| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2003 11:05:14 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Sheila_Lawson:
Originally posted by Bitz:
Oh my God, Shannon, I cannot believe this strange coincidence. I was visiting a friend in my city and as always had my camera with me. She has a large deep pink shell in her bathroom and I asked if I might bring the shell home to photograph it. I can understand how you might have drawn the conclusion that I took your image, but I assure you I did not. I would not for one moment ever think of doing what you feel I might have done. The coincidence is enormous, I agree, even down to the same composition, but to plagiarize and to pass your image off as my own, is simply not in my mentality. I value my standing with the members of DPC, and I also value my reputation. I cannot explain what has happened, but I reiterate - this was my own photo.
Bitz |
I have to say that I just don't believe this is a coincidance. I'm not trying to call anyone a lier, but these ARE the same photos. One couldn't possibly be part of a vase, and one be part of a shell...what are the odds?? Sheesh people! |
They are NOT the same photos, very similar, but not the same. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, I believe Bitz.
VonAutsch's post makes light of it. I can't think of a better sinecure. |
|
|
|
11/09/2003 11:35:13 PM · #27 |
Sheila, come on! Look at the two shots closely. The ripples are not the same, the center is not the same, and there's no way you could yield that much detail in the shell taken from Shannon's 640*480 posted picture. These are NOT the same. Just an AMAZING coincidence.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2003 11:50:36 PM · #28 |
| anyone ever hear of "editing?" |
|
|
|
11/10/2003 06:57:34 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by mariomel:
Sheila, come on! Look at the two shots closely. The ripples are not the same, the center is not the same, and there's no way you could yield that much detail in the shell taken from Shannon's 640*480 posted picture. These are NOT the same. Just an AMAZING coincidence. |
You are looking from the wrong perspective, as sonnyh is right, things can be edited.
Don't look for what is different, things CAN be edited, easily.
What, in a court of law, they would look at is where are they the same.
I've marked 10 points as examples .....
Select some of the unusual bumps on the outside, you can find a lot of them on both images.
Vonautsch says when you overlap them they do not quite overlap perfectly. Resize (either) keeping the proportions the same and they do overlap perfectly.
Look at where some of the shorter ridges end, and which ridges are the short ones. A perfect match.
Start looking at the exact point where tones change, where suddenly a shadow ends. Same place. Imagine using a burn tool, or similar on the shadows and predict what you would see, it matches.
As Sonnyh says ..... heard of editing?
To me it looks like a shell, but hey, it could well be a vase.
It could be a different photo of the same vase, or a different photo of a (essentially the same, or at leave very similar) shell, but I do not believe for an instant that one is a shell and one a vase.
In a court the similarities are far to close to be considered anything but the same (think how they match fingerprints, it is on the SIMILARITIES and these have the same fingerprint).
To change one image to the other in photoshop is not at all hard, loads of differences ..... to remove all the similarities in doing so ..... nope, the similarities are still there.
I am not making any judgements at all on who did what to whom, just that I believe these are indeed the same image or at least object (shot identically, still a huge coincidence), and any photoshop expert worth his/her salt would not have a problem altering one to the other (possibly either way). You could make them look far more different easily enough, and each time the similarities would decrease, eventually to the point they could not be picked up on, but with a keen eye the similarities here are still very distinct.
I also don't like witch hunts, so this is accusing nobody, I am simply interested in the technicalities of if these are the same photo/object or not.
Different photos, yes, maybe. Different objects, not a hope, and apparently one is a vase and one a shell.
Something there definately doesn't add up.
Message edited by author 2003-11-10 07:16:11.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 07:09:34 AM · #30 |
Find myself agreeing with Natator
The weird thing is that the composition is the same...
And I don't think I am ready to believe that they are different objects...
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 07:30:14 AM · #31 |
| If they are from the same mould they are always going to be very similar! It’s the small differences you have to look for and you can see these in the center of the spiral. Yes I know that it could be edited but from this it doesn’t look like it has been, although it is hard to tell on a picture this size. Really I think there is only one way to settle this, that is for Bitz to provide the original of her shot. I guess this should be done via the moderators instead of people making accusations that can not be decisively proved one way or the other. |
|
|
|
11/10/2003 08:15:19 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
If they are from the same mould they are always going to be very similar! .... |
Shannon's photo is a vase. Bitz says hers is a photo of a shell.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 09:09:26 AM · #33 |
They have requested the original of both my and Bitz's photo, I have submitted mine and once Bitz does the same this will all be settled once and for all. I obviously feel that the similarities are far to many to be just a coincidence but I guess all we can do now is wait and see.
Shannon |
|
|
|
11/10/2003 09:12:55 AM · #34 |
If given the benefit of the doubt, lets say it IS the same object we're looking at, they both have the same lighting, which i find odd...
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 05:14:23 PM · #35 |
Ok where is this going? You have asked if Bitz had used your photo and Bitz has said no. Should that not be enough?
As you had a concern I think you should have kept this between you/bitz and the admin on the site and not air it in public.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 05:27:23 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Refracted:
If given the benefit of the doubt, lets say it IS the same object we're looking at, they both have the same lighting, which i find odd... |
I agree with you there. The thing is that it is being stated that they are completely different objects.
I really don't care who did what, I am just intrigued to find out if they are indeed different objects for technical reasons, as I can't see any way they could be.
