| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/13/2009 12:16:17 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by desertoddity:
i don't see the difference in the presentation of scalvert's 'fantasy' photo and general e's 'spam' photo. i wasn't fooled into thinking that general e got those nice ladies to attach giant pieces of spam to their fans anymore than i believed that little girl was flying around on a piece of carpet. neither photo would have done very well if not for the 'artwork' that was added. |
I didn't have a problem thinking that someone set up the photo with SPAM on fans -- people around here do a lot of strange things to set up a shot, and I certainly know people who've hired models for shots--why not models for SPAM fans? But then again, printing a photo and putting SPAM on it wouldn't have occurred to me, because it really isn't taking a photograph in my mind, it's just editing one that already exists. Seems to be the definition of trying to circumvent the editing rules--you can't add SPAM in through photoshop, so I'll print it out and add it in that way. |
Well here's a photo where the photographer took an existing photo, photoshopped it in a way that wouldn't be legal otherwise and used it as a background image on his monitor. He then photographed it along with his hand and the base of a lightbulb. I thought it was pretty clever but one could argue it's circumventing the rules, fooling the voters, etc. What's your opinion on this one?
Oh and sorry Shannon. It's pick on Shannon week so I couldn't resist. :P
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 00:16:41.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:46:15 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by yanko:
It's pick on Shannon week |
There's a limit?!? |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:47:43 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth)" |
 The fish isn't obviously artwork, yet it's fairly minor in the overall entry. DQ? |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:49:26 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
I think the real problem is that everyone actually understands the rule and what it is intended for, and we all know what should and shouldn't be allowed. The trouble is finding some sort of wording where someone won't be able to find a loophole where they can essentially 'cheat' the rules to get a great score while technically staying within the wording.
How about something like this, though lengthy I think it covers most scenarios:
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth)"
Sorry for using an example of an actual shot, couldn't come up with anything else! |
Actually, I like the idea of using examples. I think it's very helpful for the people who are just joining and haven't seen the threads and discussions. What's wrong with giving guidelines with examples? |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:49:27 AM · #55 |
I personally thought the moon lightbulb was brilliant.
Something to think about is the fact that the more rules you have and the more strict they are the more they limit freedom of expression by photographers, it places a burden on the innocent photographers and can exclude otherwise great photography.
ETA: No I am not calling my lightning photograph great photography, it is a mere example.
A brief example is my lightning photograph. I'm sure scalvert remembers it well. It was a nice photograph of lightning, however with power lines in it. I asked the SCs opinion about removing the power lines and it was deemed to probably violate the rules. The photograph was entirely mine, contained no new elements, etc. and imo could not have been taken differently. However it could not be submitted as such. In fact I spent 6 hours or so retouching the lightning so that it would be as true to life as possible without the distracting lines. Who benefited from this rule and what was prevented?
At the same time those who break rules will take any loop hole they can find and even create them when they do not exist. There will always be rule breakers up until the point DPC is no fun for anyone.
I can't give any examples here because of the simple rule that those who are good at what they do may not get caught, so I could only point out the failed attempts to break the rules which wouldn't help my case at all. :P
-tog
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 00:51:02. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:53:53 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
I think the real problem is that everyone actually understands the rule and what it is intended for, and we all know what should and shouldn't be allowed. The trouble is finding some sort of wording where someone won't be able to find a loophole where they can essentially 'cheat' the rules to get a great score while technically staying within the wording.
How about something like this, though lengthy I think it covers most scenarios:
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth)"
Sorry for using an example of an actual shot, couldn't come up with anything else! |
Actually, I like the idea of using examples. I think it's very helpful for the people who are just joining and haven't seen the threads and discussions. What's wrong with giving guidelines with examples? |
hmmm, forgot about small artwork,
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth). Exceptions can be made if the artwork is small and of little importance to the photograph -- i.e., if you remove the artwork, the idea of the photograph remains virtually unchanged."
very badly worded, but you get the general idea.
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 00:54:21. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:25:03 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
I think the real problem is that everyone actually understands the rule and what it is intended for, and we all know what should and shouldn't be allowed. The trouble is finding some sort of wording where someone won't be able to find a loophole where they can essentially 'cheat' the rules to get a great score while technically staying within the wording.
