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 101 - 125 of 732, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/09/2008 01:00:11 PM · #101
Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

Perhaps if the rule is adjusted to read: in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph at the time of the entry photograph.


Lydia, I greatly appreciate your note, and I would personally support the addition of the wording you have suggested.

I agree, however I would change that addition to, "as a live scene" since the date issue is already covered.
12/09/2008 01:01:03 PM · #102
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sfalice:

She didn't actually capture what is shown in the original photograph in this entry.

Um, Shannon, she didn't? She captured a monitor (or perhaps it was a print)containing a background image and a wine glass 1/2 full in one shot...

Exactly. She didn't actually capture the contents of the background photograph (as live subjects). She just took a photo of a photo. [/quote]

I guess we could go on and on with this but I'm going to stop now, after this comment:

She took a picture of a wine glass (at least 1/3 of the image) superimposed on a view of a family dining. The wine glass was "real time" while the diners were not. We are, I think, all agreed on this.

You think it was "fooling the voters" by giving the impression that the wine glass and the diners were in the same time frame.

I would suggest that, in this context, every time a photographer uses a fake background, either a backdrop or auxiliary photograph, the voters are being fooled.

So, perhaps it's just a matter of degree as to who gets the DQ?

By the way, this one of mine passed muster a year or so ago - I hope the statute of limitations has run out:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/736/120/580780.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/736/120/580780.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


12/09/2008 01:02:52 PM · #103
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

DQ'ing something based solely on the subjectivity on whether or not it fooled someone is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever hear about in my life.

You're cordially invited to propose an alternative. Allowing all artwork would permit people to submit a photo of a photo, and banning all artwork eliminates many perfectly acceptable situations (billboards, commercial muslins, etc.). How would YOU qualify it?
12/09/2008 01:02:53 PM · #104
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

It is my opinion that the rule needs to be changed FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. A distinction is being made on the existing rules that it took ten days to determine violation. Obviously, this needs to be clarified. Perhaps if the rule is adjusted to read: in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph at the time of the entry photograph.

Am I ever glad I'm not SC right now.......8>)
12/09/2008 01:03:04 PM · #105
Originally posted by delin:

Originally posted by mom2two:

Originally posted by robs:

[quote=delin] Not looking to stir up trouble for anyone here, but this discussion makes me wonder about this shot. Seems to be artwork that did deceive voters, no? I think most people thought it was real. Is artwork just a flat photo or screen and not 3D art?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/742023.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/742023.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


Statues - you typically know when you are voting on a statue. Church ceiling painting - you typically know that you are voting on someone's art there too and are hopefully voting on the photography technique, angle, comp, etc. I always ask myself when voting on an image that has another's art in it "am I voting because of the art/statue or the photographic quality?"


I agree with the photographic quality aspect, I like this photo a lot. I doubt if I could go there and get a shot with the same light and feel, to make it look so realistic. Definately a talented shooter.


If the person had stepped back and included the frame of this would have still have voted as high? I would not have, I would have felt I was voting on someone else's art.
12/09/2008 01:03:32 PM · #106
Originally posted by scalvert:

...entering what is primarily a photo of a photo defeats the purpose of the challenge.


In this case I totally don't think that's true; the BG image was actually shot the day of the challenge, it's actually her family, the technique she used (monitor BG) is a time-honored one at DPC, and the only issue here seems to be she did such a good job that everyone was fooled into thinking it was NOT a composite. I mean, to whatever extent they are judging the quality of the bG image, well that's HER legal image, right? Judge away!

I just think we're splitting hairs to the point of inanity now. Just do away with the restriction, instead of trying to judge whether people have skirted it or not. As long as there's an added object in the image, let it slide.

R.
12/09/2008 01:04:00 PM · #107
Originally posted by alanfreed:

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.
.
.
.
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.



So my concern here is this: the Rule (in italics) refers to " fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph"--but in the DQ'd feast image it was a photo she had taken, so she wasn't fooling us by putting someone else's work there. If there is some question as to whether she took the photo, or whether she edited outside of the basic rules, then she could submit the background image to the SC, as well, upon request. I see no fundamental difference between the feast image and the magic carpet image.

The boldface " judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem" is a new interpretation of the rule, not documented as a part of the rule, and applied after the fact. If this is to be part of the rule, update the rule, very clearly, with this new constraint, and use it from this point forward.

