| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/25/2015 03:18:37 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I google everything! |
and so say all of us |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 03:52:59 AM · #27 |
Great topic Don, I’m enjoying the thread.
One of the things that brought me to DPChallenge was that photographers were all given the same instructions and they create wildly different ways to present their visions. I never gave much thought to where they got their ideas from. They pulled it off with challenge limitations applied. I like seeing a topic through someone else’s “Mind’s eye” and saying to myself… Wow, Why didn’t I think of that! Or, How did they pull that off within the rules or the time restraint.
I too learned quickly to Google other images to see how my idea might stand up to them beforehand. For me, it wasn’t as much about gaining inspiration, as it was about seeing how well the idea I already had in mind would look against others.
When I’m getting ready to shoot an image. I create a vision in my mind of what might be my dream shot, then I start to add the limitations of what it would take to actually do it and it often becomes mundane.
I still read the challenge topics and think about how I would shoot the image. I still glance through the shots after the challenge closes to see how my idea might have placed, with hopes of making my creative brain cells grow. I’m still blown away at what people are able to come up with.
I don’t mind creative plagiarisms. I believe the best will rise to the top. Sometimes the original artist can learn from ones that were inspired by their work. It shouldn’t be discouraged. – It is always nice to give some credit back to the originator. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 05:53:15 AM · #28 |
my enthusiasm for dpc has been curtailed a bit after some images i though were good ideas werent received well, maybe my creativity was ok but technicals not so
 and 
Message edited by author 2015-07-25 05:54:05. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 05:54:46 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Technically a photo can be perfect but if it doesn't touch me on an emotional level then it does nothing for me, if it is technically brilliant but is one of a trillion that's revisiting the same old idea over and over again then it actually repulses me. If an image is technically flawed but emotionally it touches me then the technicals are not taken into consideration at all. Photography is about feeling and nothing to do about recreating a technically perfect scene over and over again ad infinitum. |
yup, couldnt agree more |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 08:00:21 AM · #30 |
and that is how it should be. Equally applied if applied st all comparisons, and unbiased by who the perceived photographer is. :-)
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RyanW:
Originally posted by posthumous:
This is a good (if verbose) explanation of why there is no outrage over plagiarized images. However, just because plagiarism is allowed, doesn't mean it should be rewarded by high scores. What you are arguing here is that creativity should not be a factor when voting, in order to motivate people to learn skills.
You want the challenges to be about skill, and not creativity. I want the challenges to be about rewarding the best photos. A good photo requires skill in the service of vision, not merely skill.
If you only reward one small part of photography (what you consider skills), you create a narrow path with limited results. I will give a high score to a photo that moves me, even if I don't understand why, and a low score to a photo that does nothing for me, even if I don't understand why. In this approach, I don't pretend to know everything, and therefore give a more honest vote, open to more possibilities of making a good photo. |
man, I've deleted and retyped about 5 different things here. I do believe that limiting to strictly technical or artistic is handicapping/stifling yourself unnecessarily; but that equally is translatable to the other side of the screen as well. A water drop may not move you; fine, it could be the color, the shape, the focus, anything really, but it's not entirely fair to hold individual images to double standards by judging them not just against the others in the challenge, but to everything else on that line that has ever been done. Look at the flower challenge we just had - did you judge Lydia's entry vs a different image of a flower in a pond? If no, why not if you're going to claim you can do it with other types of images?
Anyways, i'm done for now, I'll come back to this when i'm more level-headed feeling, and less likely to ramble and be incoherent. |
I compare every photo to every other photo, and everything else I've ever seen, every time I vote. No double standard there.
I include technical skill in my vote. You include creativity in your vote. We just balance it differently. You have a certain agenda, the increase of skill, that colors your voting. I do not have that agenda. Any agendas I have I push down into my subconscious and try to vote based on my honest response to the image. |
Message edited by author 2015-07-25 08:02:58. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 09:35:47 AM · #31 |
Dang. All this time I should have been Googling challenge topics?? No one told me!!!!!!