How about something like this, though lengthy I think it covers most scenarios:
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth)"
Sorry for using an example of an actual shot, couldn't come up with anything else! |
Actually, I like the idea of using examples. I think it's very helpful for the people who are just joining and haven't seen the threads and discussions. What's wrong with giving guidelines with examples? |
hmmm, forgot about small artwork,
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth). Exceptions can be made if the artwork is small and of little importance to the photograph -- i.e., if you remove the artwork, the idea of the photograph remains virtually unchanged."
very badly worded, but you get the general idea. |
Isn't the point here to be a little more succinct? lol. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:26:46 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth)" |
The fish isn't obviously artwork, yet it's fairly minor in the overall entry. DQ? |
Good point, again, it's back to specific wording, like  vawendy indicated, perhaps a clause where the artwork is a small component of the overall shot, though then you have to define 'small', maybe like previously suggested, as a percentage or fraction of the overall image. Mind you, go down that path and by the time you're finished the rules will be a lenghty legal document! |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:51:53 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth)" |
The fish isn't obviously artwork, yet it's fairly minor in the overall entry. DQ? |
Really??
Remove the fish and see if the photo has same impact.
Without that fish your photo is nothing. Just clone that fish out and your protagonist (the clown) is meaningless.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 01:53:00 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
"Fooling" voters with a clever set up is one thing, and it's something I appreciate and admire when I see it.
Slapping an insignificant addition to another photo and calling it an entry is not at all what DPC is about. And I feel strongly enough about it that if we decided to allow that sort of entry, I will bid the site farewell and not look back. And that's after 7 years and 200,000+ votes cast here. |
And,once again, I don't think what's "insignificant" to you mayn't be so for everyone, so I find it unfair that a small group -- even if I'm a part of it -- is making the decision for the voters as to whether something is a "significant" addition or not.
I hate to beat a dead horse (not really), but please explain how the addition of 20-30 pieces of SPAM is an "insignificant" addition to a "SPAM Challenge" topic? People recognized the SPAM for what it was, and the photo I used as a background would have made no sense as an entry to that challenge without the addition of the SPAM, so -- to me anyway -- using your own sole criterion, you made an erroneous decision, only because the "illusion" was well-executed. It was a lousy print-out anyway -- someone even commented on the streaking in the printing ...
Like I said before, if getting "fooled" is so d****d important to your psyche, just ban the use of photographs (and backdrops) in submissions and eliminate this whole issue -- that's a rule everyone can undestand. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:18:38 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Like I said before, if getting "fooled" is so d****d important to your psyche, just ban the use of photographs (and backdrops) in submissions and eliminate this whole issue -- that's a rule everyone can undestand. |
Perhaps there's the answer right there. Disallow existing art where it constitutes the entire backdrop of the image.
I don't think you can ban every piece of existing art because then someone could be DQ'd for having a photo of their kids hanging on the wall when the shot is of the entire room.
BTW, I didn't think yours should have been DQ'd under the existing rules as it was obvious it was a print out and that the spam was lying on a 2D surface. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 02:54:09 AM · #62 |
| that's it, rather than waiting for the rules to become clear and straight-forward, i'm just gonna vote a 1 to all which i suspect has violated the rules. call me Judge Crayon Dredd |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 04:24:16 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Otherwise, just make the rule "You may include any artwork except a pre-existing photograph in your composition" and eliminate the whole issue. |
I agree with that suggestion, but add some wording so that if there is a picture on the wall in the background or something similar people dont get dq'd. least it removes interpretation and ambiguity.
I find it easy to spot artwork of other types but all the photo of photo shots I havent been able to tell most of them apart & they are usually fooling the viewer, whether intentionally or not.
Graffiti, statues, drawings, sculptures can make for really interesting shots. Backdrops (but not photo backdrops) all help us enhance our shots.
Hopefully all my waffle actually makes sense to someone as Im really bad at explaining myself!! |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 04:56:44 AM · #64 |
Add a field to the submission page where you can declare artwork used in the shot. This field is visible on the voting page. Artwork declared in this way is immune from DQ under the artwork rule. Don't declare it and you take your chances with SC.
Everyone can then vote according to their personal preference about where the line should be. Sail close to the line and you risk being voted down, but at least everything is up front.
