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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Notes on the Artwork Rule
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 732, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/09/2008 09:42:18 AM · #1
I am hoping to help clear up a little bit of confusion regarding one of the rules that appears in both the Advanced and Basic rule sets:

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.

Back in the "old days" of DPC, it was actually illegal to photograph "literal representations of artwork," including currency, other photos, and other works of art. I believe the old rules even prohibited photographing statues as a sole subject of an entry.

We have backed off of that in the most recent rule sets, allowing those things to a degree. The rule as it is written now is meant to prohibit people from using a photograph as a replacement for an actual, integral scene of a submission. In other words, it is not acceptable to make a submission that uses an existing photo (whether it is a new photo, an old photo, or a photo taken by someone else -- it does not matter) as a primary scene in a submission.

Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. 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.

Each of these types of submissions are judged on a case-by-case basis by Site Council in an attempt to be as fair as possible. If you have questions about a submission ahead of time, please remember that uploading an original while submitting does not automatically mean the shot is reviewed before voting begins. Please use our ticket system to contact us well in advance if you are concerned whether you may be crossing the line on this or any other rule.
12/09/2008 10:10:25 AM · #2
Originally posted by alanfreed:

The rule as it is written now is meant to prohibit people from using a photograph as a replacement for an actual, integral scene of a submission. In other words, it is not acceptable to make a submission that uses an existing photo (whether it is a new photo, an old photo, or a photo taken by someone else -- it does not matter) as a primary scene in a submission.


Does this mean Shannon's "Arabian Flights" would not be legal under the current advanced ruleset?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

R.
12/09/2008 10:14:48 AM · #3
A couple of additional points:

Artwork that's obvious to the viewer is OK. Cartoonish illustrations, money, the Mona Lisa, a billboard or monitor with the context/frame visible, a photo of earth from space... all fine. The voters will understand that they're looking at a photo of a photo and can rate it accordingly.

Artwork that only serves as a supporting background or minor element in a larger composition is OK. A background of a brick wall or minor object within the scene is fine. If the subject itself is largely or entirely artwork (to the point that people are commenting on the photographic qualities of the lighting, expressions, poses, etc. as if they were live models), then you're in risky territory. As an example, a photo of a flower in a model's hair is fine since it's just an accessory, but a real flower on a life size photo of a model would be a DQ since voters would reasonably assume the main subject is real and judge the pose, expression, lighting, etc.

This rule is not intended to squelch creativity, but to prevent people from fooling the voters with what is essentially a photo of a photo. Merely including a real object is no longer sufficient, and any artwork should play a supporting or additive role, not the other way around.
12/09/2008 10:15:45 AM · #4
They are going to say..."it is obvious that the child is not flying...therefore the photographer is not trying to fool anyone..." So this pic is different than the one currently in question...however, it is the SAME technique! Under current rules...both of these shots are legal.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

The rule as it is written now is meant to prohibit people from using a photograph as a replacement for an actual, integral scene of a submission. In other words, it is not acceptable to make a submission that uses an existing photo (whether it is a new photo, an old photo, or a photo taken by someone else -- it does not matter) as a primary scene in a submission.


Does this mean Shannon's "Arabian Flights" would not be legal under the current advanced ruleset?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

R.


Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:16:40.
12/09/2008 10:15:45 AM · #5
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

The rule as it is written now is meant to prohibit people from using a photograph as a replacement for an actual, integral scene of a submission. In other words, it is not acceptable to make a submission that uses an existing photo (whether it is a new photo, an old photo, or a photo taken by someone else -- it does not matter) as a primary scene in a submission.


Does this mean Shannon's "Arabian Flights" would not be legal under the current advanced ruleset?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

R.


I should think not. It's obvious it was a photo. Lydia's shot fooled me into thinking she was actually there taking the shot and that's what the SC want to stop, and I'm all for it.

oops didn't see Scalvert's post.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:16:48.
12/09/2008 10:18:41 AM · #6
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Does this mean Shannon's "Arabian Flights" would not be legal under the current advanced ruleset?


