How is this legal, and another one not?

04/19/2010 07:44:00 AM · #1

Nothing against the photo or the photographer, but why wasn't this DQ'ed:

But this one was?

Both involve a photo that "fools" the viewer.

In the 1st one I wasn't sure if it was a photo or a double exposure that got the result.

04/19/2010 07:47:46 AM · #2

In my opinion (not SC, but me) the first doesn't fool you into think it's real, as the border around the printed photo is clearly visible. If that were cloned out, I'd say it would be a different story...

04/19/2010 07:48:50 AM · #3

Originally posted by Konador:

Well, it fooled me since I didn't know if it was a photo or a double exposure, as I said.

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

04/19/2010 07:51:29 AM · #4

In my opinion (not SC, but me) the first doesn't fool ~~you~~ me into think it's real, as the border around the printed photo is clearly visible. If that were cloned out, I'd say it would be a different story...

Either way, it didn't fool you into thinking the guy really had an eye on his hand. Whereas the other one does fool people into thinking the glass is in front of a group of diners having a meal.

Message edited by author 2010-04-19 07:51:59.

MattO

Nikon D4

04/19/2010 08:01:43 AM · #5

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Nothing against the photo or the photographer, but why wasn't this DQ'ed:

But this one was?

Both involve a photo that "fools" the viewer.

In the 1st one I wasn't sure if it was a photo or a double exposure that got the result.

It also involves a photo that includes mostly a photo of a photo.

Matt

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

04/19/2010 08:20:56 AM · #6

Originally posted by MattO:

It also involves a photo that includes mostly a photo of a photo.

Matt

Yes, you're right. We are voting on a photo of a photo in this case.....very little is not a previously taken photo. I thought that was against the rules.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

04/19/2010 08:33:39 AM · #7

I rarely get into a discussion about a photo being DQ'ed or not; I leave it to the SC.

Let me first say this is a great image and would have been legal, IMO, under expert editing rules but I find it difficult being legal under advanced editing rules. Now I maybe mistaken but from this one line in the advanced rules,I base my opinion.

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.

57% of this photograph is a photograph of another photo. And with all the elements that are being judged falling within that 57% tells me I am basing my vote on a picture of a picture.

ETA: To clarify.

Message edited by author 2010-04-19 08:42:57.

04/19/2010 08:36:35 AM · #8

Originally posted by SDW:

I rarely get into a discussion about a photo being DQ'ed or not; I leave it to the SC.

Let me first say this is a great image and would have been legal, IMO, under expert editing rules but I find it difficult being legal under advanced editing rules. Now I maybe mistaken but from this one line in the advanced rules,I base my opinion.

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.

The photo consist is 57% of a photo of another photo With all the elements of the photograph being within that 57%.
I did the math and 57% of the photographs pixels are of a picture of another picture. And all the elements of judging the photograph falls within that 57% of pixels. So were we not judging the entry majorly on a photo of another photo?

Even if it were not 57%, the focus is on the hand and eye.....that's what we're voting on and that part is a photo of a photo.

citymars

Nikon D700

04/19/2010 08:56:49 AM · #9

Seems like an odd precedent to set... that one can circumvent editing rules by taking a photo of a photo.

04/19/2010 09:12:44 AM · #10

To me it's a photo in a photo, not a photo of a photo.

alanfreed

Nikon D6

04/19/2010 09:18:03 AM · #11

Ben's reasoning is perfectly accurate here. The fact that you can clearly see a border around the printed photo allows the viewer to recognize that it's likely a photo, and therefore it's legal. Like Ben said, had the border been cloned out, it would have almost certainly been DQ'd.

Originally posted by Konador:

alanfreed

Nikon D6

04/19/2010 09:22:04 AM · #12

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Even if it were not 57%, the focus is on the hand and eye.....that's what we're voting on and that part is a photo of a photo.

Percent has NOTHING to do with this rule. I couldn't quickly find the exact photo I wanted to use as an example here, but this one will suffice in a pinch:

For the sake of argument, let's say that the billboard was more photographic in nature. It would still be legal, given that people are visible on scaffolding, making it obvious that it's a billboard. And percentage-wise, the billboard is a heck of a lot more than 57% of the picture.

Message edited by author 2010-04-19 09:41:11.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/19/2010 09:22:38 AM · #13

Originally posted by Konador:

To me it's a photo in a photo, not a photo of a photo.

Seeing how it placed 5th and requires validation, there should be conversation within SC on this currently I'm sure. Interesting.

At first glance I thought the eye on the photo was cut out and the person was looking thru the hand-held photo.

In the end, it looks like the voters enjoyed this clever trickery and allowed it to rise in standing with appreciative scoring.

BeefnCheez

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

04/19/2010 09:25:35 AM · #14

I think most realize it was a photo. I think the main issue is that he circumvented editing rules by printing out a photo. He brought the eye through the hand in Photoshop, you can't do that.. well it seems unless you print the photo out (if he cut a whole for the eye this may be a different story). If you cropped the image to just the printed photo, you would have the same picture without the lose of any information. (in alans example you would lose the whole side of the picture and the painters, poor example me thinks)

sorry i keep editing

Message edited by author 2010-04-19 09:29:22.

04/19/2010 09:29:47 AM · #15

Originally posted by BeefnCheez:

... I think the main issue is that he circumvented editing rules by printing out a photo. ...

Kind of like holding up a photo and saying, "Hey! Look what I've done?!" :-)

alanfreed

Nikon D6

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/19/2010 09:36:26 AM · #16

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Seeing how it placed 5th and requires validation, there should be conversation within SC on this currently I'm sure.

