Can someone explain this? - DPChallenge Forums

06/07/2012 11:35:12 AM · #1

This post is to explore the topic of,
and so I can get my head around the use of
"already taken photographs" in entries at DPC.
I still am confused as to certain aspects of the rules.

The actual thing that rekindled my uncertainty was
this photo

.
There are several reasons listed for a possible DQ,
one of the reasons is:

"In addition, 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 in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."

So it seems apparent that someone cannot print out an old picture, or a new picture,
and take a picture of that picture entirely or almost entirely in the frame,
and submit it as an actual picture.

But just to be sure, the prohibition is to prevent people from
submitting old photos or someone else's drawing or artwork/photo
as their own current photo taken in time for the current challenge?

Lets say I take a shot of the interior of my home, and its a gray day, and
I don't like it, so I print a 3' by 6' poster of the sky from a photo I took
6 weeks ago, and tape it to my window- and it fills up 1/4 of the finished photo frame?

is that permissible? I mean, I guess I need clarity on the intent to fool.
It seems that you can use photos as element in your shot, with clear intent to
fool people, at will, and there would be absolutely no prohibition on
faking an element of the shot(say a candle on a table or a photo of a light switch
meant to look like a 3D light switch on a wall)
using a photo printed out,
you just can't try to fool people into thinking you are
submitting a photo taken currently in a challenge,
when you are just taking a complete photo of a photo?

Is that correct?

AS to the photo above, if the photog held up a picture of the kid behind the candle or whatever it is, is that illegal?

Message edited by author 2012-06-07 11:36:38.

06/07/2012 11:39:14 AM · #2

the scenario you describe has been a point of much discussion for some time. i dont think we ever got a definitive answer.

personally i dont think it should be DQ because what you are doing isn't any different than a back drop.

im not sure anyone would be able to tell you did it anyway. :)

this example was a point of much discussion. i still disagree as to it being a dq. the background is a picture.

Message edited by author 2012-06-07 11:42:38.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

06/07/2012 11:43:02 AM · #3

Originally posted by mike_311:

the scenario you describe has been a point o much discussion for some time. i dont think we ever got a definitive answer.

personally i dont think it should be DQ because what you are doing isnt any different than a back drop.

im not sure anyone would be able to tell you did it anyway. :)

I agree. There was one a few years ago (and I'm too busy to search for it) that was a shot of a family at dinner and the photo was of the guy (photographer I guess) holding his glass as a toast toward the family (if my old brain recalls correctly) and it was DQd because the background family was a photo.

Yeah, that should be legal, IMO...

Message edited by author 2012-06-07 11:52:29.

06/07/2012 11:45:20 AM · #4

Originally posted by klkitchens:

this one:

Message edited by author 2012-06-07 11:45:41.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/07/2012 11:46:28 AM · #5

Originally posted by mike_311:

good example- what is the exact reason for the dq- its obviously not "entirely" a photograph of a photograph. It fools the viewer, but no more than my picture of a polar bear I printed out and cut out and put into my rearview mirror.

I think if the lego guys are real, its a misapplication of the photo of a photo rule. Its mixed media. not a photo of a photo.

Sirashley

Nikon D7200

06/07/2012 11:49:09 AM · #6

I believe it falls under this rule : which says "You May"--- include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.

I think the problem with the DQ'd shots above is that the image used is "Not Clearly recognizable as existing artwork and are a really prominent part of the image"... Having said that, its a slippery slope, and I know there have been a few images that have been validated that were borderline... I just don't have the time to look them up

Message edited by author 2012-06-07 11:49:42.

06/07/2012 11:49:23 AM · #7

maybe becuase you took the polar bear photo? i have no idea.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

06/07/2012 11:53:25 AM · #8

Here is a lengthy thread on the subject.

