editing fixed it up some to get the resulting image

but my background is "too real .."
WTF?
"You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."

the Image did not consist of the original background - that is obvious -
OF COURSE we try to fool the voters into thinking we captured the original photograph
-- many images fool the users into incorrect assumptions --

but it doesn't say anything about a too real background ...

hmmm...
some musings :
Possibly the SC is confused about what is the subject of the image - the
Owl or the Binoculars... if i would have used a stuffed owl (didn't have
one ) it would have passed by ok (I'm pretty sure of this ) If i would have used a cartoon owl probably as well, and if i printed a copy of an owl & stuck it in a outside location I'm pretty sure that would have passed ..

but the the owl wasn't alone in the picture - there where the binoculars
which MADE the picture the binoculars were NOT 2dimentional they indeed
refracted the owls irises .. and made the overall image fit the challenge ..
& i will admit that IF the owl was alone in the image / just a picture of a picture the DQ would be valid but i believe that with the binoculars this represents a composition thus should NOT have been DQ'ed


My first DQ in 226 challenges so excuse me if i take this as an affront
..(though a bit calmer now ;)

Discuss ...


10/15/2007 07:27:03 AM · #2
This DQ doesn't make sense to me. I've seen loads of challenge shots using either printouts or a monitor screen as their backgrounds. I always thought the 'artwork' rule applied if someone took a direct shot of a painting or a photograph. If there were any three dimensional objects included in the composition then it was fine.

Based on this ruling my assumptions may be wrong.

Here's one of my 'monitor as background' entries;


10/15/2007 07:30:40 AM · #3
Doesnt make sense to me either.

This was a shot of a pickle set against my monitor that had a shot of an alley on it that I had taken earlier and edited pretty heavy. The pickle is real but the rest is monitor image.
10/15/2007 07:31:14 AM · #4
I dont normally get involved in the 'my dq' threads but I agree that this seems very harsh.

Mike
10/15/2007 07:34:22 AM · #5
Never saw the "fool the voters" clause used before. Its good to know us voters are protected. Actually I don't agree with the DQ. Sorry Ralph.
 10/15/2007 07:34:44 AM · #6
I have to agree with you on this one, there are many of Scalvert's photos and others that are very similar to what you did and they were allowed. Very Harsh DQ pill to have to swallow.

MattO
 10/15/2007 07:39:34 AM · #7
I don't agree with the DQ either.

I think you've got past challenge decisions working for you on this one.

Should be reinstated.

Good luck.
 10/15/2007 07:49:56 AM · #8
add me to the list ... seems perfectly legal to me
 10/15/2007 07:53:17 AM · #9
Add me too. You know I was about to upload soemthing based on photo I took long ago for this months free study. I was sure that could have scored 6.5+ easily. But then I felt it is not good idea.
But in your case I do not see any problem. It is as legal as many others.
 10/15/2007 07:56:02 AM · #10
Sorry for the DQ, can't understand, it was so obvious it was an image of the owl. So has anybody really been fooled? It's absurd to assume anyone believed that owl was really wearing binoculars...
 10/15/2007 08:01:13 AM · #11
I very much support SC and know that many cases that are border lines can be tough calls.

But here, I must confess that I don't fully understand the DQ

Message edited by author 2007-10-15 08:03:54.
 10/15/2007 08:10:20 AM · #12
The image is of an owl that happens to be looking through binoculars. Not a picture of binoculars with an incidental picture of an owl in the background.

This is the complete opposite to the magic carpet image which is a picture of a girl on a carpet with an incidental cityscape as the background.
 10/15/2007 08:28:20 AM · #13
the "incidental cityscape" makes up the composition of the entire image - without it, there's no image.

respectfully ... i disagree

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The image is of an owl that happens to be looking through binoculars. Not a picture of binoculars with an incidental picture of an owl in the background.

This is the complete opposite to the magic carpet image which is a picture of a girl on a carpet with an incidental cityscape as the background.
10/15/2007 09:07:35 AM · #14
I see there's not a whole lot of SC love in this thread so far, but let me do my best to explain this one.

I'm easily the most outspoken person on SC when it comes to this issue, and I have fought vigorously in the past to disallow images such as this one. And it was in the last revision of the rules that the wording changed to specifically prohibit this type of shot:

"You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."

Please understand that I have nothing personal at all against ralph, and that none of this is in any way meant to be a personal attack or anything like that. He's obviously a great photographer, and he and I had gone around and around on this a bit through PMs prior to the end of the week.

When you look at this shot, what would you say the subject is? I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that it's a shot of an owl, wearing binoculars, right? I have a hard time believing anyone would conclude that this definition of the subject could be anything else.

My problem with this type of shot is that the most important part of the subject -- the owl -- is not actually a photograph of an owl per se, but it's a photo of a photo of an owl. And as a voter, it outrages me to learn that I have cast my vote based on qualities of pre-existing artwork, rather than the actual photograph.

When I cast my vote on this image, I was taking into account the photographic qualities of the owl. After all, the owl makes up a good 80-90% of the image.

The problems with allowing this type of shot are:

1. Voters are casting their votes primarily based on the photographic qualities of the pre-existing image. And we have no way of knowing if that pre-existing image was even taken by the photographer. So essentially, someone could take a shot like this, and voters can be judging someone else's work more so than the work of the submitter.

2. A user can use this method to circumvent date rules. The owl shot is a good example of that -- the photo of the owl was taken back in August (if I remember correctly from my previous conversations with ralph).

So to allow this sort of thing opens the door to a HUGE opportunity for people to grab an old shot (not even necessarily their own), edit it however they choose, stick something in front of their monitor to add "something" to it, and claim it as a new submission.

