| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2005 02:03:01 PM · #1 |
| I see that the hottest photo on photosig is currently very similar to Scalvert's Nightbulb photo from the Surrealism challenge. Too bad it was just credited to 'another website.' Photo |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:13:11 PM · #2 |
best part of his description....
"I got my inspiration on the Web somewhere"
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:25:13 PM · #3 |
he also has a similar shot to Konadors "Love" photo in his porfolio...
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:26:21 PM · #4 |
That makes me very sad. "Somewhere on the web". Sigh.
rjf& |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:33:57 PM · #5 |
That's genuinely sickening. He's getting a little defensive now, saying "nothing's not been done before", but sheesh. This is practically a pixel-by-pixel ripoff. What cracks me up is where a commenter in the thread says that this version is "better than the original", which is SO not true...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:48:37 PM · #6 |
That's unbelieveable! Was curious as to what's been done (entered, voting, etc...) on DPC for this person but couldn't find his username using the Community search on DPC.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 02:50:11 PM · #7 |
Most creative ideas are taken from inspiration that comes from viewing other things, whether they be photographs, paintings, movies, etc etc. Nothing is really completely original. That doesnt mean people should just completely copy an image either. It is great to try and emulate an image in order to learn from it, but once you have obtained that you should then go on and make it your own creative image.
An example:
 
Gordon's image is very popular and personally that was the first time I saw this technique used in this way. Setzler's version is the same technique but creates its own mood and imagery. Is it a 'rip off' of the first? I dont believe so.
Konador has said numerous times that his love picture was based on another image using glasses that he had seen on the web. I hadnt seen that technique before but certainly have seen it since. I've seen the technique used with rings, glasses, filters, and other such items.
I've also seen numerous blue dandelions since I first posted mine. Are they trying to copy or is it just a natural experiment? Who knows. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 03:03:55 PM · #8 |
The Konador/heart/filter image is sort of a "public domain" thing; Ben would be the first to acknowledge it wasn't original with him (as moodville points out). But two things stand out about "nightbulb"; it's a strikingly original picture which the other photographer duplicated so precisely as to render all creativity moot, and the photographer entered the remake in a contest, facripesake. I can't imagine doing that. I have many times attempted to duplicate great images to learn how they were done, but I draw a lien betweening using the ame technique to create an original image and doing a straight duplication. I'd never enter the "dupe" in a contest or exhibit it, but the technique (of course) is fair game.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 03:20:42 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by moodville:
I've also seen numerous blue dandelions since I first posted mine. Are they trying to copy or is it just a natural experiment? Who knows. |
Okay, colour me confused. I can see the thumbnail of your blue dandelion in your portfolio, but can't find the actual image in that folder! I think you need to link/plug your own image : )
Edit: nm, I found it ...
I think I had a go at something like this last year, after I'd seen some blue and red dandelions by that Konodor fella : )
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 15:25:35.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:30:02 PM · #10 |
If my guess is correct, he just views on dpchallenge. Did a little sleuthing based upon his BIO and camera type on the other web site.
//www.dpchallenge.com/profile.php?USER_ID=33588
Member Since: Feb. 12 2005
Challenges Entered: 0
Votes Cast: 0
Avg Vote Cast: N/A
Votes Received: 0
Avg Vote Received: N/A
Comments:
Made: 0
Helpful: 0
Received: 0
Forum Posts: 0
Profile Viewed: 7 times |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:42:18 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The Konador/heart/filter image is sort of a "public domain" thing; Ben would be the first to acknowledge it wasn't original with him (as moodville points out). But two things stand out about "nightbulb"; it's a strikingly original picture which the other photographer duplicated so precisely as to render all creativity moot, and the photographer entered the remake in a contest, facripesake. I can't imagine doing that. I have many times attempted to duplicate great images to learn how they were done, but I draw a lien betweening using the ame technique to create an original image and doing a straight duplication. I'd never enter the "dupe" in a contest or exhibit it, but the technique (of course) is fair game.
