| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2005 06:11:21 PM · #1 |
ok i read in the forums earlier today that we can only use the liquify tool to improve minor problems, so after i read that i realized that my entry would probably be DQ'ed..but when i just got my email saying why i was DQ'ed it said this
the reason was for:
Literal representations of existing artworks, including your own, are not permitted. Please review the challenge submission rules.
now correct me if i'm wrong but i have seen many of photos on here where people have used their monitors for a background.
this was my entry
Message edited by author 2005-06-20 18:15:59.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:12:46 PM · #2 |
ok doesnt look like it will post my entry
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:14:35 PM · #3 |
You may not be able to link to it until after the challenge is over.
Monitors as backgrounds have been used but I guess it depends on whether that was the majority of your image. You could upload it to your portfolio and post it or just wait to link it after the challenge. |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:16:12 PM · #4 |
Sorry.....
Message edited by author 2005-06-20 18:16:39. |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:16:29 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:17:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
|
How much of that was the monitor? Which elements were in the foreground? |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:18:58 PM · #7 |
I got DQ'ed for using my monitor. I do not think you can display the actual DQ'ed image you need to load it again
 |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:19:19 PM · #8 |
the horse and fairy are the foreground but i dont see the difference between this photo and mine.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:20:32 PM · #9 |
well yours looks like you took a photo of only your monitor i didnt
Originally posted by Steveinnz:
I got DQ'ed for using my monitor. I do not think you can display the actual DQ'ed image you need to load it again
|
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:29:36 PM · #10 |
The liquidified black blob is the horse and fairy? Perhaps the SC didnt see what I'm assuming is a toy as a foreground element in the original shot and assumed it was all on the monitor.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:29:44 PM · #11 |
can someone from SC tell me why you cant use your monitor for part of the photo?
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:31:37 PM · #12 |
yeh but i sent them the original and if they lightened it they would see it.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:33:31 PM · #13 |
honestly, I couldn't tell that was a horse and fairy.. it looked like you just liquified part of the monitor.. thus, the entire image looks like it's *just* a photograph of your monitor.. with no foreground objects.
Not entirely sure what you were going for with that big black blob though..
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:34:53 PM · #14 |
it doesnt matter what you think it looks like they saw the original so they can see that its a horse.
Originally posted by Artyste:
honestly, I couldn't tell that was a horse and fairy.. it looked like you just liquified part of the monitor.. thus, the entire image looks like it's *just* a photograph of your monitor.. with no foreground objects.
Not entirely sure what you were going for with that big black blob though.. |
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:38:49 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
it doesnt matter what you think it looks like they saw the original so they can see that its a horse.
Originally posted by Artyste:
honestly, I couldn't tell that was a horse and fairy.. it looked like you just liquified part of the monitor.. thus, the entire image looks like it's *just* a photograph of your monitor.. with no foreground objects.
Not entirely sure what you were going for with that big black blob though.. |
|
And they obviously came to the same conclusion... you win some you lose some. There's always next challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:41:12 PM · #16 |
you photo, as well as Scalvert's "Nightbulb" were borderline crapshoots (if you pardon my expression) in terms of risking DQ. If you are near the border in anything, there's got to be someone very close to you on the other side of it. As I understand it, in scalvert's photo hand is indeed the focal point of the composition, the photo simply would not exist without it. In your case, the horse and fairy are barely visible, and the photo would almost be the same without them. At least, this is my impression, and a possible rationale behind SC decision. Perhaps, someone from SC should clarify their decision since there is misunderstanding.
Message edited by author 2005-06-20 18:43:12.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:42:25 PM · #17 |
| What exactly did you do there? Maybe there was a horse in the original, but I don't see a horse in the one you posted which I think was in the challenge. |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:42:55 PM · #18 |
I thought it was pretty cool. I was marking this one for at worse a top 20 finish. Unlucky.
Roll with the punches, tomorrows another day. |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:44:36 PM · #19 |
My understanding, or perhaps lack, was that ANYTHING in front of the monitor qualified you as not a literal work.
Here, all that is in front is the tack and the post-it note:
I don't recall if this was validated--I seem to recall it was. |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 06:45:07 PM · #20 |
so i wonder if the liquify was still legal? oh well, i cant believe people actually gave me 10's when i was so blind to have that damn cursor on the screen..maybe some of the others didnt see it either lmfao!! i think the cursor is more embarrassing than the DQ, haha!!
