Credit where credit is due.

Brian_of_Bozeat

Brian_of_Bozeat

Jeff
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,232
Name
Brian (not Jeff)
Edit My Images
No
Looking at this thread.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/art-deco-staircase.595316/

Geoff has done a good job here. I would like to raise a discussion point though, please don't be offended Geoff.

This image falls into a category that I always struggle to critique. One where the photographer has captured what the original designer (or artist in some cases) almost surely intended people to see. I think that some credit should always go to the photographer for doing a good job of course. but surely the designer/artist should get a credit too? After all it is their vision that the photographer has captured...

I remember a (face to face at a tp meet) discussion I had with @blakester a while back, where he felt his '52 was becoming more about design (his amazing table top creations) and less about photography. I think this train of thought might be linked somehow, but now I'm rambling on...

Thoughts anyone?
 
I would agree with you to an extent but ....

... put 50 photographers in front of this (or any 'design' as we're discussing) and you'll get 47 different interpretations! (See, I've allowed 6% for the non-imaginative types :P )
 
Not trying to start an argument as I have never been to the place, but just thinking about the design, to me it looks like a spiral staircase which have been around for hundreds or thousands of years. What is the difference with this one compared to these type of staircases around the world that the designer has created?

So for me, it's more about the photographer and the light he has captured on this particular visit.
 
Last edited:
You're right, I must remember to credit the wife every time I shoot the kids, Barrats for the housing estate they are shot in and God for the landscape we all live in..:)

But seriously, I doubt anything we choose to shoot looks exactly as the designer intended in all environmental conditions.
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
Looking at this thread.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/art-deco-staircase.595316/

Geoff has done a good job here. I would like to raise a discussion point though, please don't be offended Geoff.

This image falls into a category that I always struggle to critique. One where the photographer has captured what the original designer (or artist in some cases) almost surely intended people to see. I think that some credit should always go to the photographer for doing a good job of course. but surely the designer/artist should get a credit too? After all it is their vision that the photographer has captured...

I remember a (face to face at a tp meet) discussion I had with @blakester a while back, where he felt his '52 was becoming more about design (his amazing table top creations) and less about photography. I think this train of thought might be linked somehow, but now I'm rambling on...

Thoughts anyone?
Click to expand...

No offence taken Brian, I'm just pleased my picture has provoked a discussion, after all is that not what we strive for?

As for your point, I do see it, but I feel there are two categories of "replicating" another's work, --Firstly I do agree when it comes to a photograph, paintings or other works of art, personally I don't photograph them other than for my own satisfaction, I would never use them to create a picture either in full or part and or alter them in any way for my own work. That said I have photographed people in art galleries and wall hung pictures are visible, but my picture is of the person not the works of art displayed in the background. When it comes to buildings or architecture I am of the opinion they are designed to be enjoyed, both visible and usually tactically, and when an architect or designer creates such stunningly visible and shape moving designs then for me he /she is inviting us to capture the shapes and movement they have created, and in doing so discover the hidden gems there in.

Geoff
 
GWR100 said:
No offence taken Brian, I'm just pleased my picture has provoked a discussion, after all is that not what we strive for?

Geoff
Click to expand...

Thanks Geoff, Glad you joined the discussion. I really enjoy thinking about stuff like this and to some degree I agree with all of the replies above. This is why I started this thread.

I find it a frustrating and yet fascinating subject all at the same time! I sometimes get to thinking about when is something a "found object" and when is a photo "created" or "made" of something by changing the light or perspective (lens choice etc.) are we guilty sometimes of "collecting" i.e. I've got a good one of the Eiffel Tower, one of the Circus Clowns, One of the Goths in Whitby. Someone told me this week "you should go to Banksy's theme park" you'll get loads of good photo's there! - imagine the possible directions my reply could have gone???!!!!

Any more thoughts anyone?
 
It's related to the conversation I suppose though isn't it? Someone must be thinking that they own the view?

And on a different tack, what about that place in America where people go for the sunrise through the arch of a rock or what about Durdle door? Why bother?
 
Why stop with the architect?
Should one then praise the workmen (builders, stonemasons, metalworkers, labourers and foremen) that managed to transform some drawings into reality?
An architect cannot build their creation without a building/civil engineer to make it possible, and they can't do it without the workmen.

Just take pics :)
 
@Brian_of_Bozeat
Thanks for the mention Brian :cow:
In the case of Geoff's @GWR100 image, I'm not so sure it does fall into the category you mentioned in your OP.
The lighting, composition and B&W conversion are really all of Geoff's choosing. He has put his own mark on the subject. Sure, it is someone else's work in respect of architect, builder etc but isn't everything mostly that one takes photographs of?

My view is that if one were to take a photograph of say graffiti, a painting or a sculpture and it is a representation of it then there's no real craft or creativity from the photographer.
This is essentially where my thoughts lay with some of my 52 week project submissions. Sure, I made the objects being photographed but if I were to say enter a print or digital image into a club competition, then the judges wouldn't to know that I was the creator as well as the photographer thus making it wholly my work. For all they know, I've just taken a photograph of the object. Thats where the creativity of the photographer comes into it with creative lighting, composition and so on.

