How many of you are trying to be original and how many are trying to reverse-engineering other peoples' images?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Wild Cabayo - 02 Jan 2007 11:27 GMT

Just curious. It seems like more and more people joining the photographer
ranks are more interested in reverse engineering (read: copying other
people), than they are trying to strive for originality.

I don't buy that everything has been done already crap because, what that
really means to me is that no one (in the photographer ranks), these days
wants to readily acknowledge their peer for being original.

Has the spirit of photography sunk down to an all time low and overshadowed
by fierce "Internet" competition and aggresive competitive practices??

Bummer.

It used to be, Photographers were so secure with themselves that commenting
on another person's work wasn't at all expensive. After all, each of our
localities is sizable enough to be adequate for encouraging competition. Or,
is it that the marketplace is just attracting new and newer photographers
every day?

Has the world gone to sh.t and under the whim of just a few very successful
tight gripped photographers that the word "prosperity", has a slim chance in
hell of ever getting to other photographers whose work is good or,
astonishingly good?

Has the photography world expanded that much due to the digital camera age
that the leagues of new gen photogs are so tight lipped to not even
acknowledge that their skills are/were borrowed from the diligent reverse
engineering of the masters (or simply those who strove to set themselves
apart?).

The hell?

What ever happened to the time when the customer's opinion counted more? It
seems like we spend a lot of time trying to get peers to comment on our work
rather than simply trying to meet customers' requirements.

Have we gotten that shallow? That critical? That cynical?

What ever happened to the time when photographers, took off their photog hat
and commented on a simple image without going into a whole lot of technical
diatribe about things that make the image look inferior. Yet, many of us can
look at images in a regular family album and say, wow, that was a great
picture, even though the lighting is not so perfect (due to the fact it was
a greenish polaroid pic).

Whatever happened to those days? Replaced by punks with smart a.s one liner
comments? OR...

Replaced with competition who thinks the Internet and Usenet forums mean the
size of a single city? Therefore, do, say and write anything to make the
competition look bad.

Wow. That sucks. Business wise, it might make practical sense but, wasn't
the purpose for coming to online forums was to have fun in the first place,
network and maybe learn a few new things? Whatever happened to that feeling?

Hm. Just curious.

Reply to this Message

Celcius - 02 Jan 2007 13:29 GMT

> Just curious. It seems like more and more people joining the photographer
> ranks are more interested in reverse engineering (read: copying other
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>
> Hm. Just curious.

Hi!

I read your text with interest. However, I kept wondering to whom it was
addressed.

Who are those photographers? People who take pictures? People who write in
this forum?

In the first case, a majority "freeze" souvenirs. They take snapshots on
automatic. Don't ask them what Dof is. They aren't even aware what makes a
good photo, except not to cut someone's head off. I'm slightly exaggerating
of course.

This forum (as others) represents only a very slight minority of
photographers. Participants present a very wide array of interest and
specialisation. Personally, I love photography and try to handle my camera
the best I can in order to get as good results as possible. However, many
here are great photographers. Their results and advice inspire others.
Others simply join in for the fun of it. That's Internet, a popular, easily
reachable place for anyone with access.

Your comments are still valid, but shouldn't be generally applied. Many
photographers, those who take photographs, try to better themselves.
Digital photography indeed helps in allowing people to take many shots and
choosing the "best" one later. Hundreds of titles are published on
Photography, showing that publishers know these will be sold and indeed,
there is interest out there. Forums such as this one allow good exchange of
ideas. Of course, there are purists as in any other field. This is a world
apart of your "common" everyday photog, but as the song says: "It takes all
kinds to make a world".

Happy New Year!

Marcel

Reply to this Message

Wild Cabayo - 03 Jan 2007 06:11 GMT

Hi Celcius. These were just random thoughts dumped from my brain in order to
make room for more. Thanks for replying.

>> Just curious. It seems like more and more people joining the photographer
>> ranks are more interested in reverse engineering (read: copying other
[quoted text clipped - 90 lines]
>
> Marcel

Reply to this Message

AustinMN - 02 Jan 2007 22:29 GMT

> Just curious. It seems like more and more people joining the photographer
> ranks are more interested in reverse engineering (read: copying other
> people), than they are trying to strive for originality.

I do both. It's a sad day when you can't learn from someone else. And
I always thought that "Immitation is the most sincere form of
flattery."

> I don't buy that everything has been done already crap because, what that
> really means to me is that no one (in the photographer ranks), these days
> wants to readily acknowledge their peer for being original.

There are so many people taking so many pictures and doing so much with
them that I doubt YOU have ever done anything that has never been done
before.

> Has the spirit of photography sunk down to an all time low and overshadowed
> by fierce "Internet" competition and aggresive competitive practices??

Frankly, I don't know what this is directed at. I don't find anything
wrong with the things you have "complained" about so far...

> It used to be, Photographers were so secure with themselves that commenting
> on another person's work wasn't at all expensive. After all, each of our
> localities is sizable enough to be adequate for encouraging competition. Or,
> is it that the marketplace is just attracting new and newer photographers
> every day?

