| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2006 05:26:39 PM · #1 |
Not to pick on Rose's fine 80's challenge entry but her photo has made me question my understanding of both the advance and basic editing rules. Specifically this section:
Artwork: Literal photographic representations 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, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc).
The photo in question:
She created the artwork in PSP then printed it out and took a picture of it. What am I missing that makes this not a literal representation? |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 05:28:42 PM · #2 |
Apparently the tree branches are actual twigs, so the whole thing is 3-dimensional and not a "literal representation"...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 05:31:38 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently the tree branches are actual twigs, so the whole thing is 3-dimensional and not a "literal representation"...
Robt. |
Ahh ok. She went into great detail with the steps and somehow I missed that. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 05:31:49 PM · #4 |
| What Bear said. The *real* twigs made it legal (though just barely IMO). If it had just been backlit 2D art, it likely would have been DQ'd. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 05:34:50 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently the tree branches are actual twigs, so the whole thing is 3-dimensional and not a "literal representation"...
Robt. |
Hmmmmm, I am not picking on anyone, but wouldn't this photo (which was disqualified) also meet that requirement? It looks like a real flower with a drawing.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 05:37:02 PM · #6 |
It's a very strange gray area IMO. Suppose I take a nice sheet of textured paper and then spray it with spray on adhesive and scatter bits of paper and fabric and leaves on it and press it all flat; I have just created a collage, it's an art work, and I can't just shoot it and call it a photo.
BUT if I do the same thing and scatter some twigs on it, it's now "legal"? Does it matter if the twigs are glued down ot not? If the twigs are glued down, is it a sculpture instead of a collage and more or less acceptable according to how I light it?
R.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 05:52:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's a very strange gray area IMO. Suppose I take a nice sheet of textured paper and then spray it with spray on adhesive and scatter bits of paper and fabric and leaves on it and press it all flat; I have just created a collage, it's an art work, and I can't just shoot it and call it a photo.
BUT if I do the same thing and scatter some twigs on it, it's now "legal"? Does it matter if the twigs are glued down ot not? If the twigs are glued down, is it a sculpture instead of a collage and more or less acceptable according to how I light it?
R. |
I suppose we will just have to wait for the long-time-coming rule changes. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 06:04:07 PM · #8 |
It's so simple!
If I take a picture of a vase full of flowers it's a prop, but if I take a picture of an Ikibana arrangement it's a photo of artwork.
Where do you draw the line between art and a "prop" anyway?
Here are some photos which might have little meaning without the inclusion of pre-existing artwork:
   |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 06:10:22 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently the tree branches are actual twigs, so the whole thing is 3-dimensional and not a "literal representation"...
Robt. |
It's simple.
The picture is of the twigs, and the moon and the bicycle are just background props.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 06:20:48 PM · #10 |
These photos are not literal representations of the original artwork. So if you cut out the main subject (no one even thought about it being a major copyright violation) of a piece of artwork, blow up another piece of artwork for the background, then throw in a real twig, that makes it a photo? :D
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 06:26:54 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently the tree branches are actual twigs, so the whole thing is 3-dimensional and not a "literal representation"...
Robt. |
It's simple.
The picture is of the twigs, and the moon and the bicycle are just background props. |
The image title puts the lie to this presumption, the figure of the moon and "ET" are the subject.
I still do not believe this type of entry should be permitted, particularly when the subject is obviously the "background". I suppose one could photograph a similar scene and place a fingerprint on the surface of the video screen to qualify as a foreground object, perfectly legal by the presently accepted criteria. IMO all these type images are blatant attempts to circumvent the existing rules and are certainly outside the spirit of the challenges.
Message edited by author 2006-03-01 18:54:48. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 07:14:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently the tree branches are actual twigs, so the whole thing is 3-dimensional and not a "literal representation"...
Robt. |
Hmmmmm, I am not picking on anyone, but wouldn't this photo (which was disqualified) also meet that requirement? It looks like a real flower with a drawing.
|
By the criteria expressed to accept the "ET" image, this one qualifies easily, as the flower blossom is obviously the major subject, supported by the 'background'. But the SC's stripes change frequently and different people are making the decisions; what is acceptable one time may not be acceptable another time. Get those rules improvements done!! |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 07:48:12 PM · #13 |
The flower was actually a 2D cut-out on a 2-d sheet of paper.
The addition of 3-d elements to shots has been long allowed. While some dicussion of the nature of the 3-d element can be made, in this case we determined that the 3-d element was significant enough that it was not literal artwork.
And that sentence just cries out for puncuation.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 07:51:09 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by blemt:
The flower was actually a 2D cut-out on a 2-d sheet of paper.
The addition of 3-d elements to shots has been long allowed. While some dicussion of the nature of the 3-d element can be made, in this case we determined that the 3-d element was significant enough that it was not literal artwork.