With all due respect for the SC, and with gratitude for all the work they do on our behalf, I think the DQ is on shaky ground at best in this case, and should be reversed.

12/09/2008 01:05:53 PM · #108
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

DQ'ing something based solely on the subjectivity on whether or not it fooled someone is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever hear about in my life.

You're cordially invited to propose an alternative. Allowing all artwork would permit people to submit a photo of a photo, and banning all artwork eliminates many perfectly acceptable situations (billboards, commercial muslins, etc.). How would YOU qualify it?


I don't have an answer per se, but it should be something that leans more towards an objective value than a subjective one. I think that's only common sense.
12/09/2008 01:07:56 PM · #109
Originally posted by sfalice:

You think it was "fooling the voters" by giving the impression that the wine glass and the diners were in the same time frame.

I would suggest that, in this context, every time a photographer uses a fake background, either a backdrop or auxiliary photograph, the voters are being fooled.

Does it not bother you at all that she essentially placed a glass in front of a photo of a feast and ribboned in Feast? Is that really where you want to see DPC go? If the artwork is just a background and voters are primarily judging the foreground as the main subject, then it's only a supporting element. Tthe technique is similar, but those are not equivalent situations.
12/09/2008 01:08:27 PM · #110
Again, you're holding the door wide open for all sorts of abuses to breeze through. As I mentioned before, what you would like to allow would permit people to edit a Basic challenge entry any way they like, photograph the photograph and submit it. This is just one of the things here that's not at all in the spirit of DPC. This is not splitting hairs.

If we're going to get to the point where anyone can snap a photo of their favorite landscape photo, stick a blade of grass in front of it as their "added object" and call it a day, then that's not a DPC I want to be involved with, frankly.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I just think we're splitting hairs to the point of inanity now. Just do away with the restriction, instead of trying to judge whether people have skirted it or not. As long as there's an added object in the image, let it slide.


Message edited by author 2008-12-09 13:10:19.
12/09/2008 01:08:54 PM · #111
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

DQ'ing something based solely on the subjectivity on whether or not it fooled someone is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever hear about in my life.

You're cordially invited to propose an alternative. Allowing all artwork would permit people to submit a photo of a photo, and banning all artwork eliminates many perfectly acceptable situations (billboards, commercial muslins, etc.). How would YOU qualify it?


I don't have an answer per se, but it should be something that leans more towards an objective value than a subjective one. I think that's only common sense.

Yeah, good luck with that. Let us know when you come up with an objective rule for artwork.
12/09/2008 01:11:25 PM · #112
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

the BG image was actually shot the day of the challenge, it's actually her family, the technique she used (monitor BG) is a time-honored one at DPC, and the only issue here seems to be she did such a good job that everyone was fooled into thinking it was NOT a composite. I mean, to whatever extent they are judging the quality of the bG image, well that's HER legal image, right? Judge away!

I just think we're splitting hairs to the point of inanity now.

Kinda like allowing that while prohibiting multiple exposures or multi-image compositions?
12/09/2008 01:12:47 PM · #113
Originally posted by mom2two:

Originally posted by delin:

Originally posted by mom2two:

Originally posted by robs:

[quote=delin] Not looking to stir up trouble for anyone here, but this discussion makes me wonder about this shot. Seems to be artwork that did deceive voters, no? I think most people thought it was real. Is artwork just a flat photo or screen and not 3D art?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/742023.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/742023.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


Statues - you typically know when you are voting on a statue. Church ceiling painting - you typically know that you are voting on someone's art there too and are hopefully voting on the photography technique, angle, comp, etc. I always ask myself when voting on an image that has another's art in it "am I voting because of the art/statue or the photographic quality?"


I agree with the photographic quality aspect, I like this photo a lot. I doubt if I could go there and get a shot with the same light and feel, to make it look so realistic. Definately a talented shooter.


If the person had stepped back and included the frame of this would have still have voted as high? I would not have, I would have felt I was voting on someone else's art.


Good point, when I voted I thought it was real. There is big difference between catching this in the wild and shooting it in a museum, skill wise.
12/09/2008 01:15:10 PM · #114
Originally posted by alanfreed:

Again, you're holding the door wide open for all sorts of abuses to breeze through. As I mentioned before, what you would like to allow would permit people to edit a Basic challenge entry any way they like, photograph the photograph and submit it. This is just one of the things here that's not at all in the spirit of DPC. This is not splitting hairs.


