Fantastic image but can't help but be disappointed

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

06/18/2011 05:25:19 AM · #1

GREAT picture... but honestly thought it was real.

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/18/2011 05:31:31 AM · #2

Ha...look at my comment on the red winner. I was hoping that was not a set up.

Btw...no rule against these type shots.

Originally posted by pamb:

GREATq picture... but honestly thought it was real.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/18/2011 02:11:01 PM · #3

Originally posted by kenskid:

Ha...look at my comment on the red winner. I was hoping that was not a set up.

Btw...no rule against these type shots.

Ahhh but there is a rule about photographing art. It is allowed as long as you don't photograph it in a way to fool the viewers into thinking it was real. There may be some that knew it was a statue, but many that didn't. Without having knowledge of deer or the location of the photo how are most people meant to know the deers molting behaviour for this time of the year.

kenskid

Nikon D700

06/18/2011 02:18:37 PM · #4

I hear ya.....

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by kenskid:
Ha...look at my comment on the red winner. I was hoping that was not a set up.

Btw...no rule against these type shots.

Ahhh but there is a rule about photographing art. It is allowed as long as you don't photograph it in a way to fool the viewers into thinking it was real. There may be some that knew it was a statue, but many that didn't. Without having knowledge of deer or the location of the photo how are most people meant to know the deers molting behaviour for this time of the year.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

06/18/2011 02:35:50 PM · #5

Originally posted by Judi:

Ahhh but there is a rule about photographing art. It is allowed as long as you don't photograph it in a way to fool the viewers into thinking it was real.

The way you put that, Judi, it sounds like the image in question could be DQ'd, which is not the case. The best description that I heard is that if people are fooled into voting based on the appeal of the prior art rather than the talent of the photographer, then it is DQable.

06/18/2011 02:46:29 PM · #6

I am in Australia and I am not familiar with the habits of elks/deers - real or unreal. I did not vote on this image as it looked fake to me, both the animals and the color tones. I am not familiar with the sculpture but I do not think of it as a great example of art. So I am a bit confused why this image scored so well. I have nothing against Allen, I think he is a great photographer and I would love to take photos of his standard.
However, I am surprised that he has no photos published yet at 1x. Does it mean that ideas about photographic art differ wildly between DPC and 1x?

06/18/2011 02:52:44 PM · #7

Originally posted by MargaretN:

Regardless of whether his images are worth of any website, many were fooled to thinking it was real. To me that screams a DQ under the art rule.

06/18/2011 02:56:17 PM · #8

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by MargaretN:
I am in Australia and I am not familiar with the habits of elks/deers - real or unreal. I did not vote on this image as it looked fake to me, both the animals and the color tones. I am not familiar with the sculpture but I do not think of it as a great example of art. So I am a bit confused why this image scored so well. I have nothing against Allen, I think he is a great photographer and I would love to take photos of his standard.
However, I am surprised that he has no photos published yet at 1x. Does it mean that ideas about photographic art differ wildly between DPC and 1x?

Regardless of whether his images are worth of any website, many were fooled to thinking it was real. To me that screams a DQ under the art rule.

OK, I raised a different point. I am questioning whether this statue can be called art at all.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

06/18/2011 02:58:06 PM · #9

Originally posted by MargaretN:

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by MargaretN:
I am in Australia and I am not familiar with the habits of elks/deers - real or unreal. I did not vote on this image as it looked fake to me, both the animals and the color tones. I am not familiar with the sculpture but I do not think of it as a great example of art. So I am a bit confused why this image scored so well. I have nothing against Allen, I think he is a great photographer and I would love to take photos of his standard.
However, I am surprised that he has no photos published yet at 1x. Does it mean that ideas about photographic art differ wildly between DPC and 1x?

Regardless of whether his images are worth of any website, many were fooled to thinking it was real. To me that screams a DQ under the art rule.
OK, I raised a different point. I am questioning whether this statue can be called art at all.