And that sentence just cries out for puncuation. |
So the branch is considered the main subject? I'm confused...which happens a lot I know....
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 07:59:44 PM · #15 |
The branch was considered enough of a component of the shot to render the artwork rule moot.
There's some precident for this, as an example JoeyLawrence has a shot from a few challenges back where he has a Gandalf standee in a forest. Looked great.
Now there are some differences, but based on that precident, and our general rule at adding 3d elements changes the shot enough, that's why this one was validated.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 08:29:29 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I suppose we will just have to wait for the long-time-coming rule changes. |
You'll be waiting a long,long time. Clarifying the rules will only make them more confusing. More words = more confusion. More S.C. members = more confusion. What is needed here is one good dictator who eliminates all previous rules and decisions and starts fresh with plain and simple statements allowing none of your so-called out of the box crap. This person should only be known as "Dictator" and if Dictator says you are outside the rules your photo is zapped to the "Did not follow instructions" pile for all to see. Pretty soon those being zapped would fall right in line. There are be plenty enough categories everyone could be happy
Message edited by author 2006-03-01 20:32:02. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 08:34:08 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by blemt:
The branch was considered enough of a component of the shot to render the artwork rule moot.
There's some precident for this, as an example JoeyLawrence has a shot from a few challenges back where he has a Gandalf standee in a forest. Looked great.
Now there are some differences, but based on that precident, and our general rule at adding 3d elements changes the shot enough, that's why this one was validated. |
This situation is where we should have a "major element" rule.
Being if your 3d element changes the literal artwork, the 3d element should be a major element not an insignificant branch in the corner. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 08:35:14 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by keegbow:
I suppose we will just have to wait for the long-time-coming rule changes. |
You'll be waiting a long,long time. Clarifying the rules will only make them more confusing. More words = more confusion. More S.C. members = more confusion. What is needed here is one good dictator who eliminates all previous rules and decisions and starts fresh with plain and simple statements allowing none of your so-called out of the box crap. This person should only be known as "Dictator" and if Dictator says you are outside the rules your photo is zapped to the "Did not follow instructions" pile for all to see. Pretty soon those being zapped would fall right in line. There are be plenty enough categories everyone could be happy |
Why not just call him "Big Brother" ? |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 09:16:00 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
This person should only be known as "Dictator" and if Dictator says you are outside the rules your photo is zapped to the "Did not follow instructions" pile for all to see. |
ahh, yes. it's so simple. dictators have worked so well throughout history. why not try it here?
Originally posted by David Ey:
More words = more confusion. |
who ever said anything about more words? ;)
Message edited by author 2006-03-01 21:16:47.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 10:10:03 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
This situation is where we should have a "major element" rule.
Being if your 3d element changes the literal artwork, the 3d element should be a major element not an insignificant branch in the corner. |
Right now, major elements SPECIFICALLY addresses post production. Since this was a very elaborate setup shot, major elements does not apply.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 10:13:18 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Now there are some differences, but based on that precident, and our general rule at adding 3d elements changes the shot enough, that's why this one was validated. |
-------------------------------
If 3d is really what your rule hinges on, and not whether the photo is a 'creative depiction' of artwork, shouldn't the rule state that as such?? |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 10:18:32 PM · #22 |
Well, lets just call it BOSS since you seem to be hung up on dictator.
Count the rules now and count again when the revisions are done. I'll wager there will be more in the end.
Message edited by author 2006-03-01 22:19:09. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 10:20:01 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I understand major elements does not apply. I'm just saying this is where it should apply in the rule changes. |
Okay, we can take that under advisement. :) |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 10:38:39 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by meanwile:
Originally posted by blemt:
Now there are some differences, but based on that precident, and our general rule at adding 3d elements changes the shot enough, that's why this one was validated. |
-------------------------------
If 3d is really what your rule hinges on, and not whether the photo is a 'creative depiction' of artwork, shouldn't the rule state that as such?? |
The rule states that a "literal representation" is subject to DQ, and that a "creative depiction" is not. It's almost impossible to produce a "literal representation" of a 3D artwork, since photography of 3D artwork almost always includes inherent decisions about angle, composition and lighting.
Rose provided us with a photograph of her setup for her entry. Her setup was not just a simple matter of laying a branch flat on a piece of paper, or taping it to that paper. There were unique and creative decisions made on lighting methods, space between the twig and the background, and other aspects of the photograph. This was a true 3D setup in that if you change the photographer's angle, the illusion created in the photograph quickly breaks down.
According to the rules, a literal representation is one which is "composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)." In this instance, having seen photographs of the setup, the photographer made clear and obvious decisions about composition, lighting, and exposure, which were major factors in voters' decisions.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 11:10:09 PM · #25 |
| I say, let's send it off to Stephen Spielberg and let him decide if it's a literal representation of (his) artwork. |
|
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 06:12:59 PM EDT.
