What does a competition organized and run by the Smithsonian Institution have to do with the Charing Cross Photo Competition? The only rules that apply are the Charing Cross rules. And if not for the actions they took based on suspicions they've admitted were misplaced, the judges would've given the photo serious consideration. They're quoted as saying they really liked the photo.
Do you even read the articles you post? Both acknowledge Suzi Dougherty as the photographer. She envisioned the photo, then posed her son, composed the shot and made the photo.No effort?!?what was the title of the image ? it was a spare of the moment shot ,son posing with the maniquins for a bit of fun. so the photographer actually put no effort into the image.We are free to form our own opinions, no one has to agree with mine or yours, and it doesn't mean only you are right. The judges opinion is what that determines the winner.Theres no write or wrong only ethical or not. i like to create my own images, not shoot someones elses and claim as my own.There wasn't a restriction as you state, it was originally disqualified as it was believed to be created by AI. The words of the contest organizers & judges:But if they knew it was a fasion designers set creation it would have been disqualified anyway , "shooting someone else art" take the "set" away and what do you have ? she added no photographic skill to the image at all . there was probally even a line of people lined up to do the same thingCompletely irrelevant to the reason for the disqualification; the judges seem not to have investigated nearly at all to find there was actually no AI in the image.the photographer was happy with her creation !it was someone elses creation not the phographers. she took a happysnap of her son . all to dodgy for me.
"The photographer called CCP today and confirmed the image is a real creation. However, the setting happens to be in a museum for a fashion show so the person in front is the son and the other two figures in the back are mannequins.
It is a great play on what is real and not in our world indeed. Sadly for the entrant the timing was not great considering that AI is such a hot topic, and without the background info we felt the need to question the entire image.
We can conform that this photo did not contravene our T&C's."
You're attempting to move the goal posts, still trying to prove you're right.
Cheers,
Doug
You might have missed this bit I quoted "It is a great play on what is real and not in our world indeed." Hardly unethical, a view of the photo in that they saw more than just a 2-dimensional collection of colors.
Cheers,
Doug
She developed the concept, staged the scene, composed the shot, and made the photo. Everybody else walked right on by without recognizing the potential of what they were passing.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...competition-after-judges-ruled-it-could-be-ai
Oh dear what do we have here. the rules of the competitionDo you even read the articles you post? Both acknowledge Suzi Dougherty as the photographer. She envisioned the photo, then posed her son, composed the shot and made the photo.No effort?!?what was the title of the image ? it was a spare of the moment shot ,son posing with the maniquins for a bit of fun. so the photographer actually put no effort into the image.We are free to form our own opinions, no one has to agree with mine or yours, and it doesn't mean only you are right. The judges opinion is what that determines the winner.Theres no write or wrong only ethical or not. i like to create my own images, not shoot someones elses and claim as my own.There wasn't a restriction as you state, it was originally disqualified as it was believed to be created by AI. The words of the contest organizers & judges:But if they knew it was a fasion designers set creation it would have been disqualified anyway , "shooting someone else art" take the "set" away and what do you have ? she added no photographic skill to the image at all . there was probally even a line of people lined up to do the same thingCompletely irrelevant to the reason for the disqualification; the judges seem not to have investigated nearly at all to find there was actually no AI in the image.the photographer was happy with her creation !
"The photographer called CCP today and confirmed the image is a real creation. However, the setting happens to be in a museum for a fashion show so the person in front is the son and the other two figures in the back are mannequins.
It is a great play on what is real and not in our world indeed. Sadly for the entrant the timing was not great considering that AI is such a hot topic, and without the background info we felt the need to question the entire image.
We can conform that this photo did not contravene our T&C's."
You're attempting to move the goal posts, still trying to prove you're right.
Cheers,
Doug
You might have missed this bit I quoted "It is a great play on what is real and not in our world indeed." Hardly unethical, a view of the photo in that they saw more than just a 2-dimensional collection of colors.