May even reduce the number of validation submissions to SC :-)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 05:16:21 AM · #65 |
i am serious offender i guess. But my intensions were good.
 |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 06:06:56 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
i am serious offender i guess. But my intensions were good.
|
lol
that one is OK as it is obvious artwork.
I think that the new formulation from  scalvert is pretty neat. The intent of the rule is clear, it tries to preserve creativity on DPC. And that's the most important bit, is it not?
The drawback is that it is quite subjective ( i.e. "clearly", "basically"). SC will not always be unanimous about it, but I guess that's why it's a council where the majority decides. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 07:57:47 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
if getting "fooled" is so d****d important to your psyche, just ban the use of photographs (and backdrops) in submissions and eliminate this whole issue -- that's a rule everyone can undestand. |
If lip syncing is such a problem, just ban all pre-recorded music and have the contestants sing acappella. Artwork has its place... just not as the vast majority of your performance. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 08:03:41 AM · #68 |
Maybe this can work:
"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 adhere to all the rules as the submitted image, except for the size limitations"
The above phrasing implies that the image must be taken by the submitter after the challenge is announced. The phrasing, being self-referencing, also implies that all photos in the chain photo-of-a-photo-of-a-photo (ad infinitum) must comply with the rules. Validating such an image requires the submission of all originals.
The main thing here is that the photog can still be creative, but may not rely on other people work. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 08:19:38 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The above image would, under the new rule, be marginal, but OK IMO. While the photo is important, it is not primarily what is being judged.
Under the new rule this would, IMO, be illegal. Voters are judging a photo of a photo, no doubt.
Legal, I'd say. Yes, the photo-of-a-photo technique is used, but it is not predominant, only a part of the composition.
Legal, marginally. I am judging a photo of a photo, but the "real" subject is quite significant as well.
Legal, no doubt. Readily apparent that we are seeing a macro of an object, we are not confused into thinking we are judging an as-shot scene.
Clearly illegal under the new rule. Voters are asked to judge the background as if it were an as-shot scene, and without that background, the photo is nothing.
Illegal. Entirety of the work is a photo of a photo.
If the subjects are both artwork (I believe they were) then illegal.
Legal. It is a photo of artwork, but not a photo-of-a-photo, and no voter confusion should occur.
Illegal, IMO. The majority of the impact, all of the "environment" of the photo comes from the background, which is artwork. The voter is asked to primarily judge the artwork, not the submitted work
|
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 08:29:45 AM · #70 |
One point of confusion may be that the term âartworkâ is too broad for this rule (and for discussing the rule). âArtworkâ includes all manner of objects (think of sculpture, baskets, weavings, tattoos, body painting, logos, unique architecture, and much more). I gather that this rule is mostly concerned about a much narrower topic: uses of pre-existing two dimensional images, especially photographs. If the rule could be worded in a way that narrowly addresses this specific concept, it might be easier to understand and enforce.
Maybe it is time to get help from a broader selection of astute and nit-picking DPC voters by issuing a new challenge topic: âPhotographs: take a picture of one or more existing photographs in a creative and artistic way that also makes it obvious that the subject is a pre-existing image. Special rule: your entry may consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph.â
Warning: attempting to re-write the rule to work well in that situation could lead to headaches and similar ailments. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:04:56 AM · #71 |
I'm just thinking out loud here, so to speak, but here's an interesting anomaly to ponder that,while it may not be strictly relevant to the issue being discussed, does underscore a fundamental inconsistency in the rulesets:
1. Advanced and basic editing both specifically prohibit multiple-image compositions except when they are created "legally" in-camera (typically by using a long shutter speed in a dark room and by covering the lens while a setup is changed; an example of this would be the recently-validated image consisting of 2 pieces of artwork, an old photo and an old letter, overlaid in-camera). Under this ruleset, it is sometimes (but not always) legal to use a pre-challenge-date image, printed out or projected, as a backdrop for a current entry.
This provision (or loophole) can be, and has been, used to circumvent more than just the exposure-date provision; it is permitted, for example, to use a background image not shot by the photographer, and it is permitted to edit the background image in a manner that would otherwise be illegal: an example of this would be Shannon's "moonbulb" shot, where he used illegal-under-basic processing on the moon itself.
Now, images of this sort can be more easily, and arguably more effectively, created by merging the images in photoshop, but that's specifically prohibited.
