- This topic is empty.
Seascape
-
Too many expletives nfl, the censor-bot in built to P.I. would explode.
Saw a listing of the “Gold” winners for this months SWPP competition and one of them struck a chord and reminded me of Thorstens shot.
I know its not an exact copy, but the similarities are striking.
What do people think, is this type of thing OK ?
I know that most of us have photographic icons that we look up to, and often try to copy, or shots that we try to replicate, but should the line be drawn for competition entries ?Perhaps he came up with this on his own and I’m doing him a great disservice. If so, I apologise unreservedly.
BTW – if this should be moved to general chat please feel free to do so.
Link for photo concerned – go to the bottom of the page http://www.swpp.co.uk/image_competition_sep_08/winnerspg05.htm
Rgds
Kevin
I won’t comment on something that was debated to hell and back already but I will give you this story of our own clubs touch on this.
An image was judged in a non-competitive competition with another club (or club is odd that way). It was actually one of my images and it was described as a “well taken shot, but it looks all a bit unnatural…but that seems to be the way it’s going nowadays”. The next shot up was a B&W but was adored and commended. Anyone else spot the irony here or should I just get my coat?
Alan.
PS – We won the non-competitive competition. ;-)
Its not really the merits of the original shot, or a manipulation debate – rather I was struck by the striking similarities of Thorstens original image, and the one that won a gold merit in the September 2008 SWPP competition (see link in my original post.)
Rgds
Kevin
Yup – saw your link, but can’t see any images on it. And lets face it, the shot can be replicated quite easily so I wouldn’t be surprised. The initial idea is still a good one.
I’ve copied the technique myself (with a bit of coaching from Thorsten !!), and it is indeed quite easy and can be very effective.
This link to the actual pic. might enable viewing.
http://www.swppusa.com/competition/displayimage.php?album=449&pos=19
Rgds
Kevin
I saw an article in Amateur Photographer a few weeks ago about this technique – I forget the couple’s names.
I didn’t see this previously, but the OP image is impressive, and as others said, would look good printed large and
hung up.Is this a photographic interpretation of ‘impressionism’?
i just saw this thread…
and after reading it… I mostly agree with SteveD… if this effect, as i understand correctly, blur added to the shot… can be achieved by moving the camera, this would be classified as photograph, as SteveD mentioned, you are not changing the photo itself, by “moving” pixels.
if you were able Thorsten to achieve this effect by moving your camera, and only thing that stopped you was lack of ND filters to make the exposure time longer, and you decided to take A IMAGE of the sea, normal waves, normal sky, bit of motion caused by for example 0.6 sec exposure… and then altered this image digitally, to look completely different, i think judge decision was in that situation correct…mcmartin wrote:
…i think judge decision was in that situation correct…
Which decision would that be? The fact that he awarded it first place or the fact that he subsequently dismissed it because I refused to tell him how it was done? (To this day he still doesn’t know how it was created!). I can’t believe that 4 years on from when I took the original image people still have issues with digital technology as a creative tool! This intolerance is one of the reasons I’ve stopped posting images or critiquing images here.
Anyway, most people seem to be missing the reason this thread was resurrected, which, as Kevin (KPM) pointed out was because he came across a remarkably similar image in the list of winners of the September round of the monthly SWPP competition. So, I guess the question is, did the winner copy my image (I don’t think he did, at least not intentionally) or is originality in photography DEAD?
This intolerance is one of the reasons I’ve stopped posting images or critiquing images here
Critique is about opinions… opinions differ… if you don’t post because you view people’s opinion as being “intolerant” then that’s a bit… you know… what’s the word I’m looking for… “intolerant” of people’s differing opinions.
I think you should put up a few shots… and critique a few too… what do you care if someone here on PI says “bah, this isn’t a photo, it’s digital art”… we’ll all have a debate… and the next day it’ll be forgotton about.
nfl-fan wrote:
This intolerance is one of the reasons I’ve stopped posting images or critiquing images here
Critique is about opinions… opinions differ… if you don’t post because you view people’s opinion as being “intolerant” then that’s a bit… you know… what’s the word I’m looking for… “intolerant” of people’s differing opinions.
I think you should put up a few shots… and critique a few too… what do you care if someone here on PI says “bah, this isn’t a photo, it’s digital art”… we’ll all have a debate… and the next day it’ll be forgotton about.
You make a good point and one I’m not going to argue against, simply because I see no reason to. Actually, I’m quite a tolerant person but one thing I can’t tolerate is intolerance! Does that make sense at all?
Ah… post up a few shots and never mind worrying about all the other crap.
Don’t have me starting a “Come back Thorsten” thread.
nfl-fan wrote:
This intolerance is one of the reasons I’ve stopped posting images or critiquing images here
Actually, compared with other sites, people here seem remarkably civilized, as are their comments; and usually helpful –
notwithstanding the odd bit of craic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
