| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2009 01:35:21 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I don't disagree with the DQ, but I do like Bear's suggestion, haha. :) There have been some real nice thunderstorm clouds in Yosemite this week! |
Here's what ya do, see... You can't be there, big meeting at work this week, but what you CAN do is:
1. Get in touch with your friend who lives in (or very near) Yosemite and lean on him to help you.
2. Drive up to Yosemite and collect your friend.
3. Hike in with your friend and pick your spot. Set up the tripod, frame up the scene, set the camera on Av, and lock everything down tight.
4. Drive some spikes to mark the location of the tripod feet.
5. Fold the tripod but don't change the leg length, leave the camera on, and drive your friend home.
6. Leave him with the camera and explicit instructions as to what time of day and under what conditions to go back to the marked photo site.
7. Have him call you when he's got "your" picture, and then either drive up to retrieve the gear or have him FedEx it back down to you.
Sounds great, huh?
R. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 01:45:19 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mpeters:
I don't disagree with the DQ, but I do like Bear's suggestion, haha. :) There have been some real nice thunderstorm clouds in Yosemite this week! |
Here's what ya do, see... You can't be there, big meeting at work this week, but what you CAN do is:
1. Get in touch with your friend who lives in (or very near) Yosemite and lean on him to help you.
2. Drive up to Yosemite and collect your friend.
3. Hike in with your friend and pick your spot. Set up the tripod, frame up the scene, set the camera on Av, and lock everything down tight.
4. Drive some spikes to mark the location of the tripod feet.
5. Fold the tripod but don't change the leg length, leave the camera on, and drive your friend home.
6. Leave him with the camera and explicit instructions as to what time of day and under what conditions to go back to the marked photo site.
7. Have him call you when he's got "your" picture, and then either drive up to retrieve the gear or have him FedEx it back down to you.
Sounds great, huh?
R. |
Again... to me it sounds very reasonable. I just don't see anything wrong with it. Am I crazy?
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 01:49:51 PM · #28 |
What might be other examples of 'remote control'?
1. setting up a tilt-shift webcam and operating it from another continent?
2. mounting a camera on a remote-control, toy airplane?
3. mounting a camera on a helmet which your pet car can wear?
4. mounting a camera on a helmet which your friend who lives near Yosemite can wear?
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 13:56:36.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 01:52:57 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Am I crazy? |
Yes. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 01:57:15 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by JH:
And what about timing? What if I setup the camera on a tripod pointing at a wonderful landscape. Then I go home. I leave my assistant standing there and tell him to press the shutter when the sunset looks (in his opinion) at its best and email me the result. |
I'd give it a 3 at best...because the photo would be severly underexposed. :-P |
Ah, but I flicked it onto Aperture Priority just before I went home... :) |
Won't help much...your camera's meter is going to register the sun in the frame and compensate...unless of course you allow your assistant to temporarily reframe to preset/lock the meter on an area of sky without the sun in it, then recompose. :-D
Oh, wait...that'll DQ you for sure, unless you leave that part out of the "Photographers Comments". :-P
So, maybe just leave it in AP mode and bump the ev +2?
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:01:02 PM · #31 |
What a petty DQ. Would the shot have looked any different had he taken the photo himself with a tripod and jumped back in bed? What were his options to make the shot legal? It's a hospital snapshot taken on a cellphone! If he directed the composition and the camera was on auto, what more could he have set up? Is lack of a tripod and the ability to get out of bed really the only reason for DQ?
It's not like this shot is some fancy set up or requires special settings, a fancy composition, filters, timing or anything. It is just a simple cellphone snapshot. DQ'ing it just because he was honest in his comments is pure bull. He made it his shot when he asked that it be taken, directed the composition and performed the editing.
Are all self portraits questioned this tightly as to how much of the set up the claimed photographer is responsible for? Or are people only DQ'd when they post the set up process in the comments?
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:05:50 PM · #32 |
John's honesty got him DQ'd--which says a lot of good things about him.
I would like a remote slippy cam, just for a couple of days, please! :)
Message edited by author 2009-06-11 14:05:59. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:11:19 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
What a petty DQ. Would the shot have looked any different had he taken the photo himself with a tripod and jumped back in bed? ... |
While I agree that the DQ is very unfortunate, so is his reaction. The rules clearly state that it must be taken and post-processed by the submitter. I can stretch my imagination to include his directing his wife to take the photo as making the original shot his, but it is a *big* stretch. What I cannot imagine is saying that the final product, including creation of the border, text, and any other editing is "his." It is not, unless he did the processing from his hospital bed.
