... and yet another post on plagiarism.
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Drive Home
Last night on the way home from dropping off my kids, I set up a camera to try to capture the drive home.
so far this is my favorite:
This photo is quite simple, but I think next time, I will try to include less of the dashboard. (I still like the gauges showing though) and I will have to mount the tripod a bit differently so the dash is sharper, less motion blur...
Another one from the series I like is this one:
You can even see a star trail in the center.
I have more in my experiments album.
One of the nice things about digital is that these experiments are very cheap. One of the problems with digital, at least with this camera (Fuji S2) is that it used a dark frame subtraction to get rid of chip noise. This means that for every exposure of say 15 seconds, the camera takes another shot with the shutter closed and then calculates the chip generated noise and removes it from the original shot. While this gives very low noise and smooth night time images, the camera is not ready for the next shot until this second "exposure" is done. In other words a 15 second exposure takes 30 seconds until the camera is ready for the next shot.
For the technically curious, there is no other noise reduction on these images. One has a little sharpening, and they both have a bit of colour tweaking, but the S2 is great for night shots.
On a funny note, (funny - strange coincidence not funny - Ha Ha) I noticed that the odometer is almost at the same spot (53,000 and change) as this shot in my last car:
Now for a trivia question: Both the cars in these shots are the same model, but different years. Any guesses?
so far this is my favorite:
This photo is quite simple, but I think next time, I will try to include less of the dashboard. (I still like the gauges showing though) and I will have to mount the tripod a bit differently so the dash is sharper, less motion blur...
Another one from the series I like is this one:
You can even see a star trail in the center.
I have more in my experiments album.
One of the nice things about digital is that these experiments are very cheap. One of the problems with digital, at least with this camera (Fuji S2) is that it used a dark frame subtraction to get rid of chip noise. This means that for every exposure of say 15 seconds, the camera takes another shot with the shutter closed and then calculates the chip generated noise and removes it from the original shot. While this gives very low noise and smooth night time images, the camera is not ready for the next shot until this second "exposure" is done. In other words a 15 second exposure takes 30 seconds until the camera is ready for the next shot.
For the technically curious, there is no other noise reduction on these images. One has a little sharpening, and they both have a bit of colour tweaking, but the S2 is great for night shots.
On a funny note, (funny - strange coincidence not funny - Ha Ha) I noticed that the odometer is almost at the same spot (53,000 and change) as this shot in my last car:
Now for a trivia question: Both the cars in these shots are the same model, but different years. Any guesses?
Monday, February 12, 2007
World Press Photos
The 2007 World Press Photo Awards have been announced.
So far my favorite is this image of struggling against all odds.
And there are a lot more very amazing images.
So far my favorite is this image of struggling against all odds.
And there are a lot more very amazing images.
They are coming out of the woodwork
Maybe it is just a figment of my overstretched imagination, but plagiarism seems to be a hot topic.
There is a discussion on, of all places, slashdot. Maybe this all a consequence of some of the more ridiculous copyright and patent laws being presented. (I won't provide any examples, as there are way to many to choose from...) or the perception of loss of personal freedom, especially in the USA.
My father had a (tongue in cheek) saying, plagiarized from some unknown person no doubt, "What's yours in mine, and what's mine is none of your business". That seems to be a prevalent opinion of many. I can learn from you, I can take your ideas and expand on them, but you cannot copy my ideas. Maybe that is one reason I really like the open source software movement. This movement basically says we, as a society, are much stronger when we collaborate and share ideas.
Maybe as a society we need to grow up and become less petty. Just let me keep all my ideas to myself...
There is a discussion on, of all places, slashdot. Maybe this all a consequence of some of the more ridiculous copyright and patent laws being presented. (I won't provide any examples, as there are way to many to choose from...) or the perception of loss of personal freedom, especially in the USA.
My father had a (tongue in cheek) saying, plagiarized from some unknown person no doubt, "What's yours in mine, and what's mine is none of your business". That seems to be a prevalent opinion of many. I can learn from you, I can take your ideas and expand on them, but you cannot copy my ideas. Maybe that is one reason I really like the open source software movement. This movement basically says we, as a society, are much stronger when we collaborate and share ideas.
