| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2004 12:42:55 PM · #51 |
do you think noone has ever taken a photo from that angle? they have been there since 1924. Heck even I have a shot like that here somewhere.
Seriously you really should remove your comments and photo from his entry. Your post seems like an attack on his creativity. She just took a simular photo just as you did to someone else before you. Should we go post everyone of them to your comments on the other site as well?
Message edited by author 2004-03-31 12:45:31. |
|
|
|
03/31/2004 01:02:58 PM · #52 |
They are NOT the same photos. If you look VERY closely at the first one, you will noitice a ladder going into an empty window frame in the top left part of the image. In the second image, you can see that a window has now been installed. Unless someone took the time to insert a window and clone out a ladder in PS, these are not the same images.
Coincidence happens. Different people can take a shot of something with nearly the exact same composition. It just happens. many people have a good eye for composition, you know.
Accusations should only be made after very careful study.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 01:16:22 PM · #53 |
Well I'm known for being blunt and sometimes not being such a nice guy, so flyingflynn, I would like to be the first to invite you to leave DPC.
Come back when you've grown up and can contribute something other than dribble.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 01:59:42 PM · #54 |
My own entry was VERY similar to another entry... Basically because the other DPC'er was standing about 10 feet away from me...
It was the first time I'd used my 300D and wasn't sure of how to tweak the settings etc. So, I entered my one, and the other DPC'er entered his. He'd been wanting me to enter DP Challenge for ages (Think it was so he could always beat me, typical, the only time I get good entries, he hasn't entered...)
 
Mine.....................................His
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 02:10:18 PM · #55 |
here is yest another example how 2 strangers can get roughly the same shot
Beverly's photo (found this link on Dpreview.com)
Big Bend Store
My Shot taken 12/13/03
James shot at the Big Bend Store
James
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 02:25:30 PM · #56 |
flyingflynn I can understand you point, you are aware that the shot isn't the same (I.E it was not a copied) but your intrigued by the similarities ..right?
Well perhaps at worst one person saw the others photo, up came a challenge and so they went there and shot it.
If so i really can't see the problem with that, it's kind of like the water drops thing. Been done since 1957 and still going strong on DPC.
My sister lives in Kingston, and I visit her frequently. I personally hate the 'sculpture' think it's a bloody ugly thing, but if I were to have my camera in hand I would probably shoot it for my istockpro account. If I did that, chances are one of them would be from your angle.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 02:47:01 PM · #57 |
Nice as it must be to feel that you're uniquely creative I've seen pretty similar images of that sculpture from the same viewpoint a number of different times and well before either of you took your two versions.
Whilst you're right that it's not a major tourist attraction it is also not an unknown work of art and images have appeared in various newspaper magazines etc.
And given the position of the sculpture and the road layout there really isn't any other obvious point from which to take an image that shows the scultpure off to it's best.
Personally I would not vote either image particularly highly since as far as I am concerned the talent and creativity here belong solely to the sculptor who had the vision to create the art itself and also to see it displayed in this particular urban environment.
Implying that someone has ripped off your idea, whilst no doubt flattering to you, is both offensive and naive.
Especially since I am sure that if I could be bothered (I can't, I go on holiday tomorrow) I could find those images of the sculpture that I remember seeing when it was first unveiled and start spreading nice little posts about the net claiming that YOU had copied them.
Message edited by author 2004-03-31 14:47:30.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 03:16:29 PM · #58 |
Hmm, that's interesting kaycee. What do you think you'll find in Kingston to visit? Maybe we should build a hotel here. Haven't even got a Holiday Inn. :)
Not all of us are eager to visit tourist traps or Holiday Inns when we go "on holiday". This would be more my speed if I were to make a visit Walking Tour
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 03:36:54 PM · #59 |
flyingflynn - since you've actually been to Kingston to shoot those boxes - you'd know that it's a major London suburb - thousands of people see those boxes every day.
Where else would you choose to shoot the boxes from? It isn't exactly an interesting angle.