That is a good question. This is one that we have brought up in our SC discussions quite a few times. I honestly don't have a solid answer for you, but I would suspect it would stand. At the very least, it would cause enough discussion on our parts that we would likely let it stand simply to give it the benefit of the doubt, for a couple reasons. First, it would be implausible to believe that such a shot could be real, casting doubt about the reality of the background. Second, the background is playing more of a "supporting role" here, rather than being the main subject. Again, those are the types of things that would come into our conversation about that particular shot.

Understand that most shots that we have disqualified under this rule are quite blatant violations. Shots like "Arabian Flights" are rare and require a lot of thought and discussion. The vast majority of the ones we disqualify are cases where people take a picture of a picture, and add some other minor element to the shot, meaning that voters are casting their votes based mainly on the picture-of-a-picture.
12/09/2008 10:20:50 AM · #7
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Does this mean Shannon's "Arabian Flights" would not be legal under the current advanced ruleset?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/438/120/284583.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I believe that one would still pass today (though maybe on a split decision) because the primary subject is the girl on the carpet. The background actually serves as a background, in a supporting role, and the voters would likely judge the photographic qualities of the (live) model and overall composition rather than the background itself as a real subject. Plus, it's unlikely that people would assume she's really cruising at 25,000 ft.
12/09/2008 10:26:14 AM · #8
So if Lydia's background had been say, a reproduction of a painting of "the first Thanksgiving" that would have been OK, since she "obviously couldn't have been there"? Or not OK because people might have thought she had pulled a DeSousa and actually STAGED a period thanksgiving feast for this challenge?

Seriously, where ya gonna draw the line here?

Look, I actually DO understand the rationale behind all this; I was shocked to find out Lydia's was a monitor shot, disappointed, because I thought the whole issue of pose, lighting, DOF had been so skilfully handled. The image is a lot less impressive an accomplishment done the way she did it. Still a nice image, mind you, great mood and all that, but...

From a more logical, constructionist point of view, there's a part of me that just shrieks in frustration when the interpretation of this major rule is twisted to such a degree that, basically, if the the integration of BG and foreground is done so amateurishly/obviously that nobody's fooled, it's OK, but if you do it so well everyone's fooled then it's a DQ for you...

Am I the only one to see the irony in this?

R.

12/09/2008 10:29:33 AM · #9
How would you like to see these situations handled differently?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

From a more logical, constructionist point of view, there's a part of me that just shrieks in frustration when the interpretation of this major rule is twisted to such a degree that, basically, if the the integration of BG and foreground is done so amateurishly/obviously that nobody's fooled, it's OK, but if you do it so well everyone's fooled then it's a DQ for you...
12/09/2008 10:30:08 AM · #10
What about shots like this?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
12/09/2008 10:32:18 AM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

there's a part of me that just shrieks in frustration when the interpretation of this major rule is twisted to such a degree that, basically, if the the integration of BG and foreground is done so amateurishly/obviously that nobody's fooled, it's OK, but if you do it so well everyone's fooled then it's a DQ for you...

Not really. You can still do it well as long as the image isn't primarily "about" the artwork. Including artwork within a composition can be a great creative tool, but entering what is primarily a photo of a photo defeats the purpose of the challenge.
12/09/2008 10:32:56 AM · #12
Originally posted by sempermarine:

What about shots like this?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

It's fine. Any sane person would know it's a sign. Note that the same shot without the foreground person or with, say, a large bird in the foreground would be a DQ since the wouldn't be obviously a sign, and the voters would then assume the background model is the photographer's "live" capture.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:35:32.
12/09/2008 10:33:03 AM · #13
Originally posted by sempermarine:

What about shots like this?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


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.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:33:45.
12/09/2008 10:34:06 AM · #14
All banned or all allowed....

Originally posted by alanfreed:

How would you like to see these situations handled differently?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

From a more logical, constructionist point of view, there's a part of me that just shrieks in frustration when the interpretation of this major rule is twisted to such a degree that, basically, if the the integration of BG and foreground is done so amateurishly/obviously that nobody's fooled, it's OK, but if you do it so well everyone's fooled then it's a DQ for you...
12/09/2008 10:36:21 AM · #15
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sempermarine:

What about shots like this?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

It's fine. Any sane person would know it's a sign.


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?