Maybe as a society we need to grow up and become less petty. Just let me keep all my ideas to myself...
Sunday, February 11, 2007
With due respect to pollock
Self Plagiarizing Artist
I came across this artists site the other day, and it got me thinking yet again about plagiarism.
If you did not know the first series of fingerprints, for example, were all taken by the same artist, you would call it plagiarism. But what if you see this idea and come up with a concept of your own, say using spaghetti. Is that plagiarism?
This site at least credits the originals, so I guess that is not plagiarism...
I decided that it was time to get a definition of this plagiarism concept...
It is also interesting to note that this definition and the concept behind it are under dispute.
From my understanding, almost all the issues of plagiarism deal with the written word. Taking a quote out of context, publishing another authors work, etc.
But back to my opening argument. Since the first photographer mentioned above did a series of images relating science to unrelated physical objects, no one else can do this ever again? How sad. And further to that, if you had never seen these photos and you created something similar, how can you be held responsible for plagiarism?
I argue that as human beings living in a society where communication is only getting wider and more open, we almost always use ideas of others to build up our own, either consciously or not.
Back to photography, when you are shooting an image (here the term shooting includes pre-visualization, image design/creation, or any other term used by other photographers through the ages, and for that matter artists back even farther...) do you not try to remember how other photographers/artists have approached similar problems? Use other peoples ideas and concepts to enhance your own approach? I don't think there is an artist of any medium who has not studied his peers and the masters of his craft. That is how we learn.
I guess my problem is that I don't see a clean separation between learning from past masters, homage to past masters, and stealing from past masters. Maybe I see plagiarism as a whining,"you took my idea and did it better, how dare you" or "my interpretation is better than yours, nyah nyah"
If someone were to take one of my photos and improve on what I was trying to say, I would be honored (I am tempted to bold, highlight, and set neon lights around "improve") All I ask is that they show me the work afterwords so I, in turn, can learn from them.
Ooohhh, THAT is what plagiarism is:
If you did not know the first series of fingerprints, for example, were all taken by the same artist, you would call it plagiarism. But what if you see this idea and come up with a concept of your own, say using spaghetti. Is that plagiarism?
This site at least credits the originals, so I guess that is not plagiarism...
I decided that it was time to get a definition of this plagiarism concept...
Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.(from wikipedia)
It is also interesting to note that this definition and the concept behind it are under dispute.
From my understanding, almost all the issues of plagiarism deal with the written word. Taking a quote out of context, publishing another authors work, etc.
But back to my opening argument. Since the first photographer mentioned above did a series of images relating science to unrelated physical objects, no one else can do this ever again? How sad. And further to that, if you had never seen these photos and you created something similar, how can you be held responsible for plagiarism?
I argue that as human beings living in a society where communication is only getting wider and more open, we almost always use ideas of others to build up our own, either consciously or not.
Back to photography, when you are shooting an image (here the term shooting includes pre-visualization, image design/creation, or any other term used by other photographers through the ages, and for that matter artists back even farther...) do you not try to remember how other photographers/artists have approached similar problems? Use other peoples ideas and concepts to enhance your own approach? I don't think there is an artist of any medium who has not studied his peers and the masters of his craft. That is how we learn.
I guess my problem is that I don't see a clean separation between learning from past masters, homage to past masters, and stealing from past masters. Maybe I see plagiarism as a whining,"you took my idea and did it better, how dare you" or "my interpretation is better than yours, nyah nyah"
If someone were to take one of my photos and improve on what I was trying to say, I would be honored (I am tempted to bold, highlight, and set neon lights around "improve") All I ask is that they show me the work afterwords so I, in turn, can learn from them.
