[IMG]http://s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20101226/TW77YvA7.jpg[/IMG]
"In the Light"
13x18 Ilford delta 100
Dallmeyer 3D
Printable View
[IMG]http://s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20101226/TW77YvA7.jpg[/IMG]
"In the Light"
13x18 Ilford delta 100
Dallmeyer 3D
[IMG]http://s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20101229/RmtFhHZ7.jpg[/IMG]
"deep inside"
13x18 Svema 64
Pulligny landscape lens f16
Ustas I love your photos, but this one seems very weak. Did you rush to scan this? You've lost a lot of the tones and the contrast seems wrong. Usually your pictures have a wonderful gradient between light and dark.
Ok)
This is another try
Lovely image and use of light. Very painterly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ustas
I was so taken with this image that I took the liberty of using it in an oil painting just completed. I know its not LF nonetheless derivative of this most powerful of images. I have named it "Superhero with nevus and accompanying nevi." The title is from the description of another poster who is obviously a retired Doc.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobpin
Clearly you are more of a plagiarist than an artist. One wonders if all of your paintings are stolen images and ideas with so little independant creative input.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kara
Oh for Christchurch's sake....
Yup, that was just totally unnecessarily harsh, and potentially way off the mark. Hard to believe that people post stuff like that without knowing the recipient.
I was thinking the same thing as David, although didn't say anything because that's an issue that's rightfully between the painter and the photographer. It's a legitimate concern, and Frank's comment seems to be "Who cares? Don't be so petty."
Am I reading you correctly Frank? You don't respect intellectual property?
Peter
Your head is definitely stuck somewhere.......you should pull it out before permanent damage is done!Quote:
Originally Posted by mdm
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kara
It's a contentious issue, however a previous remark I made about watermarking photos and providing them in a low resolution was met with "No!!". Can't seem to win here.
You can see it from both sides. Typically a painter is moved by something and paints it (standard practice). As far as it being plagiarism, I don't think so in this case. He has clearly stated where and how he got the image, and is paying homage.
If its your image you can complain, if it's not your image then why piss on someone else's fire? The internet is plagued with hiding behind a monitor and bitching about people knowing they'll never knock on your door and knock your teeth out. If it is of concern to anyone, then send a private message and sort it out.
Previously any issue with someone online has been swiftly dealt with using the PM's. Why publicly flog someone? I'm trying my best not to turn to stereotypes, political or regional slurs.
I am afraid it is too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Walker
Seriously though, how would you like your masterpiece to be brutalised.
Thank you, Ash.
I see it as George paying the photographer a compliment.
+1. Since the photographic print and the painting would never be confused for one another, what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
Back to the whole thought about art objectifying; My own approach to photography is to personalize things using photography as the means. I don't take nude photos, at least yet, though I have nothing against it.
I think the 'objectifying' can be something the artist intends a viewer to do, but I don't think that's always the case. Many photographers I know, want someone to be emotionally moved by the photograph; that's the opposite of objectifying.
Culturally, we are inundated with man made images thousands if not millions of times a day - as a result of that, I think many people do objectify images and art, no matter if they are nudes or not.
My own goal, is to bring something to the viewer they may not have otherwise noticed,felt, known, sensed or otherwise been moved by. I like photographing people, though not in studio settings right now. I like nature photography too, and there are other things I like to shoot. Personally, I like viewing nudes for a variety of reasons; all of them are sensual though not all are sexual. But that is true of other kinds of photography too.
There are images I objectify though too. I'm pretty sure everyone is guilty of it in some capacity or other, but I don't think that's the purpose of any branch of art - though I could be wrong about that. I have learned that when I'm taking photographs, or drawing, that I need to be objective in my observations; viewing any art can be done objectively too, and that can lead to finding relationships between parts of the image/frame/tone, etc. But I don't think that's it's purpose.
If I have stepped out of line here, I do apologize. I still have a lot to learn, but I have liked the images and discussion here so far.
The photographer had control over the image. That's the issue with copyrights. He may have promised the subject that his image wouldn't be sold or reproduced. Does the subject know that his image was to be reproduced? Would he have permitted it?Quote:
He is brave to come to my studio and asked me to take a series of portrait for him. He believes that taking photos of his body can be a process to accept himself
Peter
The issue with copyright is that it's up to the copyright owner to enforce, however they choose.
