There has been some question raised via a PM exchange as to the legality of my recent entry into the Light and Shadow challenge.
Since I am a well known reporter of images which I suspect of having violated the rules, I think it to be only fair and consistent that I request a validation of my own image.
Full Disclosure: The rule in question is the pre-existing artwork rule. This image was created by shooting through materials which were back-illuminated by a photoshopped image of an eye. The eyeball was not my image, but the subsequent photoshopping did change the source significantly, even before it was shot through the material.
It has been my understanding that if the image wouldn't fool, then it doesn't run afoul of the rule, but I think it's important that I am not seen to be a hypocrite when it comes to validation requests.
Cory is it safe to say that about 50% of the image isn't yours?
Impossible to say without some metric to measure it by.
I can say that not a single photon is likely to have made it to the sensor without being modified by my process, not to mention the PS applied after the fact as well.
So, by some metrics, maybe 10% is mine, by other metrics, it would be 100%.
By your very question you have revealed your opinion I suspect, and I am curious, how far below 50% would you assess my contribution to be?
Be clear, I may agree or disagree, but your opinion really is welcome either way. :)
If I make a validation request on your image, would you be able to submit the original (when you get our email asking for it) along with the details of how this image was created? That helps a lot!
If I make a validation request on your image, would you be able to submit the original (when you get our email asking for it) along with the details of how this image was created? That helps a lot!
Cory is it safe to say that about 50% of the image isn't yours?
I don't know why this is relevant: I could FILL an image with a giant billboard on a wall somewhere (clearly someone else's art) with a couple of old ladies in animated conversation in the lower right corner. 90% of the image wouldn't be "mine", but it would be perfectly legal.
Let's remember that in these cases, the percentage of a shot that was original work by the DPC photographer is completely irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether the shot was taken in such a way that people are basically tricked into voting on the merits of that original artwork.
In fact, I used a very similar process to create this image.
Although, there was never any significant question raised at the time about methods. (maybe I can score three or four DQ's in a row here)
OTOH, this is a really similar process, but instead of projecting an image, I was projecting reality, through a radioactive huge old Kodak 300mm f/2.5 lens, into a home built apparatus.
And that was actually where the whole concept started for me in fact. I even reused that same piece of mylar in the cutout image that ribboned. :D
Cory is it safe to say that about 50% of the image isn't yours?
Impossible to say without some metric to measure it by.
I can say that not a single photon is likely to have made it to the sensor without being modified by my process, not to mention the PS applied after the fact as well.
So, by some metrics, maybe 10% is mine, by other metrics, it would be 100%.
By your very question you have revealed your opinion I suspect, and I am curious, how far below 50% would you assess my contribution to be?
Be clear, I may agree or disagree, but your opinion really is welcome either way. :)
Honestly Cory I really don't care if it's valid or not I wanted to know how much of this image you felt was yours.
If you feel that the image is a creation of your own then I say it's a valid image.
Honestly Cory I really don't care if it's valid or not I wanted to know how much of this image you felt was yours.
If you feel that the image is a creation of your own then I say it's a valid image.
In discussions via PM I determined I don't really know what my opinion is on the matter.
I think I've interpreted it and refracted it through my own madness, but as was rightly pointed out by my friend via PM, this opens a world of billions of images which I can 'interpret' and thus become the most prolific artist in the world. (god knows why I'd do that, I get bored way too fast for that business).. But it's a valid point, and I honestly don't know what my opinion on the matter is.
I figured it was mostly fine, or I wouldn't have entered it, but now that the question has been raised, I'm less sure of where it should fall with respect to the rules, and within the etiquette of art itself. Hence, my welcoming your opinions, and the temporary lack of a well formed opinion of my own.
If I am understanding you clearly then the image of the eye was on a screen - in other words a 'flat' light source.
Here is my thinking on this.
1) Does the image make the viewer believe it is an eye?
In my case, yes. I believed it was an eye shot through either bubble wrap or soap bubbles. That is where I think the image runs afoul with the art image rule.
2) Is the image yours? Did you take or create it 100%?
Since it is not fully your image but one that you took and modified to make yours I'm a bit leary on truly calling it your own. The main subject of the shot is the eye. Because it is the main subject it should be of your full creation. There is an UNLESS in here - read on to number 3.
3) If the main subject of the shot is a pre-existing artwork that is 3 dimensional then I feel it falls more within 'it is legal'. I feel you would have a stronger footing on calling it your 'own' creation interpretation had it been a 3 dimensional sculpture of an eye. Why, because you as the photographer play with the way light falls and interacts with that 3 dimensional image. You also have to consider what angle you want to shot said 3 dimensional object and in that you are also capturing something that is your own.
4) Of course all this would be a moot point if you had taken a shot of an eye within the challenge dates and then used that as your source material I think it would be fully legal.
Under my current understanding of this creation I think it falls outside of what is legal, but that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Under my current understanding of this creation I think it falls outside of what is legal, but that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.
You could be wrong, or you could be right. :)
I certainly don't object to your thoughts on this, as they're all pretty reasonable. My reasoning of course, was different, but I do find it VERY interesting that you actually did buy this as a real eye shot through soap bubbles or bubble wrap. For me, that's pretty awesome in a way, even though I didn't really think anyone would believe it to be a real eye.
I guess we differ on #3 pretty heavily though, since I guess I feel like I did have to control the light pretty heavily, to the point that the eye actually was the illumination source, and was 'controlled'. One of the biggest decisions was the size of the texture, vs the size of the image, and the need to maintain specific distances between elements in the physical setup - But, with that being said, I can absolutely see your point on this.
For me, the real fascination was with how the bubble wrap appears to be dark in the light areas of the image, and light in the dark areas of the image. It's a really fun optical effect IMO.
The artwork rule always gets confusing, I know in the past using a photo projected on a screen was taboo but to me no different than a painting on a wall, with the effect added by shooting through the bubble wrap and control of lighting to me it should be ok bit not sure it will get ruled that way. Looking forward to a ruling and explanation.
I created the meme layout from "scatch" using on online meme generator without words, snapped a screenshot of the blank meme (duck only + background) on my iPad, took a photo of my iPad screenshot, then pulled the photo into my desktop and further edited it and added text, printed it out, then rephotographed the final result, followed by cropping and other minor edits.
however, after all this effort in which i changed the original "photo" quite a bit, SC decided it was just a photo of photo.
The artwork rule always gets confusing, I know in the past using a photo projected on a screen was taboo but to me no different than a painting on a wall, with the effect added by shooting through the bubble wrap and control of lighting to me it should be ok bit not sure it will get ruled that way. Looking forward to a ruling and explanation.
The artwork rule always gets confusing, I know in the past using a photo projected on a screen was taboo but to me no different than a painting on a wall, with the effect added by shooting through the bubble wrap and control of lighting to me it should be ok bit not sure it will get ruled that way. Looking forward to a ruling and explanation.
Mine?
I was against that DQ. But, I suppose it _was_ maybe just a tad too realistic? Either way, that's a great image man.