06/07/2012 11:58:03 AM · #9

If it boils down to the "prominence of the photo in the photo" that makes sense, even if it does leave it
up to the subjective interpretation.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

06/07/2012 12:01:14 PM · #10

part of the problem too is that the photographers admitted to the rule breaking, intentional or not, in the comments.

so dont do that ;-)

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

06/07/2012 12:03:20 PM · #11

Originally posted by mike_311:

part of the problem too is that the photographers admitted to the rule breaking, intentional or not, in the comments.

so dont do that ;-)

So did Shannon on this one (unless that rule was not in place in 2006)... This is no different than Lydia's or the Lego shot.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

06/07/2012 12:09:26 PM · #12

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Originally posted by mike_311:
part of the problem too is that the photographers admitted to the rule breaking, intentional or not, in the comments.

so dont do that ;-)

So did Shannon on this one (unless that rule was not in place in 2006)... This is no different than Lydia's or the Lego shot.

That rule didn't exist in 2006, and Shannon has said that it probably wouldn't pass inspection under today's rule.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

06/07/2012 12:12:10 PM · #13

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Originally posted by mike_311:
part of the problem too is that the photographers admitted to the rule breaking, intentional or not, in the comments.

so dont do that ;-)

So did Shannon on this one (unless that rule was not in place in 2006)... This is no different than Lydia's or the Lego shot.

That rule didn't exist in 2006, and Shannon has said that it probably wouldn't pass inspection under today's rule.

Cool... but what's sad is that ALL THREE should clearly be legal. Each one contains a "real" element as the primary focus and thus should be considered valid... The little girl, the glass, and the lego dudes all should have tipped the scales to legit.

Venser

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

06/07/2012 12:13:43 PM · #14

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Not so fast cowboy.
I really thought they made an eighty story Lego building and were just taking lunch there.

CS

06/07/2012 12:33:39 PM · #15

Originally posted by sfalice:

Here is a lengthy thread on the subject.

thank you for the reference.

06/07/2012 12:55:09 PM · #16

As recently posted in another thread... let me 'splain. [pause] No, is too much. Let me sum up.

In ye olden days of DPC yore, the rule was that artwork was legal as long as SOMETHING in the photo was real or 3-dimensional when you shot it (like my flying carpet shot and Nightbulb). That's easy to understand, but we ran into two headaches: We had to DQ people for entering things like a macro shot of money when the voters clearly understood what they were looking at, and had to validate entries that were riding entirely on the coattails of an existing photo, with only a gnat or other insignificant real object to skirt by the rule. This led to much discussion and the new guideline.

The current artwork rule is unavoidably more subjective, but really not so hard to understand. You can enter a photo of obvious artwork without issue. Anything non-photorealistic like a crayon illustration or money is fair game. Likewise, you could enter a macro of LCD pixels, a photo of the Mona Lisa, a billboard with the frame showing, etc. People will generally understand that you took a picture of artwork and can vote as they see fit. You may also include photorealistic artwork and existing images in your scene IF they aren't playing a major role in the impact of your entry because then voters are giving significant weight to a photo of a photo.

As a minor supporting element, artwork is fine. But using the entry in question here as an example, the background image would not be obvious artwork to all, and shooting a good water drop shot with a decent expression and lighting on a baby in the close background all at once is a very different beast from shooting a water drop in front of a photo. The rules would not allow such a composite to be made in Photoshop or with in-camera editing from separate photos, so allowing this approach would be a glaring loophole. Got it?

06/07/2012 01:19:55 PM · #17

that's a pretty good explanation, my only question is how does one handle a canvas backdrop? specifically a photo realistic one of say a Christmas tree or fireplace or landscape?

06/07/2012 01:32:12 PM · #18

Originally posted by mike_311:

that's a pretty good explanation, my only question is how does one handle a canvas backdrop? specifically a photo realistic one of say a Christmas tree or fireplace or landscape?

Same way. If it's obviously a backdrop, then it's no problem. If it's not obvious, but only serves as color or a generic background with all the action in front, then it's probably fine. If it's not obvious and forms a major part of the entry's impact or becomes a subject itself, then it would be treated the same as a plotter print or any other existing image and probably DQ'd since the voters are largely judging a photo of a photo.

06/07/2012 01:44:41 PM · #19

i dont have any, just wondering if it had special exemption, not that it should.

06/07/2012 01:45:14 PM · #20

you are quite clear and explain it well, but perhaps the rule is ambiguous, and for good reason.

if the challenge was "candles" and you went out and takes a picture of a candle to a tree in the middle of a a beautiful forest at sunset- so it was only 1/50th of the picture, it would clearly mislead the voter, but not in voting on a picture of a picture, because although it is integral, it is clearly so small a piece of the picture so as the voting would be on the forest and not the candle.

