Nightbulb revisited - DPChallenge Forums

04/18/2005 09:16:15 AM · #51

This guy did nothing wrong. He took an idea and improved on it.(if only because he had more photoshop freedom.) If he had given credit and a direct link you guys would call him arrogant and rude for trying to embarrass the challenge photo. You guys failed to give credit to the guy running around screaming "the sky if falling, the sky is falling".

Tim

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

04/18/2005 09:59:59 AM · #52

Improved? Embarrass the challenge photo? No way - the controversial photo is nowhere close to Shannon's level of photography.

Originally posted by Niten:

coolhar

04/18/2005 10:16:34 AM · #53

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Improved? Embarrass the challenge photo? No way - the controversial photo is nowhere close to Shannon's level of photography.

Originally posted by Niten:
This guy did nothing wrong. He took an idea and improved on it.(if only because he had more photoshop freedom.) If he had given credit and a direct link you guys would call him arrogant and rude for trying to embarrass the challenge photo.
Tim

What's the point of argueing which shot is better? They are not in competition against each other. They were done under different conditions. It's apples and oranges to try to compare them. The idea, the unique vision if you will, is what makes the shot, not the details of it's execution. And we all know that scalvert was the originator of the idea.

04/18/2005 10:50:38 AM · #54

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Improved? Embarrass the challenge photo? No way - the controversial photo is nowhere close to Shannon's level of photography.

Originally posted by Niten:
This guy did nothing wrong. He took an idea and improved on it.(if only because he had more photoshop freedom.) If he had given credit and a direct link you guys would call him arrogant and rude for trying to embarrass the challenge photo.
Tim

What's the point of argueing which shot is better? They are not in competition against each other. They were done under different conditions. It's apples and oranges to try to compare them. The idea, the unique vision if you will, is what makes the shot, not the details of it's execution. And we all know that scalvert was the originator of the idea.

Now its apples and oranges, a page ago it was a direct copy. I agree though, it is apples and oranges. The guy even used a totally differant technique to get his photo. which brings us to the next questions.

Why do you tell people how to get a photo and then get mad when they do it?

Tim

04/18/2005 11:04:16 AM · #55

I'm not trying to argue which shot is better. The comment made that the imposter took the idea (stole it is better) and improved it just got under my skin. It was not improved in my opinion.

I guess I'm just being defensive of DPCers and to see someone ripoff a winning photo from here and originally not fess up to it doesn't sit right with me. Even if the imposter came clean originally it still wouldn't be right in my book because he attempted to exactly duplicate Shannon's photo.

As for apples and oranges, it's not. It was a copy.

As for Niten's comment "Why do you tell people how to get a photo and then get mad when they do it?"...Shannon was nice enough to post the technique used to capture his image (not everyone does). To attempt it is fine. But do something different enough to make it yours. The imposter didn't attempt to use the technique in any creative way outside of what Shannon had already done.

04/18/2005 11:19:04 AM · #56

Originally posted by glad2badad:

As for apples and oranges, it's not. It was a copy.

The imposter didn't attempt to use the technique in any creative way outside of what Shannon had already done.

He did in fact use a totally differant technique. Sure he could have made it differant and to some degree he did. He fine tuned it. She was limited in the original(couldn't use 2 seperate photos) and couldn't make it the best it could be. The creative idea here was how to make the photo without using 2 photos.

Tim

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/18/2005 12:00:57 PM · #57

Originally posted by Niten:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

As for apples and oranges, it's not. It was a copy.

The imposter didn't attempt to use the technique in any creative way outside of what Shannon had already done.

He did in fact use a totally differant technique. Sure he could have made it differant and to some degree he did. He fine tuned it. She was limited in the original(couldn't use 2 seperate photos) and couldn't make it the best it could be. The creative idea here was how to make the photo without using 2 photos.

Tim

vxpra

Pentax K100D

04/18/2005 12:10:47 PM · #58

Things that the photographer did wrong in posting this image.
1) Did not give credit where credit was due.
2) Entering an image that was in essence a "clone" of the original in concept if not fully in execution.

There is nothing wrong with working with someone elses ideas, it is a great way to learn. What didn't happen here, and should have, is the idea was not expanded on. Basically the same (or very similar) image was created by two people, one inspired by the other- altough not inspired enough to expand or alter the original idea. Would anyone have complained had the same techniques been used with a different image being created? I doubt they would have. I live about 15 miles from where Ansel Adams did some shooting (Silverton CO), every year you see quite a few people setting up their view cameras and working to get the exact same photo (you can tell because they stand there with various Adams photo books and alternate between the camera and the book). This is fine, but it isn't original- and of course I doubt anyone will get an image comparable to the ones they are looking at. If I shoot a photo using techniques that I learned from somewhere else do I have to cite that source whenever I display that photo? Of course not. But, if I duplicate someones elses work, as was done here, I owe that person the respect of acknowledging their original. Which, despite my long winded reply, is the simple heart of this discussion.

04/18/2005 09:22:43 PM · #59

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Ok - which is it?

"She was limited in the original(couldn't use 2 seperate photos) and couldn't make it the best it could be."

The "She" you refer to is a He last time I looked at his profile (scalvert). You're saying that Shannon was limited in the original and couldn't use 2 seperate photos?

"He did in fact use a totally differant technique. Sure he could have made it differant and to some degree he did. He fine tuned it.
The creative idea here was how to make the photo without using 2 photos."

Now you're saying that "He", meaning the imposter at the other site, was creative by duplicating Shannon's effort "without using 2 photos"? If I read the imposters details correctly he used at least 2 (night sky and then hand holding the bulb), maybe three (can't remember if he brought the moon in seperately).

As to "He fine tuned it" (meaning the imposter) - I politely disagree.

When you've had a chance to iron out the details please feel free to reply. ;^)

Originally posted by Niten:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

As for apples and oranges, it's not. It was a copy.

The imposter didn't attempt to use the technique in any creative way outside of what Shannon had already done.

He did in fact use a totally differant technique. Sure he could have made it differant and to some degree he did. He fine tuned it. She was limited in the original(couldn't use 2 seperate photos) and couldn't make it the best it could be. The creative idea here was how to make the photo without using 2 photos.

Tim

How about you check the genders of the persons in question, iron out the details, but please dont reply ;)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/18/2005 09:32:01 PM · #60

Originally posted by vxpra:

1} you dont have to go threw a list like your getting an award to post a photo. otherwise you better remember who taught you every detail of photography and thank them each and every time you post. When Setzler posted his Liberty photo did he give credit to where he got the idea? NO it was much later. And noone questions his integrity(including me).

2} Did he enter it into anything? all I see is a posted photo for comments. The execution was totally differant.

T

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

04/18/2005 10:29:16 PM · #61

This shot by devbobo called Painting with light is currently in the Lit by Flashlight challenge on DigitalGrin (dgrin.com)â�¦

No doubt it was inspired by Gordonâ��s Fantasia.

This shot, by me, is in the same challenge.

It was absolutely and totally inspired by Scott Smithâ��s Scanner.

The only problem I have with devbobo copying Gordonâ��s shot is that his copy is beating my copy. Even copies of Gordonâ��s shots beat mine! Dammit!

Do I feel bad about copying Scott Smithâ��s idea? Maybeâ�¦ a little. Actually, I feel worse about not coming up with an even better idea than his. I didnâ��t have a lot of time though, and the only other shot I came up with was thisâ�¦

Should I be taken out and shot?