Please let me know your thoughts on this DQ.
I'm some what confused and frustrated by getting DQ. For two reasons, one that I got DQ for an image that took several hours and numerous test shoots and configurations and second the only reason that I got DQ is mostly likely because I listed in the description how I did this shoot.
I could understand if the rules clearly specified that you can not reshoot images (pictures) or such, but apparently it is not that clear cut since this method has been used numerous times in DPC entries, challenging and encouraging creativity with great results.
This is an a great example - with out the usage of the arial photograph this picture would not have the appearance of flight and would but less appealing.
but if I would have submitted my second choice for this challenge, it would have been most likely been DQ.
The issue that I see is that the mask is shown as black space, since for this challenge I wanted to show the impression that you are looking from behind that mask out (inside - out) and as such you do not see a pretty picture of the mask it's self even though the mask (black space) takes more then 50% of the image.
Here is a pic of the setup
In conclusion - thank you for taking your time in reading my little rant. I'll get over this, but I do find that there is a double standard or not a clear definition of the rules. Making it difficult to decided to use such methods in the future, since the results are so unpredictable.
This is certainly a subjective rule, and with all of the subjective rules there will be those images that fall on the legal side of the line and those that fall on the illegal side. In your case, I think we're looking specifically at this part of the rules:
"as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph"
To me, there is no way to tell whether the woman in your entry is an actual woman lying on a bed beyond the mask or whether it's just a picture of a woman. I was fooled into thinking you actually captured the woman when in fact you captured a picture of the woman. Looks like a DQ to me. Hope that helps you understand where SC might have been coming from on this particular shot.
You would have been fine had you not used the projector.
Also as mentioned the flying carpet and other entries... I.E. using a computer monitor with drops on it ect. Aren't focusing about the imags on the screen. They are about whats infront of them. The focus in your image is the projected movie. I like your idea though it just wasn't legal.
For me, the difference between the two pictures is this...
In your picture, I see the woman as the subject and the mask is not really taken into account.
In the other picture, the girl is the subject. Both use approximately the same amount of photographer generated content. But in yours the focus is not on what your material, but on the projected image.
Had the girl been real, and the mask a cutout image, it should have been legal.
Nice idea though, too bad you didn't a girl handy.
"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 in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."
In this case, voters would reasonably expect the image beyond the mask to be a real scene and judge the lighting, composition and models in that scene as your photography work. It's not. Thus, it fools the voters into thinking you actually captured that scene "live" as part of your photograph. Essentially, you did little more than frame an existing photo.
The "Arabian Flights" example you posted was entered under an earlier set of rules where the only restriction on artwork was that some part of the entry had to be real. Under the current rules, the entire shot can be artwork as long as it's obviously artwork or serves a "supporting role." A full frame entry of the Mona Lisa or view of the earth from space is fine because it's fairly obvious to the voters that you're presenting someone else's work and they can judge it accordingly. If the primary subject/bulk of the entry is artwork that's photographic in nature, it's likely that many voters will assume it's "real" and judge the reproduction of an existing photo as your capture of a real scene. That's what the rule is intended to discourage.
The cat and goldfish entry is borderline IMO and still under discussion.
Freakin is pretty much on target with his explanation. It is a subjective rule, and as Site Council members we argue these issues all the time... and we don't always come up with unanimous decisions on every shot. The original shot posted here actually was universally deemed to be a violation of the rule. Clearly, the image of the woman's body is pretty much the entirety of the shot. People will be voting based on the the photographic qualities of the woman, and it's not at all obvious that this is a picture of a picture.
The fish bowl is a little different. Some of us on SC argue that it should be a violation of the rules since the main subjects are indeed pictures. I am one of the ones who argue along those lines -- I would consider this shot to be DQ'able, although it's certainly more borderline. Others argue that these are just smaller elements of the shot and viewers are not casting their votes based purely on the photographic qualities of the cat and the fish. When our internal DQ voting is close, we often allow it to stand, giving the shot the benefit of the doubt. And as Scalvert mentioned, this shot is still under discussion.