I have fought strongly to avoid allowing that. As a voter (who has cast well over 150,000 votes on the site, BTW), I want to be confident that I'm voting for the right thing. Screen shots or shots of other printed material that fool voters into voting on pre-existing artwork are not in the spirit of DPC.

To touch a little on the examples ralph had posted, and what makes them different... one big difference is that most of those shots were taken before the rule had been changed in the last revision. But even so, I would imagine that they probably all would have been allowed to stand because voters wouldn't be voting primarily based on the qualities of the pre-existing artwork in those situations (or it was reasonably obvious that the pre-existing shots were pre-existing shots).

Can this be a bit of a gray area? Well, like practically every rule on the site, yes, it can be. But I feel strongly that the owl shot is a very clear violation of the rule this time. I'm a pretty savvy voter, and I honestly would not have suspected this was a shot of a monitor, despite what others in this thread have said.
 10/15/2007 09:18:36 AM · #15
I agree with your dislike for this type of image ... my dissent was based upon past images not being dq'd. I guess I didn't realize the rules were changed to disallow this type of photo. I'm actually happy about that :)

Originally posted by alanfreed:
I'm easily the most outspoken person on SC when it comes to this issue, and I have fought vigorously in the past to disallow images such as this one. And it was in the last revision of the rules that the wording changed to specifically prohibit this type of shot:


Message edited by author 2007-10-15 09:19:14.
 10/15/2007 09:27:53 AM · #16
part of my issue with this is the reality of the background and/
or believability of the composition

in my mind an owl with binoculars is not a believable reality - and to turn the problem on it's head if the owl was real but the binoculars were fake it likely would not be dq'ed either .... so it it a proportionate of the frame or is it a whim ?

i use many backgrounds and most are NOT created in the week of a challenge & some could be considered 'art' for there own sake -- but they are not dq'ed ??

to further the gray area - if i had used f2.8-f/4 (blurring the owl) it likely would not have been dq'ed -- so at what point does it become an issue ?

qualitative /quantitative ?
10/15/2007 10:09:47 AM · #17
I won't comment on the image at hand since I wasn't around for the discussion last week, but here's a little background info FWIW. One major catalyst for the rule change was this image:



Yes, the fog and tree are "real" elements, but the entire subject was artwork and voters were commenting on the costume and model as if it was an actual person. The general idea was to prevent situations where the voters are judging the photographic or lighting qualities of pre-existing artwork assuming it was shot "live" for the challenge. Very obvious artwork such as illustrations or environmental backgrounds like those you'd find on a scenic muslin backdrop would still be OK.
 10/15/2007 10:20:45 AM · #18
this image is 2 years old, when was the rule change?

Originally posted by scalvert:
I won't comment on the image at hand since I wasn't around for the discussion last week, but here's a little background info FWIW. One major catalyst for the rule change was this image:



Yes, the fog and tree are "real" elements, but the entire subject was artwork and voters were commenting on the costume and model as if it was an actual person. The general idea was to prevent situations where the voters are judging the photographic or lighting qualities of pre-existing artwork assuming it was shot "live" for the challenge. Very obvious artwork such as illustrations or environmental backgrounds like those you'd find on a scenic muslin backdrop would still be OK.
10/15/2007 10:24:15 AM · #19
Originally posted by scalvert:
I won't comment on the image at hand since I wasn't around for the discussion last week, but here's a little background info FWIW. One major catalyst for the rule change was this image:





Was this image another major catalyst? ;)

10/15/2007 10:24:27 AM · #20
Originally posted by hopper:
this image is 2 years old, when was the rule change?


January 2007, and discussed for months before that. The rule wasn't suddenly changed because of one image, but we kept it in mind when discussing the overall rules revisions.
 10/15/2007 10:25:38 AM · #21
Originally posted by dudephil:
Was this image another major catalyst? ;)


You assumed it was a REAL pear-shaped moon? ;-)
 10/15/2007 10:26:33 AM · #22
gotcha ... as i've said, i'm happy the rules were changed

i humbly withdraw my dissent

:)

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hopper:
this image is 2 years old, when was the rule change?


January 2007, and discussed for months before that. The rule wasn't suddenly changed because of one image, but we kept it in mind when discussing the overall rules revisions.
10/15/2007 10:27:42 AM · #23
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Was this image another major catalyst? ;)


You assumed it was a REAL pear-shaped moon? ;-)


Well, yeah. :D

Does this mean that this image would still be legal?
 10/15/2007 10:32:38 AM · #24
I think you should make the rules even more strict and not allow a background that fools the user, either. This way you don't fall into a subjective argument over whether something is background or subject. You only have to argue over whether something fools the viewer. And on principle, either one is "cheating" the same way.
 10/15/2007 10:47:31 AM · #25
Shannon's moon shot had actually come up numerous times as part of the discussion about this rule. I've never had a problem with this at all. I mean, we all know that Scalvert has magical powers, but it's a stretch to believe that even he is capable of re-forming the moon :)

So yes, I would say that it would still be legal on the basis that nobody would be fooled into thinking the moon shot had not been tinkered with/re-shot.

When I was discussing this with ralph last week, he had mentioned this as another example:



Similarly, I have no trouble with this one. I doubt that anyone would think that the person who submitted it was also a part-time astronaut :)

Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Was this image another major catalyst? ;)


You assumed it was a REAL pear-shaped moon? ;-)


Well, yeah. :D

Does this mean that this image would still be legal?


Message edited by author 2007-10-15 10:50:01.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 06:00:57 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 06:00:57 PM EDT.