It is someones creation, therefore it is considered art. I am pretty sure there were threads based on the art ruling when it was brought into force. And there have been DQ's where photos were used as an art form that had tricked viewers...the same principle, the same trickery.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

06/18/2011 02:58:47 PM · #10

My gut feeling was that it was a statue, but I wasn't sure. I wouldn't have thought in terms of DQ, but I can see where

Judi is coming from. It will be very interesting to see what the final verdict is on this one.

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

06/18/2011 03:17:22 PM · #11

Originally posted by Judi:

... many were fooled to thinking it was real. To me that screams a DQ under the art rule.

Yeah, I've always been surprised by the art rule when it comes to statues, stuffed animals, etc.

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 19:48:41.

06/18/2011 03:18:41 PM · #12

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

Originally posted by Judi:

... many were fooled to thinking it was real. To me that screams a DQ under the art rule.

Yeah, I've always been surprised by the art rule when it comes to statues, stuffed animals, etc.

If it is an obvious statue, soft toy etc...then no worries..but if there have many fooled into thinking it was real, which is the case here, then no...

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

06/18/2011 03:22:09 PM · #13

See my edit Judi.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

06/18/2011 03:24:48 PM · #14

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

See my edit Judi.

But that animal was real.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

06/18/2011 03:25:31 PM · #15

Yet someone ribboned with a silhouette of a frog on a leaf. The frog was cut out of paper. Wouldn't that be artwork, as well?

06/18/2011 03:26:38 PM · #16

Originally posted by vawendy:

Yet someone ribboned with a silhouette of a frog on a leaf. The frog was cut out of paper. Wouldn't that be artwork, as well?

Yes...that fits into the same art/trickery rule.

06/18/2011 03:29:43 PM · #17

Originally posted by vawendy:

Yet someone ribboned with a silhouette of a frog on a leaf. The frog was cut out of paper. Wouldn't that be artwork, as well?

I am still lost on what art is. Where is

posthumous? Can a cutout of a frog be called art?

06/18/2011 03:32:18 PM · #18

OK, I am muddying the purpose of this thread, sorry. I think the title really gives away the intention - "The Wild". Is SC reviewing this?

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

06/18/2011 03:32:25 PM · #19

Here is a discussion in the Administrator Announcements about the artwork rule.

Quote from Scalvert -

Using existing artwork as the essence of your entry is not allowed, just as lip syncing would be taboo for a talent show. The judges expect a live performance to rate your skill, and it makes no difference if the pre-recorded music was your own or recorded specifically for the show. Using OBVIOUS artwork is OK, just as singing a cover of a Beatles song would be OK for a talent show. Pretty much everyone knows it's a Beatles song, and they can focus on your singing ability and presentation. Using artwork as part of your entry is also OK, just as including a familiar background riff or short vocal refrain would be OK for an otherwise original song. The existing work only plays a supporting role for your own composition. However, if removing the artwork would basically eliminate your entry AND it looks like a real scene, then that's like changing just a background riff or short vocal refrain on the existing song and trying to pass the whole thing off as a live performance.

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

06/18/2011 03:47:45 PM · #20

Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by bspurgeon:
See my edit Judi.

But that animal was real.

ahh, forget it.

Message edited by author 2011-06-18 19:48:18.

PennyStreet

Olympus OM-D E-M1

06/18/2011 03:48:17 PM · #21

Originally posted by vawendy:

Yet someone ribboned with a silhouette of a frog on a leaf. The frog was cut out of paper. Wouldn't that be artwork, as well?

I don't remember which entry you're talking about, but who cut the frog out of paper?

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

06/18/2011 03:50:22 PM · #22

In MY opinion, photography is all about creating an image that will make people feel something.

If the photographer made you/me think it was real... then... well... in a way, it IS real.

PennyStreet

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

06/18/2011 03:51:58 PM · #23

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

In MY opinion, photography is all about creating an image that will make people feel something.

If the photographer made you/me think it was real... then... well... in a way, it IS real.

No question that it's a real photograph.

bvy

Sigma DP1x

06/18/2011 03:54:34 PM · #24

I look back on this with some embarrassment. It's nothing I'd do today (there's too much fascinating garbage in the streets). At the time, it was called in for validation and passed, but I wonder if I just got lucky.