| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/19/2010 02:25:52 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
“Existing artwork may be included as long as your submission does not consist entirely of pre-existing artwork.”
I don’t think there is any wiggle-room in that. Do you? |
Yes, there's actually two problems with that concept. The biggest is that including even the most insignificant real object would skirt the rule and basically allow people to enter a photo of a photo:
The other issue is that it would forbid people from entering, say, a macro shot of money even though everyone understands that it's artwork. Such a rule would have wiped out the Graffiti challenge.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 14:44:58. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:39:53 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the current image clearly IS legal as the rules are written but it leads to an inconsistency where you can basically edit an image any which way you want then hold it up and photograph yourself holding it and it becomes legal, even if the original editing was not. |
The editing rules have ALWAYS applied to post-processing only. What happens before you take the photo is beyond the scope of validation, and as long as the voters can reasonably understand that artwork was used we leave it to them to rate it as they see fit.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
None of which are solved by belittling the people who don't understand, I might add. |
Can I not express legitimate dismay that Lydia doesn't understand why her own photo was DQ'd after it has been explained to her countless times and continues to dredge it up a year and half later? I went on to explain why the two entries are not comparable. Calling herself an imbecile was her own contribution to the thread, not mine.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 14:42:35. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:47:06 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Can I not express legitimate dismay that Lydia doesn't understand why her own photo was DQ'd after it has been explained to her countless times and continues to dredge it up a year and half later? I went on to explain why the two entries are not comparable. Calling herself an imbecile was her own contribution to the thread, not mine. |
Shannon, I did not "dredge" up the image ... nor the discussion (not this time NOR the original time). I simply quoted you on why you said my image was DQd and applied it to the image being discussed now which I think is a valid point.
And I think most of us can agree that your words basically meant that you couldn't believe I was as stupid as I am.
I agree. It's pretty hard to believe. But, please try.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 14:52:40. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:51:09 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Alanfreed, in all my discussions with Site Council and with other members of DPC I have always tried as carefully as I can to be polite and respectful. I never expected the reply you made above. |
I apologize if my comment was brash, but I'm simply stating a fact here. Going back through old threads, there are literally dozens of instances where you have asked for further clarification of this rule, and we have bent over backwards to provide examples and explanations, and we have asked for your input in how you would like to see this clarified.
Again, my apologies for sounding rude, but we have done as much as we can humanly do to help explain the intent and the rationalization of this rule. To me it seems that you have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon to complain about it repeatedly in each thread that comes up, and I don't know whether you honestly don't understand the rule, or what more we can do to explain it. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 02:53:37 PM · #55 |
My understanding was that photo of a photo (when there is basically nothing of interest in the final image but the contents of that photo) was illegal, even if it is clear that it is a photo of a photo. Apparently not.... But I think it should be!
I am so tempted now to download one of Ansel Adams landscapes, or better yet, any of countless amazing landscapes from 1x (since it would be less recognizable), print it, lay the print on a table, and photograph it with edges visible. I am reasonably confident I can score big in the current BW landscape challenge with this "creativity".
ETA: actually, to make it exactly like the photo under discussion, I'll attach it to the window of my house so traces of an extremely unremarkable view from my window will serve as the "background". Now try to tell me that this will be illegal.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 15:03:17. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:02:31 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
After reading  Bear_Music's and  LydiaToo's responses I can't see how anyone can justify the fact that one photo was DQ'ed and another was not. |
They are not the same, in one the artwork was clearly visible (you can see the borders of the artwork), in the other you can not. This is no different that holding a magazine in front of your face. I think the ruling was fair and consistent. If Lydia would have left the frame of her background showing and got DQ'd I would agree it should not have been DQ'd or the ruling was inconsistent but since hers fills the entire background it is not clear that it is artwork and was rightfully DQ'd. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:04:01 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by LevT:
My understanding was that photo of a photo (when there is basically nothing of interest in the final image but the contents of that photo) was illegal, even if it is clear that it is a photo of a photo. Apparently not.... But I think it should be!
