Notes on the Artwork Rule - DPChallenge Forums

12/09/2008 10:53:27 AM · #26

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by sempermarine:
What about shots like this?

Not a problem. It's obviously a billboard. Not many people would be "fooled," thinking that this was a 15-foot tall woman. Take the pedestrian out of the shot, and it IS a problem, since there's nothing to suggest that it's merely an advertisement any longer.

PHEW! Thank you Alan...

12/09/2008 10:56:12 AM · #27

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sempermarine:
I KNOW YOUR NOT CALLING ME INSANE, but really what is the difference? She took a picture of a glass that happen to be reflecting a picture of a family? Really where is the problem in this shot?

Most people thought the background consisted of "live" people (especially considering it WAS the feast in a Feast challenge), and judged their poses, expressions, etc. as part of the photographer's capture. That's a completely different situation from the very obvious sign in this photo.

I will grant you that the photograph I chose to prove my point was not the best example, but I still feel her picture was a shot of the glass and not a shot of artwork. Just my opinion. I understand you all have a very difficult job and I applaud your efforts 99.9% of the time, I just feel you all missed this one. Have a nice day.

12/09/2008 10:56:18 AM · #28

Originally posted by kenskid:

No...I don't want to see photos of photos.....BAN THEM ALL....don't allow ANY photo of a photo to be part of a challenge entry.

You clearly haven't thought this through. With all artwork banned, photographers would have to be careful to avoid background signs, magazines, framed prints, logos, packaging art, etc. A photo as innocuous as this would be illegal:

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

12/09/2008 10:56:28 AM · #29

Originally posted by hotpasta:

PHEW! Thank you Alan...

You don't really have 15-foot women in your neighborhood now, do you?

limerick

Nikon D60

12/09/2008 10:58:26 AM · #30

I am new but would like to say that I agreed with Bearmusic until I read Alanfreeds comment. I would definately want to give more to the person who had such big set ups then to those that use pictures as backgrounds. But I would like to say to that other than a vignette (hahah-which I didnt know about until after my picture was disqualified(my bad)), I can understand these rules quite well when I read them. Maybe it is because I am new and seeing them with new eyes I dont know. It is pretty plain to me that if someone is voting and commenting because they think a major part of the photo was real when it wasnt then I can see where there must be a rule to prevent that.

But I do think there is a problem I see with allowing up to 20 images for HDR work in other editing rules which I just looked into over the past few days. I dont get those options as an exclusive member but wanted to read the rules anyway. You are letting many photos to be used for mostly HDR but it doesnt say for only HDR, so others may want to use more photos for something else and I dont like that idea-if I am reading it right. I think that should be changed to "for HDR only you can use up to 3 photos" or something like that, because otherwise how will someone know what the real photo is supposed to be?

I guess I just like basic and advanced editing and not all the other stuff when it comes to photography. To me I think the rules are pretty plain for those and easy to understand. For editing challenges I can see the other stuff and other editing rules but not for photography challenges. Maybe its just me tho. ;=/

Agnes

12/09/2008 10:58:45 AM · #31

Originally posted by sempermarine:

I still feel her picture was a shot of the glass and not a shot of artwork.

The challenge was Feast. The feast was a photo, with a glass placed in front of it. If I printed out DeSousa's ribbon winner and placed a glass in front of it for a challenge entry, there'd be a lynch mob.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/09/2008 10:59:24 AM · #32

Thank you, SC .... that rule makes perfect sense to me.

This issue certainly has a lot of grey areas which are always a problem, but I'm glad you're looking out for us. I don't like being fooled by pre-existing artwork when I have no way to check just exactly what is and isn't real.
I'm also glad that you don't simply stop ALL artwork being used.

Better this than the alternatives.

12/09/2008 10:59:32 AM · #33

Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by sempermarine:
What about shots like this?

Not a problem. It's obviously a billboard. Not many people would be "fooled," thinking that this was a 15-foot tall woman. Take the pedestrian out of the shot, and it IS a problem, since there's nothing to suggest that it's merely an advertisement any longer.

PHEW! Thank you Alan...

This is still a shot of art work no matter how you all slice it! (A very good shot and yes I could tell it was a billboard) Are you guys comedians as well as photographers?

12/09/2008 11:01:19 AM · #34

Originally posted by limerick:

I think that should be changed to "for HDR only you can use up to 3 photos" or something like that, because otherwise how will someone know what the real photo is supposed to be?

For multiple exposures, the scene cannot change. So you could use several shots to control exposure, noise or depth of field, but not to create a composite scene.

