# The people on this forum make me sick



## yellow ant (Feb 21, 2015)

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.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 21, 2015)

Inspiration is good

Giving up is bad


----------



## snowbear (Feb 21, 2015)

I suck at it too, which is why I don't post many photos, but I keep going.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 21, 2015)

snowbear said:


> I suck at it too, which is why I don't post many photos, but I keep going.


i suck too, and post my photos to make other people feel better about sucking.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 21, 2015)

It's not as hard as you think. Photography is basically the land of over thinking. Relax, trust that it's mainly pretty simple. If something seems hard or impossible, you're probably just looking at it the wrong way, or reading really terrible explanations (lots of those on the web)


----------



## Ray Hines (Feb 21, 2015)

Have a look at mine then you'll feel better about yours


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 21, 2015)

"_If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff._" – Jim Richardson

"_Of course it’s all luck._" – Henri Cartier-Bresson

"_One should really use the camera as though tomorrow you'd be stricken blind._" - Dorothea Lange


----------



## Designer (Feb 21, 2015)

yellow ant said:


> 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.


This was written as if the two are mutually exclusive.  They're not. Look for inspiration, then practice.


----------



## snowbear (Feb 21, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Photography is basically the land of over thinking.


I think that world is a bit crowded.  I have spent many, many hours on a single one-purpose map, trying to get things "just right."


----------



## snowbear (Feb 21, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i suck too, and post my photos to make other people feel better about sucking.


In the words of ZZ Top:  "And I thank you."


----------



## snowbear (Feb 21, 2015)

Oh yay.  We have flurries!


----------



## dennybeall (Feb 21, 2015)

Shoot, shoot  and shoot some more. I know I'm not good but occasionally I get lucky because I'm prepared to get lucky! Having a basic technical understanding of the camera and how it captures light lets you get the shot when it happens. If you're a person with artistic ability and creativity you can create the scene and then capture it but some of us are destined to remain photojournalists forever. If "it" happens I can get the shot, assuming I recognize "it"......................

Flickr DennyBeall s Photostream


----------



## Buckster (Feb 21, 2015)

yellow ant said:


> The people on this forum make me sick


Several of the people on this forum make me sick too, but for different reasons than yours.


----------



## qleak (Feb 21, 2015)

Feb 11:


yellow ant said:


> That or hopefully from the photos on the website or posted here and with the discussion on the forum people can work it out. *The best things come with a bit of effort and this certainly looks worthwhile.* The results are stunning, as you can see.




Feb 21:


yellow ant said:


> 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.



That's quite an attitude change in 10 days. I thought your results were in your own words "stunning" and you believed that  "the best things come with a bit of effort"?

Modesty is an important part of the learning process and losing the pride and attitude will help. I'm right there with you, the immense experience of some of the people here is intimidating but it's also quite flattering when they choose to help me improve. You may want to resurrect your opinion about effort.


----------



## AKUK (Feb 21, 2015)

EVERY photographer sucked when they first started. No one picked up a camera and was instantly a technical wizard or artistic genius. Not only that but there is the post processing too. Photoshop is another thing is to learn and masters and this, like photography takes many years to grow in, expand and develop your techniques.

Unfortunately society today is very much impatient. We want everything today, right now. Fast downloads. Fast food. Next day delivery. If you accept the fact that everyone who is producing good quality work has had to go through many evolutions and transformations, then you won't get so frustrated.

Equally though, the reason why so many photographs suck today is because of a lack of forethought, inspiration and artistic interpretation. There are several articles on my site that talk about these types of issues. Try working your way through some of them and it might help you understand the processes involved more.


----------



## Overread (Feb 21, 2015)

I think its time for


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 21, 2015)

Here is the problem with photography. Beginners go into it expecting instant gratification and it just doesn't happen that way. The accessibility that has come along as the entry level DSLRs have become friggin awesome has actually contributed to the problem IMO. People think, hell, for 500 bucks I'll have an awesome camera that will take some awesome photos for me. NOT! The advantage to old school learning on a manual film camera is that you had to understand everything that was going on or you wasted a ton of money on film. Beginners need to go into this with a long term plan. Approach is by starting with the basics and slowly practicing and mastering one small concept at a time. Practice makes perfect in photography? Well, maybe, but only if you practice smart. You can shoot 10000 photos a day but if you're not putting any thought into it you'll hit a sticking point. I see that LOTS of beginners hit that sticking point.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 21, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i suck too, and post my photos to make other people feel better about sucking.


In the words of ZZ Top:  "And I thank you."  [/QUOTE]yeah. i don't actually believe that though. Just trying to make you feel better again.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 21, 2015)

I don't pay a lot of attention to Zack, but he's come a ways in the last couple years. He's actually thinking about stuff more.

While it's encouraging to hear that you can suck for years and years and still get good, it is worth pointing out that quite often a powerful voice and a great talent will emerge in someone quite young. It's not necessary or even desirable to spend a decade at it just to get to the beginning.

You CAN I think. But not everyone does.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 22, 2015)

I stopped comparing my images to other photographers a very long time ago.  It's tough enough just trying to get good at it without adding pressure on yourself.  Just do what you can, shoot a lot, and if you see something that looks good, try and copy it, learn  from what you see. As long as you look at things and say you can't do it, you're done.  The majority of images I've been posting this past week, came from experience and skills which i've been working on for over 40 years, a lot of it is pure luck, things happen in front of the camera, especially sports.

Stick with it, you would regret putting the camera down.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 22, 2015)

One of the scariest things about photography is the prospect of doing it a long time and not getting much better.


----------



## Ray Hines (Feb 22, 2015)

imagemaker46 said:


> It's tough enough just trying to get good at it without adding pressure on yourself.  Just do what you can, shoot a lot, and if you see something that looks good, try and copy it, learn  from what you see.



Scott has got it right, this is exactly what I do. I even have a Album on Flickr called "Plagiarism" where I post direct copies of other peoples photos. Doing this has taught me a lot, don't forget to look at the Exif details so you know where to start.

Have fun
Ray


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 22, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I don't pay a lot of attention to Zack, but he's come a ways in the last couple years. He's actually thinking about stuff more.
> 
> While it's encouraging to hear that you can suck for years and years and still get good, it is worth pointing out that quite often a powerful voice and a great talent will emerge in someone quite young. It's not necessary or even desirable to spend a decade at it just to get to the beginning.
> 
> You CAN I think. But not everyone does.