Cheers,
Doug
She developed the concept, staged the scene, composed the shot, and made the photo. Everybody else walked right on by without recognizing the potential of what they were passing.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...competition-after-judges-ruled-it-could-be-ai
better still read the competition rules
The only guess you made was the photo was AI generated because an iPhone can not take non-distorted images with straight lines per your first post.
yes ,but its amazing where a thread can lead too. deception gets you knowwhere. but the media sure milks it and there obvious followers
She created the photo. That's what photograhers do. They make photos.
which part of the image/scene did she create ?
And some photographers use sets as part of their creative work.She created the photo. That's what photograhers do. They make photos.
which part of the image/scene did she create ?
Are you sure about that? Do you have a link to the rules for this specific contest? But yes, she did add her own element to the scene. How is it different than taking a pic in front of a famous building or other man-made creation?But if they knew it was a fasion designers set creation it would have been disqualified anyway , "shooting someone else art" take the "set" away and what do you have ? she added no photographic skill to the image at all . there was probally even a line of people lined up to do the same thingCompletely irrelevant to the reason for the disqualification; the judges seem not to have investigated nearly at all to find there was actually no AI in the image.the photographer was happy with her creation !
You need to take your own advice. It was rejected b/c they suspected there was AI involved in creating the image. If you don't want to read it, here is the pertinent bit:
LOL, how about the part where she set up her son in the scene.which part of the image/scene did she create ?You are ignoring the judge's ruling, and injecting your own. But as you are not a judge in this case, your ruling does not matter. They rejected it because they falsely claimed it was created with AI. It's been clearly proven this is not the case.she entered someone else's arty creation which is even worst then using AI. the judges were right to think she never created the image, because she took a snap shot of her son infront of the art work and claimed it was her creation.hard for you to accept but she created a new immage adding to what was already there. Not my "thing" at all but pretty easy for me to get what she meant.my quote. who has ever seen an iphone image without distortion. look at the 2 images
PP quote: Suzi Dougherty had captured a striking photo of her son with two smartly-dressed mannequins in an intriguing pose while visiting a Gucci exhibition. Happy with her creation, she entered it into a photo competition.
she didnt create anything. she snapped an image of someone elses creation. you may as well go to the museum and take a brush with you and ask someone to take an image while your acting as if your painting the Mona Lisa
Exactly. There's nothing wrong or unethical about the photographer's approach to making this photo. Her recognition of the potential that existed by adding her son to the scene was creatively brilliant. As the organizer of the competition said, it's an image that challenges the viewer's notions of what's real.And some photographers use sets as part of their creative work.She created the photo. That's what photograhers do. They make photos.
which part of the image/scene did she create ?
Cheers,
Doug
Nature isn't going to sue and should be public domain, so that's OK. But no more photographs of interesting architecture. No photographs of fancy cars, especially if a rare design. You didn't create those things, so no taking credit for their images.
I agree with InkedMarie that the narrow core of photography is technical. You can choose a better location, time of day, settings, hold it more steady, and so on, but the content is the key. This is why we have millions of similarly awesome pictures that nobody stares for more than 1 second, sparking no reaction or emotion as one gets numbed by the sheer amount of them.
there were no 4 judges ,go to the printing site that holds the competition and read the rules for that competition and how its judged.
yes i do , i can look them up i suggest you do the same.Are you sure about that? Do you have a link to the rules for this specific contest?But if they knew it was a fasion designers set creation it would have been disqualified anyway , "shooting someone else art" take the "set" away and what do you have ? she added no photographic skill to the image at all . there was probally even a line of people lined up to do the same thingCompletely irrelevant to the reason for the disqualification; the judges seem not to have investigated nearly at all to find there was actually no AI in the image.the photographer was happy with her creation !
No, it would not have been disqualified. The judges liked the image. The reason they disqualified it was that they suspected - incorrectly, as later admitted - that the image was generated by AI. They've since acknowledged the image is a real photo and have offered the photographer free entry to a future competition as compensation for their error.But if they knew it was a fasion designers set creation it would have been disqualified anyway ...Completely irrelevant to the reason for the disqualification; the judges seem not to have investigated nearly at all to find there was actually no AI in the image.the photographer was happy with her creation !