Seriously, though, I think the only time I ever Google a challenge topic is if it is "in the style of" and I don't know the "of".
Not that Googling would help me any. I'm neither original, nor creative, nor talented. I've tried buying votes, but even that didn't work!
Dang. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 11:13:20 AM · #32 |
Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
What about "the moment"? There is only one at a time, never to be repeated. How can it be possible to copy someone else's moment?
What about any number of cliché photographs--sunsets, nudes, & weddings just to name a few easy ones.
I have tried to copy myself, do again something I've done in the past that I really like, only to discover I can't. I have no choice but to be who I am now, in the moment I have now, & go with what I've got. If I can't plagiarize myself, how could I plagiarize someone else? One of the things I find interesting about photography is that the moment I have now will never, ever occur again.
What if I have a great idea (I think) for a challenge. I google it, only to discover someone else has already done it. Should I put my camera down & give up, or should I stop googling things? Of just stop thinking tricky thoughts & go with what I've got?
|
|
|
|
07/25/2015 12:45:25 PM · #33 |
"There is nothing new under the sun." -God, about 2,300 years ago.
Notice I wrote creativity, not originality. Originality is a white whale. Don't chase it. Try creativity instead. Try an honestly expressed response to your influences and the present moment.
Photography is a beautiful analogy for all the arts, because it is a capture of the moment of creation. One of my art teachers said I should learn to dance because the movement of my body is captured on the canvas when I paint (this is not an endorsement of Chris Ofili).
As to studio photography vs. street photography, I addressed that in a different thread. Art is possible in a studio. It's ridiculous that I would even have to say that. But you will have to overcome the contrivance of a studio environment, just like the street photographer has to overcome the banality of society.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2015 01:02:07 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I have tried to copy myself, do again something I've done in the past that I really like, only to discover I can't. I have no choice but to be who I am now, in the moment I have now, & go with what I've got. If I can't plagiarize myself, how could I plagiarize someone else? One of the things I find interesting about photography is that the moment I have now will never, ever occur again.
|
crucial is the discovery that you can't plagiarize yourself. not every one realizes that. alas.
I wonder, though, if I should google "boat." Not that I don't know what is a boat, what a boat looks like. But to see what a PICTURE of a boat looks like. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 01:20:43 PM · #35 |
Well I googled boat & yep it's already been done. To death. I learned that the conventional boat picture is from slightly above, at a 3/4 angle. I googled skiff, paper boat, boat feet, & stereotypical boat picture (that one, oddly enough, had the most variety).
So now I'm wondering, if the challenge was to plagarize a boat picture, what would we get to vote on? |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:02:59 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Nordlys:
A perfectly performed scale or arpeggio is boring for me to hear, yet an unskilled performance of a beautiful musical piece distracts me from its beauty. True art, for me, requires both creativity and skill. Some (if not most) of us have more of one than the other. Instead of arguing which is more important, perhaps we can learn to realize that both are important. Then, we can concentrate our efforts on improving our own shortcomings, and we can become even better photographers. |
Some level of technique is needed in every discipline. Are we a site full of soulless studio musicians? Or meaningful singer songwriters? Which one is closer to "art"
Photography seems to be dominated by the "look I painted with light, a spinning sparkler, and time lapse of my chest hair growing in a water bubble" crowd, while everything else is monochromatic talentless blur. They are wrong, and the site should think it over and get on the right side of history, so to speak.
Message edited by author 2015-07-25 14:03:49. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:14:05 PM · #37 |
I admit to googling for a picture of a Canadian Flag and then entering this  in the Canada day challenge. And I just checked google for homemade Canada flags to make sure I didn't copy anybody.
I suppose I SHOULD have looked at the previous liquid challenges, if I had only thought to wonder what would score well. And it's not that I don't try, it's just that my approach is different and my results vary widely. I don't mind it that way because I like what I do.