The background photograph original can also be requested and validated--if she did not take the photo herself, and/or if it was edited outside of the rules, then it is DQ'd.
12/09/2008 01:22:52 PM · #115
Originally posted by scalvert:


Does it not bother you at all that she essentially placed a glass in front of a photo of a feast and ribboned in Feast?


As all of the imagery was hers and original, done within the rules as understood and as previously applied to her earlier images, I think you are just questioning the content of the image itself. I think the voters get to decide that.... I respectfully suggest that the above comment is off-topic as concerns the rule itself and the newly stated additional constraint on the interpretation of that rule.
12/09/2008 01:23:22 PM · #116
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

...entering what is primarily a photo of a photo defeats the purpose of the challenge.


In this case I totally don't think that's true; the BG image was actually shot the day of the challenge, it's actually her family, the technique she used (monitor BG) is a time-honored one at DPC, and the only issue here seems to be she did such a good job that everyone was fooled into thinking it was NOT a composite. I mean, to whatever extent they are judging the quality of the bG image, well that's HER legal image, right? Judge away!

I just think we're splitting hairs to the point of inanity now. Just do away with the restriction, instead of trying to judge whether people have skirted it or not. As long as there's an added object in the image, let it slide.

R.

Hmmm...this sounds like a workaround for the mulitple image rules where you can take multiple shots, but not add anything new to the composition.

ETA - oops! I had the reply window open too long. Missed the post by Scalvert.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 13:26:10.
12/09/2008 01:23:45 PM · #117
Look, to go back to what I was saying before:

According to SC statements in this thread, the primary reason for the DQ (and it was a hard-fought decision, apparently) is that the image "fooled" people into believing it was a single capture of an actual scene, not an "artwork" shot. Which means, to my way of thinking, that had Lydia done such a bad job of compositing the separate images that it was obviously artwork, she wouldn't have been disqualified. And she wouldn't have ribboned either, for that matter.

Am I the only one that thinks an image has been DQ'd because it was too well made? Because for me that's exactly what's happened here.

I'm *well* aware of the potential abuses if the rule is opened up, but all-in-all I think it's a *greater* abuse that a photographer entered, in good faith, an image that both by precedent and by a literal reading of the rules would seem to be legal, only to be DQ'd from a ribbon because she did it so well it fooled us all!

That's my position, and I'm sticking to it. Alan Freed asked me, earlier, what my "solution" was, and that's when I said "just let it slide". I'd also be very happy with a tightening up of the rule so that artificial, "constructed" composites of any sort were not legal (it would be very easy to exempt images that uses environmental backgrounds, for example) and we all went back to being photographers, not fabricators-of-illusions.

Now again, don't get me wrong. I think Scalvert's a living master of fabricated illusions, and I love his work and I'd be sorry to see that sort of stuff outlawed. BUT I just don't think there's a sharp enough line between his Arabian Nights and Lydia's feast to justify DQing her, and if the grounds for DQ are going to be so subjective I'd rather either bar the door completely or open the floodgates.

Integrity of the qualification process is much more important, I think, than where an individual stands, pro or con, against this sort of trickery.

R.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 13:26:55.
12/09/2008 01:26:01 PM · #118
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Hmmm...this sounds like a workaround for the mulitple image rules where you can take multiple shots, but not add anything new to the composition.


It does, doesn't it? Nothing's simple, tentacles everywhere. But in that sense, Shannon's "Arabian Nights" is the same sort of workaround; he could have made that image a HELL of a lot more easily if he was allowed to do multi-image compositing in Photoshop, but he wasn't, so he used his access to a giant plotter to create a giant background for his daughter to "fly" over.

R.
12/09/2008 01:27:29 PM · #119
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Look, to go back to what I was saying before:

According to SC statements in this thread, the primary reason for the DQ (and it was a hard-fought decision, apparently) is that the image "fooled" people into believing it was a single capture of an actual scene, not an "artwork" shot. Which means, to my way of thinking, that had Lydia done such a bad job of compositing the separate images that it was obviously artwork, she wouldn't have been disqualified. And she wouldn't have ribboned either, for that matter.

Am I the only one that thinks an image has been DQ'd because it was too well made? Because for me that's exactly what's happened here.

I'm *well* aware of the potential abuses if the rule is opened up, but all-in-all I think it's a *greater* abuse that a photographer entered, in good faith, an image that both by precedent and by a literal reading of the rules would seem to be legal, only to be DQ'd from a ribbon because she did it so well it fooled us all!