I just like his transparency. A lot of photographers seem like they're "on" all the time. Even when they let us see the kinks in the armor, they're still perfectly curated kinks told in a way that still make them seem oddly...above it all. It's like the photography equivalent of Beyonce telling us she's still human in front of a webcam while carefully chosen clips of her totally ordinary life play in a montage.

Often it seems to lead to hunting for things to do not as experiences to be enjoyed, but solely as photo ops to show everyone else how hard you're living life. More than once I've had upbeat marketing-type friends hit me up all chipper like "Hey bud, you're awesome. *weird fist bump handshake hug combo* So, uh, I saw those photos of the cowboys you posted. How can I get in on that?"

Well, this is the first time we've talked in months, but to answer your question, I guess you'll just have to marry into my family.

It feels weird, like everyone is trying to sell authenticity while racking up friendships solely as capital, and maybe Zack is doing the same thing (maybe not the friendships thing but the authenticity thing) only differently, but he still seems like someone I could have a beer with without worrying about keeping up appearances.


----------



## Forkie (Feb 22, 2015)

Overread said:


> I think its time for


Usually, I hate these kinds of wishy-washy, self flagellating, depressing "I-couldn't-find-myself-but-then-I-did" type videos, but I actually quite enjoyed that.

Here's Aaron Nace with the same message but told after, I think, a beer or two.  Have patience through the Lord of the Rings analogy :


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Ray Hines said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > It's tough enough just trying to get good at it without adding pressure on yourself.  Just do what you can, shoot a lot, and if you see something that looks good, try and copy it, learn  from what you see.
> ...



That's great, for you. The person you're plagiarizing probably wants to kick your ass.


----------



## Ray Hines (Feb 22, 2015)

No they don't as I link to their image, name them and give them credit for the inspiration.  And how many 'original' photos do you see these days anyway?


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Ray Hines said:


> No they don't as I link to their image, name them and give them credit for the inspiration.  And how many 'original' photos do you see these days anyway?



Speaking for myself, I would prefer you didn't blatantly and openly plagiarize (something that is morally and ethically wrong, and something you very clearly admit to doing) over you doing it and giving me credit. I see TONS AND TONS of original photos, great ones, awesome ones. I don't steal them, neither should you.


----------



## Overread (Feb 22, 2015)

JTP I believe in the context Ray is speaking is that he sees a photo done by another person and emulates that photo himself. He's not copying the photo with a right-click and uploading it he's seeing something; going out and doing it himself. 

A better way would be to call it direct inspiration; a tool used heavily in teaching and also one good to improve ones own skill base. It also provides resources to draw from and, given time and if one works at it, can reveal new ways to take a simple existing concept.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Overread said:


> JTP I believe in the context Ray is speaking is that he sees a photo done by another person and emulates that photo himself. He's not copying the photo with a right-click and uploading it he's seeing something; going out and doing it himself.



Yep, that's exactly what he is talking about. It is called visual plagiarism.

Philosophy of Photography Visual Plagiarism JMG-Galleries - Landscape Nature Travel Photography

I understand that there is a lot of gray area there, such as whether the person is profiting from the plagiarized image, and that sometimes it can happen randomly or with a very popular subject (ie: Half Dome). Not that there is any way to stop it. It is one of the problems with social media and one of the reason I have altered the way I put my work out there. I have had cases where I take a photo, post it, then within a few days see several other local "photographers" in the same spot trying to get the same image. It is also one of the reasons I do my best to not keep up with what other photographers are doing in the area where I am shooting.


----------



## Torus34 (Feb 22, 2015)

"The Photographer's Eye", Michael Freeman.

Hint: Don't just look at the pictures.  Carefully read what Mr. Freeman has written.

Regards.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > JTP I believe in the context Ray is speaking is that he sees a photo done by another person and emulates that photo himself. He's not copying the photo with a right-click and uploading it he's seeing something; going out and doing it himself.
> ...


oddly enough i can relate to this. Had one message me and actually thank me for posting a certain image and told me they were going to go there and how much i "helped" them out by them seeing my image. Why i am very careful about what i post online. Illegal, no.   Annoying as hell when someone takes your idea. Yes. I deleted the image right after that. I don't post chit for images anymore had enough.. If i do it is the crappy ones or i delete them soon after posting. People need to come up with their own material. I can see copying a "style" from a previous time. You start copying the actual photos something is up. Get your own material.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 22, 2015)

i wish as many people were against the moral, ethical, and criminal offense of trespassing as are against the moral, ethical, and criminal offense of plagiarism, copyright infringement, and theft.
I guess its ok to only take the moral high ground on issues you actually care about.

seriously though, in some instances, it is impossible to take a picture without copying _*someone*_...
try to take a picture of a famous monument, or famous natural landmark, and _*not*_ find a picture taken earlier
that is pretty much identical to yours.
take a picture of someone in front of a tree, or on a fence, or *shudder* on train tracks. (no, really...no train tracks please)  Maybe its a fine line between "having the same idea as a billion other people", "using a photo as inspiration", and "directly copying an exact scenario"

btw...if anyone rummages through my flickr page and happens to find a picture they like _*so*_ much that they want to emulate it (unlikely as it is) you can PM me and not only will I give you my blessing, I will tell you my setup for the shot.
(just as long as you agree to tell me what you did if  yours comes out better)


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Damn, that sucks. As you said, there is nothing you can really except give them hell about it.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


I get worse about this type of thing the more time i put in. Last one that contacted me (via facebook go figure) asked me why i was so concerned over it. I just responded something like "look man. I spend a lot of time doing this. i shoot in snow, sleet, rain, zero degrees and walk or drive all day sometimes.  And was standing on a bridge freezing my azz off in drizzle last weekend getting one. Whatever the photo is, i earned it. It is mine. Go earn your own. "
They don't though. Fair weather shooters. They see it, they go there. Put in 1/10th the work and copy what you did. Free loaders basically.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

"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."