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:37:01.
12/09/2008 10:38:36 AM · #16
Originally posted by alanfreed:

How would you like to see these situations handled differently?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

From a more logical, constructionist point of view, there's a part of me that just shrieks in frustration when the interpretation of this major rule is twisted to such a degree that, basically, if the the integration of BG and foreground is done so amateurishly/obviously that nobody's fooled, it's OK, but if you do it so well everyone's fooled then it's a DQ for you...


By allowing images like Lydia's. If someone wants to make a giant print of something and then photograph something else using the print as a BG, well that's been done lots of times before in DPC and it's been done a gazillion times in the real world. I don't see why a computer monitor rendition should be handled any differently (and I realize the issue here isn't the monitor anyway, just saying...) so... I don't think we should be fussing the way we do about the use of this technique, it's gotten to where we're splitting hairs and no matter how you rule there's a vocal group that thinks you're wrong.

I think it stops being an issue if people become aware that an image they are looking at MAY be an in-camera composite, and they just learn to accept it. I think Lydia had every reason to believe her image was legitimate. I think equity would suggest that if you're determined to have it NOT be legitimate, you should reinstate the ribbon and then continue this thread saying that from this point forward you're drawing the line so that this image would not be allowed.

But I still think that's pointless. I don't think it makes sense to disqualify a well-crafted image but allow the exact same image to stand if it is so poorly-made that the deception is obvious. Deception, after all, is a time-honored aspect of photography :-)

R.
12/09/2008 10:41:33 AM · #17
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.
12/09/2008 10:41:40 AM · #18
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So if Lydia's background had been say, a reproduction of a painting of "the first Thanksgiving" that would have been OK, since she "obviously couldn't have been there"? Or not OK because people might have thought she had pulled a DeSousa and actually STAGED a period thanksgiving feast for this challenge?


This is an interesting point, and this is precisely why I have fought tooth and nail in an attempt to implement the artwork rule. Think about this very scenario... DeSousa went out, enlisted the help of a ton of people with costumes, a giant cross, elaborate lighting, smoke and a warehouse for heaven's sake. He put his latest entry together with an almost Hollywood-like cast, crew and set! Personally, I voted it a 10. How would you feel if you later found out that he had simply snapped a picture of a picture he found somewhere, and just stuck part of a stretcher into the shot as his "contribution" to the submission. I'd feel robbed of a 10, frankly.

I want to see people rewarded for creativity and their set-ups. To say the least, I do not appreciate it when I am fooled into giving a high vote to someone who has implied that they have gone through such a set up, when all they have done is photograph a photograph.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:53:20.
12/09/2008 10:46:30 AM · #19
Here is one of mine:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/485/120/324350.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/485/120/324350.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This shot FOOLED most everyone. (edit) And No one thought this was a picture of a picture.

The only thing real in that photo was my hand and brush. The cat was a photo from weeks before the challenge.

More edit: a few thought this was a "monitor shot"

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:49:57.
12/09/2008 10:46:32 AM · #20
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I think it stops being an issue if people become aware that an image they are looking at MAY be an in-camera composite...

Precisely... awareness. If voters are either aware that they're looking at artwork, or that artwork only serves in a supporting role (not the entry itself with something added to skirt around the rule), then it's not an issue.
12/09/2008 10:48:31 AM · #21
So using your logic, let's say last year someone made a poster of a composite image, using dozens of photos (some their own, and some from other sources) and created a new, but believable looking image of a scene of some sort. A new challenge pops up on DPC, and they remember this shot, and realize it would fit into that challenge. So they snap a picture of it and submit it. Under the Bear rule set, this is legal!

Is that truly within the spirit of what we're doing here?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I don't think it makes sense to disqualify a well-crafted image but allow the exact same image to stand if it is so poorly-made that the deception is obvious. Deception, after all, is a time-honored aspect of photography :-)

R.
12/09/2008 10:50:17 AM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

How would you like to see these situations handled differently?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

From a more logical, constructionist point of view, there's a part of me that just shrieks in frustration when the interpretation of this major rule is twisted to such a degree that, basically, if the the integration of BG and foreground is done so amateurishly/obviously that nobody's fooled, it's OK, but if you do it so well everyone's fooled then it's a DQ for you...


