On 1/26/2014 8:10 PM, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> Something bothers me a little.
>
> This photo,
>
>
> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=10859
This is much too high key for my taste. A fair number of blown pixels, but
scattered, so a much richer version is
possible. Also, someone mentioned B&W, and I have a new effects plug-in.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/BSwale/Ponderosa_Pine.htm>
> Is a close version of a stunning ( 1.5 x 1 m) print I have seen in local
> commercial
> premises. I know that the photographer who took that shot was very cagey
> about telling anybody where is was taken.
>
> I puzzled over it myself for
> a long time until I started using my brains and followed clues contained
> within her photo, and after that it didn't take too long.
>
> If you stray more than 50 cm from the precise spot needed, you won't 'get' it.
>
> I know that other people like it and have heard of one woman who paid $800
> for a large print.
>
> Her shot is different from mine in that some of the
> central grass is gone and bare earth takes its place, making it look
> like a pathway, a vital part of the visual appeal. In addition, she
> placed 3 - 4 ponderosa pine cones along the 'edge' of this visual
> pathway, and that clinched the appeal. I would probably arrange for that
> kind of detail to be in my shots.
>
> Question; is it ethical to closely mimic her photograph?
Well, you now know that's it's legal, and that opinions vary on the issue of
ethics. I personally would never copy
another's image closely for public display, let alone sale. I could see doing
it for my own experience, to confirm what
was done and how, for my own learning experience.
There are certainly many times when close to identical images may be made
naturally and without intent to copy. One of
AG's images of a falls is very close to one I've seen on a calendar. I don't
think that's a problem.
But to intentionally set out to copy, down to touches like placed cones, is
beyond my my limits.
Let me suggest another way to look at it, what you might call practical common
sense. You live in a small community. You
wish to sell images there. Blatantly copying the image of someone else already
selling prints, including that one, in
the community seems quite foolish to me. Far more possible negative outcomes
seem likely to me than anything positive.
> Aspects of the fine detail of content are crucial for visual appeal.
And you want approval to steal that creativity? Far better to find your own,
different interpretation.
Alternative View Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|