That's my position, and I'm sticking to it. Alan Freed asked me, earlier, what my "solution" was, and that's when I said "just let it slide". I'd also be very happy with a tightening up of the rule so that artificial, "constructed" composites of any sort were not legal (it would be very easy to exempt images that uses environmental backgrounds, for example) and we all went back to being photographers, not fabricators-of-illusions.

Now again, don't get me wrong. I think Scalvert's a living master of fabricated illusions, and I love his work and I'd be sorry to see that sort of stuff outlawed. BUT I just don't think there's a sharp enough line between his Arabian Nights and Lydia's feast to justify DQing her, and if the grounds for DQ are going to be so subjective I'd rather either bar the door completely or open the floodgates.

Integrity of the qualification process is much more important, I think, than where an individual stands, pro or con, against this sort of trickery.

R.


I'm on your side.
12/09/2008 01:27:36 PM · #120
Originally posted by ralph:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/752/120/596621.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/752/120/596621.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
DPC DQ


Another one that should not have been DQ'ed, in my opinion. Like anyone actually thought an owl was looking through binoculars!!!
12/09/2008 01:29:08 PM · #121
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sfalice:

You think it was "fooling the voters" by giving the impression that the wine glass and the diners were in the same time frame.

I would suggest that, in this context, every time a photographer uses a fake background, either a backdrop or auxiliary photograph, the voters are being fooled.

Does it not bother you at all that she essentially placed a glass in front of a photo of a feast and ribboned in Feast? Is that really where you want to see DPC go? If the artwork is just a background and voters are primarily judging the foreground as the main subject, then it's only a supporting element. Tthe technique is similar, but those are not equivalent situations.


I promised myself I would stop after the last post (but)...

In none of my DQ objections did I express an opinion on the merits of the picture as art, or whether or not I "liked" it. that, in my opinion, should not be a criteria for judgment.

I do want DPC to be consistent in the application of the rules. If a rule is ambiguous, I want it to be rewritten so that is is clear and very easy to understand.

I want to see DPC continue its careful path that maintains photographic integrity. I want this site to continue to be the creative and exciting place it is and has been.

12/09/2008 01:29:12 PM · #122
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Hmmm...this sounds like a workaround for the mulitple image rules where you can take multiple shots, but not add anything new to the composition.


It does, doesn't it? Nothing's simple, tentacles everywhere. But in that sense, Shannon's "Arabian Nights" is the same sort of workaround; he could have made that image a HELL of a lot more easily if he was allowed to do multi-image compositing in Photoshop, but he wasn't, so he used his access to a giant plotter to create a giant background for his daughter to "fly" over.

R.

Well, yes and no. When I saw Shannon' "Arabian Nights" entry I knew it wasn't real and I voted on it accordingly; a girl in a wonderful mockup. In the photo being discussed from 'Feast' I voted on the image based on the people seated at the table, the way it was illuminated, etc... So, in essence, I voted on a photo of a photo.
12/09/2008 01:31:04 PM · #123
Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Originally posted by ralph:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/752/120/596621.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/752/120/596621.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
DPC DQ


Another one that should not have been DQ'ed, in my opinion. Like anyone actually thought an owl was looking through binoculars!!!


Yeah only the insane people would have been fooled by that one........wait then who voted to DQ the image because they were fooled? hmmm

Matt
12/09/2008 01:34:39 PM · #124
I'll throw my opinion out there just for kicks.

1. This particular aspect of the rules cannot be made to be objective without creating massive restrictions (like not allowing any 2d artwork in any image).
2. A subjective rule where we see a borderline case very rarely is a better solution than creating massive restrictions on subject matter.
3. The rule as written is clear. The instant I read Lydia's notes I said to my wife, "Man, that sucks. Great image, but it's totally gonna get DQed."

I'm all for anyone that can rewrite the rule so that it is clearer and less subjective. It's been done before, and I believe that we are currently operating under the clearest and least subjective version so far (hmmm...is that a belief system?).
12/09/2008 01:34:51 PM · #125
If this particular image was so well done, so precedent-setting that it results in a New interpretation/application of the rules to defend against all of the ways this method MIGHT be used in the future to skirt the rules, let's have a formal change to the wording of the rule--I completely support that. This new rule should not be retroactively applied, however.

The image does not clearly violate the rule as currently written.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 11/30/2020 09:59:02 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: 11/30/2020 09:59:02 PM EST.