12/09/2008 11:03:47 AM · #35

Originally posted by sempermarine:

This is still a shot of art work no matter how you all slice it!

Yes it is, and obviously so. Thus, we let the voters decide what to do with it. Everybody gets to play Site Council with their votes. ;-)

12/09/2008 11:06:13 AM · #36

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sempermarine:
This is still a shot of art work no matter how you all slice it!

Yes it is, and obviously so. Thus, we let the voters decide what to do with it. Everybody gets to play Site Council with their votes. ;-)

Yes and they voted that she should receive a ribbon!

What about this one?

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/09/2008 11:08:35 AM · #37

Originally posted by sempermarine:

What about this one?

What about it? Do you really have doubts here?

12/09/2008 11:08:36 AM · #38

Originally posted by sempermarine:

What about this one?

The artwork is in a frame fercryinoutloud, so everybody knows it's a photo. You're missing the point.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR

12/09/2008 11:09:22 AM · #39

Originally posted by sempermarine:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sempermarine:
This is still a shot of art work no matter how you all slice it!

Yes it is, and obviously so. Thus, we let the voters decide what to do with it. Everybody gets to play Site Council with their votes. ;-)

Yes and they voted that she should receive a ribbon!

What about this one?

limerick

Nikon D60

12/09/2008 11:12:38 AM · #40

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by limerick:
I think that should be changed to "for HDR only you can use up to 3 photos" or something like that, because otherwise how will someone know what the real photo is supposed to be?

For multiple exposures, the scene cannot change. So you could use several shots to control exposure, noise or depth of field, but not to create a composite scene.

Ooo Ok. I must have read it to mean you can use different pictures in the 20 as long as what is used doesnt take away from the real photo used. Like you cant use one photo of a bench and then another photo with a person sitting and then merge them to make the person sitting on the bench. I didnt know you have to have all of them be the same photo that you just use for enhancing with colors and things.

I understand now about this background photo thing to. I saw Lydias photo and I dont see why she didnt just think of shooting the glass while the family was there instead of using a photo she took of her family while they were there. I think that would have taken only 10 minutes to.

I see the reasons for a lot of them I have seen disqualified and I have to say that I agree with the reasons. Even if it is scary to wonder sometimes when you are doing wrong you can always ask first to so there is that cushion.

kenskid

Nikon D700

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/09/2008 11:12:46 AM · #41

Ok then ...ban every shot that has another photo filling the frame. If you can see the edges of a photo in a photo then no DQ.

If the photo in the photo fills the frame, even if something is added...then DQ.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kenskid:
No...I don't want to see photos of photos.....BAN THEM ALL....don't allow ANY photo of a photo to be part of a challenge entry.

You clearly haven't thought this through. With all artwork banned, photographers would have to be careful to avoid background signs, magazines, framed prints, logos, packaging art, etc. A photo as innocuous as this would be illegal:

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

12/09/2008 11:13:01 AM · #42

Originally posted by scalvert:

I thought Lydia's photo was a live event/table setting that was captured for her entry.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

12/09/2008 11:15:50 AM · #43

Originally posted by alanfreed:

If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.

What about this one? If I recall it was a printout of a fish. There's another example but I can't find it right now.

KarenNfld

12/09/2008 11:17:20 AM · #44

Originally posted by Ken:

Originally posted by alanfreed:
If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.

What about this one? If I recall it was a printout of a fish. There's another example but I can't find it right now.

I actually though that was a real fish, so it fooled me!

12/09/2008 11:17:24 AM · #45

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Also perfectly fine. You're clearly missing the whole issue here... if people can easily see that there is artwork photographed in a submission, NO PROBLEM. If the artwork fools viewers into voting based on the artwork's qualities, then it's a problem.

Originally posted by sempermarine:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sempermarine:
This is still a shot of art work no matter how you all slice it!

Yes it is, and obviously so. Thus, we let the voters decide what to do with it. Everybody gets to play Site Council with their votes. ;-)

Yes and they voted that she should receive a ribbon!

What about this one?

alanfreed and

scalvert,

Okay! i got it now. I'm a Marine for crying out load. Take it easy on me. But I still think she deserves the ribbon. If you read her title. "Here's to... Good food. Good friends. Good fun." It conveys a toast. A glass is usually associated with toasting. I focused on her glass and could care less if it was a picture of a family or an actual scene. Just my opinion. I'll let it go now and leave this to the experts.

kenskid

Nikon D700

12/09/2008 11:19:05 AM · #46

I remember this and wondered how they did it without hurting the fish. I was fooled...DQ.

Originally posted by Ken:

alanfreed

Nikon Z9