| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2008 06:24:56 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Again, this would be more of a borderline case that we'd need to discuss, and most likely it would be allowed, similar to the Arabian Flights example. |
I honestly can't see how this is one bit like the Arabian Flights photo. In that one, I knew the girl wasn't flying in the sky. In this fish photo I honestly thought it was a real fish, and so did others. We were fooled into thinking it was real when in fact it was a photo so why in the world would it not be DQ'ed? I smell a double standard. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:27:52 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Again, this would be more of a borderline case that we'd need to discuss, and most likely it would be allowed, similar to the Arabian Flights example. |
I honestly can't see how this is one bit like the Arabian Flights photo. In that one, I knew the girl wasn't flying in the sky. In this fish photo I honestly thought it was a real fish, and so did others. We were fooled into thinking it was real when in fact it was a photo so why in the world would it not be DQ'ed? I smell a double standard. |
There always has been a double standard when it comes to stuff like this. I think there always will be. You either have to live with the bias or find another place to play photographer. Its not going to change IMHO.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:30:04 AM · #53 |
Everytime this topic is discussed, I become more confused. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:33:16 AM · #54 |
I can understand your thinking... and you need to understand that not everything can be cut & dry (if someone can suggest wording that would make everything 100% clear for everyone, by all means send it along!). In this case, the fish is providing more of a "supporting role" in the shot, and we would undoubtedly be split about whether we felt it was a violation of the rule. In most instances like that, we end up letting things stand to give the benefit of the doubt.
I'd much rather keep this discussion focused on the shots that are more blatant violations in hopes that people can understand the broad reasons for the rule before trying to delve into more complex interpretations of it.
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
I honestly can't see how this is one bit like the Arabian Flights photo. In that one, I knew the girl wasn't flying in the sky. In this fish photo I honestly thought it was a real fish, and so did others. We were fooled into thinking it was real when in fact it was a photo so why in the world would it not be DQ'ed? I smell a double standard. |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:34:24 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
Everytime this topic is discussed, I become more confused. |
Let's see if I can help you now that I've had my lesson for the day. The difference between your shot and Ms. Lydia's is "deception" you are blatantly showing your monitor screen, whereas, Ms. Lydia is perceived to be deceiving her audience.
Did I get that right SC? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:34:50 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
What about shots like this?
 |
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. |
This could have been sempermarine's wife... I think she's about 12 feet tall.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 11:36:02. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:35:05 AM · #57 |
Again, NOT a problem because it is obvious what we are seeing. There's no doubt that we are seeing a real flower in front of a computer screen. This is not a problem.
Originally posted by Marjo:
Everytime this topic is discussed, I become more confused. |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:35:22 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Marjo:
Everytime this topic is discussed, I become more confused. |
Nothing confusing about that one - unless I am NOT looking at a real flower in front of a monitor displaying a photo of the same flower.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:35:45 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Did I get that right SC? |
Ding ding ding! :) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:37:49 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
In this case, the fish is providing more of a "supporting role" in the shot, |
I disagree. Ask anyone what the photo is about and they will say "a fish that is jumping out of a bowl". So the fish is not a "supporting role" but the main subject, the main focus. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:37:50 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
In this fish photo I honestly thought it was a real fish, and so did others. We were fooled into thinking it was real when in fact it was a photo so why in the world would it not be DQ'ed? I smell a double standard. |
Not a double standard- two different sets of rules. The fish photo was entered at a time when including anything real in the composition was enough to make the entry legal. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:37:59 AM · #62 |
I think it will help everyone immensely if we only compare images that fall under the same ruleset.
 was entered under the Advanced Editing IV ruleset. The artwork clause was totally different back then, and this image and its legality are irrelevant to the current discussion. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:38:11 AM · #63 |
| For me I would have liked to have heard that the monitor shot had been requested to validate it was hers. The artwork in question was her own image taken during the time of the challenge. I don't think taking a pic of your own pic that you had taken hours earlier (during the challenge time - bonus!) is illegal. I don't want to see pics of others art allowed and I also don't want to see it banned (goodbye church ceilings, statues, etc). But for me - this was her work entirely and wholly legal as both photos were done within the time frame allowed. Just my two cents worth (and in this economy that is a lot :-) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:38:23 AM · #64 |
I've been following this with some interest and the one thing that seems apparent to me is that if you pay attention to the rules, and don't do anything that skirts them, you're fine.
Any time you get creative with an entry where you do something outside the normal way of interpreting the rules, you take a chance that you'll have to put your entry up for interpretation by SC's take on the rules as per your entry.
We agree to do that, and accept their decision by the Terms of Service if I'm not mistaken.
If for no other reason other than respect for the group of people who devote their time to the task of being on SC, it certainly seems reasonable to accept their decisions on a DQ......it seems to me that there are others here more bent out of shape than the photog. Somehow that just seems odd....at least to me.
This is not large important parts of life we're talking about here, yet people are ready to get the torches and pitchforks out and lynch somebody.
Remember these are people with feelings and who can make mistakes just like the rest of us.
And I would imagine that the last thing that SC does as a matter of course is to think up ways to make people scream at them.
