the "incidental cityscape" makes up the composition of the entire image - without it, there's no image.
respectfully ... i disagree
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The image is of an owl that happens to be looking through binoculars. Not a picture of binoculars with an incidental picture of an owl in the background.
This is the complete opposite to the magic carpet image which is a picture of a girl on a carpet with an incidental cityscape as the background.
Yes, but it 'is' the background whereas the owl is not.
In my humble (yet probably controversial) opinion, the owl is not a background. It is the subject of the photo. The binoculars are an accessory to the subject.
I agree with the DQ, wholeheartedly.
Either way, I can't imagine the photo scoring too terribly well (well, yes I can, this is DPC where quality is secondary), so, I think letting it go and working on the next photo probably is a better course of action than dwelling on this one.
It's a pretty nifty idea - positioning the elements this way. Let's pretend it was titled "Binoculars in front of my computer monitor" ... would that make it acceptable?
BTW: What is "primary" on DPC if "quality" is secondary? - I guess it depends on your definition of "quality."
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Either way, I can't imagine the photo scoring too terribly well (well, yes I can, this is DPC where quality is secondary).
Shannon's moon shot had actually come up numerous times as part of the discussion about this rule. I've never had a problem with this at all. I mean, we all know that Scalvert has magical powers, but it's a stretch to believe that even he is capable of re-forming the moon :)
So yes, I would say that it would still be legal on the basis that nobody would be fooled into thinking the moon shot had not been tinkered with/re-shot.
When I was discussing this with ralph last week, he had mentioned this as another example:
Similarly, I have no trouble with this one. I doubt that anyone would think that the person who submitted it was also a part-time astronaut :)
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Was this image another major catalyst? ;)
You assumed it was a REAL pear-shaped moon? ;-)
Well, yeah. :D
Does this mean that this image would still be legal?
But what about this:
The problems with allowing this type of shot are:
1. Voters are casting their votes primarily based on the photographic qualities of the pre-existing image. And we have no way of knowing if that pre-existing image was even taken by the photographer. So essentially, someone could take a shot like this, and voters can be judging someone else's work more so than the work of the submitter.
2. A user can use this method to circumvent date rules. The owl shot is a good example of that -- the photo of the owl was taken back in August (if I remember correctly from my previous conversations with ralph).
And to be honest, I definitely can tell that the owl shot is exactly what it is - a background. If people are fooled then so be it. According to the comments on his image, people were fooled by Shannon's photo too.
I realize that there is no easy answer other than eliminating allowing textured/printed/recognizable backgrounds to be the main subject, no matter if you think someone can manipulate the moon or get an owl to put on shades. Hey, there's an idea. :D
In the expressionism challenge, if i took a picture of a famous painting and just changed the hue around would that be my work? I'd fully expect a dq from that since im just rehashing old stuff.
It's like in the last macro challenge, if i took a picture of the last winner and then edited it and entered it, it would technically be legal and i could tick all the boxes on the submissions form as well.
It's a strange topic but I can see why the DQ stands (providing I've read the thread correctly up to this point), and i, FWIW, agree with it.
ps: i know this is a very black and white view, but i'm like that.
I have always been for the complete banning of printed photos/computer backgrounds within the picture submitted. If/when we ever do a new rules update, I will continue to campaign for such a rule.
I have always been for the complete banning of printed photos/computer backgrounds within the picture submitted. If/when we ever do a new rules update, I will continue to campaign for such a rule.
but foregrounds are ok ?
Elements of the image ?
backdrops of any sort ?
I have always been for the complete banning of printed photos/computer backgrounds within the picture submitted. If/when we ever do a new rules update, I will continue to campaign for such a rule.
I have always been for the complete banning of printed photos/computer backgrounds within the picture submitted. If/when we ever do a new rules update, I will continue to campaign for such a rule.
but foregrounds are ok ?
Elements of the image ?
backdrops of any sort ?
No Ralph, sorry, I wasn't speaking carefully enough for DPC legalese. :) I am for the complete banning of printed material/computer screens period. Traditional backdrops are fine.
