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 176 - 200 of 732, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/09/2008 03:04:57 PM · #176
Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by limerick:

Originally posted by MattO:

Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Why would these not be DQed?

Matt


I was going to shut up but now this is freaking me out. Hahah. They both have glasses and both have tv or monitor backgrounds? Was it because they were not winners and didnt need to send in originals or maybe someone didnt ask for validations?


But the one I shared WAS a winner... the bulb one.


It was also done before the ruleset was changed. The two I posted are under the same ruleset as the current one under discussion. If I remember right Shannon's shot was one that was always brought up before the ruleset was changed when a DQ occured.

Matt


As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.

So, the SC never saw them, or their original (unless during normal voting) to judge.

eta: AND, unless my eyes crossed in the wrong place, I believe they were under a different set of rules?

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 15:09:30.
12/09/2008 03:05:00 PM · #177
Originally posted by Prash:

How about this one?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


Again, please remember to check the ruleset. This one was legal under its ruleset (which is different than the current ruleset).

If you are asking hypothetically would it be DQed under the current ruleset, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I don't know. :)
12/09/2008 03:05:57 PM · #178
Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by MattO:

Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Why would these not be DQed?

Matt


This appears to be a perfect example of my last post. I would bet they weren't DQed because no one requested validation. ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' limerick agrees, I see. :)


I find it interesting one of the shots was taken by a council member who must have felt it was legal.


I find it more interesting that the shot that I referred to, was taken by a council member too, and was a first place winner. That one is a clear DQ IMO, I dont know what others think. It seems more like a digital art than real photography.
12/09/2008 03:06:44 PM · #179
Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by MattO:

Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Why would these not be DQed?

Matt


This appears to be a perfect example of my last post. I would bet they weren't DQed because no one requested validation. ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' limerick agrees, I see. :)


I find it interesting one of the shots was taken by a council member who must have felt it was legal.


oh god. I dont even know what I am talking about and someone agrees with me. Hahah. I guess I should say thanks?

So if a photo is entered into a challenge by a council member it doesnt need to be validated? I am trying to get all of this straight because I am getting really confused here by the minute.
12/09/2008 03:07:01 PM · #180
Originally posted by sittingonthegrass:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

How about this, from the recent Free Study challenge? Is that a photo of a child or a real child in the background?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/743507.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/743507.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


it's neither, it's a drawing (is it really that hard to see)


Really? I honestly thought it was a photo. I'm not picking on you, just adding another photo from a recent challenge to the discussion.
12/09/2008 03:08:21 PM · #181
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by limerick:

Originally posted by MattO:

Same ruleset as the one currently DQ'ed and this arent ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Why would these not be DQed?

Matt


I was going to shut up but now this is freaking me out. Hahah. They both have glasses and both have tv or monitor backgrounds? Was it because they were not winners and didnt need to send in originals or maybe someone didnt ask for validations?


But the one I shared WAS a winner... the bulb one.


It was also done before the ruleset was changed. The two I posted are under the same ruleset as the current one under discussion. If I remember right Shannon's shot was one that was always brought up before the ruleset was changed when a DQ occured.

Matt


As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.

So, the SC never saw them, or their original (unless during normal voting) to judge.


So will they now be DQed? It has been done in the past that older entries have been DQed? or will they remain? The reason they werent asked for before is obvious to me, as the ruleset is currently written they wouldnt be illegal. But obviously with the current interpretation even though the rules havent been changed they are illegal.

Matt
12/09/2008 03:09:23 PM · #182
Originally posted by karmat:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.


So, I think this is a problem. It seems to me that the more likely it is that a shot violated this rule, the less likely it is that a validation request will occur. Practically, this ends up making the technique legal unless you make the top 5. I don't think that's a good thing.
12/09/2008 03:09:47 PM · #183
Originally posted by limerick:


So if a photo is entered into a challenge by a council member it doesnt need to be validated?


Not true, it would still have to be validated if it came in 1st through 5th place or someone requested a validation.
12/09/2008 03:09:54 PM · #184
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

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.

As ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bear_Music has pointed out, this was also taken and processed by the same photographer on the same day, who is thus is completely responsible for any artistic or technical qualities (or lack thereof) in that (indeed, every) portion of the photo.

Oh, so she got to enter two photos at once then?
12/09/2008 03:11:49 PM · #185
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by karmat:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.


So, I think this is a problem. It seems to me that the more likely it is that a shot violated this rule, the less likely it is that a validation request will occur. Practically, this ends up making the technique legal unless you make the top 5. I don't think that's a good thing.


AND, as I added in my post above -- was a different ruleset.
12/09/2008 03:12:50 PM · #186
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by karmat:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.


So, I think this is a problem. It seems to me that the more likely it is that a shot violated this rule, the less likely it is that a validation request will occur. Practically, this ends up making the technique legal unless you make the top 5. I don't think that's a good thing.


AND, as I added in my post above -- was a different ruleset.


Or, unless those voting take the time to hit the link and say, "Hey, is this legal?" so we know to look at it.

12/09/2008 03:14:21 PM · #187
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by karmat:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.


So, I think this is a problem. It seems to me that the more likely it is that a shot violated this rule, the less likely it is that a validation request will occur. Practically, this ends up making the technique legal unless you make the top 5. I don't think that's a good thing.


AND, as I added in my post above -- was a different ruleset.


Or, unless those voting take the time to hit the link and say, "Hey, is this legal?" so we know to look at it.


I was trying to make that point for you but wasn't quick enough. ;)

12/09/2008 03:15:29 PM · #188
Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Originally posted by limerick:


So if a photo is entered into a challenge by a council member it doesnt need to be validated?


Not true, it would still have to be validated if it came in 1st through 5th place or someone requested a validation.


let me see if I got this right.

1. If a photo gets 1st through 5th it has to be validated no matter what, even if its councils?
2. If a photo is not asked to be validated or doesnt get 1st to 5th it can just be fine no matter what unless it is obvious to council something is wrong?
3. If a photo falls in #2 but later is found out to be wrongly processed under the editing rules it can still be disqualified if asked to be validated even if its in last place? (as Matto is asking that these other glass photos be validated)

12/09/2008 03:15:44 PM · #189
Originally posted by karmat:

Or, unless those voting take the time to hit the link and say, "Hey, is this legal?" so we know to look at it.


But that's exactly my point. Why would a voter hit the link if he didn't think it was illegal (because he was so thoroughly fooled)?

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 15:17:15.
12/09/2008 03:15:47 PM · #190
' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', '/') + 1) . ' karmat, would the nightbulb entry be legal today, with the revised rulesets?

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 15:16:23.
12/09/2008 03:16:13 PM · #191
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

But that's exactly my point. Why would a voter hit the link if he didn't think it was illegal (because he was so thoroughly fooled)?


You nailed it!
12/09/2008 03:16:14 PM · #192
Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by karmat:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.


So, I think this is a problem. It seems to me that the more likely it is that a shot violated this rule, the less likely it is that a validation request will occur. Practically, this ends up making the technique legal unless you make the top 5. I don't think that's a good thing.


AND, as I added in my post above -- was a different ruleset.


Was anything changed in that ruleset that makes them any more legal?

Matt

Rules on Advanced editing V:"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."

Current rules on Advanced editing. "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."



Message edited by author 2008-12-09 15:20:50.
12/09/2008 03:17:23 PM · #193
Originally posted by sittingonthegrass:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

How about this, from the recent Free Study challenge? Is that a photo of a child or a real child in the background?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/743507.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/743507.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


it's neither, it's a drawing (is it really that hard to see)

And a damn fine drawing at that. One does need to really look to see it, though - it easily could be a "manipulated" photograph with the software that exists today - at least at the DPC viewing size. The title should have been a hint.
12/09/2008 03:19:30 PM · #194
Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by sittingonthegrass:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

How about this, from the recent Free Study challenge? Is that a photo of a child or a real child in the background?
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/743507.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/944/120/743507.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


it's neither, it's a drawing (is it really that hard to see)

And a damn fine drawing at that. One does need to really look to see it, though - it easily could be a "manipulated" photograph with the software that exists today - at least at the DPC viewing size. The title should have been a hint.


well I did put ART in the title ;)
12/09/2008 03:25:01 PM · #195
Originally posted by Prash:

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', '/') + 1) . ' karmat, would the nightbulb entry be legal today, with the revised rulesets?


