What is it, about ...

Andrew Davies Photography said:
This post really is on a hiding to nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many in here would like it to be, but it's not. It's not only possible to take original images every day... not even plausible... but in fact, very easy. You just have to think differently.
 
Brazo said:
A lot of people on here (although not all) do like to simply recreate shots that have been taken a thousand times before. The hard part for me was accepting that lack of originality. I have, I can now move on:)
Click to expand...

I have personally gone out to recreate shots i have seen, because I think they are great. I have also found in doing that you learn an awful lot about your kit and your abilities and it focuses you in and hones techniques. Often you have no idea how that shot was actually taken and 99% of the time you have NO chance of recreating it anywhere near how you have seen someone else take it, so it pushes boundaries. Its like taking a great cooks dish you have tasted and trying to recreate it without knowing the ingredients or recipe. Chances are you may come up with something great too but it wont be the same.

There is also the point as in with places like Dunstanburgh and Bamburgh that going there to shoot is an excuse to sit and soak in the beautiful landscapes and its no accident that people have taken the shots they have, they were taken because the viewpoint was stunning.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
Including me, I agree. I just dont think debating the point is going to get anyone anywhere.
Click to expand...


It may make some people realise that originality is alive and well. Is that not worthwhile? We can pretend it's dead if you like... to justify producing the same stuff over and over again. That may make some feel better, yes.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
I have personally gone out to recreate shots i have seen, because I think they are great. I have also found in doing that you learn an awful lot about your kit and your abilities and it focuses you in and hones techniques. Often you have no idea how that shot was actually taken and 99% of the time you have NO chance of recreating it anywhere near how you have seen someone else take it, so it pushes boundaries. Its like taking a great cooks dish you have tasted and trying to recreate it without knowing the ingredients or recipe. Chances are you may come up with something great too but it wont be the same.

There is also the point as in with places like Dunstanburgh and Bamburgh that going there to shoot is an excuse to sit and soak in the beautiful landscapes and its no accident that people have taken the shots they have, they were taken because the viewpoint was stunning.
Click to expand...

For me recreating is the photographic version of plagiarism, change a few words et voila. There's nothing to stop people doing all of the above but with some originality. PMN nailed it, if that's what people want to do then that's cool :)

Stunning views are nice to photograph yes I am guilty of that pleasure myself but real photographic skill comes where one can find beauty where there is none.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Maybe some people don't need to be made to feel "better", maybe they're quite happy as they are and maybe they don't feel the need to justify anything. Who is anyone else to say they're wrong?
Click to expand...


It depends if they genuinely feel that there's no originality to be had in the world any more, which some in here seem to think is the case. If someone's quite happy doing what they do, good luck to them. I'll support anyone to shoot what they want, but if they just feel they do what they do because there's nothing else to do, that would be a shame.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It depends if they genuinely feel that there's no originality to be had in the world any more, which some in here seem to think is the case. If someone's quite happy doing what they do, good luck to them. I'll support anyone to shoot what they want, but if they just feel they do what they do because there's nothing else to do, that would be a shame.
Click to expand...

Can't say fairer than that, I agree.
 
Pookeyhead said:
..and they're almost the same shot.



Easy...

http://i.imgur.com/uUBygd6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ObuAVXR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1S0HiaY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8uMZZXX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m43JmlU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m9QifgU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SICZxii.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CKdVrdJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5b7w3sg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FnxJA4n.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UcRQFKD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7OolaOJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1FYSFrQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PJVLQhE.jpg


I could literally keep going all day long with this.


No one's saying you can't or shouldn't take the same subject just because it' been shot before, but don't try to pretend it's original if you do.... because it's not. You've headed straight to the exact place everyone goes to, and as a result you'll show the castle exactly the same as everyone else is.