That, of course, never stops a bunch of armchair-lawyers on the internet from feigning outrage at any perceived slight that had nothing to do with them in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mounier
Mdm is merely a troll and a simpleton. I was moved by the image. It is a tribute to the photographer and young man who posed. It takes a tremendous amount of courage for a young person to face such a disability and attempt to come to terms with it. I kind of think of him as a superhero.
I also take it as a compliment that someone - no matter how uneducated, would think of my work as brutal. :)
David (mdm), make sure you address each person so you know who is who. It sounded like you were attacking Scott, but Scott is only an observer/conversation-er like myself here.
Peter has a point. However that could be moot, knowing that the image has been published online. It's no longer a personal project, nor is it for the eyes of the two involved. It has taken on greater meaning (as much as to make us aware, and to make us argue).
+1 to what Paul says also.
Final anecdote. My series "Don't Change" follows a similar pattern of photographing someone with a serious illness and allowing the person to view themself. Charly's potentially fatal cancer has messed up her life in some respects, but at least she's alive. Anyway, it took months to convince her to undertake the project and agree to some of the shots. There are more shots like nudes that I never put online.
The punchline is, I told her where they'd end up. I told her I wanted to publish them in as many ways as possible, have them in exhibitions and so on. In two weeks time they'll be in a group show, and one of the images has been used for all the publicity.
If someone painted her, I'm sure she'd be flattered but a little weirded out.
Embellishment and interpretation is common and accepted practice in any creative field. I have had my paintings used as a reference for photographic images as well.
Plagiarism as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary is the " use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. "
Clearly the painting is not a close imitation of the photograph. Photography and painting are also vastly different languages. The pose and unique condition of the subject were the starting point. The color, texture and context are my variation on this profound theme of beauty, acceptance and mortality.
If english was your first language, you would understand that my comment can be taken at least 3 ways:Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kara
-The sitters master piece is brutalised
-The excelent and courageous photograph has been brutalised by your masterful interpretation
-Your masterful interpretation has been brutalised
Your work is not brutal.
I may be rude and inconsiderate but it cant all be back slapping and high fives. A little dissonance is not only a very creative thing, but also highly entertaining. And in theese situations one learns a great deal about peoples motivation. I have no axe to grind.
On a forum such as this groupthink is an ever present danger.
I hope you will post many large format photographs in the years to come and I am shure you have a great deal to give, coming here as a painter. This is the Large Format Photography Forum.
I hope most of all that bobpin and others, will continue to post truly outstanding work without fear of it being stolen or misused. I am here to learn from them, large format photography is difficult. It is so hard to get a close portrait in focus, to get a complex plant form just so, to produce a print that feels right.
By the way, the link in your signature is broken for me, scaryink.com does not work.
Have a happy 2011.
David
PS Thanks Ash, gotta love the English.
ExactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by George Kara
The central image in your painting is a mirror image of bobpin's image. No hiding from that. You could have just flipped it in Photoshop and applied some sort of brutalising filter and there is your painting, save for a few indistinct brush strokes here and there.
I have not changed my opinion.
Lets say you like to paint nudes, instead of hiring a model or imagining a scene, you just rip off a Man Ray or an Edward Weston or a gandolfi, ustas or a bobpin. Lets say you sell your painting for $$$$$$$$$ to a hedgefund manager, or a pervert at a fleamarket. What does that make you? Lets say you give it to your friend, who sells it on ebay. What does that make you? Lets say you were just having a shot yourself and paint over the canvas, no worries. What if you asked permission first? Would it be given? This is a nude we are talking about. What if you gave it to the photographer or the sitter? Would they destroy it? What if you published your painting on the cover of Vouge? Is that the same as publishing it on a forum such as this, without permission?
What if I posed a model in exactly the same pose and made a photograph or painting? What if I posed the exact same model exactly as bobpin did and made a photograph, or a painting? Where is the line?
I still have not changed my opinion? Have you?
And the issue with shoplifting is for the shop owners to resolve, leaving the police free for traffic control and writing tickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_C
David
Your understanding of the legal and ethical rights surrounding the creative process are thin and brittle. May I suggest you spend ten minutes tapping away to research these issues?. There are countless examples of this discussion. Painters have borrowed or used photographic reference of others for their works since the dawn of photography.
This spans from JL Gerome through Francis Bacon, Thomas Eakins, Adolf Gottlieb and the list wonderfully expands and continues. In a recent exhibit of Gerome, the curator located many of the original very early photos and placed them next to the oil paintings. It was a fascinating move on the part of the organizers. The original paintings never carried attribution nor was it needed. There are books of the photographic references used by any one particular painter.