----------



## Braineack (Feb 22, 2015)

Everyday I get better, so one day I too will make you sick [if not already for other reasons]


Good Artists Steal Great Artists Share ADC Global Awards Club


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 22, 2015)

Copying art is perhaps the single most important tradition in teaching it.

There's a difference between copying for the purpose of learning, and appropriation. The latter is iffy both morally and legally. The further is, at least morally, just fine. Separating it legally from appropriation might be a little dicey, as legal things are.

Covering songs is a bit different. There are mandatory licenses and systems for paying, which do not exist for visual art.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 22, 2015)

I think it's been said many times,
But usually peoples Egos get in the way of their own learning.
They get a dSLR for Christmas, put it in auto and take "amazing" pictures.  At least compared to what they did before.  And their friends & family say so too.

Then their friends and family say that person should go in business because their facebook and instagram photos are amazing; totally out of this world. And they take fantastic pictures of their kids and family.

Friends and family always give positive feedback (assuming one isn't a real photographer).

Then people come to this website, post a link to their website and post a bizillion photos in a thread wanting instant positive reinforcement feedback of their fabulous work and how they are going to take the family & wedding photography world by storm and create a billion dollar photography empire based on their photography skills and transform the industry overnight.

Ain't gonna happen.

Most of peoples photos, though may be creative, seem to lack some basic fundamentals.

It takes time to identify how to transform one's work from just "pictures" to "neat pictures", and then to nice and professional work.  It takes time to learn about lighting, post processing and a gazillion other technical details.

BUT, it requires a person to want to improve.
To not just give up but to try to make those steps.  You cannot get from A to Z in one step.  You have to make those small incremental steps of B, C, D etc.   
It's up to one to learn how to make those incremental steps and to put the time into it.

So one can just criticize everyone of being better than them
or strive to ask questions of how to improve.
and make those steps to improve.

I'm still learning how to take stunning and detailed pictures of flying birds.  
It's not as easy as one thinks.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> "Good artists copy; Great artists steal."
> 
> I just "stole" that quote.
> 
> ...


 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.


----------



## Fred Berg (Feb 22, 2015)

Don't be put off by what you see posted here. By doing the same thing often enough, know-how can be gained in almost any endeavor. People who get good at something rarely leave their comfort zone, TPF members hardly ever. Keep at it and you'll soon be up to scratch. Repetition is the mother of learning and practice makes perfect.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Covering songs is a bit different. There are mandatory licenses and systems for paying, which do not exist for visual art.


Tell it to Uncle Fred (read "millions of non-professional musicians")  when he's playing golden oldies at the family reunion picnic (read: "in venues that are not paying copyright fees").

There's also the question of how 17 million musicians can all get away with using the same 3 chord progressions, or how they can all imitate one another when making music in genres from country to pop to rap to disco to polka that all sounds so similar within that genre, that most of it might as well all be the same song.

The point of my comparison was not to open up a whole new subject for you to nitpick, as much as I know you enjoy that.  The point was to point out that artistic endeavors intrinsically evolve through imitation and repetition of the works that come before and surround them. 

It's not an evil plot to rip each other off; It's the nature of art.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > "Good artists copy; Great artists steal."
> ...


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.


----------



## Forkie (Feb 22, 2015)

Phew, guys!  It's a good job none of use Rembrandt's lighting techniques, or we'd all be guilty of plagiarism!


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


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.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



i would like to see just what you have shot that is so terribly original and displays such photographic Majesty that you are deathly afraid of it being stolen or copied. 
wherever it is you are shooting at, i am pretty sure it has been done before. and whoever sees your photo has to go to the same place, and deal with the same "B.S" as  you to take the same shot. 
is the fear that someone will take the same shot as  you? or that they will do a better job at it?


----------



## BillM (Feb 22, 2015)

Imitation is the highest form of flattery ????


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Ray Hines said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying.  They say that everything has already been shot, so anything else that's shot is going to be a copy.  When I'm working around other photographers, they shoot from one position, leave go to another, right after the previous spot has a photographer standing in shooting the same angle.  We joke about shots that we have just done "I just shot that, so you can't"  Everyone learns from someone else, that's how it works.  That's how teachers teach.   

I've had some of my setups copied exactly and published by other photographers, I wasn't pissed, I learned the setups from someone else, and for the type of shoot, it was the best setup. I can't lay claim to being the original photographer.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Forkie (Feb 22, 2015)

I really don't understand the elitist, secretive attitude of some photographers.  It's as if they are trying to stop anyone else from becoming photographers through some fear that the "student" will become better than the "master" and they'll be knocked out of the race.  

I reckon it reveals a low self esteem, insecurity and a lack of confidence in their own ideas and abilities. If a photographer's idea and execution is done well and their style solid, it will stands on its own two feet no matter how many people emulate it.


----------



## Overread (Feb 22, 2015)

*MODERATOR NOTICE
*
Everyone take a few moments to have a breather and lets not get too heated here! We can debate this in a sane sensible manner without getting in a strop or a fight.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


i don't care if they do a better job or a worse job. I care because it is my damn photo.  Now if they want to go shoot a lighthouse or river pic or some generic thing i shot that everyone else shoots they can have at it.  It isn't uncommon for photographers to run two or three separate types of photos because of stuff like this. Two or three categories, separate files, books. Call it what you will.  I know another photographer that does the same. one goes online, or general. one goes for immediate network (people you know), one is strictly personal.  I follow that concept now.

 You dont want people friggin with the work most important to you don't post it. And i think that is the best way to handle all this crap honestly. just get right out of it. My family and friends wil see photos this site will never see. Certain others will see photos that friends this site, or most family will never see. Vast majority places like 500px will never see as they wont go online i dont care if i sold one or not.. Some photos, no one will ever see. They are MINE. I just have to be more careful when i toss chit online as sometimes i lose track. In the case i referenced above, that photo was never suppose to go online. i wasn't paying enough attention and just uploading random chit.  The other photographer i mentioned (x news photographer) is even more stringent than me. She separates things out like a friggn hawk on what goes online and who sees what. She has a entire decades portfolio no one will ever see and i only have caught a glimpse of.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



so, when you take a shot and then realize that someone else did it before you....
will you delete your photo so your not "stealing" someone elses idea?