The background seems to be the subject, in the other, the background does not seem to be the subject,
Yes blurring backgrounds, is a known fact, is a way to de-emphasize it and put more emphasisis on the binoculars.
Or if the binoculars were Larger and closeup.
On the other hand, I would have disqualified the boy in the sky, but I'm not an SC member.
I enjoy doing that kind of stuff, and composites, too, but I don't do it in Challenges, only Side Competitions.
I think it disillusions the viewer, even if it meets the Rules.
No Ralph, sorry, I wasn't speaking carefully enough for DPC legalese. :) I am for the complete banning of printed material/computer screens period. Traditional backdrops are fine.
try again ;) 4of my top 5 images have printed backdrops ..
but if i bought tiles they would be OK ?
I have always been for the complete banning of printed photos/computer backgrounds within the picture submitted. If/when we ever do a new rules update, I will continue to campaign for such a rule.
but foregrounds are ok ?
Elements of the image ?
backdrops of any sort ?
No Ralph, sorry, I wasn't speaking carefully enough for DPC legalese. :) I am for the complete banning of printed material/computer screens period. Traditional backdrops are fine.
so a photo like this would be DQ'd because it uses a monitor in the shot?
so a photo like this would be DQ'd because it uses a monitor in the shot?
And just to be clear where I stand... I'm not against the existence of a monitor in a shot, or a billboard, or whatever. I'm just against shots that trick voters into voting based on the qualities of the pre-existing artwork. That's where I've got a bug up my butt :)
so a photo like this would be DQ'd because it uses a monitor in the shot?
And just to be clear where I stand... I'm not against the existence of a monitor in a shot, or a billboard, or whatever. I'm just against shots that trick voters into voting based on the qualities of the pre-existing artwork. That's where I've got a bug up my butt :)
Oh no Alan I knid of agree with you (from what you have said) I was directing this at Jason since he wants all monitors banned. I think it is always a tough line to draw and will have to continue to be a subjective (as long as it always goes in my favor:P) call.
Oh no Alan I knid of agree with you (from what you have said) I was directing this at Jason since he wants all monitors banned. I think it is always a tough line to draw and will have to continue to be a subjective (as long as it always goes in my favor:P) call.
No problem... I just wanted to clarify my position a little bit. I think some folks are going a little far by suggesting that submissions should be completely devoid of other forms of artwork. That's not my intent here at all.
I mean, imagine a shot of Times Square in NYC... it would pretty much be impossible to take a shot there without including other artwork in the form of advertising, and so forth. I'm trying to take a logical approach to this issue without going overboard.
I mean, imagine a shot of Times Square in NYC... it would pretty much be impossible to take a shot there without including other artwork in the form of advertising, and so forth. I'm trying to take a logical approach to this issue without going overboard.
I totally agree; however, I cannot see the difference between the owl and lightbulb. Just because we are to assume that nobody could manipulate the moon like that means it should be allowed while the owl is dq'd? Frankly, I think they both should've been kicked out.
Wow. I do not agree with this DQ at all. A few weeks ago I started a thread asking that SC be consistent in their DQ's and it seems they are still not. Here is a "photo" that was NOT DQ'ed yet it only has a twig in front of art work. Ralph's binoculars are much bigger than that twig.
...Another shot that was submitted long before the current rule revision.
EDIT: And from reading the description in detail, I'm not sure this would have been a DQ, anyway. It's not a straight on shot of a monitor, etc. Most of the illumination you see in the moon is coming from a desk lamp shining through a sheet of paper.
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Wow. I do not agree with this DQ at all. A few weeks ago I started a thread asking that SC be consistent in their DQ's and it seems they are still not. Here is a "photo" that was NOT DQ'ed yet it only has a twig in front of art work. Ralph's binoculars are much bigger than that twig.
that ET shot is more mimicing the original freeze frame, in a fairly creative manner. alot different than using a verbatum piece of work and putting something in front of it.