It's only over the past few weeks that I realized people here look to google for ideas .. I was quite surprised ... but I guess If looking through other people's ideas and images inspires one of your own, that's ok with me. Copying other people's ideas, however, and recreating them and calling them your own is not. I can't imagine it would be any fun either. Maybe I will start checking for images I score high to make sure they weren't somebody else's idea.
Me, I like to take the camera and the challenge topic and go out and try to capture moments because yes, every one is different, every one brings with it an endless possibility for creation. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:15:12 PM · #38 |
originally, art meant skill.
I suspect that the skill/art develops along with creativity/originality/inner vision. I also do not think that skill or technique exists on its own: it is either in the service of some sort of vision or else it is pretty much crap, however clever. Of course the former (in service to vision) can look like crap too or even be crap; the difference is that it does not always look like crap.
Message edited by author 2015-07-25 14:17:12. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:26:53 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Well I googled boat & yep it's already been done. To death. I learned that the conventional boat picture is from slightly above, at a 3/4 angle. I googled skiff, paper boat, boat feet, & stereotypical boat picture (that one, oddly enough, had the most variety).
So now I'm wondering, if the challenge was to plagarize a boat picture, what would we get to vote on? |
Interesting question. The problem is that when the challenge is boat, the winning picture will be a boat and only a boat. Oh wait, it says Boats. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:43:28 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
What about "the moment"? There is only one at a time, never to be repeated. How can it be possible to copy someone else's moment?
What about any number of cliché photographs--sunsets, nudes, & weddings just to name a few easy ones.
I have tried to copy myself, do again something I've done in the past that I really like, only to discover I can't. I have no choice but to be who I am now, in the moment I have now, & go with what I've got. If I can't plagiarize myself, how could I plagiarize someone else? One of the things I find interesting about photography is that the moment I have now will never, ever occur again.
What if I have a great idea (I think) for a challenge. I google it, only to discover someone else has already done it. Should I put my camera down & give up, or should I stop googling things? Of just stop thinking tricky thoughts & go with what I've got? |
I agree with this completely! Who was the first one to position their work on the rule of thirds? I pass that one off as my own work all the time. Where do you draw the line?
As a photographer, the work is in the moment, The subjects change so they aren't ever exactly the same. Even the same water drop is too random to be an exact copy, so in my mind, it falls more to the side of inspiration. It's just a different degree of plagiarism. If great minds do actually think alike, Do we owe it to other photographers to search out their work so as not to mistakenly copy an idea and ours can remain unique? I think not. If it's good, it's good. When I vote on these via creative points verses originality. If it's already been done a thousand times it will need to be pretty amazing to work it's way to a score of 10 when I have all the other like images in my head to score it against. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 02:55:16 PM · #41 |
Before today, I had never thought plagarism & photography in the same thought. Even now, they keep trying to leave by different exits.
I'm gonna go google boats.
[eta]
And I'm so glad I did, for I discovered there is such a thing as a HOT TUB BOAT. OMG! And banana boats--remember those?
Message edited by author 2015-07-25 15:14:36. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 04:16:45 PM · #42 |
When it comes to plagiarism in photography, to my thinking the worst is when people deliberately set out to copy someone else's style, without making it their own.
To explain: Copying a style ... in my view it is fine to learn from other people's styles by studying them, copying them, whatever works. I then can assimilate what works for me, adapt it to my way of seeing and thinking, use it to create and develop and grow my own style. But, deliberately copying a style, that is, making repeated pictures that look as if they belong to someone else, that bothers me greatly. Pictures are so much more than just the pixels. They speak about who I am, how I see the world, how I think, what I value. Copying a style is fine for learning and growing and developing my art, but simply repeating someone else's style, someone else's point of view, is not.
That, to me, is plagiarism in photography.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2015 05:12:13 PM · #43 |
I've heard it said that if you can teach what you do to others, if people can do what you do the way you do it, then you have created a new genre, or founded a new school of thought. Think of the first poet to write blank verse. The first musician to improvise. The first photographer to do pure abstracts.