----------



## Forkie (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> *i don't care if they do a better job or a worse job. I care because it is my damn photo.*  Now if they want to go shoot a lighthouse or river pic or some generic thing i shot that everyone else shoots they can have at it.  It isn't uncommon for photographers to run two or three separate types of photos because of stuff like this. Two or three categories, separate files, books. Call it what you will.  I know another photographer that does the same. one goes online, or general. one goes for immediate network (people you know), one is strictly personal.  I follow that concept now.
> 
> You dont want people friggin with the work most important to you don't post it. And i think that is the best way to handle all this crap honestly. just get right out of it. My family and friends wil see photos this site will never see. Certain others will see photos that friends this site, or most family will never see. Vast majority places like 500px will never see as they wont go online i dont care if i sold one or not.. Some photos, no one will ever see. They are MINE. I just have to be more careful when i toss chit online as sometimes i lose track. In the case i referenced above, that photo was never suppose to go online. i wasn't paying enough attention and just uploading random chit.  The other photographer i mentioned (x news photographer) is even more stringent than me. She separates things out like a friggn hawk on what goes online and who sees what. She has a entire decades portfolio no one will ever see and i only have caught a glimpse of.



You only own the photo you shot, not the one the next photographer shot.  I don't understand the difference between someone else shooting a "generic" lighthouse that you already shot or shooting against a location you already shot with a different model in it.  How do you get annoyed about one but not the other?

Are shots of lighthouses less valuable than ones with a person in them?


----------



## Dave442 (Feb 22, 2015)

Do like Amazon and patent the process of how you take your pictures.
Now I do remember my granddad showing me a photo he had taken, and then pulling out a spread he had pulled from a magazine and it was the shot that he went to shoot. His had his style, the similarity was the mountain in the background. Then he had another shot he had of an old mine and then showed me a recent (at the time 1970's) magazine shot of the same mine. So if your going to shoot in Colorado for seventy years your probably going to end up with shots from the same place as others have been or others are going to go where you have been.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster, I agree with you.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


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.


----------



## snerd (Feb 22, 2015)

Forkie said:


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


Pretty much.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


You specifically said that you don't and won't post them BECAUSE you don't want others to copy them, and when you accidentally DID post one and someone DID say thanks because they want to go there and emulate it, you freaked out and pulled it.

Your original premise over multiple posts made it clear: Ansel should have had a total "mine, mine, MIIIIINEEE!!!!" meltdown and pulled his work because others came along after him and shot Half Dome, inspired by the shots he took of it.  After learning that lesson, he should have never showed any of his work again.

Now you're trying to ignore all that and say it's all just because you're only shooting them for your own eyes to see them - AND - at the same time, that you don't CARE that others see your work, even when it sucks.

Whatever works for you, man, but it makes no sense at all to me.


----------



## Fudd (Feb 22, 2015)

The photos shared here push me into learning more. There isn't any reason why I can't be better at this hobby.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> 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..


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster, I agree with you.
> ...


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 (Feb 22, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



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 (Feb 22, 2015)

yellow ant said:


> 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.


----------



## Overread (Feb 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2015)

Overread said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2015)

imagemaker46 said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Overread (Feb 22, 2015)

Forkie said:


> 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 (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


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 (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster, I agree with you.
> ...



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 (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


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 (Feb 22, 2015)

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 (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



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 (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography 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?


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


They aren't putting the work in and coming up with their own ideas.  what is their not to get? You would think at least a little originality and efforts could be expected. I am all for the sharing and learning thing but at some point it is closer to photographer welfare. Not like they are earning it.  And no, they can't EXACTLY replicate your image. But they aren't even putting the work in to deserve to come even close to it.


----------



## Fudd (Feb 22, 2015)

yellow ant said:


> 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.



They inspire me to learn more, and become better at this hobby.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


Because they didn't walk the same distance you did to get to it?  Yeah, they did.  So much for the work part.

Because they didn't think to go shoot that location?  Yeah, they did.  Oh, the reason YOU thought it up is different than the reason THEY thought it up, so only yours counts, eh?

So then, ANY shot you've EVER seen in your lifetime that might inspire you to go get a similar shot, like say, a landscape with a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, is off limits to you, because someone else thought it up first, right?  Or does that only apply to SPECIFIC locations that YOU want to claim as "YOURS"?

So, tell us, what EXACTLY was it that made you want to go shoot whatever it was that is so unique to YOUR brain, and nobody else's?  Seeing photos of landscapes with bridges out in the middle of nowhere didn't inspire you to go find and shoot a bridge out in the middle of nowhere, right?  Because that would just be copying someone else's idea, right?  So, what was it?

Tell us, oh unique one, what photographic ideas you've come up with that are totally unique to the world of photography, that you've never seen examples of before, that could never have been inspired in you by seeing examples of them previously by others.

Tell us what's so "original" about shooting landscapes with or without bridges out in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


i shot it because i was there. I was there because i follow some of the history around this area. i asked someone involved in local history about where the old train tracks ran in that area. i pulled out my 1800's map and looked at it. Talked to them again to get a better idea of where i might be heading. Then i went searching. The train hasn't run through there in a hundred years. Had nothing to do with me seeing others photos. Had everything to do with my curiosity and determination to track something down. Now if you think i would be a little upset if some weekend fair weather photo wannabee hobbyist with dslr decided ask me where it is because they want to copy my photo, then yeah..   They can go look for it too and come up with their own perspective. .


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


And you want me to believe that you posted all that information along with the photograph?  After all, anyone else who wanted to find that location would need it just as much as you did.  Did you include a precise map and GPS coordinates, while you were at it?

If you posted that photo here in this thread, with none of the info needed to find it, what do you figure the chances are of me, a guy in Northern Michigan, finding it and taking a shot that looks just like yours?  I don't even know where YOU are, let alone where IT is.

And why would I want to?  Is the shot really THAT awesome that I would feel compelled to do whatever it takes, to travel hundreds of miles, talk to the locals and follow train tracks trying desperately to figure out where OH WHERE that location is, then hike thousands of yards, fight bears and rabid rabbits, all to get a photo like yours?

Whose leg are you trying to pull here?


----------



## Designer (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> 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..


It is apparent to me that you haven't thought this through.  