Yeah, I will admit that I'm biased towards them......but that'd be because I was a mailing list admin/forum moderator for two and a half years on another site and it's just soooooooo much fun to have to enforce a decision knowing that people are going to call into question every single thing about you simply because you called them on breaking a site rule.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:38:39 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Did I get that right SC? |
Ding ding ding! :) |
There's hope for me after all. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:41:16 AM · #66 |
 alanfreed cut off active debate on the "Feast" DQ by locking that thread.
Since there were some valid arguments and thoughts that were left unresolved, I wonder if - say - the last 8 posts in that thread could be moved to this one?
Is that possible? alanfreed?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:42:05 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by mom2two:
I don't think taking a pic of your own pic that you had taken hours earlier (during the challenge time - bonus!) is illegal. |
What would keep someone from taking a shot, editing it beyond the rules allowed in Basic because they don't like the restrictions, photographing the edited photograph, and then entering it?
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 11:45:42. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:42:11 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by mom2two:
For me I would have liked to have heard that the monitor shot had been requested to validate it was hers. The artwork in question was her own image taken during the time of the challenge... |
Ownership plays no role in the artwork restriction. It makes no difference who created the artwork (aside from possible copyright infringement, but that's a different rule). |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:43:15 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Since there were some valid arguments and thoughts that were left unresolved |
Feel free to re-introduce a concern here, if it was not addressed in the other thread.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 11:44:15. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:46:20 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by mom2two:
I don't think taking a pic of your own pic that you had taken hours earlier (during the challenge time - bonus!) is illegal. |
What would keep someone from taking a shot, editing it beyond the rules allowed in Basic because they don't like the restrictions, photograph it again, and then enter it? |
I think if you have her produce her unedited original you guys could verify if that were the case. That being said, I had not thought of that and it is a good point. I still feel like this was a valid piece on her part but it is surely a sticky gray area - glad I'm not SC :-) |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:47:53 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Since there were some valid arguments and thoughts that were left unresolved |
Feel free to re-introduce a concern here, if it was not addressed in the other thread. |
Okay, but rather than attempt to summarize the truncated debate in that thread, I'll just restate my original opinion as follows.
More than 1/3 of the new photograph consists of new work. The other portion of the image was done by the photographer.
When the rules say �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� and the new object takes up a considerable amount of real estate in the new image, it would seem logical that the image meets the rule.
Finally, the last bit about �fool(ing) the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.� Doesn�t apply as the photographer took the background image as well.
That leaves only: �in order to circumvent date or editing rules� which doesn�t seem to apply to the DQ in this instance.
So, what again, did the photographer do wrong?
I rarely disagree with the SC as they have a difficult job and do it well and remarkably consistently. This time, though, and I wish I didn�t have to say it: �I disagree with this DQ.�
ETA: Whooops, I missed the last line:
If a majority of the group doesn't want this type of image entered in competition, I guess we should rewrite the rules to prohibit it.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 11:49:27.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:49:13 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I've been following this with some interest and the one thing that seems apparent to me is that if you pay attention to the rules, and don't do anything that skirts them, you're fine.
Any time you get creative with an entry where you do something outside the normal way of interpreting the rules, you take a chance that you'll have to put your entry up for interpretation by SC's take on the rules as per your entry.
We agree to do that, and accept their decision by the Terms of Service if I'm not mistaken.
If for no other reason other than respect for the group of people who devote their time to the task of being on SC, it certainly seems reasonable to accept their decisions on a DQ......it seems to me that there are others here more bent out of shape than the photog. Somehow that just seems odd....at least to me.
This is not large important parts of life we're talking about here, yet people are ready to get the torches and pitchforks out and lynch somebody.
Remember these are people with feelings and who can make mistakes just like the rest of us.
And I would imagine that the last thing that SC does as a matter of course is to think up ways to make people scream at them.
Yeah, I will admit that I'm biased towards them......but that'd be because I was a mailing list admin/forum moderator for two and a half years on another site and it's just soooooooo much fun to have to enforce a decision knowing that people are going to call into question every single thing about you simply because you called them on breaking a site rule. |
Do you have a shot being validated? Just kidding :) I completely understand and appreciate your comments. They have a difficult job and get it right 99.9% of the time. I just disagree with their assesment on this one that's all. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:52:12 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
So, what again, did the photographer do wrong? |
I did address this in the other thread, and a few posts back... It does not matter whether it was their own photo or not. There would be nothing to keep someone from illegally editing a photo-of-a-photo (or using one outside the allowed timeframe) beyond what the editing rules allow, beforehand. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:52:18 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
I think it will help everyone immensely if we only compare images that fall under the same ruleset.
was entered under the Advanced Editing IV ruleset. The artwork clause was totally different back then, and this image and its legality are irrelevant to the current discussion. |
I think it's still relevant to see how these things would be interpreted under the current rules, which is why I posted it.
I believe the fish fooled most people, but I respect the SC's decision.
Edit: I also believe it's the main subject.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 11:53:52.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 06:52:42 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by toddhead:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
What about shots like this?
|
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. |
This could have been sempermarine's wife... I think she's about 12 feet tall. |
No! she's only 6' 2". but thanks for your support. |
|