There's are more original takes on it to be found, but as you imagine, they're a lot harder to find.

http://i.imgur.com/7F2bLeY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XJahjlI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VyBD1px.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fgt0F2K.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cQq8E14.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XlE7wRI.jpg


It's not the subject that needs to be original (or have more originality rather) but how it's approached.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
We have a museum/hall (Towneley Hall) in my town which is done to death, same pictures from the lake etc, I've been racking my brains for ages trying to take an original photo (haven't managed it, yet). It's just need a lot of imagination, I went at night a few weeks back but wasn't happy with the photos as they didn't achieve what I had in my mind. I''ll get there, eventually lol, as Dave pointed out, the subjects might not be original but it's the way that they're taken.
JohnyT
 
Brazo said:
For me recreating is the photographic version of plagiarism, change a few words et voila. There's nothing to stop people doing all of the above but with some originality. PMN nailed it, if that's what people want to do then that's cool :)

Stunning views are nice to photograph yes I am guilty of that pleasure myself but real photographic skill comes where one can find beauty where there is none.
Click to expand...

A load of cobblers

www.andrew-davies.com
 
Brazo said:
For me recreating is the photographic version of plagiarism, change a few words et voila.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Knowingly copying another's shot is plagiarism if you're setting out with the intention of copying. If you did that with a book, or a painting, there would be no argument, you'd just get accused of copying someone else's work, and therefore you work would be dismissed as such. I've no idea why people think different rules apply with photography. The irony is that the same people will go ballistic if anyone else posts one of their images on-line (even if that image was a copy of someone else's to begin with).
 
Pookeyhead said:
I have to agree. Knowingly copying another's shot is plagiarism if you're setting out with the intention of copying. If you did that with a book, or a painting, there would be no argument, you'd just get accused of copying someone else's work, and therefore you work would be dismissed as such. I've no idea why people think different rules apply with photography. The irony is that the same people will go ballistic if anyone else posts one of their images on-line (even if that image was a copy of someone else's to begin with).
Click to expand...

A book or painting does not already exist , a place which is photographed is already there before it is photographed therefore cannot really be looked at in the same way. A book can be copied word for word , a painting or photo would be very much more difficult to duplicate identically.

I think there is a big difference in being inspired to take a photo of a place and visit it having seen a good shot, and going out with deliberate purpose to recreate that identical shot which in itself is nigh on impossible.
 
interesting debate... I personally think that there are many photographers that shoot unique images (and I guess I include myself in this) mainly because we shoot in places where most people don't have access too, but I guess the work in some ways could be called derivative as we have all been partial to studying or enjoying others work. The only way to be truly unique and non derivative is to have never seen another photo, painting, sculpture... Hell, any form of visual art, and then go and take photos yourself. Since that's not possible, I guess we all do the best we can ;)
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
A book or painting does not already exist , a place which is photographed is already there before it is photographed therefore cannot really be looked at in the same way.
Click to expand...

If you set out to copy something, you're plagiarising. You can shoot Valley x, or castle Y by all means, and you won't be the first, put putting your tripod in exactly the same place with the intent of copying a shot you've seen is plagiarism IMO. Unknowingly doing so is a different matter, and with famous places, it's hard to ensure you are not doing just that, but here we're talking about seeing a shot, and thinking, "I'll go there... and do that". That's plagiarism.

Andrew Davies Photography said:
A book can be copied word for word ,a painting or photo would be very much more difficult to duplicate identically.
Click to expand...

You don't have to copy a book word for word in order to plagiarise it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
but here we're talking about seeing a shot, and thinking, "I'll go there... and do that". That's plagiarism.
Click to expand...

That's what I think about pictures of the moon! I don't have a problem with people photographing the moon and it can be a good technical exercise in photographing something you wouldn't normally photograph but 99.99% of them are going to look the same.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
That's what I think about pictures of the moon!
Click to expand...

I've only ever taken one, as a prime focus test on the scope.

Astro photography though, if you get into it enough has a genuine scientific purpose. Most regularly occurring events such as supernovas are actually spotted by amateur astronomers before professionals, and the only real way to spot them is to blink compare shots of the same patch of sky or the same galaxy. There's a very real reason for repeating the same shot over and over again.