I am so tempted now to download one of Ansel Adams landscapes, or better yet, any of countless amazing landscapes from 1x (since it would be less recognizable), print it, lay the print on a table, and photograph it with edges visible. I am reasonably confident I can score big in the current BW landscape challenge with this "creativity". |
Or, in my case, I have a WONDERFUL B/W landscape I shot last week. I can't offhand see any reason why I shouldn't print it out and do a self-portrait , IN the same landscape, holding the version of it I shot last week. Would it score well? Probably not. But would it be LEGAL? Apparently, yes. This bothers me. Quite a bit.
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:06:42 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Going back through old threads, there are literally dozens of instances where you have asked for further clarification of this rule, and we have bent over backwards to provide examples and explanations, and we have asked for your input in how you would like to see this clarified. |
I actually DID search through the old threads after your post because I thought you were referring to Lydia and had misquoted. ;-)
Lydia's contention that her entry would not have been DQ'd if the challenge was Wine misses the point of the rule completely, and I stand by my dismay. Artwork that is clearly recognizable as such is allowed (it says so right in the rules)... and as far as a know images that clearly show the edge of the frame, TV, billboard, etc. have been allowed without exception since that rule was implemented. The same goes for obvious illustrations, money, and other non-photorealistic content. Artwork that may be mistaken as real parts of the scene is also allowed, as long as it's not so prominent that the voters are basically judging the artwork... and that was the case with Lydia's, which would have been DQ'd even in a Free Study. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:07:17 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Alanfreed, in all my discussions with Site Council and with other members of DPC I have always tried as carefully as I can to be polite and respectful. I never expected the reply you made above. |
I apologize if my comment was brash, but I'm simply stating a fact here. Going back through old threads, there are literally dozens of instances where you have asked for further clarification of this rule, and we have bent over backwards to provide examples and explanations, and we have asked for your input in how you would like to see this clarified.
Again, my apologies for sounding rude, but we have done as much as we can humanly do to help explain the intent and the rationalization of this rule. To me it seems that you have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon to complain about it repeatedly in each thread that comes up, and I don't know whether you honestly don't understand the rule, or what more we can do to explain it. |
 AlanFreed, I do wonder if you read my entire post. In any event, I will now leave this 'bandwagon' to others who are apparently more articulate than I on the subject of the rule in question. I am frankly not willing to subject myself to another discourse on my cognitive abilities.
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:09:03 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
After reading Bear_Music's and LydiaToo's responses I can't see how anyone can justify the fact that one photo was DQ'ed and another was not. |
They are not the same, in one the artwork was clearly visible (you can see the borders of the artwork), in the other you can not. This is no different that holding a magazine in front of your face. I think the ruling was fair and consistent. If Lydia would have left the frame of her background showing and got DQ'd I would agree it should not have been DQ'd or the ruling was inconsistent but since hers fills the entire background it is not clear that it is artwork and was rightfully DQ'd. |
Agreed... |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:09:12 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by LevT:
I am so tempted now to download one of Ansel Adams landscapes, or better yet, any of countless amazing landscapes from 1x (since it would be less recognizable), print it, lay the print on a table, and photograph it with edges visible. I am reasonably confident I can score big in the current BW landscape challenge with this "creativity".
ETA: actually, to make it exactly like the photo under discussion, I'll attach it to the window of my house so traces of an extremely unremarkable view from my window will serve as the "background". Now try to tell me that this will be illegal. |
As long as it's obviously a photo (it might not be if placed in a window frame), then you're welcome to try. Good luck with the score. Oh, but I wouldn't use an Ansel Adams photo since copyright violations run afoul of the ToS.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 15:10:32. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:13:31 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LevT:
I am so tempted now to download one of Ansel Adams landscapes, or better yet, any of countless amazing landscapes from 1x (since it would be less recognizable), print it, lay the print on a table, and photograph it with edges visible. I am reasonably confident I can score big in the current BW landscape challenge with this "creativity".
ETA: actually, to make it exactly like the photo under discussion, I'll attach it to the window of my house so traces of an extremely unremarkable view from my window will serve as the "background". Now try to tell me that this will be illegal. |
As long as it's obviously a photo (it might not be if placed in a window frame), then you're welcome to try. Good luck with the score. Oh, but I wouldn't use an Ansel Adams photo since copyright violations run afoul of the ToS. |
okay, so I can at least use one of my own old landscapes. And I'll make make sure the background obvious, but narrow. Shannon, you just opened a whole world of new possibilities for me. Thanks! :) |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:13:49 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can't offhand see any reason why I shouldn't print it out and do a self-portrait , IN the same landscape, holding the version of it I shot last week. Would it score well? Probably not. But would it be LEGAL? Apparently, yes. This bothers me. Quite a bit. |
Does this bother you, too?
 |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:19:42 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can't offhand see any reason why I shouldn't print it out and do a self-portrait , IN the same landscape, holding the version of it I shot last week. Would it score well? Probably not. But would it be LEGAL? Apparently, yes. This bothers me. Quite a bit. |
Does this bother you, too?
|
Not particularly, because all the images in question seem to have been created FOR the challenge at the same time, more or less, and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to circumvent the editing rules either. My beef is with the idea that I can include out-of-date images with impunity, mainly. Heck, that's not even legal in EXPERT editing, where it probably ought to be. Plus the deal with "illegal" editing being shoehorned in via the artwork rule.
Look, I realize it's real hard to find a rule that works and is easily understandable. I totally get that part. But it does seem to me there needs to be SOME provision for setting it up so that the SUBJECT, the FOCUS, of the image is 100% legal in and of itself. That seems to be fundamental to the sort of ruleset we have.
But obviously you don't agree.
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:21:14 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can't offhand see any reason why I shouldn't print it out and do a self-portrait , IN the same landscape, holding the version of it I shot last week. Would it score well? Probably not. But would it be LEGAL? Apparently, yes. This bothers me. Quite a bit. |
Does this bother you, too?
|
this is a totally different case. both parts of the image (real and the print) are essential for the photo's concept, I argue that in the photo under discussion, you can crop the "real" part out almost completely, and the photo will essentially be the same. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:31:14 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not particularly, because all the images in question seem to have been created FOR the challenge at the same time, more or less, and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to circumvent the editing rules either. |
All the images in question on the entry that sparked this thread were also created for the challenge at the same time, and how would layering multiple photos like this not be equally circumventing the editing rules?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My beef is with the idea that I can include out-of-date images with impunity, mainly. Heck, that's not even legal in EXPERT editing, where it probably ought to be. |
Originally posted by Expert Editing Rules:
Your submission must be composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline. |
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:39:07 PM · #67 |
Look, Shannon, stop trying to tangle it up, OK? The issue is simple: some of us don't think it's reasonable that the rules forbid certain types of photomanipulation outright, but that the artwork rule provides a loophole where you can then shoehorn that same manipulation in as the subject of your image and get away with it.
We're not disputing that the image in question is legal as the rules stand. We're not asking for DQ of the image in question. This is a philosophical issue, if you will.
So how about addressing that logical issue? Does it, or does it not, make sense that the rules allow this? Completely part from whether we can or cannot hypothesize a rewritten rule that closes the loophole, is there agreement that this IS a loophole? Because it seems to me you're saying there IS no inconsistency, that this is NOT a loophole, and this is what has me baffled.
How can we forbid certain manipulations, then open a backdoor wide and say "Bring 'em in this way!"?