So if just one person copies another's work & calls it their own...it's plagarism. If everyone copies it--it's fame & fortune.
Message edited by author 2015-07-25 17:17:42. |
|
|
|
07/25/2015 05:16:20 PM · #44 |
Hi Ursula, It’s good to see you!
I was thinking about throwing your work into one of my comments but I had already talked too much.
I was thinking about me, trying to take a photograph that matches your style exactly. I aspire to be able to do that! (Can you even imagine the disaster I would create?) I can tell you honestly, I am not capable of seeing what you see, as hard as I might try. I just can’t do it. (And quite honestly, neither can anyone else).
This is exactly what puts you in my favorite Photographer list. My deep appreciation for how you are able to see the same thing in a way that is uniquely you, with consistently remarkable images.
If they need to copy your style; I say, smile and let them try! Hopefully they will find that emotional connection to their own work and shine with something unique to them one day. They wouldn’t have arrived at that place without you. This is where they should give a little credit to the originator.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2015 10:00:34 AM · #45 |
its not plagiarism, its imitation. its common because many people are searching for their own creativity and style. technical photography is easy, being original is very difficult.
in order to find their own style some need to imitate.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2015 10:50:03 AM · #46 |
|
|
|
07/26/2015 11:16:40 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Nordlys:
A perfectly performed scale or arpeggio is boring for me to hear, yet an unskilled performance of a beautiful musical piece distracts me from its beauty. True art, for me, requires both creativity and skill. . |
A perfectly played piece of music is performed by an orchestra using the technical and artistic skills of the musicians but the orchestra isn't starting with a blank piece of paper. They are reading music written by a composer. The composer created the music for the orchestra to play.
Photographers are handed a blank page. We can choose to use someone else's "composed music" and reproduce it with our own technical skills. Or, we can be the composers of our own music and write the original songs.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2015 11:33:05 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by 2mccs:
Originally posted by Nordlys:
A perfectly performed scale or arpeggio is boring for me to hear, yet an unskilled performance of a beautiful musical piece distracts me from its beauty. True art, for me, requires both creativity and skill. . |
A perfectly played piece of music is performed by an orchestra using the technical and artistic skills of the musicians but the orchestra isn't starting with a blank piece of paper. They are reading music written by a composer. The composer created the music for the orchestra to play.
Photographers are handed a blank page. We can choose to use someone else's "composed music" and reproduce it with our own technical skills. Or, we can be the composers of our own music and write the original songs. |
Well said... |
|
|
|
07/26/2015 11:39:47 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Mike:
its not plagiarism, its imitation. its common because many people are searching for their own creativity and style. technical photography is easy, being original is very difficult.
in order to find their own style some need to imitate. |
I can honestly say that as someone who is "teaching herself" photography, I am 100 percent dependent on imitating others in order to develop both my technical skills and my creativity and style. I am confident that when the time comes my personal style will be distinguishable from those that I have imitated, and until then I hope these photographers will take the fact that I think they are worth imitating as a compliment. I do, however, think that it is well mannered to mention who has inspired you, or who you are imitating (if that is the case), if your images will be public while you develop your own creativity. Especially if the inspiration comes from someone in a small community like this one :) |
|
|
|
07/26/2015 01:29:11 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by 2mccs:
Originally posted by Nordlys:
A perfectly performed scale or arpeggio is boring for me to hear, yet an unskilled performance of a beautiful musical piece distracts me from its beauty. True art, for me, requires both creativity and skill. . |
A perfectly played piece of music is performed by an orchestra using the technical and artistic skills of the musicians but the orchestra isn't starting with a blank piece of paper. They are reading music written by a composer. The composer created the music for the orchestra to play.
Photographers are handed a blank page. We can choose to use someone else's "composed music" and reproduce it with our own technical skills. Or, we can be the composers of our own music and write the original songs. |
Yes but I believe the objection here is when we use someone else's "composed music" and call it our own. When you attend a concert, you are told before you hear the music that somebody else wrote it. |
|