If you wish, you may keep any and all photographers off your private property who would like to take a picture of your house, for instance.  But to exclude people from taking a picture from the exact same spot that you did, you would have to obtain exclusive rights to that spot so that you could then exclude anyone else from taking a photograph at that location.  

You might have to pay the owner something, or buy the property outright in order to "own" that spot.  Then what about "public property" which probably could not be "owned" by anyone.  Even if you tried, I doubt if you can convince the governing entity to sell you exclusive photographing rights at that exact spot, even if you offered them money.

Sleep well, my friend, because someone is coming along right behind you to take a photo from the exact same spot that you did, and there isn't anything you can do about it.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 22, 2015)

It is possible to plagiarize an image. Or at least to sue for it. It seems to happen quite frequently in fashion and commercial photography. It's a matter of "Why don't we make a VERY similar image to avoid paying the original owner out the ass."

That being said, it's hard to establish intent, so unless proven otherwise, the photos are often coincidentally exactly the same.

And this is only when an image is trying to make money. If you tried to sue because of a photo on Flickr that is exactly the same as a photo of your sunset, you'd be laughed out of your lawyer's office.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 22, 2015)

There's also the fact that most people don't become unique and revolutionary in a vacuum. Most artists in all genres have emulated.

Actually, back when it was basically mandatory for artists to attend "The Academy," one of their final assignment was to apprentice under a master and then replicate one of the master's most popular works.

When apprenticeships were common, it was a rite of passage to copy others' work in order to get better yourself. Now, in our individualistic modern society, there's this egotistical indignation at even being assumed to have a photo that is similar to someone else's.

Which is ironic since postmodernism is the least original artistic age yet. It's all about rehashing and remixing the past, since everything has apparently already been done.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



No, I didn't say anything about the original photographer making it unique. I'm talking specifically about people who see me shooting somewhere then shoot from that exact location, something they would have never had they not seen me do it, or people who see a photo, figure out where it was taken and go try and replicate it. I also said there is a ton of gray area here, some cases are more obvious that others. I don't see your shooting half dome as wrong at all. If you were shooting half dome with a certain cool rock you found while you were exploring and someone saw you, stopped and waited for you to finish, then shot it, that would be wrong IMO.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


You said:


JTPhotography said:


> we're talking about a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique


Who took that shot from, "a specific location or angle or perspective that makes that shot, as far as you know, totally unique"?  You now clarify that it's not the original photographer, so who?



JTPhotography said:


> I'm talking specifically about people who see me shooting somewhere then shoot from that exact location, something they would have never had they not seen me do it


You don't know that's true, and you certainly can't prove it.  They might have had the idea before you, and you just happened to get there first.  Maybe it's one of their favorite shooting spots, a spot they've visited and shot from many times.  Are you a mind reader?



JTPhotography said:


> , or people who see a photo, figure out where it was taken and go try and replicate it.


We've been talking about that.  Half Dome is a classic example of it.  Why is it wrong for people to go shoot photos of Half Dome?



JTPhotography said:


> I also said there is a ton of gray area here, some cases are more obvious that others. I don't see your shooting half dome as wrong at all.


Why not?  Someone else shot it first.  Thousands, maybe millions, shot it before I did.  And someone was FIRST - why doesn't that FIRST shooter "OWN" Half Dome?  Why is that any different from any other location that YOU shot first?  Or that Brian shot first?  Or that I shot first?  Or that anyone else shot first?  Explain it to me please.  What is it about you or Brian that I should respect, while we all flip the first photographer of Half Dome the bird?



JTPhotography said:


> If you were shooting half dome with a certain cool rock you found while you were exploring and someone saw you, stopped and waited for you to finish, then shot it, that would be wrong IMO.


Why?  What's the difference between shooting it with that perspective, and just shooting it the way the original Half Dome shooter shot it?  Why do you have to respect the way I shot it and not do the same, but you don't have to respect the way the first Half Dome shooter shot it and respect them and not do the same?

Explain it to me.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


By the way, what about all the other snapshots where you obviously DIDN'T put that much effort into getting the shots?  Shots like where you're just walking around town, see some buildings that interest you for some reason, and shoot them?  

Are they fair game for other shooters, or do you "own" them now too, and how do you let other photographers know what it is that you now "own" photographically speaking, and therefore what they are and are not allowed to shoot?


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 22, 2015)

If I make a shot, and you replicate it, that's OK with me. It's still my shot, in the sense that it was my idea. Your image is just a copy of my idea. I'm OK with that.

If I make up a joke, it's "my joke" in the sense that I made it up. It is not "my joke" in the sense that I own it, and you can't tell it, and if you do you  a) are evil or b) owe me money. It's my joke in the sense that I originated it.

If you make a copy of my image/joke/idea independently, well, I guess we had the same idea at about the same time. That's gonna happen from time to time. 7 billion people and whatnot, eh? Now it's "your" idea too, in exactly the same sense that it is "mine".

Occasionally these things can be parleyed into a legal ownership through the mechanisms of intellectual property. That is a separate, and quite complicated, issue. It is also largely dictated by powerful corporate interested, and as such, does not necessarily make much sense. Also, it's not a thing I care about much.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


People can shoot whatever they want. I just don't want me or my photographs involved in what they shoot.  They are better off coming up with their own voice and ideas anyway.  Otherwise everyones photographs look the same. At this point about everything has been done. . You manage to come up with anything original or even semi original covet it.  I don't understand why someone would want to copy a photo anyway. I can see a style or premise of a era. I do that.  Copying someones actual photo i would think would be worthless on a personal level. It isn't like you actually came up with it.  I don't even buy photos or art i would rather make my own.  It means more. why on earth would i want someone elses photo or even a mimic of it? Suppose for some people they copy it, get some likes on facebook or maybe sell a print. That is all that matters to them. Maybe  they just liked the "idea" and wanted to copy it. Course they never came up with it themselves so it is all pretty much fake and not who they are. Just who they copied..


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 22, 2015)

Lots of people are happy to copy other people's photos. Look at all the internet-famous photographers and their fanboys.