I applaud his honesty, but I don't understand his reaction. I hope that he will, in time, comprehend why the shot had to be DQ'd, out of fairness to all other participants. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:12:39 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
He ... directed the composition .... |
??? |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:13:36 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
John's honesty got him DQ'd--which says a lot of good things about him.
|
Regardless, I think it is a fair DQ due to the fact his input was minimal into the actual taking of the shot - and no editiing done by himself.. nope, I think the SC got this one bang on. Pity about his over-reaction, hope he is feeling better and when he isnt feeling so low comes back to the fold site. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:18:42 PM · #36 |
| The "remote camera" thought line is interesting on another plane... suppose I sign up for one of the several remote telescope programs available over the web, and further suppose that the cameras provide valid EXIF information. There should be no doubt at all that I am the owner and photographer of the resulting images, even though the telescope may be halfway around the world, and even though I may schedule the observing time, pointing (composition), and image acquisition specifics ahead of time. The actual image acquisition might occur when I'm asleep, and 12,000 miles away! |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:21:57 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
While I agree that the DQ is very unfortunate, so is his reaction. The rules clearly state that it must be taken and post-processed by the submitter. I can stretch my imagination to include his directing his wife to take the photo as making the original shot his, but it is a *big* stretch. What I cannot imagine is saying that the final product, including creation of the border, text, and any other editing is "his." It is not, unless he did the processing from his hospital bed.
I applaud his honesty, but I don't understand his reaction. I hope that he will, in time, comprehend why the shot had to be DQ'd, out of fairness to all other participants. |
In his own words in the notes on the entry: "I post processed the shot". Do you have additional info that this was not in fact the case? The shot was taken on 5-6 and uploaded on 5-12. Perhaps that was enough time for him to recover sufficiently to have actually done the PP like he said? |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:24:47 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The "remote camera" thought line is interesting on another plane... suppose I sign up for one of the several remote telescope programs available over the web, and further suppose that the cameras provide valid EXIF information. There should be no doubt at all that I am the owner and photographer of the resulting images, even though the telescope may be halfway around the world, and even though I may schedule the observing time, pointing (composition), and image acquisition specifics ahead of time. The actual image acquisition might occur when I'm asleep, and 12,000 miles away! |
Yup, that's what I'm driving at. It's a very interesting line of thought to pursue. Gawd knows where we'd draw the line at there. For example, is there any real difference, conceptually, between this web-based "remote capability" you are talking about and your simply calling up a fellow astronomer on the other side of the earth and saying "Hey Joe, point 'er at Regulus and grab me a shot, willya?"
R. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:28:50 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Would the shot have looked any different had he taken the photo himself with a tripod and jumped back in bed? |
Maybe not, but then it would be his photo. My picture of a famous statue might not look any different than 1000 other photos taken by other people standing in the same place with the same model camera, but those 1000 are not my photos to enter. Asking someone to take a picture of you does not make it yours, and the idea of directing the composition with hand signals in front of the camera while on morphine is just silly. Aside from correcting a camera obviously aimed at the ceiling, you'd only be guessing at the composition and focal point. Imagine you're out at the beach with your camera and somebody asks you to take a picture of him. The idea that your subject could then enter that image as his own in a photography competition defies common sense.
John was in no condition to shoot a photo, so his options would be to wait until next week or have the actual photographer enter it under her own account. While I appreciate his honesty, we've caught plenty of people who DIDN'T leave comments and tried to sneak in an otherwise-illegal photo. To suggest leaving out comments so nobody knows the photo is illegal is literally advocating intentional cheating. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:29:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
What a petty DQ. .... |
DPC is based on petty. ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:31:43 PM · #41 |
From the current image comments:
"I clearly setup the shot, I relayed through body language and finally scribbling on a note pad that I wanted the shot taken, I post processed the shot, I own the camera phone, and the camera has but one setting, full automatic, so there were no settings to set."
He said take a photo of me. That was the composition, him. When he processed it he could have cropped to take out what he did not want in the photo. If he wanted more of him or the room in the photo he could have directed her to do that. He claims he processed the photo. Without proof that someone else post processed the photo, there is no basis to DQ.
Maybe quiting was not the best thing to do, but if I got DQ'd for a BS reason like this I'd probably no longer waste time here too. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:33:25 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
... What I cannot imagine is saying that the final product, including creation of the border, text, and any other editing is "his." It is not, unless he did the processing from his hospital bed. |
He claimed to do the processing. Is there proof he did not? |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:34:43 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
He said take a photo of me. |
That's not the same as, "Someone else may press the shutter button if you set up the shot and the camera settings." Full automatic or not, he wasn't the photographer. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:36:44 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Would the shot have looked any different had he taken the photo himself with a tripod and jumped back in bed? |
Maybe not, but then it would be his photo. My picture of a famous statue might not look any different than 1000 other photos taken by other people standing in the same place with the same model camera, but those 1000 are not my photos to enter. Asking someone to take a picture of you does not make it yours, and the idea of directing the composition with hand signals in front of the camera while on morphine is just silly. Aside from correcting a camera obviously aimed at the ceiling, you'd only be guessing at the composition and focal point. Imagine you're out at the beach with your camera and somebody asks you to take a picture of him. The idea that your subject could then enter that image as his own in a photography competition defies common sense.