Ooohhh, THAT is what plagiarism is:
Plagiarism is the using of ideas without respect or honor for the people who helped you get past certain problemsOk, I guess now I should start my list of people who have influenced my photography... on second thought, it would sound too much like an Oscar acceptance speech... I know who you are... Thanks
Friday, February 9, 2007
Plagiarism in Photography
There has been a bit of talk on The Online Photographer about photographic plagiarism. I don't think this is possible. I remember in photo school, one of the studio assignments was to find a photo and recreate it. It was a lesson in lighting, composition, and large format technique (ok, it covered a lot of bases...)
I learned a lot from this... It is surprisingly hard to copy a scene. First you need to analyze the camera angle, depth of field, lens etc. Then you need to analyze the quality and direction of light. It is not a trivial matter to recreate the scene.
I also found out that "copying" someone else is a good starting point for your own creativity. For the above assignment, I made a completely different photo that reflected a lot more of my own personality.
This brings us to the root of my argument. Photography as an art form reflects the personality of the artist/photographer. No two people have the same personality (ok, some people have the same lack of personality, but that is a different problem...).
Now, outside of the studio, in the "real" world two photographers can be standing in the same spot and see different scenes, I am sure we all have experiences here. I remember shooting with a friend. We both stopped at the same scene but we only had one sheet of film between us (we were sharing a 4x5 camera). We both agreed on placement of the camera, but I saw a vertical, while my friend saw a horizontal. We shot wide and later in the darkroom printed our individual crops. They were both strong interpretations of the scene.
but lets assume, for the sake of argument that two photographers see the same scene, or it is a well photographed scene. Why are these two photographers shooting the scene? At the risk of sounding like a bad art critic, what is their motivation? If the motivation is just to record the scene, what exactly is being plagiarized? the scene itself? If the motivation is to emulate another photographer, where can you draw the line between plagiarism and learning from a master?
The cliche about imitation and flattery comes to mind.
There is also the adage about nothing new under the sun...
But now we get to the legal aspect. I am not a lawyer, and I have not discussed this with anyone with legal knowledge, but my opinion of the situation is this: If you have a great photographic idea, and I copy it and I make a ton of money from it, where do you stand? Should you get a payment from me? Why? If the original idea is so great and worthy of recognition (by cash or fame) why did you not profit? Art is not like other commodities. You cannot undercut price, each creation is an original. (I am not talking about re photographing other prints, which would violate copyright) If I am a better marketer than you, should I not get paid better? If I refine your idea closer to my ideas, should I not benefit?
Now, if the images are so close, such as some of those in question, then I argue that the photograph is just a recording of the original scene and doesn't have any intrinsic value. Anyone could come by and capture the image.
Photography, in my mind is about extracting the essential elements from the world around us. These essential elements vary according to the message we want to say. If your message is, "I really respect Edward Weston, and I would be honored to try and emulate his approach to photographing peppers", great. If your message is "I think that photo is very banal and simple to copy", is your opinion less valuable? Your opinion may not be popular, your opinion may be naive, but one of the huge values of art is the possibility to have your own opinion.
So is plagiarism possible in photography? Is plagiarism possible in opinions? Can you really copy a true piece of art?
I learned a lot from this... It is surprisingly hard to copy a scene. First you need to analyze the camera angle, depth of field, lens etc. Then you need to analyze the quality and direction of light. It is not a trivial matter to recreate the scene.
I also found out that "copying" someone else is a good starting point for your own creativity. For the above assignment, I made a completely different photo that reflected a lot more of my own personality.
This brings us to the root of my argument. Photography as an art form reflects the personality of the artist/photographer. No two people have the same personality (ok, some people have the same lack of personality, but that is a different problem...).
Now, outside of the studio, in the "real" world two photographers can be standing in the same spot and see different scenes, I am sure we all have experiences here. I remember shooting with a friend. We both stopped at the same scene but we only had one sheet of film between us (we were sharing a 4x5 camera). We both agreed on placement of the camera, but I saw a vertical, while my friend saw a horizontal. We shot wide and later in the darkroom printed our individual crops. They were both strong interpretations of the scene.
but lets assume, for the sake of argument that two photographers see the same scene, or it is a well photographed scene. Why are these two photographers shooting the scene? At the risk of sounding like a bad art critic, what is their motivation? If the motivation is just to record the scene, what exactly is being plagiarized? the scene itself? If the motivation is to emulate another photographer, where can you draw the line between plagiarism and learning from a master?
