Can Shots be Duped?

[Sevo]

So the question I would like to pose is: Do you believe that shots can be duped?

Hardly a question of belief. Some serious time lapse guys are routinely doing it, to do long-time sequences in places where you cannot leave a unattended camera. But it often amounts to a camera joined to triangulation equipment (up to a entire total station), or to a fixed assembly with some precision mount which is partially installed on location.

And somewhat similar things have been done for ages with film and video - for composites, the perspective, lighting and contrast of fore- and background must be perfectly matched to give a credible result. And it often is done to perfect credibility - but it may take days for a crew of specialized engineers to measure and record all parameters of one set and rebuild them on the other.

Of course, duping anothers pictures is harder - but with enough effort and known variables, it can be done. Much of the art of reprography and technical documentation focuses on exact repetition of all conditions.

Sevo

[Steven Barall]

Since photographs are totally subjective, the answer to your question is no. And that doesn't even take into consideration the always changing nature of nature. I'm just talking about brain and body stuff like perception and eyesight and then add to that the technical stuff like lenses and films and chemicals. Photographs are like fingerprints, no two are the same. Have a great weekend everybody.

[Bruce Watson]

The point of the question is this: I have been asked to be involved in a project where I would 'give' my locations out for use to the project. ... The 'fear' would be, can someone else really dupe the shot, if I help tell them where to stand?

Really, they can't. Things change. The weather, the light, the seasons, mankind's intervention. Things age and fall apart, or age and grow in different directions. Trees drop limbs. And add new limbs. Or grow tall enough that they are in the way (take a look at the Blue Ridge Parkway for a graphic illustration of *that*).

It really comes down to what you mean by "dupe." If I set up in your tripod holes, use the same format and lens, same shutter speed and aperture, same film, frame it the same way you did, everything the same... I'll still make a different photograph. It can be wildly different (you had snow, I've got fall color, you had a raging waterfall, I've got a photograph of the rocks behind the waterfall) or very similar. But it's not going to be the *same.*

Lots of people have set up in St. Ansel's tripod holes, but there's only one "Clearing Winter Storm." Similarly, I've never seen a duplicate of my photograph of Lower Cullasaja Fall. Even though there's really only one spot you can stand in to make it, it's a really obvious spot, and it's been photographed many tens of thousands of times from that very spot.

[sanking]

I suspect that you took twenty people to the same place and they all shot the same scene with their tripods in the same holes all twenty final prints would be different. In your place I would not be afraid that someone would "dupe" my photograph, but that given enough chances someone would make a much better one.

Sandy King

Now, I know that there are a lot of places I've been that a huge audience already knows about. There are more than a few though, that (as far as I know) no one knows about and they are stunning places. The 'fear' would be, can someone else really dupe the shot, if I help tell them where to stand?

[Ralph Barker]

"Do you believe that shots can be duped?"

Since there are no limitations placed on the actual question, I'd have to say, "Yes."

Within the context of the post (outdoor, natural scenes), however, I'd say, "Only in the most superficial way."

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I disagree with most of the posters here. Although it's theoretically impossible to exactly duplicate a shot at a later time or by another photographer, for most subjects there are a few obvious compositions that most photographers would gravitate to. Most landscape photographers are going to work in similar light around sunrise and sunset, so while the results won't be identical, to the non-photographer they will be two pictures of pretty much the same thing. If you have secret locations, I would recomend that you keep them just that. Not only could your shots be reproduced, but the location might just become the next landscape photography cliche, and be destroyed by the masses of tourists who descend on it to pay it homage with their cameras.