This appears to be totally unrelated to your previous comment.

I comment on other people's work all the time. What I don't do is say
"Cool photo" because I know when I show my stuff, I already think it's
cool, or I would not be showing it to you. To me, having someone say
"I would have tried to get a shallower depth of field in order to make
the subject pop" is a hundred times more useful than "cool photo," so
those are the onyl types of comments I leave.

> Has the world gone to sh.t and under the whim of just a few very successful
> tight gripped photographers that the word "prosperity", has a slim chance in
> hell of ever getting to other photographers whose work is good or,
> astonishingly good?

Another subject change...the rants above say nothing about money. I
don't sell my photos, because I don't want profit to interfere with
creativity. That does not mean that profit is bad, or that
professional photographers are not creative. But it does mean that my
photography is for *me* and *my* satisfaction, and I don't have to
please anyone else.

> Has the photography world expanded that much due to the digital camera age
> that the leagues of new gen photogs are so tight lipped to not even
> acknowledge that their skills are/were borrowed from the diligent reverse
> engineering of the masters (or simply those who strove to set themselves
> apart?).

Trying to give proper attribution to techniques can be a daunting task.
I've looked at hundreds of 3D (anaglyph) photographs, dosens of web
sites, and a couple of book chapters. Where did that idea come from?
It would take me forever to research the source of the idea. It would
likely be a useless attribution, too. If I say I got it from John (who
himself got it from Jacques who got it from Juan who got it from Ian
who got it from Ivan, but that part is not documented) is not
particularly useful.

If you really want your original thechnique to be
tracable/attributable, patent it. You will discover thousands before
you have had the same idea.

> What ever happened to the time when the customer's opinion counted more? It
> seems like we spend a lot of time trying to get peers to comment on our work
> rather than simply trying to meet customers' requirements.

This is completely counter to the concept of originality. Despite what
they think, the vast majority of customers don't want originality, they
want what they've seen before repackaged. One of the reasons I don't
want money for my photos.

> What ever happened to the time when photographers, took off their photog hat
> and commented on a simple image without going into a whole lot of technical
> diatribe about things that make the image look inferior.

Ah, I think this is the core of your whole post. Someone told you your
junk photos were junk. Let's see them, and we can comment on them.
But ultimately, there are a lot of photographers out there who think
they are a lot better than they are. It's the same as "American Idol,"
where thousands of people who can't carry a tune in a sealed container
think they can be the next superstar.

> Yet, many of us can
> look at images in a regular family album and say, wow, that was a great
> picture, even though the lighting is not so perfect (due to the fact it was
> a greenish polaroid pic).

Frankly, I don't comment much on family albums unless I see something
worth commenting on. Most are incredibly boring.

> Whatever happened to those days? Replaced by punks with smart a.s one liner
> comments? OR...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the purpose for coming to online forums was to have fun in the first place,
> network and maybe learn a few new things? Whatever happened to that feeling?

Usenet forums have the feel of the people in them. People with thin
skins (easily offended) don't last long in *any* public forum, so that
whole group is not part of the picture. People who just have to be
heard have an inordinately large influence. Throw in a few trolls, and
a number of helpful people will just go away.

Usenet forums are what they are, and they change constantly.

Austin

Reply to this Message

Wild Cabayo - 03 Jan 2007 06:10 GMT

>> Just curious. It seems like more and more people joining the photographer
>> ranks are more interested in reverse engineering (read: copying other
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I always thought that "Immitation is the most sincere form of
> flattery."

If you mean, others emulate those they admire then, I agree. What if there
were no teachers? Did that stop the caveman from inventing the wheel?

>> I don't buy that everything has been done already crap because, what that
>> really means to me is that no one (in the photographer ranks), these days
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> them that I doubt YOU have ever done anything that has never been done
> before.

Why so quick to doubt and doubt loudly with the capitalized "you"? What if
I've done things that could be deemed original? Why would it cause you or,
anyone else to scoff me?

>> Has the spirit of photography sunk down to an all time low and
>> overshadowed
>> by fierce "Internet" competition and aggresive competitive practices??
>
> Frankly, I don't know what this is directed at. I don't find anything
> wrong with the things you have "complained" about so far...

That's fair. Everybody is at a different place in time.

>> It used to be, Photographers were so secure with themselves that
>> commenting
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> This appears to be totally unrelated to your previous comment.

But don't let that stop you from weaving seemingly unrelated topics together
in order to build some kind of big picture.

> I comment on other people's work all the time. What I don't do is say
> "Cool photo" because I know when I show my stuff, I already think it's
> cool, or I would not be showing it to you. To me, having someone say
> "I would have tried to get a shallower depth of field in order to make
> the subject pop" is a hundred times more useful than "cool photo," so
> those are the onyl types of comments I leave.

I agree. However, insightful comments like the one you suggested are far and
few between.

>> Has the world gone to sh.t and under the whim of just a few very
>> successful
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> who got it from Ivan, but that part is not documented) is not
> particularly useful.

