| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2002 11:02:56 AM · #1 |
I would love to hear how participants here define "Originality" when discussing photography. What makes a photo have a high level of originality?
Would a photo get a high or low mark on an 'origniality' scale if there were four other photos in a challenge that were similar to it?
If we had the option to vote a 1-10 scale for the originality of each photo, what factors would affect the score you gave?
|
|
|
|
08/20/2002 11:11:51 AM · #2 |
| What about a "common" element used in an uncommon way? |
|
|
|
08/20/2002 11:22:55 AM · #3 |
Perhaps this sounds trivial, but originality is something I didn't expect.
sjgleah |
|
|
|
08/20/2002 11:29:22 AM · #4 |
I define originality in a simple way: if it makes me say: "Wow! I wish I had thought of doing something like that!" , then it is original.
Defining levels of originality is then simply defined as how much I wished I had thought of it.
Unfortunately, since we all have had different experiences, what is original to one may not be to another. And even that can change in one person over even a small amount of time.
To use an example (if I may), the "Liberty and Justice" photo in the transparency challenge I thought was very, very original-- because as soon as I saw it I said to myself "Gee-- I wish I had though of that!".
I found out later, though, that a similiar photo was taken for a photography magazine a short time before -- which you hand't seen at the time, nor did I. Had I've seen the magazine photo first, though, I probably wouldn't have reacted the way I did to yours.
And as I said, that would've been rather unfortunate.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/20/2002 11:28:44 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/20/2002 11:29:31 AM. |
|
|
|
08/20/2002 11:35:36 AM · #5 |
Yes. Purely based on subjectivity and personal experience. But valuable none the less. We are all inundated on a daily basis with images in our life - magazines, around town, tv, etc. If a photo then looks original or unique to me, I will score it higher to emphasize my agreement on the perspective. Otherwise, we'd all be taking straight on shots of people, or sunsets over waves, and they'd all look the same.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/20/2002 11:35:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2002 11:36:33 AM · #6 |
I feel the need to break it down. A. The originality of the concept. (thinking out side of the box, etc.) B The originality of technique.
One assumes the orignality of concept because one assumes our members are working in isolation. |
|
|
|
08/20/2002 12:12:43 PM · #7 |
I hate definitions. "Originality" to me can be a very subtle thing, eg. I loved "Palm Puppy" last week simply because of the hand cradling the puppy's head. I felt the same thing for "Day 6". Neither puppies nor babies are "original" subject matter on DPC, but both of these photos set up a relationship with the subject rather than simply plonk it in front of the viewer and hope they'll feel something. That made a huge difference to me. On the other hand, an idea no one else thought of can still seem unoriginal to me if it's just some kind of jokey shot with a title that's supposed to be funny, but isn't (in my opinion). So I really can't say I take originality into account explicitly. There's nothing new under the sun.
* This message has been edited by the author on 8/20/2002 12:12:30 PM. |
|
|
|
08/20/2002 12:26:22 PM · #8 |
The reason I asked these questions is because I don't use 'originality' in my judging of photos at all. The comments I have seen here indicate to me that what most consider 'originality' aspects fall into my 'subjectivity' category... wow factor... visual impact... etc...
I was under the impression that 'originality' would be interpreted as 'have I seen a photo like this before?' or 'there are too many photos similar to this in the challenge.'
This thread was spawned from a comment I saw in another thread today. This has come up before, but, if there was a voting system in place here where you rated each photograph on several different 1-10 scales to produce the score, what 'categories' would you want to have the opportunity to rate a photo on?
|
|
|
|
08/20/2002 12:28:10 PM · #9 |
Definitions do tend to make us fall into the trap of generalizations. But it's difficult to express the many layers of feelings and ideas on the internet (or in speech for that matter). I think it has some use to get people thinking a different way, and to begin to understand where people are coming from though. My "definition" of originality, for instance, is put out there - but is only a part of how I feel about it.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2002 02:40:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This has come up before, but, if there was a voting system in place here where you rated each photograph on several different 1-10 scales to produce the score, what 'categories' would you want to have the opportunity to rate a photo on?