What I am getting at is the trickery or misleading nature- that can't be the reason for the dq, right? people do double exposure shots meant to trick and confuse the viewer and don't look photographic in nature all the time.

Maybe the uncertainty is good because it makes photog's "walk the proverbial line."

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

06/07/2012 02:00:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by blindjustice:

What I am getting at is the trickery or misleading nature- that can't be the reason for the dq, right? people do double exposure shots meant to trick and confuse the viewer and don't look photographic in nature all the time.

It's not the trickery itself (as you suggest with double exposures and forced perspective), but the goal of preventing entries that are essentially a photo of a photo in a photography contest. It's also not a matter of image area, but visual impact. If you put a small print of a butterfly on a cross-eyed cat's nose, it won't take up much space, but much of the entry's impact would be lost without that artwork, and it's not fair for the voters to believe you achieved such a feat with a real butterfly.

Message edited by author 2012-06-07 14:01:13.

LanndonKane

Nikon D800

06/07/2012 02:58:17 PM · #22

Originally posted by scalvert:

So if there was a "patriotism" challenge, and your shot was a still life of a table with a vase of flowers and an american flag such, but the highlight of the still life was a framed photograph of a soldier in uniform...DQ?

RyanW

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

06/07/2012 03:14:35 PM · #23

we could get into hypotheticals all day long here.
I'm pretty sure that "common sense" can answer most questions you have if you follow one simple guildeline:
"Does the photo lose it's emphasis/oomf if i did not include this other picture in my frame?"

The water drop would lose some, but still it's focused on the drop and it can stand alone without the kid's picture.
The lego girder/skyline was imitating a photo where the photographer actually had a cityscape behind the construction guys, so yes, that picture would lose it's reference/oomf and you'd just have lego guys on a lego log against a nondescript backdrop. Not the same thing.
The military thing would lose a big part of the meaning if your shot was dependant on compositionally having the focus on the soldier's picture. If it was obscured / in the background and not meant to draw your attention as the sole focal point then i'm sure it would be fine - we all need some props for staged shots...

Message edited by author 2012-06-07 15:16:11.

06/07/2012 03:19:30 PM · #24

Originally posted by LanndonKane:

Originally posted by scalvert:
As recently posted in another thread... let me 'splain. [pause] No, is too much. Let me sum up.

In ye olden days of DPC yore, the rule was that artwork was legal as long as SOMETHING in the photo was real or 3-dimensional when you shot it (like my flying carpet shot and Nightbulb). That's easy to understand, but we ran into two headaches: We had to DQ people for entering things like a macro shot of money when the voters clearly understood what they were looking at, and had to validate entries that were riding entirely on the coattails of an existing photo, with only a gnat or other insignificant real object to skirt by the rule. This led to much discussion and the new guideline.

The current artwork rule is unavoidably more subjective, but really not so hard to understand. You can enter a photo of obvious artwork without issue. Anything non-photorealistic like a crayon illustration or money is fair game. Likewise, you could enter a macro of LCD pixels, a photo of the Mona Lisa, a billboard with the frame showing, etc. People will generally understand that you took a picture of artwork and can vote as they see fit. You may also include photorealistic artwork and existing images in your scene IF they aren't playing a major role in the impact of your entry because then voters are giving significant weight to a photo of a photo.

As a minor supporting element, artwork is fine. But using the entry in question here as an example, the background image would not be obvious artwork to all, and shooting a good water drop shot with a decent expression and lighting on a baby in the close background all at once is a very different beast from shooting a water drop in front of a photo. The rules would not allow such a composite to be made in Photoshop or with in-camera editing from separate photos, so allowing this approach would be a glaring loophole. Got it?

So if there was a "patriotism" challenge, and your shot was a still life of a table with a vase of flowers and an american flag such, but the highlight of the still life was a framed photograph of a soldier in uniform...DQ?

it would be obvious that it was not to deceive the voters- so intent does matter I suppose.

What I don't get is, you can trick the voters with screens and camera techniques and hire 4000 people to help you, but you can't put a picture of a butterfly on a cat's nose. what about a fake butterfly?