If you are taking a picture of a picture, and voters are going to be fooled by the capture, and are casting their votes based on the photographic nature of the original picture... that's where you're treading on thin ice. And as mentioned, this is one of those subjective areas where we have to look at each instance individually and determine whether it's a violation of the rules or not.
This shot was also disqualified for the same reason in the same challenge. It was simply a printout of a picture with holes poked in it to allow the light to shine through:
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
This is certainly a subjective rule, and with all of the subjective rules there will be those images that fall on the legal side of the line and those that fall on the illegal side. In your case, I think we're looking specifically at this part of the rules:
"as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph"
To me, there is no way to tell whether the woman in your entry is an actual woman lying on a bed beyond the mask or whether it's just a picture of a woman. I was fooled into thinking you actually captured the woman when in fact you captured a picture of the woman. Looks like a DQ to me. Hope that helps you understand where SC might have been coming from on this particular shot.
Oh, I understand that it's a borderline case and that some people probably were fooled. I was just throwing my "how I would vote" out there. I think it's actually a very good example of the subjectivity of the rule (not that there's anything wrong with that).
My $.02 on the cat and goldfish image: They are obviously cut outs, I wasn't fooled. No DQ.
I thought they were cutouts too, but sent in for validation hoping it would get a tag "this image has been validated already" and perhaps help them. I didn't vote on this image because I didn't know if the person took the photos of the cat and fish and felt those were the focus so I didn't know what to do so I just didn't vote LOL I am still new to the rules aspect and I didn't know what was considered legal in using photos - I figured you had to take your own for use in your shot if it is the main focus - but I'd love to know for sure.
I see a big difference between the OPs DQ and this one.
The OP's DQ consists almost entirely of a projected image and is about the projected image.
This image consists of components (props) that are used only as part of the final composition.
Shannon's flying carpet is about the flying carpet, not the image below.
And didn't Shannon take the aerial photo that she blew up to paste to the ground for the shot? Would this be legal if she had not taken the aerial photo?
I see a big difference between the OPs DQ and this one.
The OP's DQ consists almost entirely of a projected image and is about the projected image.
This image consists of components (props) that are used only as part of the final composition.
Shannon's flying carpet is about the flying carpet, not the image below.
And didn't Shannon take the aerial photo that she blew up to paste to the ground for the shot? Would this be legal if she had not taken the aerial photo?
BTW, Shannon's a he. And yes it would be legal if he had not taken the shot.
It's just like taking a picture of a mural or sculpture but adding your own flair to the shot.
I did, but the only extra consideration if I hadn't would be the possibility of copyright infringement (a ToS DQ). Otherwise, it doesn't make any difference who created the artwork.
Oh my! So sorry Shannon - my apologies :-) I get it a lot too - being an Erin some people think I am a man so I imagine you are probably used to it but I am still sorry.
Phew I would hate to think, whilst sitting here in my purple socks, that I offended you. Gonna go take my socks to the zoo and see if I can't capture something spectacular
Heh, I gotta start calling Shannon a girl next time we get into it in Rant... ;)
Personally I'm amazed how many people were fooled by the cat and fish shot. The cat isn't bad, but the fish cutout is pretty obvious! Spend a few seconds on each picture people!
I've never been a fan of cutout tricks and if they all go away, that's fine by me.
Heh, I gotta start calling Shannon a girl next time we get into it in Rant... ;)
Personally I'm amazed how many people were fooled by the cat and fish shot. The cat isn't bad, but the fish cutout is pretty obvious! Spend a few seconds on each picture people!
I've never been a fan of cutout tricks and if they all go away, that's fine by me.
I was the opposite I first saw the cats paws and knew right away it was fake. But the fish fooled me for a few seconds. It's amazing how different things catch different peoples attention.
I was the opposite I first saw the cats paws and knew right away it was fake. But the fish fooled me for a few seconds. It's amazing how different things catch different peoples attention.
Yep...the cat stuck out for me too more than the fish. ;-)