Different photos of something made from the same mould ..... yup, definately could be. Different shells, possibly, but one a shell and one a vase .... nope.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 05:46:15 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by chinstrap:
Ok where is this going? You have asked if Bitz had used your photo and Bitz has said no. Should that not be enough?
As you had a concern I think you should have kept this between you/bitz and the admin on the site and not air it in public. |
Can you honestly tell me that you think she would have admitted to it if she had taken it? I personally see nothing wrong with asking the opinion of others in the forum, I wanted to see how others felt about this situation and it could have been cleared up very quickly by Bitz by posting the original, which is what I would have done if in her position. I would have wanted to clear my name as quickly and as publicly as possible. Did I not have the right to be upset?
Hopefully the admins will clear this up soon as they have requested both of our originals.
Shannon |
|
|
|
11/10/2003 06:01:31 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by lhall:
Originally posted by tomlewis1980:
If they are from the same mould they are always going to be very similar! .... |
Shannon's photo is a vase. Bitz says hers is a photo of a shell. |
I'm not saying it is or it isn't I'm just saying we are not in possession of the full facts and we should leave it to the ones who are. I have seen people hounded of the site before because they have nudes in their favourites or because their voting average is a little low, I just don’t want to see this happen again IF it is just an innocent coincidence. That’s all! |
|
|
|
11/10/2003 07:33:56 PM · #39 |
I am 120% sure they are the same photo. How can one person take a picture of a vase and another take a picture of a shell and get the exact shape, exact cropping, exact lighting. Follow the lines on each. Two main lines branching off the center with two shorter lines separating them.. exactly the same shape and lengths. It is literally impossible for this to happen any other way other than it being the same picture. Even if the person who made the vase used that particular shell as a model, the pictures would be totally different.
We want to trust people and give the benefit of doubt but in this case.. there's just no way. :(
And we all need to know we have a recourse if this happens again.. with one of our photos.
Faye
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 10:09:47 PM · #40 |
Well, this is a very interesting rant. I can hardly wait for the verdict. I drew my conclusion by comparing the two pictures AND seeing how they fit the person's style. One would wonder why someone would post a photo which is not well lighted, out of focus, loaded with artifacts and very bland in color and contrast when every other entry of theirs is perfectly lighted, sharply focused with super dof, bright, colorful (excluding b/w) and interestingly staged.
I wonder if all shells of this species have the same "fingerprint"?
Could it be the shell is a copy of a vase?
Message edited by author 2003-11-10 23:20:43.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2003 11:08:06 PM · #41 |
| Those are the same photo, without a doubt. |
|
|
|
11/11/2003 07:25:18 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Shannon:
Originally posted by chinstrap:
Ok where is this going? You have asked if Bitz had used your photo and Bitz has said no. Should that not be enough?
As you had a concern I think you should have kept this between you/bitz and the admin on the site and not air it in public. |
Can you honestly tell me that you think she would have admitted to it if she had taken it? I personally see nothing wrong with asking the opinion of others in the forum, I wanted to see how others felt about this situation and it could have been cleared up very quickly by Bitz by posting the original, which is what I would have done if in her position. I would have wanted to clear my name as quickly and as publicly as possible. Did I not have the right to be upset?
Hopefully the admins will clear this up soon as they have requested both of our originals.
Shannon |
Yes, of course you have the right to be upset,if this is the same photo, I was not denying you that. I just do not see why you went 'public' when 'private' would have been the better option.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2003 07:54:17 AM · #43 |
man I think this couldnt be more obvious .....
its the same pic for sured
|
|
|
|
11/11/2003 09:51:28 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
man I think this couldnt be more obvious .....
its the same pic for sured |
I tried lining up the photos is PS and they just don't line up. There are some very distinct differences. Also, I'd like somebody to show me how they would yield the detail in Bitz's photo based on the 640x480 version on Shannon's. I tried levels, contrast, curves, dodge and burn. I could not make it happen. Besides, why would somebody, established on this site with decent pictures, even think of doing this? That would be nuts!
People are going on about the enormous coincidence of the same shot being taken with a vase and the other a shell. Well, you say tomato, and I say tomahto. Once person's shell might be another's vase. Bitz did say that it was a DEEP shell. Maybe it's really a vase.
I say they're NOT the same.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2003 10:11:31 AM · #45 |
i was thinking they were the same photo but now i think it's a very coincidentally similar picture of a mass-produced item.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2003 10:25:41 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by mariomel:
I tried lining up the photos is PS and they just don't line up. |
Crop Shannon's photo to the same crop as the other one, resize it to the same size as the other one. They line up perfectly.
Message edited by author 2003-11-11 10:26:27.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2003 10:32:35 AM · #47 |
I cropped, I resized, I superimposed and reduce opacity. Sorry they don't match. They're close, but no cigar. Start from the center and work your way around the upper edge. There are distinct differences there.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2003 10:42:16 AM · #48 |
So - the supposed copy took the original, and managed to add stuff to the scene that wasn't in the original clean version (a neat trick!), then made it look much more grainy, deleted some stuff and made it look generally worse ?
I think round about this point, that common sense would meander into view.
Message edited by author 2003-11-11 10:47:12. |
|
|
|
11/11/2003 10:45:10 AM · #49 |
| Guess let us just wait for the verdict and argue no more...=) |
|
|
|
11/11/2003 10:47:04 AM · #50 |
| There's nothing so uncommon as common sense. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 06:43:43 AM EDT.
