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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> rule regarding multiple images
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 37, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/28/2005 12:37:34 PM · #1
The winning entry for the 'Bulbble' challenge, 'Prisoner of Circumstance' to which I gave a 10, is a picture of a picture.
My entry for 'perspective II' entitled 'WACID Tv' which was one picture post processed with feedback to create a repeat was disqualified under the composites rule.
I thought I understood language better.
09/28/2005 12:39:30 PM · #2
Originally posted by grainman9:

The winning entry for the 'Bulbble' challenge, 'Prisoner of Circumstance' to which I gave a 10, is a picture of a picture.


Actually it's not. It's a picture of a picture and an arm and bubble. There is a picture, but there are other elements. The way you describe your picture sounds like it was one picture of one picture. That's not the bubble pic.
09/28/2005 12:40:49 PM · #3
I think the key is the "post-processing" As long as the multiple images were not done in post-processing steps it's OK. The winning entry is a picture of a picture.... Was not done in post.
09/28/2005 02:34:27 PM · #4
Is anyone else concerned that this is really a composite of two images? I understand that it is legal under the definition but somehow taking one image, displaying it on a monitor or as a print and then using that as a background for another image is really no different (in spirit) than combining two images in photoshop. It is a great shot but imo this shouldn't be allowed in challenges.
09/28/2005 02:36:17 PM · #5
there have been lots of winners who use this technique, its legal.

Originally posted by donniev:

Is anyone else concerned that this is really a composite of two images? I understand that it is legal under the definition but somehow taking one image, displaying it on a monitor or as a print and then using that as a background for another image is really no different (in spirit) than combining two images in photoshop. It is a great shot but imo this shouldn't be allowed in challenges.

09/28/2005 02:39:54 PM · #6
Originally posted by queanbeez:

there have been lots of winners who use this technique, its legal.


I understand it IS legal. I stated that in my post. My opinion is that it SHOULDN'T be.


09/28/2005 02:47:43 PM · #7
Originally posted by donniev:

Originally posted by queanbeez:

there have been lots of winners who use this technique, its legal.


I understand it IS legal. I stated that in my post. My opinion is that it SHOULDN'T be.


I disagree...what about using a backdrop (especially ones with images one them)? Isn't that technically taking a picture of a picture? It is done all the time and long before digital and major post processing.

As far as the original question, I think you were disqualified because in your post processing you duplicated your image and rotated it, so you were adding major elements. If you'd done this in a mirror or TV somehow then you would have been fine.

Message edited by author 2005-09-28 14:48:59.
09/28/2005 03:03:25 PM · #8
Originally posted by queanbeez:

there have been lots of winners who use this technique, its legal.



I think the question is SHOULD it be legal.
09/28/2005 03:20:59 PM · #9
grain, you also used fisheye which is illegal for basic challenges as well. Everything that the winner did was part of the original image. nothing was added in post processing. your images was selected, repeated, and pasted back into the original photo. not only creating layers (illegal) but also adding a major element post processing(illegal) and duplicating part or all of the image (illegal). Hope this helps.
09/28/2005 03:21:54 PM · #10
If it is alright to apply effects as long as it is done to the 'entire' image then my adding feedback (Paint Shop Pro ) which created a Droste (sic) effect should be allowed. One image, not multi or miltiple, no cut and paste etc.
If 'Prisoner of Circumstance' goes uncontested...HELLO REAR PROJECTION...YEEEEEEHAAAAAAAW
09/28/2005 03:23:31 PM · #11
Originally posted by wavelength:

I think the question is SHOULD it be legal.


And the answer is... of course.
09/28/2005 03:26:24 PM · #12
Originally posted by grainman9:

If it is alright to apply effects as long as it is done to the 'entire' image then my adding feedback (Paint Shop Pro ) which created a Droste (sic) effect should be allowed.


It's not. From the Basic Editing rules: "no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed."
09/28/2005 03:28:36 PM · #13
grainman, the fisheye effects moves pixels, you're not allowed to do any kind of pixel manipulation (except ones that affect its colors) in basic editing, whole image or not the fisheye wasn't allowed.

now if you had a fisheye lens....
09/28/2005 03:29:09 PM · #14
It is legal because the photo is being used as a prop as part of an overall composition. That it happens to be a photograph does not alter its status as a prop, any more than if the composition used wallpaper, a sign a building, or anything else.

If the entry includes nothing else but the pre-existing picture, then it would be disqualified under the "artwork rule" (see the tutorial for more on this), but as a part of an overall composition it is fine to use a print or monitor screen.
09/28/2005 03:33:42 PM · #15
I accept and welcome the rules.
I understand the 'fisheye' rule as it moves pixels.
My pic was disqualified because
Composites: You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs.

This was the crux of my argument.
09/28/2005 03:40:25 PM · #16
If you capture a single image with the camera, there is no legal way to duplicate that image into multplie copies in Basic OR Advanced editing, regardless of what tools you use.

"...using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
09/28/2005 03:54:30 PM · #17
This is all a bunch of semantecal crap. The winner found a way around the rules. It is legal in technicality only. He wins no respect from me though.