Actually, it was unanimously validated prior to rollover.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/19/2010 09:39:07 AM · #17

Originally posted by BeefnCheez:

I think most realize it was a photo.

...and that makes it legal. A full frame macro of a dollar bill or graffiti on a brick wall would be entirely a photo of a photo, but both would be clearly recognizable as existing artwork and specifically allowed by the rules. A hand with an eye through it and a paper edge all around would (let's hope) never be mistaken as a real object in the scene. While the artwork does circumvent editing rules, it should be obvious to the voters that they're judging an edited print over the scene and they can rate it accordingly. The result and legality are similar to this:

04/19/2010 09:39:08 AM · #18

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Seeing how it placed 5th and requires validation, there should be conversation within SC on this currently I'm sure.

Actually, it was unanimously validated prior to rollover.

Well, there you go then. :-) All set.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

04/19/2010 11:02:13 AM · #19

Originally posted by BeefnCheez:

If you cropped the image to just the printed photo...

...it would be DQ'd.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/19/2010 11:38:55 AM · #20

This is interesting. The former Advanced Ruleset, if I'm not mistaken, included wording that artwork is allowable as long as it was not (among other things) an attempt to circumvent the editing rules. No trace of that wording remains in the rule as written. So we come up with things I consider "legal anomalies", like this image.

What we have here is an image that is "illegally edited" and then used as the focal point of a larger image. Without this image in it, the picture is basically nothing, in terms of the challenge topic. That topic is "Out of the Ordinary", and the only thing out of the ordinary in this image is the eyeball showing through the fingers, and that was only allowable BECAUSE the picture-within-a-picture is not required to follow the editing rules :-(

In the meanwhile the current rules say "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."

Think about that for a minute. everything after "but" is modifying everything BEFORE "but", so the issue of "judging a photo within a photo" is apparently only relevant IF the photo within the photo could be mistaken for a "real object" in the scene, which this can't be because we can see the border of it and the slight misalignment of the arms. So what we have here, based on Alan's statement that the image was unanimously validated, is case where the photographer is presenting to us a multi-image composite (which would be illegal if it were entered on its own except in expert editing) and he is doing it in such a way as to circumvent the editing rules, and we are judging the image based on this composite (it's the only thing out of place, that eyeball-in-the-fingers) and this is apparently OK.

Now I don't "blame" the photographer (it's within the rules as currently written, and it's an excellent image to boot), but it seems to me this is sort of a glaring hole where, if people want to do photoshop trickery that would otherwise be illegal, all they have to do is make a printout and hold it up for the camera... If I haven't got that right, someone please tell me where I'm missing the point...

R.

Message edited by author 2010-04-19 11:40:46.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/19/2010 11:45:50 AM · #21

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

the photographer is presenting to us a multi-image composite (which would be illegal if it were entered on its own except in expert editing) and he is doing it in such a way as to circumvent the editing rules, and we are judging the image based on this composite (it's the only thing out of place, that eyeball-in-the-fingers) and this is apparently OK.

It's OK because the voters can see that it's an edited composite and vote accordingly. Essentially, YOU get to judge whether such edits are acceptable or not.

04/19/2010 12:21:39 PM · #22

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... Without this image in it, the picture is basically nothing, in terms of the challenge topic. That topic is "Out of the Ordinary", and the only thing out of the ordinary in this image is the eyeball showing through the fingers, and that was only allowable BECAUSE the picture-within-a-picture is not required to follow the editing rules :-( ...

Unfortunately, many here are squeamish about voting an image low, whether it's DNMC or not. They'll say something like "Not sure how it fits the challenge, but it's a really cool shot so it gets an 8 from me".

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... Now I don't "blame" the photographer (it's within the rules as currently written, and it's an excellent image to boot), but it seems to me this is sort of a glaring hole where, if people want to do photoshop trickery that would otherwise be illegal, all they have to do is make a printout and hold it up for the camera...

...

Originally posted by scalvert:

It's OK because the voters can see that it's an edited composite and vote accordingly. Essentially, YOU get to judge whether such edits are acceptable or not.

As long as voters continue to see such an image and go "Cool - I really like this." and vote it high, then this type of composite work will make it to the top of the results. Of 190 votes, only 11 were under a 5.

dahlin

Nikon D610

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/19/2010 12:32:29 PM · #23

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the photographer is presenting to us a multi-image composite (which would be illegal if it were entered on its own except in expert editing) and he is doing it in such a way as to circumvent the editing rules, and we are judging the image based on this composite (it's the only thing out of place, that eyeball-in-the-fingers) and this is apparently OK.

It's OK because the voters can see that it's an edited composite and vote accordingly. Essentially, YOU get to judge whether such edits are acceptable or not.

I didn't think we were supposed to vote based on whether the edits were acceptable or not. The FAQ on voting says:

"In all cases, do not let this request for disqualification affect your score for the photograph. Please vote on the photo as if the entry is legal, and let the administrators do the rest."

That doesn't sound like I should judge whether the edits are legal. Acceptable to my liking, maybe, but not legal.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/19/2010 12:39:08 PM · #24

Originally posted by bd2665:

That doesn't sound like I should judge whether the edits are legal. Acceptable to my liking, maybe, but not legal.

Legal and acceptable are not the same thing. The photo IS legal, but whether such editing warrants a high or low vote is up to you.

Citadel

Nikon D7500