The people on this forum make me sick

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

You make it sound like a copy/paste job, and that's not at all what's being discussed. If you take a photo of a bridge, you don't own any right to be the only one who's allowed to go take a photo of that bridge from then on. NONE.

So, if someone else goes and takes a photo of that bridge, it is NOT YOUR PHOTO they've taken.

 

[photoguy99]

I was agreeing with buckster about specifically the way art moves along, with a healthy dose of copying.

I haven't read anything else since this thread is clearly flying off the rails.

Sorry for the confusion. Should have quoted what I was agreeing with but it was pretty long.

 

[pixmedic]

"Good artists copy; Great artists steal."

I just "stole" that quote.

I've also "stolen" the idea to make/imitate photos of: water, fruit and vegetable drop/splashes, untold numbers of various objects, many common landscapes, portraits of people, zoo animals, and probably a lot of other stuff I'm not recalling at the moment.

Back when I played guitar and sang, I "stole" and imitated many, many well-known songs written and performed by others that I'd heard on the radio and often bought the recordings of. Coincidentally, I've noticed over the years that this happens a lot. People call them "covers", and some are considered quite good, even classic, in their own right.

Here's another quote I'm happy to "steal":

"Imitation is the greatest form of flattery."

Artists who don't put their work out there for others to see and hear claiming it's because they're afraid it will be copied aren't artists; They're wannabes using a lame excuse to keep from being ridiculed for making crap that they don't want others to see or hear.

One last "stolen" quote:

"Life sucks. Get a helmet."

I don't mine sharing and learning. But when someone purposely goes to a not normally shot location and purposely tries to copy your photo that is something else.

No, it's really not something else. It's not any different than them going to a well known location and purposely trying to imitate a well-known photo (which is often why that location is well-known in the first place).

By your way of thinking, no photos should ever be shown, especially not great ones, because someone might try to make one like them, and that's just a load of BS, pure and simple.

you don't care because it doesn't effect you probably with the type of photography you do. Put it in the perspective of your client taking your photos and not paying you and you might get it.. In this case, someone is basically taking your shot because they are taking your idea and copying it. We may just have to agree to disagree here. Come take a walk with me around the city or where i shoot sometime and you might "get it" on why someone would be upset going through a ton of b.s. to get a photo only to have it copied. If i shot little kids and photoshopped them i wouldn't care either. Don't even apply. There isn't much original about that to start with. Not like you are out hunting photos.

Oh, please. Call yourself a waaaambulance and quit whining.

First, you have no idea the width and breadth of my photographic endeavors, but here's a clue: It's not at all limited to taking photos of kids and photoshopping them. Making and selling portraits is just one facet of my photography.

I've been and still do go "out hunting photos", as I have for over 40 years. The big difference from what I can see is that I don't come back with snapshots that I'd be ashamed to show anyone, so I cover it by saying "they're so awesome you can't see them because you might want to emulate them." Just the opposite, I show them AND sell them.

You're losing NOTHING by someone liking your photo enough to want to emulate it, any more than any other photographer on the planet making a photo that others like so much that they want to emulate it. Most photographers would regard that as the highest form of flattery.

For a so-called photographer to say to the world, "I'm not going to show you my photos because they're SO AWESOME that you'd like them SO MUCH that you'd want to emulate them" is nothing but pure bull in my opinion.

Missing the point. Nothing to do with awesome. Totally on the fact they are MINE. oh i show tons of photos. Depends on what it is. Difference is i post about anything, crap or not. And some are just flat out mine for me. I don't need pats on the backs or likes and "good job!" and don't really care what people think for the most part. If you post a photo people really like or you sell you probably care more. Since i primarily shoot for me, it primarily revolves around me. Some people need that social "good job! and care more what others think. I generally just don't. Take my own path. Ever notice some of the crap i post on here? Pretty obvious. i sure ain't out to impress anyone.

if the photos are just for you...
why do you care if someone else replicates them?
does that diminish the value of the photo for you on a personal level?
does it somehow steal your photos "soul" and it now belongs to the newest person to take that shot?
photos that I shoot that have personal value to me are valuable because I shot them. It doesn't matter two red cents to me how many other people take that exact same shot. Those are not my shot. My shot is mine because I shot it, and nothing anyone else does can change that.

 

[e.rose]

The people on this forum make me sick with jealousy as they are so good. Most photos are simply stunning compared to anything I can compose.

At the moment not sure if they inspire me to learn more and try to become better, or, to just give up and look at other peoples photos and skills.

I think it's really easy to feel overwhelmed.

I haven't read the rest of this thread because 56 responses is way beyond TL;DR for me, if I wasn't in it from the beginning, so I apologize if we've moved on from serious commentary to off-topic jokes and stuff that the threads on here eventually evolve into, but...

I think it's really to feel overwhelmed. Haha.

I see people who are way better than me and I feel conflicted in the same way you do. I don't know if I wanna be content with being mediocre, because there's no point since I'll never be as good as them, or if I wanna push harder.

What's funny is... the people I look up to feel the same way.

Real life example: I recently wrote a blog post about photographers that I know, friends of mine, that have inspired me to be a better photographer. I was with one of them in particular the other day and he expressed frustration at "Not really knowing what he was doing" and "just getting lucky a bunch of times", which I don't believe for a second. Because then that means he gets lucky every single time he picks up his camera, haha. But it's easy to look at past work, recent work... current work... someone ELSE'S work... and think to yourself, "Good god, I suck. Why am I even doing this?"