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:43:23 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not particularly, because all the images in question seem to have been created FOR the challenge at the same time, more or less, and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to circumvent the editing rules either. |
All the images in question on the entry that sparked this thread were also created for the challenge at the same time, and how would layering multiple photos like this not be equally circumventing the editing rules?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My beef is with the idea that I can include out-of-date images with impunity, mainly. Heck, that's not even legal in EXPERT editing, where it probably ought to be. |
Originally posted by Expert Editing Rules:
Your submission must be composed only from photographs taken after the challenge is announced and before the deadline. |
|
not only that, but the argument could be made that the picture(s) of the little girl was done as it was to get around the editing rules. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:45:58 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by LevT:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I can't offhand see any reason why I shouldn't print it out and do a self-portrait , IN the same landscape, holding the version of it I shot last week. Would it score well? Probably not. But would it be LEGAL? Apparently, yes. This bothers me. Quite a bit. |
Does this bother you, too?
|
this is a totally different case. both parts of the image (real and the print) are essential for the photo's concept, I argue that in the photo under discussion, you can crop the "real" part out almost completely, and the photo will essentially be the same. |
only in that you would have the eyeball coming through the hand. it completely loses the effect of the "outer body" which, imo, adds to the mystique of the photo. (and as has been mentioned, if it were cropped in that way, would have been dq'ed.) |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 03:59:44 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, Shannon, stop trying to tangle it up, OK?... Completely part from whether we can or cannot hypothesize a rewritten rule that closes the loophole, is there agreement that this IS a loophole? Because it seems to me you're saying there IS no inconsistency, that this is NOT a loophole, and this is what has me baffled. |
Sounds like you need to reconcile the issue with yourself before you try to argue it here, because thus far you've failed to articulate the problem. Everything you've complained about so far should be equally relevant to these, yet you don't appear to think they're a problem:
If the above entries are acceptable to you, but the one in question is not, then you must explain the difference so we can then debate how to DQ the "bad stuff" without also eliminating the "good." If the above images are NOT acceptable to you, well... I don't think we'll have much agreement on that. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 04:04:07 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If the above entries are acceptable to you, but the one in question is not, then you must explain the difference so we can then debate how to DQ the "bad stuff" without also eliminating the "good." If the above images are NOT acceptable to you, well... I don't think we'll have much agreement on that. |
No individual component of either of those examples, if left to stand on its own, would be considered "illegal". The "artwork" component of the eyeball/finger shot was created by illegal editing. That's the difference. That's specifically what I'm worried about, with that particular image.
R. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 04:06:19 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No individual component of either of those examples, if left to stand on its own, would be considered "illegal". |
Both examples were Basic editing, and the photos were very likely spot edited (illegal) before reshooting. What now?
You can bet that this artwork was heavily retouched, there's added text, maybe some background removal. The magazine cover artwork on it's own would assuredly be illegal. Is that really a problem?
It sounds like a possible solution to your complaint (if I'm reading correctly) would be to limit any artwork to the same editing rules as the challenge, although that might be very difficult to enforce. I've been pushing for a similar limitation on borders for years.
Message edited by author 2010-04-19 16:26:22. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 04:10:36 PM · #73 |
| I personally think the left one is okay and the right one is beyond not okay. My feeling is the same as LevT, if you crop the real part out and you are left with pretty much the same picture without any major elements being lost than that is not okay to me. But I wouldn't dare try to come up with the correct wording for a rule. |
|
|
|
04/19/2010 04:16:24 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
I personally think the left one is okay and the right one is beyond not okay. |
Are you referring to these?
|
|
|
|
04/19/2010 04:28:05 PM · #75 |
Yikes! I don't even want to look at this thread! ;-)
I actually read every post. I can see points on both sides. I can also see a lack of tact and diplomacy here & there that is uncalled for. Anyway, I am inclined to agree that there is a loophole that is causing some animosity and it should be closed, but finding the right wording is the challenge.
On the other hand, "leaving it up to the voters" to decide if they should penalize these entries has a lot of merit and it's clear that the majority of voters (as shown in this case anyway) have decided to reward the entry. That said, I highly doubt that would be the case of Bear or LevT's suggestion of a photo of a picture of a landscape in the landscape challenge. Voters are a finicky bunch.
If nothing changes, I am seriously considering selling some photo equipment and investing in CS5 and a really good printer. :P |
|
