"Feast" Challenge Results Recalculated

12/09/2008 09:14:10 AM · #1

The Feast Challenge results have been recalculated after the disqualification of the former third place photo.

12/09/2008 09:42:30 AM · #2

SHE'S BEEN HOSED...either SC is going to allow these types of "existing" photos or NOT allow them. There have been COUNTLESS other entries of this sort...a monitor with another "live" object in front.

The site either needs to allow this OR NOT ALLOW this type of picture.

This pic should be reinstated and the rules changed.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 09:42:57.

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

12/09/2008 09:46:05 AM · #3

Originally posted by kenskid:

SHE'S BEEN HOSED

Please see this thread.

one2one

Olympus E-5

12/09/2008 10:10:53 AM · #4

Originally posted by kenskid:

No she hasn't. Rules are very clear on this type of image. I'm surprised and distraught at being fooled into thinking this was a real shot of a Thanksgiving feast.

12/09/2008 10:11:03 AM · #5

I read it and it is rediculous.

There is NO way around this....it is time to BAN any photo of a photo. To give SC the power to DQ or not DQ depending on what they "feel" is just asking for trouble.

However, you will never be able to BAN such images. IMO if a photo of a photo is done correctly, then you would never know.

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by kenskid:
SHE'S BEEN HOSED

Please see this thread.

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

12/09/2008 10:12:30 AM · #6

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by kenskid:
SHE'S BEEN HOSED...either SC is going to allow these types of "existing" photos or NOT allow them. There have been COUNTLESS other entries of this sort...a monitor with another "live" object in front.

The site either needs to allow this OR NOT ALLOW this type of picture.

This pic should be reinstated and the rules changed.

No she hasn't. Rules are very clear on this type of image. I'm surprised and distraught at being fooled into thinking this was a real shot of a Thanksgiving feast.

Fooled me too, although that's not so hard to do. :-P

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

12/09/2008 10:12:50 AM · #7

She's been hosed. The rules are clear and other shots of the same type still hold their place in other challenges. The shot in question is legal.

Originally posted by Jac:

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

12/09/2008 10:14:42 AM · #8

I feel the DQ was legit. I gave it a high vote, thinking it was the actual scene.

mbrutus2009

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

12/09/2008 10:18:41 AM · #9

I thought it was a very unique way of taking a photo... I don't think it should have been DQ'd. With that said I think that other shots done the same way in the past should have been DQ'd aswell. Either do it or not... I don't think they should pick and choose... Just my opinion. I think that SC will straighten this out. ^_^

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

12/09/2008 10:19:54 AM · #10

Originally posted by kenskid:

She's been hosed. The rules are clear and other shots of the same type still hold their place in other challenges. The shot in question is legal.

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by kenskid:
SHE'S BEEN HOSED...either SC is going to allow these types of "existing" photos or NOT allow them. There have been COUNTLESS other entries of this sort...a monitor with another "live" object in front.

The site either needs to allow this OR NOT ALLOW this type of picture.

This pic should be reinstated and the rules changed.

No she hasn't. Rules are very clear on this type of image. I'm surprised and distraught at being fooled into thinking this was a real shot of a Thanksgiving feast.

Just keep saying it over and over and you'll believe....

Show us some samples of shots that use this method to prove your point please.

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

12/09/2008 10:43:27 AM · #11

There are many shots exactly like the one in question that remain in play...NO DQ...look at the other thread for a few samples...

Here is one of my own:

I'll say it as many times as needed, JAC.....

SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED...SHE'S BEEN HOSED

How's that Jac?

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by kenskid:
She's been hosed. The rules are clear and other shots of the same type still hold their place in other challenges. The shot in question is legal.

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by kenskid:
SHE'S BEEN HOSED...either SC is going to allow these types of "existing" photos or NOT allow them. There have been COUNTLESS other entries of this sort...a monitor with another "live" object in front.

The site either needs to allow this OR NOT ALLOW this type of picture.

This pic should be reinstated and the rules changed.

No she hasn't. Rules are very clear on this type of image. I'm surprised and distraught at being fooled into thinking this was a real shot of a Thanksgiving feast.

Just keep saying it over and over and you'll believe....

Show us some samples of shots that use this method to prove your point please.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:45:07.

one2one

Olympus E-5

12/09/2008 11:01:57 AM · #12

I only see one Hoser here. eheheh

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

12/09/2008 11:06:08 AM · #13

More than 1/3 of the new photograph consists of new work. The other portion of the image was done by the photographer.

When the rules say �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� and the new object takes up a considerable amount of real estate in the new image, it would seem logical that the image meets the rule.

Finally, the last bit about �fool(ing) the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.� Doesn�t apply as the photographer took the background image as well.

That leaves only: �in order to circumvent date or editing rules� which doesn�t seem to apply to the DQ in this instance.

So, what again, did the photographer do wrong?

I rarely disagree with the SC as they have a difficult job and do it well and remarkably consistently. This time, though, and I wish I didn�t have to say it: �I disagree with this DQ.�

If a majority of the group doesn't want this type of image entered in competition, I guess we should rewrite the rules to prohibit it.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

12/09/2008 11:13:32 AM · #14

Originally posted by sfalice:

I rarely disagree with the SC as they have a difficult job and do it well and remarkably consistently. This time, though, and I wish I didn�t have to say it: �I disagree with this DQ.�

Then ask yourself this question, borrowing from an example in this thread.

If someone were to take a picture of DeSousa's winning entry from the Master's challenge, and they stuck a wine glass in front of the image (implying that DeSousa's set-up in the background was their own), would you have no problem with that?

MattO

Nikon D4

12/09/2008 11:16:46 AM · #15

This is one of those things that just irritates the heck out of me about this site. IMHO there is no difference in this entry then many of the others that have "fooled" the viewer. Including those by members of the SC. It will never change until members of the SC change, and I dont think that will ever happen. IMHO we need some new open minded SC members put in place. I say we recall the current SC and put a new "voted by the members" SC in place.

Matt

JulietNN

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

12/09/2008 11:18:46 AM · #16

I thought it was a real scene as well not a photograph, so to me, it does fall under the DQ aspect. SOrry L

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

12/09/2008 11:18:48 AM · #17

Originally posted by alanfreed:

... Then ask yourself this question, borrowing from an example in this thread. ...

This is confusing. We have essentially the same conversation going on in two threads at the same time.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

12/09/2008 11:20:18 AM · #18

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by sfalice:
I rarely disagree with the SC as they have a difficult job and do it well and remarkably consistently. This time, though, and I wish I didn�t have to say it: �I disagree with this DQ.�

Then ask yourself this question, borrowing from an example in this thread.

If someone were to take a picture of DeSousa's winning entry from the Master's challenge, and they stuck a wine glass in front of the image (implying that DeSousa's set-up in the background was their own), would you have no problem with that?

Alan, in my paragraph three in my last post
"Finally, the last bit about �fool(ing) the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.� Doesn�t apply as the photographer took the background image as well."

would indicate that the rule would be broken if the DeSousa image was used by another photographer. Of course I would have a problem with that.

The dinner was taken by the photographer who submitted the entry.

12/09/2008 11:23:12 AM · #19

Originally posted by sfalice:

It does not matter whether it was their own photo or not. There would be nothing to keep someone from illegally editing a photo-of-a-photo (or using one outside the allowed timeframe) beyond what the editing rules allow, beforehand.