Shouldn't the original shot have been disqualified as it is a photograph of somebody elses art? - I refer to the rules:
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php?RULES_ID=2
"Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork." |
|
|
|
03/31/2004 04:28:50 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
Hmm, that's interesting kaycee. What do you think you'll find in Kingston to visit? Maybe we should build a hotel here. Haven't even got a Holiday Inn. :)
Not all of us are eager to visit tourist traps or Holiday Inns when we go "on holiday". This would be more my speed if I were to make a visit Walking Tour |
Lovely walking on the South Downs but 600 quid and that doesn`t include an evening meal. :(
Geo
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 04:32:01 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by budokan:
flyingflynn - since you've actually been to Kingston to shoot those boxes - you'd know that it's a major London suburb - thousands of people see those boxes every day.
Where else would you choose to shoot the boxes from? It isn't exactly an interesting angle.
Shouldn't the original shot have been disqualified as it is a photograph of somebody elses art? - I refer to the rules:
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_rules.php?RULES_ID=2
"Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork." |
In a sense you're right: but this an on-going source of contention, and is, in effect, almost never applied.
E
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 04:32:07 PM · #62 |
Lovely walking on the South Downs but 600 quid and that doesn`t include an evening meal. :(
Geo
:-p Well, that 'splains why I haven't done it yet, LOL - but if and when I do, it'll be 'cuz I have no $$$ worries - so it's not in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 04:40:59 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
:-p Well, that 'splains why I haven't done it yet, LOL - but if and when I do, it'll be 'cuz I have no $$$ worries - so it's not in the foreseeable future. |
I done it a lot cheaper that £600 and in 6 days :) all you need is a tent :)
//tinyurl.com/2z5v9
|
|
|
|
03/31/2004 04:43:47 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by budokan:
Shouldn't the original shot have been disqualified as it is a photograph of somebody elses art? |
I agree- the interest in this shot IS the sculpture, but where do you draw the line? Interesting architecture, packaging or product design could all be construed as someone else's artwork. Pretty soon we're all limited to kids, cats, flowers & sunsets. |
|
|
|
04/01/2004 08:56:35 AM · #65 |
Right, ahem.
I have just seen all the posts about the kingston picture, and as I was the bugger who took it, I thought I should at least comment about what isn't / is being implied by the "but..." on the comment left on the said picture. No doubt i've missed the boat and left it well too late, but my up-to-now silence may cast doubt over the specifics of the situation.
I first went to Kingston to stay with a mate called Colin (who shared a rented flat above the Pizza Hut directly opposite the item in question) in 1994(ish). I was a young poor student at the time, and I remember being dead impressed by the night club round the corner that played smells like teen spirit, and not the crappy usual dance stuff.
Another friend, Trevor, was the quantity surveyor for Costain who built the new cinema / bowling alley at the Rotunda - me being a quantity surveyor also I was invited to look at the site as it was being constructed, and what ho! I saw again the sculpture.
I am currently working on a refurbishment project in Kingston Hospital, which is, oooh, in Kingston.
I have lived in a London Borough south of the River Thames all my life, and we (i.e. the missus and I) go to Kingston socially on a semi-regular basis. We have seen live music in the Borders there, and regularly drool over the apartments on the Thames. I even went to the old cinema not a minutes walk from the sculpture (before it got turned into some grotty venue).
And the mr flynn chappy doesn't even state the location on his fuji challenge submission (though admittedly a knowing person does question Kingston?) Also I doubt a population of nearly 150,000 constitutes to be a “little market town”. I went to Greenwich market Sunday, saw someone selling framed-prints of the same thing to tourists – perhaps it’s more famous than the guy thought?
So I think this all establishes that it might be possible that on my own merit thought of taking a picture of something that I have loved the look of for ten odd years.
Not to go on too long I'll add:
1. this IS the best perspective for the image - i took loads from different sides / angles, and this was the one i thought best. I liked a side profile, but due to the proximity of the shop next door could only fit in a maximum of four boxes. A shot from the back had less impact, and also less appealing background.