2. Now, fast-forward to the creation of the experimental "expert" ruleset, which opens up processing to include making photomontages in photoshop. But, here's the kicker:
"Your image must be "composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline..."
See the inconsistency? In advanced and basic, if you include secondary and tertiary images in the composition, there's NO restriction on the author of those images or the time at which they were shot, just on the means by which they are combined in the final image. But under expert editing, you can only include in the photoshop merge images that you actually shot, within the challenge date window.
Am I the only one that thinks this is surpassing odd?
It seems to me that before we set about trying to rewrite the rule under discussion in this thread, we first need to come to a consensus as to exactly what it is that we are trying to exclude.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 11:18:12. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:13:56 AM · #72 |
| Hey guys, just to clarify. The model in this picture is real. I wasn't very clear in my description but now I've changed that. Only the black hole and the torn paper fringe are paper. The fringe was taped to the models face and the edges were smoothed in GIMP. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:15:21 AM · #73 |
i'd agree with you there.
ETA: with Bear_Musics thought - maybe - to use the jumping fish shots as an example. it would be legal in basic or advanced ONLY IF both the photo of the fish, and the final photo were taken by the entering photographer during the challenge submission dates - whether or not it's obvious existing artwork was used in a predominant manner.
or for the moon bulb shot. scalvert would have had to photograph the moon, and the final image during the submision period for it to be a legal entry.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm just thinking out loud here, so to speak, but here's an interesting anomaly to ponder that,while it may not be strictly relevant to the issue being discussed, does underscore a fundamental inconsistency in the rulesets:
1. Advanced and basic editing both specifically prohibit multiple-image compositions except when they are created "legally" in-camera (typically by using a long shutter speed in a dark room and by covering the lens while a setup is changed; an example of this would be the recently-validated image consisting of 2 pieces of artwork, an old photo and an old letter, overlaid in-camera). Under this ruleset, it is sometimes (but not always) legal to use a pre-challenge-date image, printed out or projected, as a backdrop for a current entry.
This provision (or loophole) can be, and has been, used to circumvent more than just the exposure-date provision; it is permitted, for example, to use a background image not shot by the photographer, and it is permitted to edit the background image in a manner that would otherwise be illegal: an example of this would be Shannon's "moonbulb" shot, where he used illegal-under-basic processing on the moon itself.
Now, images of this sort can be more easily, and arguably more effectively, created by merging the images in photoshop, but that's specifically prohibited.
2. Now, fast-forward to the creation of the experimental "expert" ruleset, which opens up processing to include making photomontages in photoshop. But, here's the kicker:
Your image must be "composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline..."
See the inconsistency? In advanced and basic, if you include secondary and tertiary images in the composition, there's NO restriction on the author of those images or the time at which they were shot, just on the means by which they are combined in the final image. But under expert editing, you can only include in the photoshop merge images that you actually shot, within the challenge date window.
Am I the only one that thinks this is surpassing odd?
It seems to me that before we set about trying to rewrite the rule under discussion in this thread, we first need to come to a consensus as to exactly what it is that we are trying to exclude. |
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 11:21:26.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:21:21 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Illegal, IMO. The majority of the impact, all of the "environment" of the photo comes from the background, which is artwork. The voter is asked to primarily judge the artwork, not the submitted work
|
|
This is the main one I disagree on. The main focus is the glass and the main impact of the photo is the toast. The artwork used simply is the backdrop to the real subject and what the toast is about. The backdrop is interchangable and even if it had just been a raised glass on a plain background, the "toast" would still be present, although a little less interesting.
 -- This backdrop is also relevant to the impact of the photo but was not DQ'd. It was created for the challenge.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2009 11:21:21 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In advanced and basic, if you include secondary and tertiary images in the composition, there's NO restriction on the author of those images or the time at which they were shot, just on the means by which they are combined in the final image. But under expert editing, you can only include in the photoshop merge images that you actually shot, within the challenge date window. |
There's an inherent conflict between creative freedom and fair play. We wouldn't want people to be able to enter any old image out of their archives, so there's a restriction on dates. However, I don't think we'd want to DQ someone for including a commercial muslin background or "legitimate" printed material just because of dates either...
Message edited by author 2009-07-13 11:22:44. |
|
