It was a photo...see - DPChallenge Forums

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/17/2006 01:24:52 AM · #1

Got a few comments about how they wondered how this was a photo...I knew people would question it...sure that's why I got some low votes...until I got it validated. Also it was very literal so that didn't help me at all either. Just wanted to show that it was a photo and not just computer generated. The idea sorta hit me the next to last night...I thought I did a good job...but can understand how people thought.

Here is what I did

Clint

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 01:25:48.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/17/2006 01:27:27 AM · #2

I'm sure it was an image alright one induced by shrooms... :P

07/17/2006 01:29:04 AM · #3

If I understand this correctly, you made two "pages" for a computer slideshow, then photographed a long exposure of the screen and zoomed only during the second slide of the show? So the whole image exists on the computer screen only?

Robt.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/17/2006 01:34:17 AM · #4

But I got the zoomed effect from the camera...I didn't create the zoom in the computer...I guess I could have done it if I would have had all those little 10s as little light stands...don't see the difference

Same as poeple doing long exposures on digital clocks and making the light trails

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 01:36:37.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

07/17/2006 02:18:45 AM · #5

More thought went into that photo than I gave it marks for I think.

levyj413

Nikon D7100

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

07/17/2006 02:30:50 AM · #6

I see it as completely legit. Just as much so as every other shot that shows two different images lit by different flashes.

07/17/2006 02:31:41 AM · #7

Originally posted by TomFoolery:

Yeah, I understand that. It's just an interesting aspect of the "literal artwork" rule; you created a piece of art, two actually, that exist only on the computer, then you let the computer merge them into a single image, which (apparently) avoids being literal artwork because you zoomed on it.

So based on that, can we use zoom blur on ANY existing artwork and make it legal? Or am I missing something? Can we do a slide show on the computer on ANY two works of art superimposed and, by zooming the second one, make it legal? I am certainly not quarreling with your image, which has been validated. I just wonder what this means for other things.

Robt.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/17/2006 02:34:27 AM · #8

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So based on that, can we use zoom blur on ANY existing artwork and make it legal?

Sure. Why not?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/17/2006 02:46:08 AM · #9

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So based on that, can we use zoom blur on ANY existing artwork and make it legal?

Sure. Why not?

'Cuz if that were the case, we could shoot a shot of any old print of anything we have from any previous time and throw a little zoom on it and have a legal image, and I thought that was a no-no: but I may well be wrong...

R.

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 02:46:49.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/17/2006 03:09:26 AM · #10

Wouldn't that fit the blur effect mentioned in this tutorial (i.e. the first one listed as valid).

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 03:10:10.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/17/2006 03:17:10 AM · #11

Originally posted by yanko:

Wouldn't that fit the blur effect mentioned in this tutorial (i.e. the first one listed as valid).

Yeah, I guess so... The thing of it is, I always had it in my mind that we couldn't take old photos of ours and make them the subject of a new photo by photographing the print, regardless of what we did with it. I guess that was wrong, though. I guess I can take a nice landscape from outside the challenge date and post it on the screen, then make a frame for it and post that too, in a slide show, then shoot the monitor stationary for the photo and zoomed out for the frame when it comes up, and I have a valid entry? See what I mean?

I am not trying to be stubborn or anything, but I wish someone could explain to me why that won't be legal, because I sure don't think it ought to be...

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/17/2006 03:27:10 AM · #12

Yeah, a while back when the literal artwork rule was being discussed on Rose's ET shot I remember being a bit bothered by the rule as it was explained. I think the example you gave would be 100% legal (since the frame would be an added element) however ethically questionable but hey that's not DQable! :P

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

07/17/2006 08:17:44 AM · #13

Well, I guess we are challenging the rules once again with this "literal" representation question. If I decided to photograph an online concert, and surround the monitor with a set of lights, then apparently that would be legal. I have been watching Pink Floyd, and have tried to photograph the concert, but not with any additions to make it my own composition. Ethically, I don't think it is right to do this, or to try to shoot one of your old images on the monitor, or on the ground, or whatever. Admittedly I have done some images in the past where a photo was a minor component of the composition (see Triangle challenge and Darkness challenge) but have decided to move away from using that technique. I guess it all boils down to what we can live with, legal or not.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/18/2006 12:28:54 PM · #14

When I shot this the one thing that popped in my mind was this

I understand what you are saying Bear...and if you did it a certain way that didn't get DQed...then more power...but how would that affect you and the way people think about your photography after it came to light. What I did was an idea that just came out of my head...if I had something...an object that would have given me the results I was looking for I probably would have done that. I don't feel bad about what I did though...thought it was creative...but way too literal meaning it was a 10 challenge and I shot ten 10s...that and people thought it wasn't a photo was why I got my low score...like I said not complaining...don't even really care about the score now. The only thing I would like to get people to pay attention to is if you think something is wrong with an image...ask for validation...don't just leave a comment on what you think the photo is and vote low...that's pretty crummy.

Clint

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/18/2006 01:01:16 PM · #15

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It's just an interesting aspect of the "literal artwork" rule; you created a piece of art, two actually, that exist only on the computer, then you let the computer merge them into a single image, which (apparently) avoids being literal artwork because you zoomed on it.

I don't interpret it quite the same way -- I see it as two pieces of computer art which were then merged with a camera technique.

I personally am in favor of an extremely lax interpretation of the artwork rule, because I find most people incapable of defining the difference between "existing artwork" and a "prop." As the photographer noted, those 10s could have been wood numbers on sticks or a display on the screen, but the technique of combining them is approximately the same in each case. Here, the mere combination of the two images prevents the result from being a "literal representation" of either of the source images.

The best I can describe my standard is "catalogue shot" -- if the subject is depicted in the way I'd expect if it was an item listed in an auction/sales catalogue, then it's a "literal depiction of existing art." If the photographer has "done something" to the item to make it relate to the specific challenge, then I think it's a valid artistic interpretation -- perhaps not particularly created or technically adept, and therefore deserving of a low score -- but not illegal.

I think context is important. For example, I'd have no problem with that blurry money if the challenge was, say Clichés and Sayings VI and the title Easy Come, Easy Go ...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/18/2006 01:10:50 PM · #16

Originally posted by TomFoolery:

I don't feel bad about what I did though...thought it was creative...

No reason whatsoever to feel bad. I have no problem with your entry at all. I just am trying to correlate the fact that it was validated with what I had thought the "literal artwork" rule was intended to accomplish.

R.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

07/18/2006 02:02:53 PM · #17

I've been generally against the use of computer screens for this purpose. By the same token, I'm generally against the use of printed pictures as props. I'd like to boot them both. Sure, we'd have less "illusion" shots, but that's the price I'd be happy to pay to be rid of them as a whole.

It isn't that the shots represent lazy photography (they don't), but the idea that other rules can be stretched and gotten around (espeically compositing) through this method bothers me.

willhadl

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

07/18/2006 02:28:43 PM · #18

A rubber duck is a literal piece of art. It was created by an artist and mass produced by a toy company how many images of rubber ducks do we see each month? If I create a backdrop in computer or by cutting paper into strips and photographing them really what�s the difference?