2. it's obviously not the same picture because I am a bit short (as someone kindly pointed out) and I didn't move the Sale board some bloke erected on the front (you can see the blue corner of it) AND the builders at the back have finally installed the dormer window.
3. before today i have never visited the fujimugs website - come round and look at my un-deleted history folder if you don't believe me. Honest to God, and you can eat my cat if I’m lying (and I actually like cats) I have never EVER seen the other image of the phone boxes before today. And this is to Flynn bloke, out of politeness, if you had any issues, an email might really have been more appropriate.
Sigh. I'm a bit upset that my one (and likely to be only ever with all three of my current challenges getting sub 5!) ribbon winner happens to be so contentious. Some other chap, (rightly), suggested that it is a bit of a rip-off of the original artwork. And this is a point that I'm inclined to agree with – this was one of my earliest submissions and up to then not fully read the rules. If people think it should be withdrawn on that basis, then I'm ok with that (I’ll welcome it; I thought the fourth and fifth-position pictures were sublime anyway). Every time I see my own profile, I’m a bit upset with it – I justify it’s existence by reminding myself that my parents taxes helped pay for it and that it’s public art…
To conclude, I hope that the issue is slightly rested (though no doubt I will get unpleasant comments soon enough) with my side of what really shouldn’t be a story. I’d also like to thank peoples comments on the issue, you all seem very lovely, fair and open-minded.
Now I am going to search the internet just in case someone has taken a picture of the wheel thought of submitting…
|
|
|
|
04/01/2004 09:36:47 AM · #66 |
|
|
|
04/01/2004 10:54:17 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by jenesis:
Bravo Redmoon, BRAVO! :) |
ditto.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2004 12:15:32 PM · #68 |
| I'd like to back up redmoon on this one. I have seen his original shot WITH complete EXIF data, due to the fact that proof was requested on his image during the challenge. Someone had thought they had seen it in another challenge weeks before, and thought that it may have been taken outside the dates for the challenge, and requested DQ. Alas, it was nothing like the image the person had thought they saw, and redmoon proved the validity of his submission, as his own, AND taken within the dates for the challenge. End of story. |
|
|
|
04/01/2004 12:53:42 PM · #69 |
Okay, Lets play with "what if".
Say he did see "your" photo, and was inspired to take a photo like it....What if his's thoughts were, "Thats a good Photo, How can I make it better?"....What if he did go and take the photo and low and behold ,he took a better photo and won third place for it......What if that first someone that took the first photo became jeolous. It's just a "What if" |
|
|
|
04/01/2004 12:56:06 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by jenesis:
Bravo Redmoon, BRAVO! :) |
ditto. |
Ditto again... |
|
|
|
04/01/2004 01:11:32 PM · #71 |
Similar pictures happen all the time. Sometimes, they don't even have to be the same subject but the treatment is similar. Heck, similar pictures sometimes are even taken in different continents. There are three themes in trekearth.com (another photography site) that illustrate this:
//www.trekearth.com/themes.php?thid=819
//www.trekearth.com/themes.php?thid=956
//www.trekearth.com/themes.php?thid=1046
I think coincidences like these should be celebrated (ie great minds think alike) rather than let accusations fly left and right.
And thanks to Redmoon for clearing things up. You are one classy person.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2004 02:23:35 PM · #72 |
| This thread is a bit strange. Maybe the photographer has a cousin or neice in the same town. Give people a break. |
|
|
|
04/01/2004 02:25:45 PM · #73 |
| Oh... and one more comment. Why would someone shooting with a Canon go to the Fuji contest to view images? I would never have known about that Fuji site/contest until I saw this thread - even though the images are nice and interesting. |
|
|
|
04/01/2004 04:57:47 PM · #74 |
Well here is one
//splorg.org/people/modulo/travel/images/England/Kingston_PhoneBooths_Eric.jpg
|
|
|
|
04/02/2004 12:11:28 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Niten:
do you think noone has ever taken a photo from that angle? they have been there since 1924. Heck even I have a shot like that here somewhere. |
Wrong. There seem to be a few people here happy to spout to total rubbish.