The trick is to not stop once you have those thoughts.

I think artists, by nature, are horribly self-critical, because they want to be great, and they want to leave a mark, so you're always going to be fighting those thoughts, no matter how amazing you get, but you just have to keep pushing.

 

[Overread16 4]

photos that I shoot that have personal value to me are valuable because I shot them. It doesn't matter two red cents to me how many other people take that exact same shot. Those are not my shot. My shot is mine because I shot it, and nothing anyone else does can change that.

This is basically my view and approach.

HEY ROSE - wait what happened your avatar has gone all serious rose on us!

 

[e.rose]

HEY ROSE - wait what happened your avatar has gone all serious rose on us!

Matthew and I had another shoot.

Another shoot, another test shot, another FB profile photo, which means another TPF avatar.

 

[JTPhotography]

They say that everything has already been shot, so anything else that's shot is going to be a copy. .

I disagree with "them".

 

[bribrius]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

You make it sound like a copy/paste job, and that's not at all what's being discussed. If you take a photo of a bridge, you don't own any right to be the only one who's allowed to go take a photo of that bridge from then on. NONE.

So, if someone else goes and takes a photo of that bridge, it is NOT YOUR PHOTO they've taken.

oh i agree with that.Common bridges are common. But if it is a old unused rail road bridge i walked a thousand yards off the highway to go find the remnants of that isn't so common. And if had been shot before probably not in fifty years and i would have no idea who would have done it to copy.

 

[Overread16 4]

I reckon it reveals a low self esteem, insecurity and a lack of confidence in their own ideas and abilities.

I see it more so as a desire for the individual to have a sense of community worth and self identity. In todays world its increasingly hard to get this because we live in such a huge population that is so well connected. It makes it hard to be the "Photographer" when the world show you every day in millions of ways that you're not.
This affects people even of great skill and those of little skill. Indeed skill isn't really a core element of it (though can be); its more recognition and also a sense of exclusivity. That feeling that "YOU" did this and that this is your contribution to the group. That this is what makes you, in a sense, a valued contributing person. A core element in a species that aims to live within collective groups.

 

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

You make it sound like a copy/paste job, and that's not at all what's being discussed. If you take a photo of a bridge, you don't own any right to be the only one who's allowed to go take a photo of that bridge from then on. NONE.

So, if someone else goes and takes a photo of that bridge, it is NOT YOUR PHOTO they've taken.

oh i agree with that.Common bridges are common. But if it is a old unused rail road bridge i walked a thousand yards off the highway to go find the remnants of that isn't so common. And if had been shot before probably not in fifty years and i would have no idea who would have done it to copy.

It doesn't matter what or where it is, or what it takes for you or another person to get to it.

It's a really simple concept: Any and every photograph that someone else shoots is not your photograph, just like any and every photograph you shoot is nobody else's photograph.

 

[JTPhotography]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

 

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

 

[photoguy99]

Like it or not, photography is inherently conceptual art. The art is in the idea not the image.

All art is like this, actually. But it's most obvious in photography.

 

[JTPhotography]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

I never said every landscape shot is not totally unique. I never said that I don't show my work for fear of other photographer's emulating it. If you're going to debate, quote, and respond to me directly, then address what I said, not what you think I said.

 

[Buckster]

Buckster, I agree with you.

i don't . i am in shock this is even a debate. If i say i don't like someone copying my photo it pretty much ends right there. It is my photo and my photography. This isn't a freakn democracy where everyone gets a vote on it. It isn't a group effort or "group think" and i wasn't asking for permission..

This.

Folks, we're not talking about a lighting set up, or a technique, we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique. I think it would only make sense to and piss of the landscape/nature photographer that works a specific area, at least that is the perspective I am speaking from.

Every landscape shot is totally unique, like it or not.

You can't just go there at the same time of day, even if the guy who originally shot it told you what that time was or you read the EXIF info and knew he had his camera's clock set correctly. You'd have to shoot it at the same time of day on the same day of the year, and then what are the chances the weather will be the same? You can't just go a few minutes earlier so that the sun will be in the same place in the sky, because it's only there again a year later. It doesn't follow the same path in the sky day after day. And what of the vegetation and the state of the bridge a year later? No change at all? Really?

Ansel spent literally YEARS hiking in Yosemite watching and waiting for the right conditions to get the shots he wanted.

I've revisited the same locations many times, waiting, watching and looking for the right conditions to get a shot that I'd deem a "keeper". If someone else wants to do that, good on them. It's no skin off my nose, and takes NOTHING from what I did to get the shot, nor does it detract in any way from the pride I have when I look at my photo of it.

I really just don't get it. I've never before encountered photographers who are so proud of something they shot that they refuse to show it to any other photographers, for fear that the other photographers will like it so much that they'll want to emulate it.

I never said every landscape shot is not totally unique. I never said that I don't show my work for fear of other photographer's emulating it. If you're going to debate, quote, and respond to me directly, then address what I said, not what you think I said.

I'm addressing the conversation as a whole, and your part in it. You said that the original photographer shot it in a way that made that location totally unique. I agree, but not for the same reason that you and Brian apparently do.

I agree because, as I explained, EVERY photo of that location MUST BE unique. There is no choice in the matter.

THAT SAID, any other photograph taken of that location by any other photographer is not infringing on the original photographers "UNIQUE" photograph. It CAN'T. It is itself unique because it MUST BE.

I thought my response made that thought clear. Does this one?