| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2008 06:56:06 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
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 line is not about ownership (it makes no difference who created the artwork). It's about fooling people into thinking you actually captured the content of the artwork as a live scene. She didn't actually capture what is shown in the original photograph in this entry. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:03:11 AM · #77 |
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?
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 12:07:22. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:04:54 AM · #78 |
just to throw another example out there
This was a photo taped on a face... how would something like this fall under this rule?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:05:51 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Ken:
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. |
Let me clarify. I agree that it is potentially useful to determine whether any given image would be legal under the current rules. It is not useful to attempt to actually apply the current rules to old images and suggest that they should have also been DQed.
For example, you said "I believe the fish fooled most people, but I respect the SC's decision." You imply that you think that shot should have been DQed because you were fooled, but the rules at the time say nothing about fooling the voter. All I ask is that one be aware of the ruleset under which an image was submitted when forming one's opinion on the image's legality. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:10:36 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
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. |
So, you are saying that it is illegal to use a background photograph? If so, that should be in the rules, loud and clear.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:11:32 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by 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?
|
Wow - that one fooled me - I thought.... "they have quite the underwater set up, I'm envious." |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:13:24 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sfalice:
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 line is not about ownership (it makes no difference who created the artwork). It's about fooling people into thinking you actually captured the content of the artwork as a live scene. 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, didn't she?
I just hate to be dumb, but you lost me here.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:14:54 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sfalice:
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 line is not about ownership (it makes no difference who created the artwork). It's about fooling people into thinking you actually captured the content of the artwork as a live scene. 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, didn't she?
I just hate to be dumb, but you lost me here. |
It looked like (to me) that she set up a glass (on a counter, etc...) in front of a group of people at a meal. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:26:27 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
Originally posted by Ken:
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. |
Let me clarify. I agree that it is potentially useful to determine whether any given image would be legal under the current rules. It is not useful to attempt to actually apply the current rules to old images and suggest that they should have also been DQed.
For example, you said "I believe the fish fooled most people, but I respect the SC's decision." You imply that you think that shot should have been DQed because you were fooled, but the rules at the time say nothing about fooling the voter. All I ask is that one be aware of the ruleset under which an image was submitted when forming one's opinion on the image's legality. |
I'll try to clarify also. I wasn't trying to imply that it should have been DQ'd under the old ruleset. I am discussing this photo under the current ruleset.
It fooled people at the time, and a similar one may fool people again.
As far as my comment on respecting their decision, I respect their decision under the old rules and what SC replied to in this thread when I first posted it. I just don't agree that it should be legal under the current rules.
SC has a tough job.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:27:46 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by 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?
|
The fish fooled me and I believe the fish IS the main subject also.... but different rule set okay. This one is more interesting though..... It fooled me and I suspect a number of other people and there is nothing I can see that is loosely a piece of "art". On the other hand, there are oodles of statue pictures that are basically the same as this and I have no issue with. I think bear mentioned the thing about photg is in some ways meant to fool the viewer, and I think this is an important part of the art if you like.... stuffed if I know how to treat this example.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:30:02 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Ken:
I'll try to clarify also... |
Sounds good. Misunderstanding all around! We're totally on the same page now. Thanks. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:30:06 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by sempermarine:
Do you have a shot being validated? Just kidding :) |
Umm......why, no.....why would you ask???.....LOL!!!
Originally posted by sempermarine:
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. |
Yeah......there will always be a toughie that won't come out well.
That's when the rest of us most need to try to remember that if there's any way that SC thinks they can fly a validation justifiably, they will.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 12:33:49.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:32:38 AM · #88 |
| We are entering dangerous ground - another huge plus of this site (for me) is the ability to see how many achieved a shot after voting is over. I will be saddened if people start to hide their "tricks" to prevent analysis and possible dq. One idea is that if it isn't dq'd during voting - it shouldn't be dq'd. However, I bet there are many examples where and why that would not work. I don't begin to know but I hope people won't stop sharing how they do something, I look forward to the end of a challenge to read how some shots were done. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:36:23 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by 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?
