Will the Real Landscape Photography Please Stand Up ?

[Isaac]

Landscapes?? Pretty pix are a dime a dozen...or even free.

So are comments based on subject-line without reference to the original-post or subsequent discussion ;-)

[RSL]

Guess he told YOU, Iluvmycam. Take that. . . and that!

[Isaac]

…when you photograph like Ansel Adams today, you are a copycat.

How does one "photograph like Ansel Adams"?

Digital Landscape Photography: In the Footsteps of Ansel Adams and the Great Masters

Advanced Digital Black & White Photography

…

…was using knowingly and openly (i.e., not hiding it) a known technique, acknowledging its source. In the art world, it is know as homage.

Is that the same as "copying", only spelled differently?

I suspect you understand the difference in meaning very well.

…when we think about the photograph at all, it is largely in terms like 'That's a bit like that other photograph…'.

How do you know this to be true?

More to the point: Andrew, why do you think that is true? It isn't what I seem to do when I think about a photograph, unless it really is very like another photograph.

[jjj]

Can you show me some photographer today that shot something in a way that was never shot before?

As that would require an exhaustive comparison with every photograph every made, I leave you to believe whatever you wish to believe.

So what if you create some photos unlike anything else you have seen? Are you still being original if someone [unknown to you] had already done something like it before?
After all you can't be expected to look at all photography ever done before creating your art.

Also would the people who are seen as being original now, actually be that good compared to some people who came later in both were placed in the same time? Were they genuinely original thinkers or were they simply doing photography when there was an awful lot less of it, so relatively quite easy to be different?

[jjj]

Slobodan,

Is that the same as "copying", only spelled differently?

Exactly like giclee is an alternative way of spelling or should I say selling ink jet prints.

[Isaac]

Are you still being original if someone [unknown to you] had already done something like it before?

What we are not being is a "copycat".

Also would the people who are seen as being original now, actually be that good compared to some people who came later in both were placed in the same time? Were they genuinely original thinkers or were they simply doing photography when there was an awful lot less of it, so relatively quite easy to be different?

Evidently some were different than their contemporaries. Sorry a discussion of counter factuals doesn't seem interesting to me.

[Diego Pigozzo]

What we are not being is a "copycat".

What if I take some shot in the style of another (famous or not, doesn't matter) photographer and lying about not knowing him?
Would you considered me a copycat?
I could surely be (along being a liar), but how do you know?


So does it really make sense all this copycat stuff?
What about judging and/or enjoying a photo for its own qualities?

[Isaac]

Would you considered me a copycat?

By definition.

So does it really make sense all this copycat stuff?
What about judging and/or enjoying a photo for its own qualities?

What will we see when we consider the body work of that photographer?

[Diego Pigozzo]

By definition.

The problem is that you don't know if I had my own idea or copy other's: I said I didn't know the other photographer, how can you tell if its or isn't true?
So, based on the definition, you could consider me a copycat only if you know I lied.

What will we see when we consider the body work of that photographer?

Something already seen, something not yet seen.
How much "not yet seen" is needed to not be a copycat?

[Isaac]

… only if you know I lied.

You told me you lied.

[Diego Pigozzo]

You told me you lied.

No, I told you I didn't knew him.

[Isaac]

Sorry, squabbling about what your words do or do not mean isn't interesting to me.

[elliot_n]

So does it really make sense all this copycat stuff?
What about judging and/or enjoying a photo for its own qualities?

If no-one tried to be original, you would have nothing to copy. The impulse to find new ways of seeing is the engine of art.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Sorry, squabbling about what your words do or do not mean isn't interesting to me.

Ok, let's make the point clear, then: how much your personal knowledge and the "perceived" photographer's knowledge goes into your judgement of a photo (of that photographer)?

[Diego Pigozzo]

If no-one tried to be original, you would have nothing to copy. The impulse to find new ways of seeing is the engine of art.

I fully agree.
But my point is not about the value of the originality: my point is about the "stopper" status of producing a photo "in the style of".

You saw in this very thread: Salgado is a copycat, and that's all we need to judge his photo.
And my problem is not on "is a copycat", but on "that's all we need to judge his photo".


(I'm refering to Salgado only because my photographic culture is quite limited).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... And my problem is not on "is a copycat", but on "that's all we need to judge his photo".

Who said that?

[Diego Pigozzo]

Who said that?

I can't remember: can you help me on this?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I can't remember: can you help me on this?

i still can't figure it out if you are trying to be funny or what? If you imply I said that, please quote me. I can't remember either.

[Diego Pigozzo]

i still can't figure it out if you are trying to be funny or what? If you imply I said that, please quote me. I can't remember either.

As you said, believe what you wish to believe.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As you said, believe what you wish to believe.

Again!? Seriously!?