Robt. |
Aren't you being a little hypocritical here? You said pretty emphatically that there was no limit on how much outside help an entrant in our challenges could receive with their images, but now you are condemning someone who used scalvert's blue ribbon shot as inspiration, and apparently learned well how to use the same techniques. Where do you draw the line bear? Or is there still no limit as you, and others, espoused in that other thread? Would it have made any difference if the other photographer had credited scalvert more directly? Please explain this apparent paradox.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:53:31 PM · #12 |
I don't see any paradox here. The issue is this guy might has well taken scalverts photo and posted it, it is that similar. What a cheap excuse for calling himself a photographer (not you coolhar - talking about the guy you copied scalverts image).
I agree with bear, trying to imitate someone else's results to learn the approach/tools needed is one thing, but to outright copy it and take credit for it? I would call this guy scum to his face - that's how strong I feel about it.
moodville mentions Gordon's image (called Fantasia or something? can't remember exactly) and the image moodville compares it to is similar in the effect, but nowhere close to duplicating it...
Unbelievable...
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by bear_music:
The Konador/heart/filter image is sort of a "public domain" thing; Ben would be the first to acknowledge it wasn't original with him (as moodville points out). But two things stand out about "nightbulb"; it's a strikingly original picture which the other photographer duplicated so precisely as to render all creativity moot, and the photographer entered the remake in a contest, facripesake. I can't imagine doing that. I have many times attempted to duplicate great images to learn how they were done, but I draw a lien betweening using the ame technique to create an original image and doing a straight duplication. I'd never enter the "dupe" in a contest or exhibit it, but the technique (of course) is fair game.
Robt. |
Aren't you being a little hypocritical here? You said pretty emphatically that there was no limit on how much outside help an entrant in our challenges could receive with their images, but now you are condemning someone who used scalvert's blue ribbon shot as inspiration, and apparently learned well how to use the same techniques. Where do you draw the line bear? Or is there still no limit as you, and others, espoused in that other thread? Would it have made any difference if the other photographer had credited scalvert more directly? Please explain this apparent paradox. |
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:55:29 PM · #13 |
I don't think there is anything wrong with imitating an existing shot. I took this right after shannon's nightbulb shot. It was a good concept. He actually has lots of good concept shots. And his is way better. I do believe the other photographer should have given scalvert better credit though, but he didn't. At least he did admit that it wasn't his original idea.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 04:55:48 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Aren't you being a little hypocritical here? You said pretty emphatically that there was no limit on how much outside help an entrant in our challenges could receive with their images, but now you are condemning someone who used scalvert's blue ribbon shot as inspiration, and apparently learned well how to use the same techniques. Where do you draw the line bear? Or is there still no limit as you, and others, espoused in that other thread? Would it have made any difference if the other photographer had credited scalvert more directly? Please explain this apparent paradox. |
It's not so much the gaining of inspiration that bothers me at all -- it's the complete lack of attribution to the original. It would have definitely made a difference to me if he'd done a credit and linked the original.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:06:32 PM · #15 |
I've posted the following critique on his photograph.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Paul, this is a well-done photo. The lighting balance is good, but I'm a little bothered by the slight outline around the hand -- was the background layered in via Photoshop, or was it part of the original shot?
To those comparing the quality of this photograph to the original, it's worth noting that the original was created for a competition whose editing rules are very restrictive. Post-processing techniques which were likely used on this entry were not permissible for the original.
Paul, while I do not feel you "stole" someone else's idea, I do believe you should give credit where credit is due. Shannon (the original photographer) gave an extensive description in his comments on his photo describing how he created it. Certainly these comments were of considerable help to you in creating this version of the shot. The very least you could do to thank him is give appropriate credit and a link-back in your comments. "On the web somewhere" is not appropriate credit.