|
The fish fooled me and I believe the fish IS the main subject also.... but different rule set okay. This one is more interesting though..... It fooled me and I suspect a number of other people and there is nothing I can see that is loosely a piece of "art". On the other hand, there are oodles of statue pictures that are basically the same as this and I have no issue with. I think bear mentioned the thing about photg is in some ways meant to fool the viewer, and I think this is an important part of the art if you like.... stuffed if I know how to treat this example. |
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?" |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:36:57 AM · #90 |
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...[/quote]
Exactly. She didn't actually capture the contents of the background photograph (as live subjects). She just took a photo of a photo. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:37:49 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by nlghttrain:
This was a photo taped on a face... how would something like this fall under this rule? |
Would you be fooled into thinking he actually looked like that? |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:38:56 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
What about shots like this?
 |
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. |
I must be insane then cause I don't know this is a sign. Is it a digital composite of two images, the color one being a cutout? That's my first thought. Is it a shot of a photo, cutout and held close the camera with the larger BG one being 'real', then desaturated? Is it a shot of a photo cutout held infront of another photo or monitor?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:41:29 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by nlghttrain:
This was a photo taped on a face... how would something like this fall under this rule? |
Would you be fooled into thinking he actually looked like that? |
i think this is where a lot of confusing (at least for me ) is coming from. Is it a matter of being fooled, or is it the technique used? that is the aspect of the rule Im not understanding
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:43:07 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sempermarine:
What about shots like this?
|
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. |
I must be insane then cause I don't know this is a sign. |
Maybe you're just, um... special? ;-) With any of the scenarios you posted, you're still assuming it's artwork. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:48:58 AM · #95 |
This is the last I�ll say on the subject here, but it�s apparently being assumed by my silence that I�m ok with the disqualification of my image, and I�d like to make a statement, if I may.
I know that being on the Site Council and defending any ruling is a difficult position to be in and I assume this decision was not lightly made.
The one-sentence reason stated for the disqualification is: �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��
My entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph. This alone should be enough to fit the rule, but even if that one�s not clear:
�� in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.�
The original photograph was legally taken during the valid dates; It was not edited; and I took it.
I have used the same technique on several of my images that SC has validated such as these:
 and 
SC has basically said on this thread that the problem with my image was that it was believable and that�s what makes it illegal. Please tell me how a member is supposed to know, reading the existing rules, that it is really a rule about believability/make-believe. If I made the image believable, it is not legal. WHY would anyone put an unbelievable image� say a well-taken photo of a bear� behind the wine glass for their "Feast" entry? They wouldn�t, of course. They�ll use the photograph best suited to make the image believable, of course.
I responded eleven minutes after the Validation request was sent to me (11/29/2008). It took SC until this morning (ten days later) to determine that they thought I'd broken a rule. If SC can't determine clearly and promptly if I broke a rule, then how are we, mere members, to determine it ourselves with the current wording? (Yes, there is the option of sending a request, but understandably that's not guaranteed for a timely response... especially in a 48-hour challenge as this one was.)
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 [b]at the time of the entry photograph.�
I agree with the principle behind the necessity of rule change here. I understand the need to control the issue of including prior artwork and I agree with it. Change the rules if you like, that�s certainly SC�s prerogative and a required function of the office, but make them apply only to new images submitted.
It is not a virtual ribbon that I am mourning here� it�s my loss of the sense of consistency . Being consistent is very difficult, but entirely necessary.
Everyone makes mistakes, myself included of course, and I�ll still be here either way� but I do disagree that any of the current rules were broken on my image.[/b]
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 18:48:50.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:52:39 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by nlghttrain:
i think this is where a lot of confusing (at least for me ) is coming from. Is it a matter of being fooled, or is it the technique used? that is the aspect of the rule Im not understanding |
The technique is legal... as long as it's either obviously artwork (doesn't fool anyone) OR the artwork plays a supporting role (the primary subject that the voters are judging photographically should be real). Example:
Read the comments. Many people assumed they were looking at a real person with an uncanny resemblance to the actor. They were commenting on the costume, model, expression, lighting and so on as if the photographer made those decisions in THIS shot. I would vote DQ under the current rule. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:53:01 AM · #97 |
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?
|
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. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:53:21 AM · #98 |
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. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:58:57 AM · #99 |
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.
Some of the justifications being used in this thread are equally ridiculous.
Never a dull moment.
Message edited by author 2008-12-09 12:59:36. |
|
|
|
12/09/2008 07:59:44 AM · #100 |
DPC DQ |
|