The cliche about imitation and flattery comes to mind.
There is also the adage about nothing new under the sun...
But now we get to the legal aspect. I am not a lawyer, and I have not discussed this with anyone with legal knowledge, but my opinion of the situation is this: If you have a great photographic idea, and I copy it and I make a ton of money from it, where do you stand? Should you get a payment from me? Why? If the original idea is so great and worthy of recognition (by cash or fame) why did you not profit? Art is not like other commodities. You cannot undercut price, each creation is an original. (I am not talking about re photographing other prints, which would violate copyright) If I am a better marketer than you, should I not get paid better? If I refine your idea closer to my ideas, should I not benefit?
Now, if the images are so close, such as some of those in question, then I argue that the photograph is just a recording of the original scene and doesn't have any intrinsic value. Anyone could come by and capture the image.
Photography, in my mind is about extracting the essential elements from the world around us. These essential elements vary according to the message we want to say. If your message is, "I really respect Edward Weston, and I would be honored to try and emulate his approach to photographing peppers", great. If your message is "I think that photo is very banal and simple to copy", is your opinion less valuable? Your opinion may not be popular, your opinion may be naive, but one of the huge values of art is the possibility to have your own opinion.
So is plagiarism possible in photography? Is plagiarism possible in opinions? Can you really copy a true piece of art?
Mass Confusion
I don't get it...
I thought computers were supposed to simplify our lives...
Ok, for photography and graphics the computer at least makes retouching and layout much easier than traditional darkroom techniques. I would even argue that there are some things you can do on a computer that are impossible in the darkroom
But lately I have been trying to find a calendar that I can use regularly. I guess in the old days I would carry around a daytimer, but that has never been me. I still use a palm, but it has limitations, such as adding appointments, and a small screen. I tried to set up egroupware on my server, and I liked a lot of things about it, but maintaining it was a pain, and it crashed often. Outlook has great functionality, but, like a lot of other PIM software, it is only on one computer. If I am at work or out and about, I have no access.
My latest solution is Google Calendar. While it doesn't have all the bells and whistles that are fun to play with, it is a good functional calendar. It is available from every web enabled computer. I think I need to get past the "playing with software" phase and into just using the software.
I thought computers were supposed to simplify our lives...
Ok, for photography and graphics the computer at least makes retouching and layout much easier than traditional darkroom techniques. I would even argue that there are some things you can do on a computer that are impossible in the darkroom
But lately I have been trying to find a calendar that I can use regularly. I guess in the old days I would carry around a daytimer, but that has never been me. I still use a palm, but it has limitations, such as adding appointments, and a small screen. I tried to set up egroupware on my server, and I liked a lot of things about it, but maintaining it was a pain, and it crashed often. Outlook has great functionality, but, like a lot of other PIM software, it is only on one computer. If I am at work or out and about, I have no access.
My latest solution is Google Calendar. While it doesn't have all the bells and whistles that are fun to play with, it is a good functional calendar. It is available from every web enabled computer. I think I need to get past the "playing with software" phase and into just using the software.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
What to do, what to do
I am getting closer to becoming big time. My web site is starting to get busier. I think I have grown past my poor little home server. Maybe this blog is starting to direct traffic...
I have some new images I am working on. One of the "joys" of being creative is you always have new ideas. The trick is to communicate these details. Time will tell... Stay tuned for details...
I have some new images I am working on. One of the "joys" of being creative is you always have new ideas. The trick is to communicate these details. Time will tell... Stay tuned for details...
Monday, February 5, 2007
Changing Styles
My Photography style seems to be going through a change.
On a recent trip to Goldstream I took some basic shots of eagles, but I was "seeing" a lot better.
I didn't take a lot of shots that were great, but a lot of them were different than my usual style:
Of course there are more photos on my site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