John was in no condition to shoot a photo, so his options would be to wait until next week or have the actual photographer enter it under her own account. While I appreciate his honesty, we've caught plenty of people who DIDN'T leave comments and tried to sneak in an otherwise-illegal photo. To suggest leaving out comments so nobody knows the photo is illegal is literally advocating intentional cheating. |
So basically, any self portrait not shot off a tripod (or other base) should be DQ'd? |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:38:14 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
He said take a photo of me. |
That's not the same as, "Someone else may press the shutter button if you set up the shot and the camera settings." Full automatic or not, he wasn't the photographer. |
Yep, so maybe the rules should be more clear and the word tripod/base be added. Telling someone what direction to point the camera is setting up the shot. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:38:44 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
From the current image comments:
"I clearly setup the shot, I relayed through body language and finally scribbling on a note pad that I wanted the shot taken, I post processed the shot, I own the camera phone, and the camera has but one setting, full automatic, so there were no settings to set."
He said take a photo of me. That was the composition, him. When he processed it he could have cropped to take out what he did not want in the photo. If he wanted more of him or the room in the photo he could have directed her to do that. He claims he processed the photo. Without proof that someone else post processed the photo, there is no basis to DQ.
Maybe quiting was not the best thing to do, but if I got DQ'd for a BS reason like this I'd probably no longer waste time here too. |
To use your reasoning, I invite MAK around to my place during a self-portrait challenge to take a photo of me, under my guidance, using my camera. I tell him how I want it cropped, composed and talk him trhough my post-processing shots.. then I enter it under my name... legal? nope. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:40:33 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The "remote camera" thought line is interesting on another plane... suppose I sign up for one of the several remote telescope programs available over the web, and further suppose that the cameras provide valid EXIF information. There should be no doubt at all that I am the owner and photographer of the resulting images, even though the telescope may be halfway around the world, and even though I may schedule the observing time, pointing (composition), and image acquisition specifics ahead of time. The actual image acquisition might occur when I'm asleep, and 12,000 miles away! |
I have a trail cam that is motion activated. I can strap it to a tree and come back days later and pull the photos off it. When I asked awhile ago if the photos were legal to enter I believe everyone said yes. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:41:16 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
.... and the idea of directing the composition with hand signals in front of the camera while on morphine is just silly. Aside from correcting a camera obviously aimed at the ceiling, you'd only be guessing at the composition and focal point... |
To assume you know how much morphine he was on, and the extent to which he was therefore in control of his facilities is very.... assumptive. He was giving a thumbs-up, I believe.
Originally posted by scalvert:
....Imagine you're out at the beach with your camera and somebody asks you to take a picture of him. The idea that your subject could then enter that image as his own in a photography competition defies common sense..... |
Unless he put his camera on a tripod with all settings locked down. That's what the rule, "Someone else may press the shutter button if you set up the shot and the camera settings." is all about, isn't it?
Originally posted by scalvert:
....John was in no condition to shoot a photo... |
Dr. Calvert, attending physician...
|
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:43:03 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by kirbic:
The "remote camera" thought line is interesting on another plane... suppose I sign up for one of the several remote telescope programs available over the web, and further suppose that the cameras provide valid EXIF information. There should be no doubt at all that I am the owner and photographer of the resulting images, even though the telescope may be halfway around the world, and even though I may schedule the observing time, pointing (composition), and image acquisition specifics ahead of time. The actual image acquisition might occur when I'm asleep, and 12,000 miles away! |
I have a trail cam that is motion activated. I can strap it to a tree and come back days later and pull the photos off it. When I asked awhile ago if the photos were legal to enter I believe everyone said yes. |
Maybe you could apply common sense to your logic and stop trying to worm around in the `legal` loopholes... seriously, common sense goes a long way.. Even John admitted in his notes it could be up for a DQ, so he entered it knowing full- well it might not abide to the spirit of the rules.. |
|
|
|
06/11/2009 02:43:35 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Simms:
To use your reasoning, I invite MAK around to my place during a self-portrait challenge to take a photo of me, under my guidance, using my camera. I tell him how I want it cropped, composed and talk him trhough my post-processing shots.. then I enter it under my name... legal? nope. |
Assuming you set up the lighting and told him what settings to use, you guided you own poses and gave him direction on what angles to use, then in post processing you told him exactly what to do (add 15 saturation, unsharpen mask with these numbers...). No doubt yes. |
|