Steve Smith said:
I don't have a problem with people photographing the moon and it can be a good technical exercise in photographing something you wouldn't normally photograph but 99.99% of them are going to look the same.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Which is why once you've done it... you pretty much move on. Been there... done that. There's nothing to learn about the moon by photographing it. There's a whole universe out there though, and things to be discovered in it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sure many in here would like it to be, but it's not. It's not only possible to take original images every day... not even plausible... but in fact, very easy. You just have to think differently.
Click to expand...

And getting close and personel with your surroundings certainly helps IMO, and most importantly planning around Mother Nature. it certainly is very interesting indeed.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I have to agree. Knowingly copying another's shot is plagiarism if you're setting out with the intention of copying. If you did that with a book, or a painting, there would be no argument, you'd just get accused of copying someone else's work, and therefore you work would be dismissed as such. I've no idea why people think different rules apply with photography. The irony is that the same people will go ballistic if anyone else posts one of their images on-line (even if that image was a copy of someone else's to begin with).
Click to expand...
I think it depends fundamentally on whether you set out to pass off the idea as your own.
Showing off a recreation of a classic composition may be tedious (and it usually is); but in terms of artistic integrity I see it as more analogous to a musician doing a cover version than an attempt at dishonest prestige-theft.

When I see a long exposure photo of Buachaille Etive Mor's east face with the river in the foreground I don't assume bad will, I usually just assume lack of imagination.
 
I feel it is usually how much time you have when shooting. If you have a lot of time you can put a bit more imagination into it
Some examples.

#1 This castle was shot, whilst on a day tour, by bus, to Canterbury cathedral and Leeds castle out of London. From memory we had about two hours at the castle so not of a lot of time except for a few touristy snap shots. I was thre only "photographer" on the bus. Would love to revisit this location with a lot more time to spare especially in better light etc. The only problem is that it is on the other side of the world.
2600_L by dicktay2000, on Flickr


#2 This is in a small suburban park in the city where we live and we spend a lot a fair amount of time there so sometimes you can just sit, or stroll, and be very alert for details as well as any bird life.
Late afternoon light on peeling eucalypt bark.

Curves by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#3 And for the OP who doesn't like bird photographs, this was shot in the same park, but in the morning. I feel you shoot can something different or original, even when shooting familiar subjects, if you put enough time into it, and sometimes a bit of luck helps.
Thirsty birds at St Ives village green. by dicktay2000, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
...
Showing off a recreation of a classic composition may be tedious (and it usually is); but in terms of artistic integrity I see it as more analogous to a musician doing a cover version than an attempt at dishonest prestige-theft.
...
Click to expand...
Musician analogies are about the closest we get, and this is absolutely correct.

There are thousands of guys in their bedrooms perfecting 'Stairway to heaven' and when they do it sounds brilliant but it's still a copy of someone who is genuinely great.

A valid argument might be that someone who can play stairway to heaven brilliantly has more talent than someone who knocks out a crap original tune. Alternatively, some people might value the originality over the craft.
 
Phil V said:
A valid argument might be that someone who can play stairway to heaven brilliantly has more talent than someone who knocks out a crap original tune. Alternatively, some people might value the originality over the craft.
Click to expand...
Different types of talent, I'd argue.
Neither being fundamentally more worthy, although my personal preference would be to side with the latter.
 
The cover version analogy is an interesting one. I suppose it puts a valid point forward. However, what makes the most interesting cover version - a faithful reproduction by a tribute band, or those awful recreations you used to get on 70's "music for pleasure" albums (showing my age now)... or a completely different retake on the original? I'd argue that listening to a cover that tries really hard to recreate the original is something most wouldn't like to listen to, as you may as well just listen to the original, yet a completely re-arranged and remade cover version that uses a different arrangement, different instrumentation etc, can be as interesting as the original.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The cover version analogy is an interesting one. I suppose it puts a valid point forward. However, what makes the most interesting cover version - a faithful reproduction by a tribute band, or those awful recreations you used to get on 70's "music for pleasure" albums (showing my age now)... or a completely different retake on the original? I'd argue that listening to a cover that tries really hard to recreate the original is something most wouldn't like to listen to, as you may as well just listen to the original, yet a completely re-arranged and remade cover version that uses a different arrangement, different instrumentation etc, can be as interesting as the original.
Click to expand...
The new take on the song is preferable to me. But there is value in trying to faithfully recreate a piece of music you like as a personal project. It may be tedious or pointless for others but it's a valid exercise and not necessarily in bad faith. It's also a reasonable way to learn, I guess.
Just don't expect anyone to care. Like those photos of Buachaille or pictures of star trails.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
The new take on the song is preferable to me. But there is value in trying to faithfully recreate a piece of music you like as a personal project. It may be tedious or pointless for others
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
ghoti said:
The new take on the song is preferable to me. But there is value in trying to faithfully recreate a piece of music you like as a personal project. It may be tedious or pointless for others but it's a valid exercise and not necessarily in bad faith. It's also a reasonable way to learn, I guess.
Just don't expect anyone to care. Like those photos of Buachaille or pictures of star trails.
Click to expand...
My italics.
 