This does not reach the 2TD level of "seriously and irredemably flawed," since you can redeem this simply by editing your comments to give credit to your inspiration, which is more specific than "on the web somewhere." With that credit there, I would gladly give this 2TU, and should you choose to add a credit line to your comments, I will revisit this and revise my score (if it does not allow me to revise, I will write a new critique with a 3TU to balance this one out). As this entry stands now, I see it "seriously but redeemably flawed" and am assigning, temporarily, a score of 1TD. I trust you will do the right thing. |
Let's see how he responds.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2005-04-17 17:07:07.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:07:39 PM · #16 |
Imitate, no problem, I agree. Try it for yourself, learn what you can. Let me ask you this - would you enter that shot in a challenge here on DPC (Deja-vu challenge exempted)? I don't think so.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I don't think there is anything wrong with imitating an existing shot. I took this right after shannon's nightbulb shot. It was a good concept. He actually has lots of good concept shots. And his is way better. I do believe the other photographer should have given scalvert better credit though, but he didn't. At least he did admit that it wasn't his original idea.
|
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:11:09 PM · #17 |
Terry (ClubJuggle) - Very well said. Such a diplomat. I on the other hand got a bit fired up on this. Can you tell? ;^)
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:14:54 PM · #18 |
It's not so much the gaining of inspiration that bothers me at all -- it's the complete lack of attribution to the original. It would have definitely made a difference to me if he'd done a credit and linked the original. [/quote]
Your right this would have been a much nicer way of trying to copy what somebody had already achieved. I have just looked at it though, and it says that it is a copyright and cannot be used without permission....has he put that..?? If he has well that just takes the biscuit!!!
debbie |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:16:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by debbybris:
Your right this would have been a much nicer way of trying to copy what somebody had already achieved. I have just looked at it though, and it says that it is a copyright and cannot be used without permission....has he put that..?? If he has well that just takes the biscuit!!!
debbie |
That's standard text added by Photosig.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:19:49 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Terry (ClubJuggle) - Very well said. Such a diplomat. I on the other hand got a bit fired up on this. Can you tell? ;^) |
Hey, which one's yours? I also left a "critique"!
Terry: very well put, can't wait to see his reaction |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:24:29 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by debbybris:
Your right this would have been a much nicer way of trying to copy what somebody had already achieved. I have just looked at it though, and it says that it is a copyright and cannot be used without permission....has he put that..?? If he has well that just takes the biscuit!!!
debbie |
That's standard text added by Photosig.
-Terry |
That's maybe what we should have on here, then he would of had to email or had to get permission..thanks for responding terry |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:27:14 PM · #22 |
I think the most confusing thing is the partial acknowledgement..why admit it at all, if what you want to do is avoid having people look at the original (I am assuming here). Very strange. Why post it somewhere and then ask for feedback? "Great idea..who's was it"...I can't imagine what is to be gained here. I feel at bit sorry for this guy, as there can be no real personal gain made, unless he is completely deluded, and then I feel sorry for him for that reason.
Personally I don't even get the blue ribbon winner of the 1970's challenge..a different case but still, how proud would I feel to have done that? Maybe people get more excited by technical replication than personal inspiration...
After doing the lightbulb shot he could enter a poetry contest with an original called "The road more travelled". |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:32:37 PM · #23 |
What exactly is it that is annoying people about this?
1) That he copied the image.
2) That he copied the image and didnt give credit to Scalvert.
3) That he copied the image without permission.
4) That he copied the image and entered it on another website.
5) Something else. |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:35:04 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by moodville:
What exactly is it that is annoying people about this?
1) That he copied the image.
2) That he copied the image and didnt give credit to Scalvert.
3) That he copied the image without permission.
4) That he copied the image and entered it on another website.
5) Something else. |
For me, #2 plain and simple.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/17/2005 05:35:27 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by moodville:
What exactly is it that is annoying people about this?
2) That he copied the image and didnt give credit to Scalvert.
|
That he gave a half assed credit to the original idea. It wouldn't bug me except he actually is a site member. So it's not like he can say, "I truly forgot where I saw this". I think saying "I saw this over on DPChallenge, and wanted to try it" would have been more than enough.
Or if he honestly didn't recall where he saw it, said, "oh thanks" and added the credit.
At least that was my issue.
Clara |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 10:00:04 AM EDT.