What is clear, is that your eyes need training. Clearly this is an oil painting - photoshop can never replicate the original thing. If you look at the figure, you will see every proportion is different from the photo. This is because it is hand drawn and not from a projection or digital manipulation.
The figure was inverted to bear a closer relationship to the secondary image which was drawn without reference.
BTW, I could absolutely use Man-Ray references anytime I want.
All artists through all mediums beg, borrow, steal and riff off one another. Its called influence and its what people do to one another.
Using cliches such as "groupthink" are insulting to this particular group. Most of the photographers here are highly skilled mature, and have their own well considered opinions styles and processes. There is little in the way of "cattle mentality."
I followed George's advise and researched this a little bit, and I found references that seem to contradict his position.
http://painting.about.com/cs/artists...yrightfaq7.htm
http://painting.about.com/cs/artists...yrightfaq5.htm
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#113
If you can provide references that seem to allow copying photographs for a derivative work without getting permission from the copyright owner, it might be helpful.
Peter
I'm not getting into this, but I do wonder why photographs from 6x17 cameras are removed by the moderators but a painting seems to be ok...
"I'm not getting into this...", but I'll give the hornet's nest a whack anyway.
LOL!
Vaughn
Google "Richard Prince" and look up how he steals images and reinvents them. Everything from his cowboy photos to recent works of other photographers have provoked the same discussion. Unfortunately he's been caught out a few times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/ar...ts&oref=slogin
As for Francis Bacon, I was under the assumption he took all his own photographs, or had friends take them for him. A year or two ago there was a huge retrospective in London cataloging his works and his influences, providing detailed scrapbooks of where he took his reference material.
Many artists paint directly onto the references.
David, the concept of the Auteur is convoluted and a minefield. On the surface it is easy to call something plagiarism where another would call it allusion or homage. Unfortunately you both will be going round in circles.
Final point I nearly forgot: almost none of Shakespeare's plays were his own. Most classical paintings were not painted by the names they are attributed to. Most history is not a true or fair account.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn
Ownership of ideas in today's art world is decidedly up in the air. Many will borrow quite freely and think nothing of it. Getting upset often makes you the bad guy. The line in the sand, in my mind, gets drawn when money is made with a borrowed idea.
Can't we just get on with posting some more artistic boobs?
I agree Lachlan. Cut the bickering and just post photos. If I had access to a scanner, that's what I'd do myself. Let the photos speak for themselves.
Mike
ok then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachlan 617
Painted with light. Pol 665.
"Friends"
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/30...e081307d31.jpg
and "hommage":
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/68...f49ab75160.jpg
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Final example of many famous paintings with their photographic reference and then I will remove all posts of mine - if I can figure out how.
http://www.fogonazos.es/2006/11/famo...praphs_06.html
Wonderful work, Emil! Completely different from each other, and each exactly as it should be.
Happy new year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P23W02V6wo
We could make a 2011 challenge out of this
very interesting video. thanks for the link
Shot these about 8 months ago for a calendar submission. The first one made it in.
These were 4x5 shot to be cropped square. FP4+ in PMK.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...ted-1small.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...nudesmall3.jpg
she moved on the last one :(
Okay, it looks like things have settled down here, so hopefully its safe to post again!
4x5 with 6" Darlot.
4x5 Fp4+ in PMK with Super Graphic
Both the scans need work. The tree in the first is fully in the frame, but alas my wood stove likes to belch ash onto my film, and its winter so there's no rescanning until the propane heated darkroom is finished.
and this is a beautiful image! the swirling in the back is not too dominant, but I see it rather as turmoil in their lives... (too much? :) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Aharonian
The covering on their front is delicate.. and works for me.
Well one thing is certain. This is my final post. I will no longer make any more comments or contributions - although I may occasionally lurk. A troll cut my head off and its no longer any fun to contribute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Aharonian
George, I know it is hard to ignore those that look to cause trouble, but just forget it and continue to participate. You learn after some time that we indeed have a few (put what ever descriptive word you'd like here, I use narcissistic) individuals that like to blow their own horn by trying to be more of an authority than they are.
"Well one thing is certain,"
to quote a post above.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion...
but, "One thing for certain," the longer those opinions are, the more worthless they become...
Strange, I had held off posting because of several of George's comments I had considered trolling. Not that he was the only one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kara
Isn't this discussion finished ?
None of this would have occurred had the basic 'rules' been followed....
"Image Sharing & Discussion Post your own (large-format only) images for sharing and discussion."
Thanks,
Dan King