|
Forums >
General Industry >
When does sampling a photo. become stealing one.
Being an Amateur photograher. I like to take tear sheets from magazines and recreate them. Usually modeling poses and lighting set ups. This gives me expirience with different lighting set ups. Some of the images I use for MM or OMP websites. Strictly my promotional photo's. So I ask you this. When does sampling a photo become stealing one. Nov 26 05 07:53 am Link when you say the afformentioned tear sheet is yours. Nov 26 05 07:58 am Link So long as you never take the tear sheet and stick it directly in to your book you're not doing anything wrong. Imitation is the highest form of flattery and trying to do a technique you see from a shot by yourself with a different camera is never wrong. In fact if you ever work on a professional set you'll often see an Art director pull out comps and go over them with the photographer...comps is just a fancy way of the art director saying "Make it look like this". It helps everyone involved get the idea of the mood, lighting and general direction of the shot if they see exactly what they're striving for. Start with a comp and then branch out from there...move in new directions within the same mood, move in new lighting conditions with the same pose, try different moods with the same lighting, etc... Nov 26 05 09:19 am Link Latent Image64 wrote: Using the idea and process someone else used to create a photograph is not stealing. If it were we are all thiefs. We have all used or attempted to recreate a lighting process or some other process that someone else used to get the same effect. As long as you did not take the tear sheet from the magazine and put it in your portfolio and say you did it, you have not stolen anything. Nov 26 05 04:34 pm Link My issue is with your usage of the term "sampling" -- to me, "sampling" is something different. For example in music, "sampling" means taking part of an original recording & inserting it into a new recording. That's quite different from someone rerecording an exisiting song. So, from a photographic point of view, "sampling" would imply that you scanned the photograph & use it or part of it in a new image that you create. What you describe is what I like to call "deconstructing" a photograph -- you examine it, try to figure out how it was made (and in particular how it was lit), and you attempt to recreate it. Every part of the image is something you made and therefore is yours. This process of "deconstructing" and "reconstructing" images is an essential exercise that helps intermediate photographers become more advanced -- do it; do it often. However, you are right to suspect that the creative spark behind the image you create came from somone else. I think it would be appropriate to pay a little homage to the inspiration in this case (i.e. giving credit). While "deconstructing" & "reconstucting" images is essential for learning & improving technical skills, you will someday need to work on your aesthetic skills, too, and for that, you can't get away with imitation. Example -- Avedon made a terrific photograph of Natasha Kinski lying down intwined with a large snake. Since then, I've seen lots of similar images, some lit the same way with the same pose. That's okay, but the Avedon image is the classic icon (it's the only one I've seen with the snake's tongue tasting the model). Nov 26 05 06:02 pm Link I did get sampling from the music industry. I now know the true meaning of that term. I usually start with that tear sheet and spring board from there. Usually the model and myself create some interesting images with different wardrobe and altering the light set up. It also give a model an idea of what I am trying to accomplish. With that said, I won't shoot any Avedon images,because " I'm afraid of snakes!!!" Nov 26 05 06:34 pm Link Latent Image64 wrote: When you use the sampled photos Nov 26 05 06:37 pm Link and another thing... Thanks for your feedback! Every answer helps. Nov 26 05 06:37 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: You have just defined reverse engineering. Nov 27 05 03:54 am Link Isn't there a photograoh case around a picture of Brooke Shields? I believe there was an original picture taken from some photographer with showing her at the age of fourteen. This photographer got nothing out of it, but the accuse of being pedophile. Another photographer took a picture of this above mentioned picture and this is now published in some museum or so... (please correct me if I'm wrong) So i guess as long as you doing the stuff yourself - It's still your work. Even Picasso and Dali started with imitation before developing their own style they're known for... Nov 27 05 04:10 am Link |