Brazo said:
For me recreating is the photographic version of plagiarism, change a few words et voila.
Click to expand...
For that to apply to a photograph, you would have to start with someone elses jpeg and edit it a bit.

I recently took pictures at a fairground at dusk. Long exposures of moving rides with colourful light trails. It's been done to death by many photographers, but I thoroughly enjoyed doing it. And learned a bit more about working with my new camera. I actually took a lot of pictures, and no two were the same due to the moving machinery and changing light. Very difficult to copy someone elses shot even if you wanted to.
 
ianp5a said:
For that to apply to a photograph, you would have to start with someone elses jpeg and edit it a bit.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. For it to be plagiarism you would just have to try to pass someone else's idea off as your own.
It doesn't matter if you recreate it from scratch or actually use the other person's work directly.
 
Yes, but the bit about "just change a few words" of a book was what I was referring to.
So pasting a watermark like joebloggsphotography.com on someone elses jpeg would be similar.
 
Last edited:
I guess there is also the point that Plagiarism is NOT a crime, whereas Copyright Theft IS. The reason its not a crime is because it is such a grey area and totally open to interpretation as we are seeing in this debate.

Photography is supposed to be fun and enjoyable so really best get out there and enjoy it instead of worrying about whether is been done before - as it really makes no difference - you cant steal mother nature and no one has the right to copyright a place ( though not doubt people have and will try )
 
Pookeyhead said:
The cover version analogy is an interesting one. I suppose it puts a valid point forward. However, what makes the most interesting cover version - a faithful reproduction by a tribute band, or those awful recreations you used to get on 70's "music for pleasure" albums (showing my age now)... or a completely different retake on the original? I'd argue that listening to a cover that tries really hard to recreate the original is something most wouldn't like to listen to, as you may as well just listen to the original, yet a completely re-arranged and remade cover version that uses a different arrangement, different instrumentation etc, can be as interesting as the original.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, however The Australian Pink Floyd and Bjorn Again play to huge audiences, so it's not a universal opinion.
 
There are some good tribute bands... There are also some who are more like insult bands!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's not a crime, it's a civil matter. That's why it's called infringement rather than theft.


Steve.
Click to expand...
This^
Plagiarism and copyright infringement are more similar than different. With damages being awarded in respect of losses etc.

The only time copyright abuse becomes a crime is when it's done on an industrial level, so if you nick a photo of someone else's it's more or less the same as recreating it (if you plan on selling it), whereas if you set up a factory to print thousands of Disney DVD's you will be committing a crime.

However none of that is really relevant to the thread, there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with recreating an image someone else has taken, so long as you acknowledge that you're not creating something unique.
 
Quite a few years ago, there was someone here who was selling cassettes (look it up youngsters!) of music recorded from the original CD, at car boot sales.

He even had a sign blatently pointing out that they were recorded from the original artists CD.

Because of this, Trading Standards couldn't do anything because he was not committing fraud. He was telling you exactly what it was he was selling.

And as the infringement part of it was a civil offence which only the copyright holder could persue, he was never caught out.

I think Trading Standards got him for something else in the end as what he was doing certainly put him in the spotlight for further investigation!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
It should be about whatever the individual wants it to be about. That's pretty much it.
Click to expand...

it is up to rog to show the way, gentlemen
?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top