These are, mainly, people who like cameras and are not actually very interested in images. Their hero(s) use cameras in specific ways to produce specific results, and the goal of the fanboy is to master those techniques, and to demonstrate their mastery of same. I say "fanboy" but there's nothing actually wrong with this activity. It's good nerdy fun. It just doesn't have much to do with photography _as I see it._


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


I like how you just go on and on and on and on without actually addressing the questions raised because of the problems with your statements.  Does that come natural, or do you have to work at it?


----------



## yellow ant (Feb 22, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> Shoot, shoot  and shoot some more. I know I'm not good but occasionally I get lucky because I'm prepared to get lucky! Having a basic technical understanding of the camera and how it captures light lets you get the shot when it happens. If you're a person with artistic ability and creativity you can create the scene and then capture it but some of us are destined to remain photojournalists forever. If "it" happens I can get the shot, assuming I recognize "it"......................
> 
> Flickr DennyBeall s Photostream



Taking lots of photos in all different kinds of situations then? Those that are not naturally very good conditions will test you. That which does not kill us ...


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Man you're wayyyy overthinking this. It is a matter of right and wrong. Plagiarism is wrong, the more specific it is, the more wrong it is. If you think it is ok to plagiarize, then I can't change your mind.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 22, 2015)

Can someone please explain depth of field to me?

TIA.


----------



## Ray Hines (Feb 22, 2015)

Wow!! Was it something I said?  Sorry Yellow Ant if this thread has been hijacked it wasn't my intention. 

Buckster, and others I'm with you on this, and thanks for your support. My intention when copying another persons shot was to learn from it. Maybe a technique, maybe just a perspective. I have one shot of my local pier and as I said in the description of it I had previously only ever managed to get snap shot photos of it. By copying another photo I learnt how to look at it in a different way and get a better shot. Some of my indoor shots taught me how to use different lighting techniques, by comparing my shot with the one I was copying I could tell if I was doing things correctly.

I said that there are no original photos. Maybe I should have been more specific. If I take a photo of a raindrop in a puddle, it's not original. If I take a photo of a young mother walking through dropped leaves in autumn, it's not original. If I take a photo of a graffiti covered wall, it's not original. It will be a very lucky tog who gets to take a truly original photo. Most of us, me included, will NEVER take an original photo. I'll carry on taking inspiration from others, and learning from them.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


There is little here worthy of answering. I think another poster just nailed it.  There is right and there is wrong. 

in the meantime, i am losing daylight. i need to pack my gear and get the hell out of here and stop playing he said she said with you.


----------



## snerd (Feb 22, 2015)

Strangest thread I've seen in a very long time. I cannot even conceive of worrying about any of the things people in this thread are worrying about! The words stealing and plagiarism have been thrown about, but it seems like the underlying truth is that those things are not what is actually happening. From what I can make of it, some are worried about others taking a shot from the same place, or using a similar technique, or snapping the same subject, because they observed the original 'artist' doing it. I'm sorry....................... that just does not compute. And that's all I'm going to say about that!



......................


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



There is no problem with his statement, he made himself clear. I suspect that the reason this topic has made you so angry is that you engage in this type of copying quite frequently and/or have been called out on it before? Is that true?


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

snerd said:


> From what I can make of it, some are worried about others taking a shot from the same place, or using a similar technique, or snapping the same subject, because they observed the original 'artist' doing it. I'm sorry....................... that just does not compute.
> 
> ......................



It does compute, and that is exactly what is happening.


----------



## snerd (Feb 22, 2015)

Or perhaps I'm still not getting the underlying argument.  lol!


----------



## yellow ant (Feb 22, 2015)

qleak said:


> Feb 11:
> 
> 
> yellow ant said:
> ...



My surreal photos are stunning when compared to normal photos but that is due to the unique surreal technique and the huge amount of work put into working out what it is and does to the subject matter. Not my skills as a normal photographer.

Basically I think I am a one trick pony. I am awestruck by the standard and 'eye' that people have but having read this forum I am now realising how much effort and learning over many years it could take. Especially as someone replied saying that you are not even guaranteed being good at the end of it! 

I guess I have to decide long term what I want to do with and get out of photography.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

snerd said:


> Or perhaps I'm still not getting the underlying argument.  lol!



Maybe this will help.

Editorial Photographers UK - Getty Images wins plagiarism appeal over lookalike photograph

http://img.scoop.it/JvbMnZs8NHdg8crdGorWADl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBVvK0kTmF0xjctABnaLJIm9


----------



## yellow ant (Feb 22, 2015)

Overread said:


> I think its time for



Can not reply to all so thanks everyone for advice and links


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 22, 2015)

For every image you have shot there is, among the trillion other images made, a near dupe. Thief!

"And then, when the last photo graph had been made, all the cameras were confiscated and only the government could have them. Now, a rag tag band of outlaws hides in our cities, creeping out at night to make their photo graphs."


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 22, 2015)

Owning an idea is a very modern and kind of twee notion invented by corporations for their own benefit.


----------



## Designer (Feb 22, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I think another poster just nailed it.


Thank you!


----------



## Kane Adams (Feb 22, 2015)

Eh, in all honesty I almost regret buying a DSLR because I have some pretty decent shots with my good ol' point & shoot which I don't see how I'll ever top, but at the same time I don't want to give up on this hobby. It's simply too addictive to me. 
The only thing I've given up on is comparing my work to that of others. It gets me down every time I do that.


----------



## Overread (Feb 22, 2015)

Kane Adams said:


> Eh, in all honesty I almost regret buying a DSLR because I have some pretty decent shots with my good ol' point & shoot which I don't see how I'll ever top, but at the same time I don't want to give up on this hobby. It's simply too addictive to me.
> The only thing I've given up on is comparing my work to that of others. It gets me down every time I do that.



We can indeed end up putting ourselves in a position where we get too much inspiration. This is especailly true if we lack guidance or achievement in what we are doing; since we keep exposing ourselves to great work and being inspired ,but never quite reaching that point.

That's why books on methods, articles online and critique from forums are highly valuable elements. It lets you learn theory; study it; get ideas and also get feedback. Feedback being key in helping one develop and eye for faults and good points; but also why they are there, how and why we got them and (in the case of faults) howe we can avoid doing them again.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> ...  i would like to see just what you have shot that is so terribly original and displays such photographic Majesty that you are deathly afraid of it being stolen or copied.