By allowing images like Lydia's. If someone wants to make a giant print of something and then photograph something else using the print as a BG, well that's been done lots of times before in DPC and it's been done a gazillion times in the real world. I don't see why a computer monitor rendition should be handled any differently (and I realize the issue here isn't the monitor anyway, just saying...) so... I don't think we should be fussing the way we do about the use of this technique, it's gotten to where we're splitting hairs and no matter how you rule there's a vocal group that thinks you're wrong.

I think it stops being an issue if people become aware that an image they are looking at MAY be an in-camera composite, and they just learn to accept it. I think Lydia had every reason to believe her image was legitimate. I think equity would suggest that if you're determined to have it NOT be legitimate, you should reinstate the ribbon and then continue this thread saying that from this point forward you're drawing the line so that this image would not be allowed.

But I still think that's pointless. I don't think it makes sense to disqualify a well-crafted image but allow the exact same image to stand if it is so poorly-made that the deception is obvious. Deception, after all, is a time-honored aspect of photography :-)

R.


Lydia, in her description says that this was a last minute, 10 minute job. I wouldn't classify it as well crafted. My point is this type of shot can be done by inexperienced people with little time.

To the others who still don't get it. This shot fooled many here into believing it was actuall a feast she was at and that's why the SC needed to clear things up. Do you all want to see photographs of photographs in the challenges to no end? It has its uses but not as in Lydia's image. Again, sorry Lydia.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 10:50:45.
12/09/2008 10:51:01 AM · #23
Originally posted by kenskid:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/485/120/324350.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/485/120/324350.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This shot FOOLED most everyone. (edit) And No one thought this was a picture of a picture.

A. I seriously doubt ANYONE would think a live cat actually looks like that.
B. The image was entered under an older set of rules where including anything real was enough to dodge the artwork rule.
12/09/2008 10:51:54 AM · #24
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.

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

How would you like to see these situations handled differently?

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

From a more logical, constructionist point of view, there's a part of me that just shrieks in frustration when the interpretation of this major rule is twisted to such a degree that, basically, if the the integration of BG and foreground is done so amateurishly/obviously that nobody's fooled, it's OK, but if you do it so well everyone's fooled then it's a DQ for you...


By allowing images like Lydia's. If someone wants to make a giant print of something and then photograph something else using the print as a BG, well that's been done lots of times before in DPC and it's been done a gazillion times in the real world. I don't see why a computer monitor rendition should be handled any differently (and I realize the issue here isn't the monitor anyway, just saying...) so... I don't think we should be fussing the way we do about the use of this technique, it's gotten to where we're splitting hairs and no matter how you rule there's a vocal group that thinks you're wrong.

I think it stops being an issue if people become aware that an image they are looking at MAY be an in-camera composite, and they just learn to accept it. I think Lydia had every reason to believe her image was legitimate. I think equity would suggest that if you're determined to have it NOT be legitimate, you should reinstate the ribbon and then continue this thread saying that from this point forward you're drawing the line so that this image would not be allowed.

But I still think that's pointless. I don't think it makes sense to disqualify a well-crafted image but allow the exact same image to stand if it is so poorly-made that the deception is obvious. Deception, after all, is a time-honored aspect of photography :-)

R.


Lydia, in her description says that this was a last minute, 10 minute job. I wouldn't classify it as well crafted. My point is this type of shot can be done by inexperienced people with little time.

To the others who still don't get it. This shot fooled many here into believing it was actuall a feast she was at and that's why the SC needed to clear things up. Do you all want to see photographs of photographs in the challenges to no end? It has its uses but not as in Lydia's image. Again, sorry Lydia.
12/09/2008 10:52:51 AM · #25
Then it seems it is time to change the rules again....BAN THEM ALL.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kenskid:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/485/120/324350.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/485/120/324350.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This shot FOOLED most everyone. (edit) And No one thought this was a picture of a picture.

A. I seriously doubt ANYONE would think a live cat actually looks like that.
B. The image was entered under an older set of rules where including anything real was enough to dodge the artwork rule.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 04:30:38 PM

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: 12/04/2020 04:30:38 PM EST.