I'd use Technical, Artistic, and Challenge for the categories. To me everything can be divided into those three things. (Originality would fall under "Artistic".) But I'd rather have a 0 - 3 scale where the results are summed and one added to get a 1 - 10 range. I'm not sure I can tell the difference between as fine a gradation as a 1 - 10 scale would give for each category.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2002 02:58:12 PM · #11 |
Originality is subjective and it don't mean crap around here!!
The harder I try to be unique and reach for things the worse my photos do. The more expected but well done photos are stronger contenders on the average. People like to be able to understand what they are looking at and relate to it.
I raise pedigreed persians. My most extreme examples in overall body type are very rare animals seen only in show rings most of the time. Many people see them as just a fuzzy kitty, some are attacted by the unique structure of their heads and faces and extreme coat size.
Original? Not to me..I see 'em everyday and at any show I go to by the dozens.
Originality is all relative. Forget the rest and if you get a nice score or a few folks saying "wow! how unique or original" smile knowing you found a few kindred spirits. |
|
|
|
08/20/2002 03:34:26 PM · #12 |
I may comment on originality in the challenges, but I wouldn't score on it. As was said, an original idea to someone else might not be original to me.
However, if you didn't even try to come up with an idea for the shot - taking a pic of a pencil flat on the table for instance - then the pic probably lacks some originality. |
|
|
|
08/20/2002 03:40:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by indigo997:
I may comment on originality in the challenges, but I wouldn't score on it. As was said, an original idea to someone else might not be original to me.
However, if you didn't even try to come up with an idea for the shot - taking a pic of a pencil flat on the table for instance - then the pic probably lacks some originality.
I think if it's a well done picture of a <insert puppy, baby, sunset, flower here> than I'm not going to mark it down because it's not original. In the last challenge for instance, how was anyone to know that there'd be so many pictures of green tomatoes. We are NOT grading the photos against each other, we're grading them on their individual merit. Let me repeat that...LOL. ;-) This is a sore subject for me this week, because I had a comment that my subject matter wasn't creative and was given a 3. More on that next Monday. :-D
|
|
|
|
08/20/2002 03:42:34 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by indigo997:
I may comment on originality in the challenges, but I wouldn't score on it. As was said, an original idea to someone else might not be original to me.
However, if you didn't even try to come up with an idea for the shot - taking a pic of a pencil flat on the table for instance - then the pic probably lacks some originality.
I don't know..a photo of a plain ole pencil just laying there by itself on a table might score points for minimalist creativity!!!
I guess my point and probably everybody's point by now is do whatever turns you on and just see what happens...
|
|
|
|
08/20/2002 04:02:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originality is subjective and it don't mean crap around here!!
The harder I try to be unique and reach for things the worse my photos do. The more expected but well done photos are stronger contenders on the average. People like to be able to understand what they are looking at and relate to it.
I'm with Hokie on this one: "Originality" is just one of those things that's always going to be subjective. My photo this week is almost identical to another in the challenge: should it get dinged because I had the same idea as someone else? Probably not, but if I had seen the other submission beforehand and said "Aw...I can do that better," then it's NOT original.
To me, originality is a combination of factors: a unique take on a common thing, subtle use of something you wouldn't expect, a different perspective (both camera-wise and emotion-wise), etc... My "something old" picture didn't really click with a lot of people b/c it didn't seem all that old to them. However, it was something I built when I was a kid that feels like a long time ago IN MY PERSPECTIVE. I think it was kind of a unique take on the challenge, but it didn't fly. Oh well.
Sorry! I don't mean to keep talking about my own stuff...it's just what I've got experience with.
As for the breaking up of the vote into different topics, I'd rather not. Sometimes a shot can be not so original but still be a 10 'cause someone actually pulled it off. Or it may not be artistically perfect, but still very moving. I think we'd lose a lot of the emotion that goes into voting if we turn it into a scientific poll.
Just MHO. ;)
Rob
|
|
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: 08/25/2025 07:24:34 PM EDT.
