| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2007 02:14:38 PM · #51 |
/me thinks Bear needs a set of "bird brushes" :-D
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:15:17 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm not wiser, but I am a wise-ass!
IMO, as Leroy points out, a piece of artwork, no matter how it's displayed, can be used within a photo. That's true in Advanced, and it true in Expert. From the Advanced Rules:
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. |
In other words, draw the birds in photoshop (or any program for that matter), photograph the screen, and then copy the photographed birds into the finished work.
In other words, I could have used my EXACT IMAGE, taken a photo of it, removed the birds layer from the original, and pasted in THE EXACT SAME BIRDS legally because I'd have an exif'ed image of them.
Does that strike anyone as fairly ridiculous nit-picking, if we go in that direction?
R. |
In expert, as formulated, that's exactly what it means, and it's a great example of why we're having so much trouble with this ruleset. We'll make no secret of it, it's got bugs.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:16:15 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by ursula:
The problem (as I and others I think too see it) with the expert ruleset as it is now is that it combines all sorts of stuff that maybe should not be together. True HDR (combining multiple exposures in high contrast situations for one correct overall exposure) can be done only in expert right now, and it seems weird to have it, a very valid way to go about stuff in photography, together with drawing in of birds. |
I'm with you 100% on this. I feel STRONGLY that HDRI belongs in advanced editing. It drives me crazy that this purely photographic technique that I use in at least 75% of my personal work, and that is specifically designed to get the maximum range/luminosity out of the digital sensor, is considered too "far-out" to be legal in so-called "advanced rules".
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:17:38 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
/me thinks Bear needs a set of "bird brushes" :-D |
I actually made a set of bird brushes, Leroy... But I was told those would be "clip art"...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:17:50 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm not wiser, but I am a wise-ass!
IMO, as Leroy points out, a piece of artwork, no matter how it's displayed, can be used within a photo. That's true in Advanced, and it true in Expert. From the Advanced Rules:
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. |
In other words, draw the birds in photoshop (or any program for that matter), photograph the screen, and then copy the photographed birds into the finished work.
In other words, I could have used my EXACT IMAGE, taken a photo of it, removed the birds layer from the original, and pasted in THE EXACT SAME BIRDS legally because I'd have an exif'ed image of them.
Does that strike anyone as fairly ridiculous nit-picking, if we go in that direction?
R. |
Yeah, it does.
The problem (as I and others I think too see it) with the expert ruleset as it is now is that it combines all sorts of stuff that maybe should not be together. True HDR (combining multiple exposures in high contrast situations for one correct overall exposure) can be done only in expert right now, and it seems weird to have it, a very valid way to go about stuff in photography, together with drawing in of birds.
But, as said before, the expert ruleset is a "trial ruleset". It will change.
BTW - "ridiculous" is the new cool, like those wedding dress trashing parties. |
See, SC just needs to start building a body of case law, complete with legal briefs stored in a readily accessible online library! (I've been having too much fun with my business law class this semester.)
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:18:34 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
/me thinks Bear needs a set of "bird brushes" :-D |
Well then, let's all get together and "give him the bird!"
Sorry Robert, couldn't resist! |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:20:14 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
/me thinks Bear needs a set of "bird brushes" :-D |
Well then, let's all get together and "give him the bird!"
Sorry Robert, couldn't resist! |
You already GAVE me the bird, and let me have my ribbon. Now, if I understand it correctly, I can keep the ribbon but I can no longer have the bird? jejeje�
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:26:59 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You already GAVE me the bird, and let me have my ribbon. Now, if I understand it correctly, I can keep the ribbon but I can no longer have the bird? jejeje�
R. |
There was something almost poetic about that statement... :-D
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:40:52 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm with you 100% on this. I feel STRONGLY that HDRI belongs in advanced editing. It drives me crazy that this purely photographic technique that I use in at least 75% of my personal work, and that is specifically designed to get the maximum range/luminosity out of the digital sensor, is considered too "far-out" to be legal in so-called "advanced rules".
R. |
It's purely photographic in nature until the tone-mapping. Tone-mapping is 100% computer processing. If you can show me an example of tone-mapping in the dark room, I'll be happy to rethink the whole HDR thing, but both technique and result are in my mind (and that of many others) anything but photographic in nature. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 03:34:53 PM · #60 |
I've said this before and I'll say it again. SC will do themselves a huge favor if they tweak the rules to be as B&W as possible.
There are two perceived ways people get upset with SC and the rules:
1) The rules are "against the nature of DPC". Old members complain about this. "It isn't like the DPC I knew and loved." New members, however, come on board and don't know any better so they either agree with it or search elsewhere. They don't, however, complain. There is no axiom that says what DPC is. The problem, I believe, is the 12 SC members have at least 2 (and perhaps 12) views of what DPC should be and bend the interpretation of the rules to support this. This leads to inconsistent application and confusion which leads to number two...
2) The rules are applied unevenly. Here lies the real issue people gripe about. Both old and new members want to feel that their picture will be treated just like anybody else's (superstar or not). The more subjective a ruleset is, the more "interoperator error" will exist. The term is used in medical studies and represents how different the results are if you have a different person carrying out the task. An example is 10 radiologists reading one x-ray. If all 10 agree it's a broken leg there is very low "interoperator error", if 3 think it's a broken leg, 3 think it's a tumor, and 4 think it's an infection then there is high "interoperator error". Right now, as the ruleset goes (and especially the expert ruleset) there is very high interoperator error. I am personally aware of an expert entry that has literally a thousand hand drawn stars on it. It didn't seem to raise a fuss then (although I'm not sure it ever got validated). The bottom line is this: The more black and white the ruleset, regardless of what it does to the "feel" of the site, the happier the general populace will be.