Not wishing to spam the thread with loads of photographs, but this is a little of what Brian is I think talking about for my 52 week project.

Blown Away by Iain Blake, on Flickr

Single Fish by Iain Blake, on Flickr

Week 2 - Play by Iain Blake, on Flickr
 
Shape and form are valid subjects for photography ( not forgetting architecture ). Strong subjects with form make interesting photographs. If an egg was photographed at night with perhaps just a single point light source would there really be much difference ? Do we acknowledge the chicken for producing a beautiful egg? I think Geoff's image is certainly a study of shape and form and works well. Half the battle is the minds eye to take a three dimensional subject and have the ability to turn it in to a two dimensional image.
 
@Blank_Canvas
Don't forget light Nick, thats most important. I feel thats what sets Geoff's image apart from just a photograph of stairs.
 
Thanks everyone, this is helping. I still agree with everything that has been said here so far, and at the same time I feel as though I still can't put my finger on what it is that irks me. Maybe it's nothing to do with photography and more to do with my internal rage against the accepted norms. A la Reggie Perrin.
 
I think it just comes down to the fact that photography is so subjective Brian.
We all have our likes/dislikes and opinions.

I have a friend (yes, I really do :D) whom I was having this very discussion with. He pretty much dismissed every genre of photography bar people photography. Even then, he narrowed that down to the only photograph worth taking was that of the defining moment, you know that moment in time where an event happened and you the photographer was there to capture it.
If that were the case, there'd be hardly any photographs taken!

His question to every other photography genre was "What's the point?"
Landscape photography, his suggestion was "Go buy the postcards!"

Now I don't subscribe to that ethos at all, just because I don't particularly enjoy a particular genre doesn't mean it's not relevant.

This isn't me putting words in your mouth I am just thinking out loud Brian.
It's an interesting discussion point you make.
 
I get less pleasure from photographing something if it turns out to be just a record shot of some artistic work. Such as a statue. It gets better if the lighting or weather is special. But if it all hangs on the work of the artist, then it's still no fun. I guess I need to add another element, such as a person to make it 'my' work. Then I'm happier for some reason.

This includes cars in the same way. Which is why I'm rarely impressed with people's car portraits. Go in close on a detail or reflection, and then the photograph starts to have something to call its own.
 
Last edited:
blakester said:
I think it just comes down to the fact that photography is so subjective Brian.
We all have our likes/dislikes and opinions.

I have a friend (yes, I really do :D) whom I was having this very discussion with. He pretty much dismissed every genre of photography bar people photography. Even then, he narrowed that down to the only photograph worth taking was that of the defining moment, you know that moment in time where an event happened and you the photographer was there to capture it.
If that were the case, there'd be hardly any photographs taken!

His question to every other photography genre was "What's the point?"
Landscape photography, his suggestion was "Go buy the postcards!"

Now I don't subscribe to that ethos at all, just because I don't particularly enjoy a particular genre doesn't mean it's not relevant.

This isn't me putting words in your mouth I am just thinking out loud Brian.
It's an interesting discussion point you make.
Click to expand...

Thanks Iain, I appreciate your input, there are times when I agree with your friend, maybe that's why I like the joiner thing and other post processing additions to photographs? But not all the time.

Another thought that I had was that perhaps I am disappointed by a lot of images because I'm seeking (and expecting others to seek) a unique image?

I think that's the nearest I've come to defining what all of this is about. My appetite for the "something new"! I do like variety and novelty, perhaps I'm just capricious...
 
ianp5a said:
I get less pleasure from photographing something if it turns out to be just a record shot of some artistic work. Such as a statue. It gets better if the lighting or weather is special. But if it all hangs on the work of the artist, then it's still no fun. I guess I need to add another element, such as a person to make it 'my' work. Then I'm happier for some reason.

This includes cars in the same way. Which is why I'm rarely impressed with people's car portraits. Go in close on a detail or reflection, and then the photograph starts to have something to call its own.
Click to expand...

I think your bit about the photograph having something to call its own really helped me to tune in to what I was rambling about earlier. "Unique" seems to be the word I am gravitating towards.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
Looking at this thread.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/art-deco-staircase.595316/

Geoff has done a good job here. I would like to raise a discussion point though, please don't be offended Geoff.

This image falls into a category that I always struggle to critique. One where the photographer has captured what the original designer (or artist in some cases) almost surely intended people to see. I think that some credit should always go to the photographer for doing a good job of course. but surely the designer/artist should get a credit too? After all it is their vision that the photographer has captured...

I remember a (face to face at a tp meet) discussion I had with @blakester a while back, where he felt his '52 was becoming more about design (his amazing table top creations) and less about photography. I think this train of thought might be linked somehow, but now I'm rambling on...

Thoughts anyone?
Click to expand...
I agree. In an image that is clearly inspired by the architectural design of someone else, yet still provides an individual interpretation on it should mentioned the designer architect. To me it demonstrates an interest in the subject, besides something so often done with models why not with art objects like these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top