You articulated that very well and I wouldn't have thought about it from
that perspective. However, personally, I'm pretty good at attributing where
I got my inspiration.

> If you really want your original thechnique to be
> tracable/attributable, patent it. You will discover thousands before
> you have had the same idea.

Now, that's a good idea and good discussion for some other time in the
future. Patenting ideas relating to photography. In all my years, I've never
come across a discussion around this.

>> What ever happened to the time when the customer's opinion counted more?
>> It
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> want what they've seen before repackaged. One of the reasons I don't
> want money for my photos.

Me and my subject changing. My apologies.

>> What ever happened to the time when photographers, took off their photog
>> hat
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> where thousands of people who can't carry a tune in a sealed container
> think they can be the next superstar.

You make a good point with the American Idol scenario. Kudos. I appreciated
this perspective.

>> Yet, many of us can
>> look at images in a regular family album and say, wow, that was a great
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Frankly, I don't comment much on family albums unless I see something
> worth commenting on. Most are incredibly boring.

I find them very interesting. So, every chance I get, I ask to take a peek
at family albums.

>> Whatever happened to those days? Replaced by punks with smart a.s one
>> liner
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Austin

Thanks for chiming in Austin. Your perspective on things is interesting and
different. I'm not sure if it's a case of being fortunate or, not but, I've
never had anyone tell me my work sucks. Perhaps, they were just being polite
or, maybe, they trust that I know well enough to know if I've produced a
sucky image.

At any rate, the process of critiques interest me. I once submitted an
invitation for people from this board to visit my website and critique my
work and I received none. What's that supposed to tell me? Because, if my
work truly sucked I figured people from here won't be shy and won't hesitate
to let me know. Sometimes, I feel that I'm being denied "something" when I
don't get at least a couple of "you suck" comments and this concerns me a
little because, what are the dangers of working in a vacuum as opposed to
working in an artist's collective or, groups like this place?

I guess it never hurts to ask or, to do as I did, and throw a bunch of
thoughts into one post. Truthfully, based on my last two visits to this
group, I was almost convinced my NewsReader was broke. Where I can submit
posts and can't see the responses.

Based on the two responses I got to my post, it's a fecking relief to know
people can actually see and respond to my posts. LOL.

Reply to this Message

AustinMN - 03 Jan 2007 16:57 GMT

> > Usenet forums have the feel of the people in them. People with thin
> > skins (easily offended) don't last long in *any* public forum, so that
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> little because, what are the dangers of working in a vacuum as opposed to
> working in an artist's collective or, groups like this place?

Since groups.Google.com can't find a posting history for you, I can't
look at _how_ you posted the invitation. Either you changed your user
name or email address since that post. But there are definitely links
I will not follow because of how they are posted or introduced.

> I guess it never hurts to ask or, to do as I did, and throw a bunch of
> thoughts into one post. Truthfully, based on my last two visits to this
> group, I was almost convinced my NewsReader was broke. Where I can submit
> posts and can't see the responses.

There is a lot more activity in the rec.photo.* newsgroup hierarchy.

> Based on the two responses I got to my post, it's a fecking relief to know
> people can actually see and respond to my posts. LOL.

Glad to be able to help. ;-)

Austin

Reply to this Message

Wild Cabayo - 03 Jan 2007 22:32 GMT

[ snipped ]

> Since groups.Google.com can't find a posting history for you, I can't
> look at _how_ you posted the invitation. Either you changed your user
> name or email address since that post. But there are definitely links
> I will not follow because of how they are posted or introduced.

I tried looking and I think my newsserver expired it. Oh well. No big deal.
It's been a couple of years since I posted in this group. The last time I
did, two commercial stock photographers responded with encouragement and
some praise. I'm not an attention whore in any sense. Lol. I just get
curious every now and then to see what non-models and clients think about my
work.

>> I guess it never hurts to ask or, to do as I did, and throw a bunch of
>> thoughts into one post. Truthfully, based on my last two visits to this
>> group, I was almost convinced my NewsReader was broke. Where I can submit
>> posts and can't see the responses.
>
> There is a lot more activity in the rec.photo.* newsgroup hierarchy.

Hey. That's good to know. It would make sense since most people are afraid
to tread in the alt.* hierarchy. Lol.

>> Based on the two responses I got to my post, it's a fecking relief to
>> know
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Austin

Reply to this Message

smb - 27 Jan 2007 11:47 GMT

>Just curious. It seems like more and more people joining the photographer
>ranks are more interested in reverse engineering (read: copying other
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
>Hm. Just curious.

But what do you REALLY think? :-)

I agree, simply copying someone's work or style is not creative.
HOWEVER, all artists are influenced to some degree by the work of
others. True originality rarely exists; and when it does, it is very
special. What we often do is add our own perspective to something
that has already been done many times before. This is as true in
photography as it is true in music and other creative endeavors.

As to meaningless critiques by so-called online "experts," check out
this site. It's a hoot!

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-interne
t.html

Steve

Reply to this Message