This, I believe. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 03:50:29 PM · #61 |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 04:34:47 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The bottom line is this: The more black and white the ruleset, regardless of what it does to the "feel" of the site, the happier the general populace will be.
This, I believe. |
The problem with this logic is that when dealing with art and artists, things aren't usually so black and white. The very nature of the topic trends to subjectivity. Anytime subjectivity is thrown into the mix, you also have all the opinions of the SC (and I think you should do a recount of the SC), all of us also highly opinionated artists...lol. Trust me, it's not all sugar and spice and everything nice in our group discussions. :)
We constantly strive to communicate the rules to you all as clearly as we can but we can't think of every situation that will arise. And there are ALWAYS people that push the envelope which bring up problems and open discussions that we might never have thought of before. When that happens, we just have to deal with it as it comes and hopefully come up with a ruleset we can all live with.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 04:40:12 PM · #63 |
| What sher said. And to add, technology marches forward as well, and things that we never had to worry about a few years ago are now front and center. Prime example is HDR. Although it's been around a long time, its use by amateur photographers, using off-the-shelf tools, is very new. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 04:46:00 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by sher:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The bottom line is this: The more black and white the ruleset, regardless of what it does to the "feel" of the site, the happier the general populace will be.
This, I believe. |
The problem with this logic is that when dealing with art and artists, things aren't usually so black and white. The very nature of the topic trends to subjectivity. Anytime subjectivity is thrown into the mix, you also have all the opinions of the SC (and I think you should do a recount of the SC), all of us also highly opinionated artists...lol. Trust me, it's not all sugar and spice and everything nice in our group discussions. :) |
At least here in the U.S., it's not black and white either. The writing of the law is just the groundwork. It's the case law that interprets the law and guides future judgments, by finding previous similar judgments and using them to make a decision. But early in the life of any law, there will be a rocky period with a million different interpretations before the case law is established. The problem is that case law is only established at the highest levels of the appellate courts (state and federal surpreme courts), and case law IS the law, moreso than the written law itself. Case law can also be overturned, if new and convincing factors come into play.
Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 04:46:35 PM · #65 |
Based then, on all I've read in here, why was this allowed? It appears hand drawn...
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 04:50:25 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by mnphotoblogger:
Is this shot complete digital art?  I don't think so. It is very photographic in nature but would be impossible to do in advanced editing. |
And I'd wager dang near impossible to capture in real life with a single photo.....therefore, Digital Art.
And so is this.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 17:08:00.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:02:21 PM · #67 |
| I recommend finding a very old, blind woman who lives in a cave. Bring her the photo that is being validated and place it at her feet. If she spits on it, then it is DQ'd. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:07:16 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I recommend finding a very old, blind woman who lives in a cave. Bring her the photo that is being validated and place it at her feet. If she spits on it, then it is DQ'd. |
How in hell did you know about her??!! ;-) |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:09:29 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I recommend finding a very old, blind woman who lives in a cave. Bring her the photo that is being validated and place it at her feet. If she spits on it, then it is DQ'd. |
How in hell did you know about her??!! ;-) |
I get around. Particularly in caves.
at least, until I start smelling Strikeslip... |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:09:43 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Based then, on all I've read in here, why was this allowed? It appears hand drawn... |
It's also a border, albeit a very OOB one. There is no doubt that is what it is, and it does not masquerade as part of the image.
FWIW, we've allowed "breakout" of the image through the border, even in Advanced. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:10:00 PM · #71 |
Sounds like you guys are trying to enforce uniformly something inherently uniformly unenforcible.
Just remove the expert rule set, that's my very personal opinion.
(and undo Rebecca's DQ)
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 17:10:25. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:11:42 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
And we can create a whole lake, but not a magic fireball?
 |
It`s an ocean, not a lake :) but expert editing is getting a bit of a joke.
Either let anything go, or get rid of it.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 17:13:12.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:14:46 PM · #73 |
The expert editing rules allow for using anything we want from any images taken during the dates allowed. Perfect example is mine from a previous challenge. Parts of 8 images were used to create the illusion, and as we all know, couldn't have been taken from a single image.
Now for the counter point and here's the real bird's nest: I could take a section of black from an image taken during the challenge dates, paste in a new layer, and erase back carefully the pixels to make an outline of a bird. The effect would be identical to drawing it in, but the actual pixels were used from an image, making it legal, and an illusion.
In a nutshell, there is a way around every "rule", so basically it's screwed.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 17:15:13. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:16:27 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by snackwells:
Just remove the expert rule set, that's my very personal opinion.
|
ahhhh NO!!! lol |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 05:26:00 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by mnphotoblogger:
Is this shot complete digital art? I don't think so. It is very photographic in nature but would be impossible to do in advanced editing. |
And I'd wager dang near impossible to capture in real life with a single photo.....therefore, Digital Art. |
for generations there have been photos such as this made by multiple exposure in-camera and overlays in the dark room that have never come within a hundred yards of a computer. multiple photo doesn't have to mean Digital Art.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 17:27:02.
|
|