Where would anyone get the dopey idea that those boxes have been there since 1924? They were put there a few years ago when the old boxes were being ripped out and replaced with a newer design. The design for the original K6 kiosk was by Giles Gilbert Scott in 1936.
Originally posted by budokan:
Shouldn't the original shot have been disqualified as it is a photograph of somebody elses art? - I refer to the rules: |
Which one? If you read back you'll see I didn't submit the original shot to DPChallenge. If the rules have been broken please take it up with the person who broke them. Perhaps Redmoon doesn't care about rules as much you do.
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
They are NOT the same photos. If you look VERY closely at the first one...
Accusations should only be made after very careful study. |
Are you suggesting that I have said they ARE the same picture. If so, I think you should take you own advice and read what was said first.
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Well here is one
//splorg.org/people/modulo/travel/images/England/Kingston_PhoneBooths_Eric.jpg |
That's right and it's nothing like the one I took or the one Redmoon took after mine appeared on the net two weeks before is it? So what’s your point?
Originally posted by redmoon:
Right, ahem.
I have just seen all the posts about the kingston picture, and as I was the bugger who took it, I thought I should at least comment about what isn't / is being implied by the "but..." on the comment left on the said picture. No doubt i've missed the boat and left it well too late, but my up-to-now silence may cast doubt over the specifics of the situation.
I first went to Kingston to stay with a mate called Colin... I was a young poor student … I remember being dead impressed by the night club round the corner that played smells like teen spirit, and not the crappy usual dance stuff.
Another friend, Trevor, was the quantity surveyor for Costain... I am currently working on a refurbishment project in Kingston Hospital... I have lived in a London Borough south of the River Thames all my life... We have seen live music in the Borders there, and regularly drool over the apartments on the Thames..
So I think this all establishes that it might be possible that on my own merit thought of taking a picture of something that I have loved the look of for ten odd years. |
Snipped because with all due respect Redmoon, I can't what your friends Colin and Trevor have to do with this. Seems totally irrelevant to me.
Originally posted by redmoon:
2. it's obviously not the same picture because I am a bit short |
That's what I said. It's just taken from exactly the same spot, inch perfect, with the bottom cropped to get rid of the ad signs you didn't move.
So let's forget the "whatifs" and other rubbish and stick to the facts shall we? Now that's an old fashioned idea. The facts simple enough.
This not something that there are certainly other pics of but it isn't photographed everyday. They should be better regarded than they are. Example: this is the link to the tourist website for the area Kingston-on-line and their gallery of "landmarks in and around Kingston". You'll notice they don't bother to even list them - which is a shame.
So it's great that Redmoon or anyone else should take a photo to have them better appreciated.
But undeniably there are two overlapping coincidences here:
The first, not a big one, is that that were taken to give a picture that was so similar even though they weren't even for the same brief. They are almost inch perfect apart from that the bottom has been cropped from the second pic.
The second coincidence, is that it was taken just a couple of weeks after the first appeared both on Fujimugs.com and on DPReview.com (which is possibly the most popular digital site in the world).
To the best of my knowledge no picture of those boxes has ever appeared on this site before. So by any stretch of the imagination to have such a similar picture appear just 2 week after the first was published is a surprising coincidence. Does Redmoon know of any pic of those boxes that is as similar to his as the one posted two weeks before he took his? Would be very pleased to have that honestly answered.
So let's assume it's nothing more than a surprising coincidence shall we? No need to eat your cat Remoon.
But shall we also say that if ever that did happen then entering a picture that was a close copy of another cheats everyone else that enters the same competition. As does ignoring the rules about artwork that applies to entries on this site (but not where the first picture appeared).
That's not a problem for me, I don't enter here, but it is for other competitors here. If that should ever happen then I hope no-one will try to sweep it under the carpet.
Now if anyone wants to ask me anything then email but please put your brain in gear first. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2004-04-02 12:20:38. |
|
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: 04/19/2024 07:21:06 PM EDT.