I took a majestic photo of a toilet once.  I'm trying to find it, but once you see it it will make your eyes and cheeks go Flush ...


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 22, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > ...  i would like to see just what you have shot that is so terribly original and displays such photographic Majesty that you are deathly afraid of it being stolen or copied.
> ...



i hope you find it, wouldn't want all that hard work to go down the drain.


----------



## snowbear (Feb 22, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > ...  i would like to see just what you have shot that is so terribly original and displays such photographic Majesty that you are deathly afraid of it being stolen or copied.
> ...





pixmedic said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



I want to see artistry, not just another crappy snapshot.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


You're the one saying it's okay sometimes and that it's a gray area.  I'm just trying to find out from you how you decide when it's wrong and when it's not.  Where and how do you draw the line?

Someone shot Half Dome first.  Why don't you think we need to respect that, but others have to respect anything you shoot first?

It's a simple question.


----------



## snerd (Feb 22, 2015)

I'm going to make a statement that should give you all chills............................... always be looking over your shoulder. I'm always lurking about. And I'll take any photo I damn well want to. Even if I get the idea from you! So there.


   

...........


ETA: secure your gear!!!


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

snerd said:


> I'm going to make a statement that should give you all chills............................... always be looking over your shoulder. I'm always lurking about. And I'll take any photo I damn well want to. Even if I get the idea from you! So there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good idea.

I'm specifically going to find and follow Brian and JT around, stand where they stand and shoot what they shoot.  I'm going to make sure that I shoot at the same ISO, shutter and aperture settings they do, then I'm going to process them exactly the same way as them, even if I have to hire a hacker to see what they see on their systems.  I want to be SURE that I replicate their photos exactly, so that no one can tell them apart.

This will obviously allow me to win at life and photography.


----------



## snerd (Feb 22, 2015)

Ahhhh........... I was "really" needing a good laugh tonight! Thanks!


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to make a statement that should give you all chills............................... always be looking over your shoulder. I'm always lurking about. And I'll take any photo I damn well want to. Even if I get the idea from you! So there.
> ...



Then, when they accidentally upload it to the web, im going to snag it and use it as my desktop background!


----------



## snerd (Feb 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> Then, when they accidentally upload it to the web, im going to snag it and use it as my desktop background!


And then post it on the desktop wallpaper thread!!


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


Put all his posts on this subject together, and it's as clear as mud.  His response to this one carried on at length without actually addressing the post he quoted, one of your pet peeves, as I recall, and he completely ignored all the questions and comments in the one before that, like someone running from something scary.



JTPhotography said:


> I suspect that the reason this topic has made you so angry


Oh look!  There's that faux-mind reading thing you think you know how to do again.  Too bad I'm not at all angry.    Pull out your Magic 8 Ball and guess again.  



JTPhotography said:


> is that you engage in this type of copying quite frequently and/or have been called out on it before? Is that true?


Sorry, nope.  I've certainly made photos similar to those that others before me have also made, and that others after me will also make, but never been "called out on it", which would be childish of someone to do.

I think your Magic 8 Ball might be broken.  Might want to have that checked out...


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



I answered it. But you can keep bumping the thread with your angry nonsense, that is, if you're not too busy stealing photos.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to make a statement that should give you all chills............................... always be looking over your shoulder. I'm always lurking about. And I'll take any photo I damn well want to. Even if I get the idea from you! So there.
> ...



Spoken like a man with experience.


----------



## snerd (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> I answered it. But you can keep bumping the thread with your angry nonsense, that is, if you're not too busy stealing photos.


Wow! Really?! I see only 2 people here that are angry, and it ain't the Buckster.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



So you admit to it. Enough said.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

snerd said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I answered it. But you can keep bumping the thread with your angry nonsense, that is, if you're not too busy stealing photos.
> ...



I'm not angry, I am opinionated. Buckster is angry, and he is defensive. That usually means guilty.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


  No, you didn't.  I don't blame you, as it would make it very obvious what a foolish notion it is for you to have if you tried to defend it.  You needn't worry about that though - everyone reading the thread is already aware of it anyway.  I just think it'd be fun to see you try.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


 Oh, the desperation!  How about this one: I know you are, but what am I?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


It's true.  I've taken photos of Half Dome.  

I'm so ashamed...


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



BTW, I like the way you purposefully missed the article I posted, in which a court validates my opinion and pretty much proves you as a supporter of WRONG. How does it feel to be so wrong, Bucky? ROFL


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


Project much?


JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


That article was already addressed by rexbobcat.  Put simply, what we're discussing is not in the situation nor the realm of what the courts are addressing in cases like that.

Now it's your turn.  If you think it's just plain wrong, why do you say there are exceptions and that there's a big gray area and that we don't need to respect the first shooter of Half Dome (and a million other places and subjects like it, one would then assume), but we have to respect you?

Go ahead and explain your reasoning for where and how you draw the line this time, instead of ignoring it yet again.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 22, 2015)

yellow ant said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > Feb 11:
> ...


Just enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it don't do it. Doesn't matter who is better than you, who is worse than you. All that matters is that you do your own thing having it a part of your life and you enjoy it.  Far as experience. Not sure. You may find happier newbies with their first cameras than you will experienced good long term photographers.  you could be better at photography thirty years from now and be a totally miserable person and hate doing it.  I like some of your photos. Maybe you will find another trick. sorry the thread got derailed.


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...



Wow, Bucky the angry supporter of immorality and plagiarism gets REALLY angry when he is called out and proven to be wrong. The repeated question answering is a typical diversion response. Boring. Considering your anger issues, I am somewhat hesitant to post more info proving you to be wrong, but I will do so anyway, because you are WRONG. Hopefully you won't take it out on your cat or anything. 
----------------------------------------------------

"In the interest of looking at the various aspects I can think of, let’s simply assume we only have one case to consider, involving photographers X and Y, with X’s photos being older than Y’s.

*If we know for a fact that Y looked at X’s photographs and then decided “I’m going to take the same photos” we’d be all set. Case closed. Plagiarism.*

Conscientious When does similar become too similar 

------------------------------------------------------
In the rest of the article, he does a great job of explaining the gray area.

Here is another great example.