?
12/09/2008 03:43:43 PM · #196
Originally posted by MattO:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Why would these not be DQed?

Matt


These firework photos do illustrate the problem beautifully:

1. In Lydia's case, the challenge was "Feast" and SC has stated part of the problem is the *artwork* is the only part of the image that addresses the challenge.

2. With the fireworks shots, the challenge was "Fireworks" and the *artwork* is the only part of the image that addresses the challenge.

Following SC's reasoning, as expressed in a comment to me and other places, "Wouldn't you be upset if you went out and froze your buns off to get a New Years Eve fireworks shot and someone stayed home and toasted some fireworks on a monitor?"

Actually, no, I wouldn't be; I think these are legal shots and I think Lydia's should be also and I think the rule is being used in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner. And if someone tries to tell me the fireworks shots are OK because nobody was fooled, I am gonna SCREAM...

Why? Because that tells me that if Konador had managed to make his photo-composite look *real*, then he could have been DQ'd.

Doesn't everyone see how lame that is?

R.
12/09/2008 03:50:44 PM · #197
Originally posted by sittingonthegrass:

Originally posted by Melethia:

The title should have been a hint.


well I did put ART in the title ;)

That's what I meant. :)
12/09/2008 03:50:55 PM · #198
Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by karmat:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/444918.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/611/120/446094.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As has been stated, correctly, neither of these shots received a validation/dq request when the challenge was in voting, or thereafter.


So, I think this is a problem. It seems to me that the more likely it is that a shot violated this rule, the less likely it is that a validation request will occur. Practically, this ends up making the technique legal unless you make the top 5. I don't think that's a good thing.


AND, as I added in my post above -- was a different ruleset.


Was anything changed in that ruleset that makes them any more legal?

Matt

Rules on Advanced editing V:"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."

Current rules on Advanced editing. "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."


Sorry, I looked at the *date* of the entry and the rules there, not the actual set thereof.

IF they had been requested, I can only assume they *would* have been dq'ed as this one was. But, no one requested it, so we didn't discuss it.
12/09/2008 03:57:13 PM · #199
Originally posted by karmat:

Sorry, I looked at the *date* of the entry and the rules there, not the actual set thereof.

IF they had been requested, I can only assume they *would* have been dq'ed as this one was. But, no one requested it, so we didn't discuss it.


And since HotPasta's image finished in top 10 and got a lot of views and comments, and since he described his steps in the photographer's comments field, and since nobody DID request a DQ, from this we can assume that everyone who cared to think about it thought this was a legal image.

See the problem? What's happening is that interpretation of the rule is being narrowed down on the fly, and the first anyone knows about it is when some "innocent" photographer like Lydia gets whacked upside the head. I don't think there's ANY way she could have known this image would have been DQ'd, and in the circumstances (speed challenge) there wasn't even TIME to ask for an SC opinion had she been so inclined.

Shannon remarked earlier that I've always been "fair", and I think my position here is "fair" as well...

R.
12/09/2008 03:57:21 PM · #200
allow it under Expert, include more Expert Challenges, include the following under Expert:

up to 80% of the image, if the photo is used as a prop, it is allowed (flying fish, backgrounds)
up to 40% of the image, if the photo is used as an image / conveys a message (billboards)

Advanced can have:
40%, prop
20% image/message

Basic:
20% prop
0% background

The whole idea is to fool the people with most of these images (other photos conveying 'messages' aside)

Whether you took the 'prop and/or background' image yourself, is another matter, especially if it is a large portion of the image - that's just taking a photo of a photo (that someone else took (and probably doesn't get credit for)).
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 12/04/2020 04:47:20 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 04:47:20 PM EST.