Originally posted by ltsimring:
you photo, as well as Scalvert's "Nightbulb" were borderline crapshoots (if you pardon my expression) in terms of risking DQ. If you are near the border in anything, there've got to be someone very close to you on the other side of it. As I understand it, in scalvert's photo hand is indeed the focal point of rth composition, the photo simply would not exist without it. In your case, the horse and fairy are barely visible, and the photo would almost be the same without them. At least, this is my impression, and a possible rationale behind SC decision. Perhaps, someone from SC should clarify their decision since there is misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 07:05:24 PM · #21 |
i voted on all the entries and i have to say that yours was one of the better ones, i didnt really see the horse and fairy, more like a liquified blob i choose to ignore.
As far as using monitors as background, the debate has come up b4, and i have first hand experience with part of that debate on my rubber ducky challenge entry. I dont think your photo would exactly qualify for dq under the literal representation clause since you say the fairy and horse were real, so im a bit puzzled why sc would rule this way.
I dont think you should have gotten dq'ed for what you did. =But I feel that breaking the 'spirit of the rules' clause would have been a better grounds for dq.
Should you have gotten dq'ed? SC ruled yes, I dont think my opinion would matter.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 07:15:12 PM · #22 |
Sorry to hear about your DQ Cheryl. It's a cool image. My guess is they DQ'd it because it's difficult to tell that there is anything else in the frame other than the image on your monitor.
I used a monitor in one of my ribbon photos and got away with it.
Good luck in your next challenge!
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 07:18:23 PM · #23 |
i am very confused as i stated in a rant forum earlier...i was told that my original entry i wanted would be dq'd for moving major elements of the photo this was it
original
final
so i thought using the liquify filter in small areas like you did would be ok...now as far as the monitor shot goes a picture of a picture as your major element is i guess as stated a no no but where does it say you cant use the liquify filter???
btw i really liked wht you submitted and hope that you continue to get ffeedback here telling you the same.
Message edited by author 2005-06-20 19:30:02.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 07:25:46 PM · #24 |
Sorry about the DQ Cheryl... I know that I scored it VERY highly. I thought it was a very cool image (albeit I was afraid it might get DQed - I didn't request anything BTW). It's unfortunate (IMHO) that the Advanced Editing doesn't allow for more, but I guess that's part of the intrigue when participating in this type of contest.
I'm sure that's little consolation to you right now - and I mean NOTHING toward your image by saying so, because I think it's an extremely well thought-out, composed, and executed shot. Hats off to you for pulling it off so well - it met the challenge perfectly!
I hope that you can enjoy at least some of the accolades that I'm sure you'd already received on the shot. It's definitely a cool one! Congrats (and condolenscences). :o/
Jimmy
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 07:47:25 PM · #25 |
I'm not afraid to say (but am not sure if I was the only one) but I DID resquest your photo to be validated! Why?
Cause IT IS literal representation of existing art work! If only had you interacted with the picture, it couldn't be considered as literal, cz you altered the original look of the image (not necessarily modifying the image on PS, but adding items to it). As far as I'm concerned, your image and scalvert's night bulb, have nothing to do with one another. Scalvert altered a picture, and then using his VERY OWN HAND to hold the bottom part of a light bulb, IN FRONT of the screen! And that wasn't the case with your shot! You simply took a picture of your monitor.
If that was allowed, basic editing would be worthless!!!! Why I say that?
Cause you could edit any picture, in any way, and then have it as your background. After that you shoot the screen, and you have your final "product! Needless to make any sort of post-processing. You could then submit your original file, with the exif data, showing it was unaltered. Does it make sense to you? You could even go beyond advanced editing rules, adding major elements to your image, and then still provide an unaltered file, because you simply took a shot of it, after you have altered everything you wanted!
Try this, get any famous picture, by any famous photographer, or painter! Submit a shot of it, if any1 gets it was only a shot of existing work, you get Dq'ed. But if somehow you interact with the subject, add any elements to the picture, for the shot (not on PS) that can't be considered "literal represantation of art work", because you have altered the original look!
I can go further. It might not be polite to do this, but you could use any1's pictures from DPC as part(s) of your very own images. As long as you do modify the original look of it! Get this shot from scalvert:
Print it really big, and add batman to it, waving a little "buh bye" to the viwers! There you go, it's not literal!
Got the idea!?
Sorry for the DQ. Not personal, but as far as the rules are concerned, they are the same for everybody. For you, and me!
EDITING: minor spelling mistakes (there might be some left), and also, just checked that you used a horse in front of the screen, but then you still altered it in some way that was not legal! That might not have been the reason why you got dq'ed, but it would also get you to the same "result".
Message edited by author 2005-06-20 19:52:21.
|
|
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: 04/25/2024 01:55:19 PM EDT.