-----------------------------------------------------

*Bialobrzeski vs Zielske: “a senseless act of imitation.”*

After he won the top prize in the Arts Stories category in the 2003 World Press Photo awards for his dense and unreal dusk cityscapes of Asian cities, German photographer Peter Bialobrzeski became used to other photographers asking him for advice. But one phone call, from father-and-son team Horst and Daniel Zielske stuck in his mind for the specific detail they asked for, including the type of film, exposures and vantage points used.

“I wasn’t very suspicious [until] they were asking me specifically about this one photograph of the Nanpu Bridge. At that point I stopped the conversation and said ‘You have to find something out for yourself.’ “

However, when Bialobrzeski later saw the Zielske’s photograph of Shanghai’s Nanpu Bridge which was almost identical to one of his winning entries for the World Press Photo awards, he described it as “as if someone had burgled my house”, calling their photographs “a senseless act of imitation”

Last September Bialobrzeski asked the Hamburg _Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe_, who were about to host the Zielske’s “Megalopolis Shanghai” exhibition, to remove several images which he claimed bore significant similarities to his own earlier work.

The museum refused to do so, and told _Photo District News_ that their lawyers had advised “…that the photographs in question are independent of each other, each of them being an image in its own right.”.

*Bialobrzeski himself concedes that the issue is one of ethics, not of copyright. “It’s not a legal issue. It’s a moral issue,” he says. “I don’t want to live in a world where this happens all the time. There should be respect for intellectual property and ideas.”*

http://www.epuk.org/images/245.jpg

Editorial Photographers UK - Visual plagiarism when does inspiration become imitation 
-------------------------------------------------------

Lots of good examples there. Shame on them and shame on you for supporting such behavior. The final point is, it is a good discussion, one that needs to be planted in all photographer's minds, especially ones like you who are so obviously prone to supporting such behavior instead of taking the moral high ground.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to make a statement that should give you all chills............................... always be looking over your shoulder. I'm always lurking about. And I'll take any photo I damn well want to. Even if I get the idea from you! So there.
> ...


So .. you two are essentially going to act like a tourist ?


----------



## snerd (Feb 23, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


When in Rome......................


----------



## pgriz (Feb 23, 2015)

I plan to trademark my walk.  The aesthetic appearance of this walk is unique to me, and I don't want anyone else to copy it, whether to imitate it or claim ownership of it.  I will hereforth also vigorously pursue with all means available under the law all those who infringe my intellectual property rights.  Let others discover their own way of walking that does not infringe on what I have created.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 23, 2015)

pgriz said:


> I plan to trademark my walk.  The aesthetic appearance of this walk is unique to me, and I don't want anyone else to copy it, whether to imitate it or claim ownership of it.  I will hereforth also vigorously pursue with all means available under the law all those who infringe my intellectual property rights.  Let others discover their own way of walking that does not infringe on what I have created.


Yeah, but with my tax dollars I doth own all the sidewalks.
Please stay off of the sidewalks when you walk your trademarked walk.
Otherwise I'll have a Zamboni run you over


----------



## pgriz (Feb 23, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > I plan to trademark my walk.  The aesthetic appearance of this walk is unique to me, and I don't want anyone else to copy it, whether to imitate it or claim ownership of it.  I will hereforth also vigorously pursue with all means available under the law all those who infringe my intellectual property rights.  Let others discover their own way of walking that does not infringe on what I have created.
> ...



Speaking of trademarks, the Zamboni family wants to talk to you (Trademarks Zamboni).


----------



## Buckster (Feb 23, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Wow, Bucky the angry... _blah, blah, blah..._


 I see you'll post anything you can think of, rather than answer the simple questions that prove you're a hypocrite on these related issues.  That's SERIOUSLY funny, and SO transparently telling! 

I love how you keep trying to project your anger issues onto me too, as if I have anything to be angry about.  I'm not the one trying to deflect my own hypocrisy from being front and center based on my actual statements, the way you are.  

Enjoy that petard you've hoisted yourself up by!


----------



## JTPhotography (Feb 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...



Chess Forums - Chess.com


Buckster said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, Bucky the angry... _blah, blah, blah..._
> ...



Translation: I just got slapped upside the head with documentation.

Listen close, I think I hear your cat shrieking in pain. ROFL


----------



## pgriz (Feb 23, 2015)

Ok guys, give it a rest, lest you make the title of the thread self-fulfilling.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 23, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...


Same old song.

You're STILL the one who said there are exceptions and that it's a big gray area, and you're STILL the one who refuses to explain how it can be BOTH that AND always wrong.

You're STILL the one who won't explain why it's okay-fine for everyone to shoot the same photos of Half Dome and a million other locations and things as those who shot them first, but wrong to shoot anything YOU shot first.

You're STILL the one who keeps ignoring that simple line of questioning like the plague, lest it show your hypocrisy.

The fact that you can find someone on the internet who agrees with you is no surprise.  We can find people who think the world is flat, and any other dumb thing.  Also no surprise is the fact that he went unsupported by both the law and the museum.  He doesn't want to live in a world like that, he said.  Fine.  Don't.  It's not the rest of the world's problem if a few of you don't like the reality that surrounds you.

And I don't have a cat.


----------



## Fred Berg (Feb 23, 2015)

Buckster said:


> We can find people who think the world is flat, and any other dumb thing.



Come on now, if it wasn't, we'd be rolling around all over the place!


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 23, 2015)

Now I'm getting sick. Nice thread. Very productive.

Way to go you ********s.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 23, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Now I'm getting sick. Nice thread. Very productive.
> 
> Way to go you ********s.


Pro Tip:

Did you know there's a secret forum feature that allows you to NOT read any thread you don't want to read?  It's true!  It works like this: Don't read them.

Not only that, if you're getting notifications with each new post, you can shut them off and NOT RECEIVE them anymore, so you won't be bothered or tempted to go read them!

It's AMAZING!!!


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 23, 2015)

Someone throw a ball of yarn into this discussion ...


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 23, 2015)

I don't understand. How will my not reading the thread make you people not be angry, ranting, *****************s?


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 23, 2015)

Is it time to shut this down yet? This is now waaay to much to go through and clean up post by post so if your all in agreement at least that this thread is just a dead horse now I'll go ahead and close it.


----------

