DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Please help define a "major element"?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 78 of 78, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/05/2005 10:29:04 PM · #76
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
...I wonder if there is an analogous thread on 'literal representation' vs 'creative interpretation' of existing 'works of art?'


OK, let's touch on that one a bit. Look at the two images below. The first is simply a photographic copy of the painting. There is nothing to suggest the photographer's influence, and nothing to react to other than the artwork itself.



The second image shows more than just the painting. The reflections are something added by the photographer that make it uniquely his. Likewise, a photo from an obvious angle with a shallow depth of field, or a dramatic spotlight on the painting would demonstrate decisions made by the photographer . A legal entry should make you think, "a photographer's presentation of the artwork" rather than just "a photo of the art."

Photos of three-dimensional objects are largely immune to this rule since the photographer is presenting a particular point of view and lighting that may or may not be typical or as the sculptor intended. I suspect that a straight-on photo of a sculpture against a wall in a museum might still be DQ'd if there is only one "expected' way to view the artwork, and the photographer isn't providing anything more. Anything added to the scene that turns it into something more than just the art becomes exempt from the "literal artwork" rule. For example, a person standing in front of the museum scupture described above, or a macro of a fly on Mona Lisa's nose.
 04/05/2005 10:35:31 PM · #77
Let's suppose ,,, oh never mind. Back to the original thread...

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 23:07:13.
 04/05/2005 11:04:15 PM · #78
Originally posted by skiprow:
what about these two?


i added a solid color layer to the top of the image and changed the opacity.

1) would this be legal under advanced editing?
2) is an empty, almost colorless sky a 'major element'?


During the architectural challenge I asked for validation on this shot

because I felt like the sky had been replace. In my note to the SC I told them the reason I wanted to be validated is because I would like to use this technique in the future if it is in fact legal under the rules. They validated the picture. After the challenge was over I read the details the photographer put in the description area. The photographer was not trying in any way to break any rules. He was upfront and honest about what he had did. So when the pink challenge rolled around I found myself with the same problem, a blown sky so I used the same techniques since the SC had validated the previous picture. I also had described my steps in the description area and my picture was validated as well.

So I guess to sum it up, yes it is ok to replace a solid or almost solid area with another color as long as you donĂ¢€™t try to create an image in that area.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 08:58:16 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 08:58:16 AM EDT.