It's one thing when it's a smaller elelement within the whole, like in graphicfunk's detatched head picture. This however was a blatant bending of the rule, to the point which some seem little confused as to the point of having the rule at all. The main subject of the picture was an entirely faked computer generated scene. The addition of the hand and straw were merely pandering to the rules, rather than following the spirit of them.

If the piont is to make the open challenges more open and accessable to entering (instead of geared toward photoshop and effects wizards) then allowing this type of pre-editing does not accomplish the desired effect. The open rules seem to be intended to discourage editing in favor of pure photography, instead these end-arounds give the advantage to those with or photoshop effects mastery. Something that seemingly should be relegated to member challenges.

The girl in the bubble wasn't a prop, and it wasn't a background. It was the main focus of the picture, the hand was the prop in front of it. That's why this SHOULD be illegal. I understand that it's not. I understand most of you will disagree.

Dissenting opinion is always a good thing to at least consider. All I'm asking for is your consideration.

Thanks.
09/28/2005 03:59:56 PM · #18
If the hand and bubble had been held in front of a billboard of the girl, I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with it, even though a billboard would be equally background artwork.
09/28/2005 04:04:57 PM · #19
Originally posted by wavelength:

This is all a bunch of semantecal crap. The winner found a way around the rules. It is legal in technicality only. He wins no respect from me though.

Winner of challenge #29 (Pencil):

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/29/thumb/4611.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/29/thumb/4611.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

... variations of this technique are well-established as acceptable creative approaches, while judging the effectiveness with which the effect is carried off. Sorry you don't approve ...
09/28/2005 04:09:46 PM · #20
Originally posted by donniev:

Is anyone else concerned that this is really a composite of two images? I understand that it is legal under the definition but somehow taking one image, displaying it on a monitor or as a print and then using that as a background for another image is really no different (in spirit) than combining two images in photoshop. It is a great shot but imo this shouldn't be allowed in challenges.


Nope, not concerned at all....we've been over this a gazillion times and will continue to do so. The issue with disqualifications is that the manipulation is all done first and then a photo is taken of the finished product.

Rather, winners, such as the "Bubble" and Scalvert's lunar lightbulb are done so that the taking of the photograph creates the illusion of the finished product.

There is a drastic difference....but whenever someone ribbons with such an entry everyone who was DQ'd or jaded brings up this same discussion over and over again.

Originally posted by donniev:

I understand it IS legal. I stated that in my post. My opinion is that it SHOULDN'T be.


To make such illegal would be to make any and all photos illegal. It would preclude the use of any background.

Message edited by author 2005-09-28 16:11:01.
09/28/2005 04:27:34 PM · #21
Unless we have an astronaut within our ranks, here's another example of a monitor background from the same challenge-

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/379/thumb/231905.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/379/thumb/231905.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
09/28/2005 04:27:40 PM · #22
Originally posted by wavelength:

This is all a bunch of semantecal crap. The winner found a way around the rules. It is legal in technicality only. He wins no respect from me though.

It's one thing when it's a smaller elelement within the whole, like in graphicfunk's detatched head picture.


Hands wavelength a big stick and a dead horse to go with it...

This is like saying that Joey Lawrence's shot featuring Gandalf should be disqualified because it was a cardboard cutout stand of Gandalf. Not the real actor in real garb. Oh wait is that a photo, an image, a real world object.

The issue at hand is not the use of other photo-representative objects. It's the matter that one must use "photographic" composition and NOT digital manipulation in order to compose the photograph.

Here is the simple difference:

In the case of grainman9's shot. If you were to view what he photographed it would appear roughly identical to the posted image (barring any technical lighting, graininess, and image capture issues).

However, if you were to take a picture of the picture of girl in Bubble (the main element as you put forth) it would not result in the image submitted to the Bubble challenge.

Likewise, if you were to take a picture of Joey Lawrance's "Gandalf" entry it would NOT have ribboned. It'd be a mere cardboard object with Gandalf's photo on it.

However, in both Joey Lawrence's entry and the Bubble challenge entry those images ribboned. Because the composition, incorporation of other items, props, settings, camera angles, etc. Made the original photographs used in the compositions to be more than they are in and of themselves.

Where as grainman9's entry is merely an image capture of what is essentially the image itself.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/377/thumb/231258.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/377/thumb/231258.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/379/thumb/233831.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/379/thumb/233831.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/350/thumb/191162.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/350/thumb/191162.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2005-09-28 17:53:58.
09/28/2005 04:46:45 PM · #23
I don't have a problem with the bubble entry. I would have a problem with someone doing a major alteration of their picture, putting it on their monitor and taking a picture of the monitor. Oh well, I'm here to learn and I can do that if someone finds a loophole or not.
09/28/2005 04:48:36 PM · #24
Originally posted by chaimelle:

I would have a problem with someone doing a major alteration of their picture, putting it on their monitor and taking a picture of the monitor.

That's prohibited under the "literal artwork" rule.
09/28/2005 05:44:43 PM · #25
Originally posted by theSaj:


In the case of donniev's shot. If you were to view what he photographed it would appear roughly identical to the posted image (barring any technical lighting, graininess, and image capture issues).

Where as DonnieV's entry is merely an image capture of what is essentially the image itself.


I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't even enter this challenge. No image of mine is involved in this discussion at all.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/25/2020 04:58:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/25/2020 04:58:07 AM EDT.