Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: A question of ethics.

  1. #1

    A question of ethics.

    A fellow user of this board, whose identity I won't reveal insists on e-mailing me over trivial things such as bad spelling and grammer. This all started becaus e he took offence that I placed a message informing the board that I had certain items for sale.

    Now, low and behold, he says that I'm unethical because of a certain image on my website.

    He quotes.. "You profess high ethics, which can somehow be determined if one c hecks your website (how? because you can take the same picture in Canyon de Chel ly that O'Sullivan did); Unquote.

    Here is the link to the image that so disgruntles this chap. Take a look and see for yourself. Is this really unethical.. if so, where on earth does this leave the Landscape Photographer in 2001? If that is the case I suppose there is very little else for us to capture on film.

    Leave you thoughts on the board.. I'd love to know you feelings on this subject.

  2. #2

    A question of ethics.

    It is a common vantage point. Ansel Adams took a photo from nearly the same position, commenting as well on Sullivan's photo, and how similar his interpretation of it was to Sullivan's. Whether or not you were aware that this had been done before doesn't really have much to do with ethics at all.

  3. #3

    A question of ethics.

    I am trying but I can't, I can't resist it. It is 'lo and behold'. Sorry about that.

  4. #4

    A question of ethics.

    I was just reading the Michael and Paula site today because of a post I read on Azo and ran across an article Michael wrote about teaching photography (called "On Teaching Photography"). The short version is that everything HAS been photographed and a combination of emulating the greats and uniqueness should and must be used together for a photographer to develop his or her own style. While this article doesn't directly answer the question, I thought of it immediately when I read your post.

    I've never been to Canyon de Chelly, but my guess is that there probably aren't a ton of great vantage points to take that photo from, and therefore doing what someone else has done in the past is inevitable.

    Short answer, don't worry about it, but don't run off and photograph Delicate Arch, because that's been done.

  5. #5

    A question of ethics.


    You didn't capture the same photons... you're clear. Vantage points are not the issue, every captures their own light.

  6. #6

    A question of ethics.


    A popular place with a limited number of vantage points is going to lead to a large number of similar photographs. What do you do in Yosemite Valley? Shoot it & enjoy. I see nothing unethical about your image. Besides, both AA & O'Sullivan made their images in B&W.

    Years ago in a local gallery I saw a show of B&W photos that looked like the photographer found Ansel's tripod holes in Yosemite. I would say that that show borders on being plagarism when taken as a whole. A single photo does not.


  7. #7
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Honolulu, Hawai'i

    A question of ethics.

    The land is always changing. The light is never the same twice. Your film, materials and technique are different from O'Sullivan's. Above all, you are not O'Sullivan, and you do not live in O'Sullivan's age, and you have come after O'Sullivan, so your intentions cannot be the same as O'Sullivan's (even if you believed they were, they could not be). There is no ethical question here, at least with regards to plagiarism or anything of that nature, at all.

  8. #8

    A question of ethics.

    Hey Nigel, there is a little button in Outlook express called block sender, I recommend you use it and forget this bozo........ As to your picture, is fine, not unethical to take a pic from the same place as other have done! heck if that was the case nobody should take more pictures of Lower antelope!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 1998

    A question of ethics.

    yours is color and O'Sullivan's is black & white. As others have pinted out it is a pretty common view. I think you should out the person who is harassing you. Either that or just set an e-mail filter to block his incoming missives.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Los Angeles

    A question of ethics.

    I will identify myself as the fellow user about whom Mr. Turner is apparently attempting to draw comment. I made the mistake of sending a PRIVATE email to him suggesting that he not advertise things for sale on the help forum. I was polite and to the point about it. This led to lectures on my need to "get a life," a claim that selling stuff wasn't revealed as a taboo by his search of the site rules (huh?) a claim to high ethics evidenced by his having a website (huh again? the Columbine killers had a website which proves...?) the interesting revelation that he was selling the same stuff on ebay at the same time he was trying to interest all of you folks in buying it (but wait, this was OK because he just wanted to know if you were interested, he never said he'd actually sell it to you, so he's got you there, etc. etc.). There was the grandiose claim that he was morally obligated to tell you all what he was selling, etc. I deleted the last several emails I got from him without reading them. There was an earlier thread (which was, thankfully, deleted) in which he took other people to task for criticizing his English. (It was YOUR FAULT for not speaking his way. The preferred spelling of grammar is "grammer," apparently, and if you don't know the right word then go ahead and use its second cousin.) I don't think I suggested and I did not mean to imply that placing your tripod where others have before is unethical, the point was that he claimed his website demonstrated his ethics which I couldn't quite comprehend. Troubled souls produce art all the time. (Placing your tripod in exactly the same spot is unoriginal, but not unethical per se, though it can happen, of course, that you work the landscape and find a spot you like that someone else also happened to settle upon as a preferred commposition. It can be plagarism or cooincidence.) Actually I liked some of his photos. His point that we are all done for and can't be original because this is 2001 is one I won't agree with. It may be hard to do if you put a pepper in a funnel and make that your starting point, but for the rest of nature I think it can be done. Nigel's behavior, however, is a little strange (this comment, like everything I say, is just my personal opinion) and whether he plays by the rules or not, don't have the nerve to attempt to educate him. Some people have one speed -- attack -- and if you annoy them by suggesting that this website isn't Ebay they have only one way of responding to you. The point of this post of his, I guess, is to have something to do since I started ignoring him. The idea is to take one sentence out of context and then publically post it to get comments from people who don't know what is going on so that he can say "tah dah" or whatever comes next with this person. He wouldn't really "love to know your opinion" unless it is his. You've been warned.

Similar Threads

  1. Ansel Adams : questionable ethics?...or it doesn't matter ?
    By domenico Foschi in forum On Photography
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 21-Feb-2004, 11:28


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts