What compels people to copy other people's photos

[Dan Murphy]

I know of what you are speaking of, 88, and I agree.

 

[TheLionKing]

What compels people to do this? They are probably trying to be helpful first comes to mind.

That being said, it is probably best to ask, PM or email a person if they are interested in suggestions to better process an image rather than doing it and posting it.

No one should assume that just because a photo is posted, that they are looking for ways to improve it.

But, I think most beginners would love to learn just a few of the strengths of what can be done even with relatively inexpensive photo software. Understanding unsharp mask and how levels can really make an image pop are relatively simple ways to enhance a web image.

 

[safetymom]

Most pro photographers that I know realize that if you put any images out on the Internet that people are going to do things with the images. As far as editing someones images I would ask before I went and corrected things and reposted it.

The beauty of digital is the fact that you can create the image the way you want it which may not be the way everyone sees it.

 

[ducklite]

Especially because I have a fully calibrated screen and controlled lighting condition.

The type of work I do it doesn't matter if the color is off by a few degrees.

Case in point. Yes, this photo has a lot of yellow in it. That's the color of the theatrical lighting being used at the time. And if the hue and/or saturation was a bit different, it wouldn't affect the final outcome.

While I can understand all of the calibration people who do portrait work or landscape/architectural, or especially catalogue work do, for me, it just doesn't matter. Of course my type of photography has it's own inherent risks, but they have nothing to do with the processing stage. Rather I have to dodge mosh pits, spit (that's the part that gags me--I've got a photo of Jada Pinkett Smith spitting on the stage, how attractive ), sweat, the feet of crowd surfers coming over the barricade, fists (I walked around with a shiner after shooting a Staind show because of getting too close to an exuberant fan), and so much more.

Anne

 

[Dznefreek]

Isn't the mere fact thay you post/dispaly a photo inviting criticism good or bad or do you believe if you can't say something nice. . . . . . . . .we all know the rest. If you don't want criticism don't show your work.

 

[ducklite]

Isn't the mere fact thay you post/dispaly a photo inviting criticism good or bad or do you believe if you can't say something nice. . . . . . . . .we all know the rest. If you don't want criticism don't show your work.

I always appreciate constructive criticism. What infuriates me is someone altering my work. I belong to a group of concert photographers--some shoot for Stone and other major publications while others are just beginning. We all post our work for peer review. I appreciate their comments--they have helped me become a much better photographer, and they "get it."

What I don't appreciate are comments from people who normally take photo's of weddings telling me that I should have used a speedlight for fill to avoid shadows (uh yeah, use flash=thrown out) or the color is off (Uh yeah, it's called theatrical lighting and it's supposed to be "off") or something along those lines.

Anne

 

[Dznefreek]

It was a general comment, sorry if you took it personally.

 

[ducklite]

It was a general comment, sorry if you took it personally.

No--I didn't take it personally, I was just kind of adding to your comment. Agreeing to a degree actually. I agree, if you post a photo in a photography forum you should be willing to welcome constructive criticism. But people shouldn't criticize what they have no clue about. For example I would never criticize a catalogue photographers work, because I know little to nothing about their process.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

To me it doesn't matter whether the person have the same background or not. All criticism are welcomed. Like I previously mentioned, (I think) I have enough brain power to filter what's applicable for me or otherwise. Never take things personally and I'll learn more everyday.

Heck, when I used to teach piano, I let my student criticise me all the time, and y'know what? Even their out-of-context comments sometimes can be applied to my work and thus producing a fresh approach in my music. Same goes with photography.

In conclusion, these are the things my music and photography teacher told me:

1. Welcome comments and criticism, you can only learn from them.
2. You are never 'above' anybody. Your audience is above you, regardless of their (educational) background.
3. Never take comments and criticism personally, if you do, you'll only hamper your growth.
4. When you display your work (music by recording, performance etc, posting/showcasing photography work etc), you're opening yourself to criticism. Embrace it, it's the most invaluable teacher no money can buy.

 

[willis37862]

I don't think offering constructive criticism and altering a persons photos are the same. I don't mind you saying "maybe next time try......." but I don't really want anyone taking my photo and changing it without asking.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

it's just a sugar coat. Either sugar-coated Vitamin C I'm taking or the capsule form, it's still Vitamin C. It's the essence that matters, not the packaging. For my anyway.

 

[ducklite]

To me it doesn't matter whether the person have the same background or not. All criticism are welcomed. Like I previously mentioned, (I think) I have enough brain power to filter what's applicable for me or otherwise. Never take things personally and I'll learn more everyday.

Heck, when I used to teach piano, I let my student criticise me all the time, and y'know what? Even their out-of-context comments sometimes can be applied to my work and thus producing a fresh approach in my music. Same goes with photography.

In conclusion, these are the things my music and photography teacher told me:

1. Welcome comments and criticism, you can only learn from them.
2. You are never 'above' anybody. Your audience is above you, regardless of their (educational) background.
3. Never take comments and criticism personally, if you do, you'll only hamper your growth.
4. When you display your work (music by recording, performance etc, posting/showcasing photography work etc), you're opening yourself to criticism. Embrace it, it's the most invaluable teacher no money can buy.

I think it depends on how the criticism is offered. If someone wants to comment on my composition, or even white balance, that's something I'd welcome. But if they start talking about how the color looks "off", well, that's going to make me stop reading their comments, because they obviously don't get it.

And again altering my work in any way without getting my prior approval is going to piss me off, period. But I guess you already know that, as you've taken it upon yourself to violate my copyright in the past. For someone who is a so-called professional, that wasn't a very professional thing to do.

Anne

 

[willis37862]

I think it depends on how the criticism is offered. If someone wants to comment on my composition, or even white balance, that's something I'd welcome. But if they start talking about how the color looks "off", well, that's going to make me stop reading their comments, because they obviously don't get it.

And again altering my work in any way without getting my prior approval is going to piss me off, period. But I guess you already know that, as you've taken it upon yourself to violate my copyright in the past. For someone who is a so-called professional, that wasn't a very professional thing to do.

Anne

exactly

 

[Kelly Grannell]

But I guess you already know that, as you've taken it upon yourself to violate my copyright in the past. For someone who is a so-called professional, that wasn't a very professional thing to do.

Anne

You're taking what I did out of context. The context was 'adding watermark so people can't use your image' and I was making a point that in several seconds, anybody with a photoshop (elements, or CS, doesn't matter) can get rid of the watermark.

Also, I'm not as possessive with my works as long as thte person who's using my work without permission is not using it for commercial gain. Lots of time, even, I've taken pictures for major electronics companies and then their dealers just use those pictures on their website. I'll let them, although legally I can ask them to take them down, why? I don't nickel and dime for something like that. I have bigger fish to fry.

That's where we differ and I'm cool with that.

 

[ducklite]

You're taking what I did out of context. The context was 'adding watermark so people can't use your image' and I was making a point that in several seconds, anybody with a photoshop (elements, or CS, doesn't matter) can get rid of the watermark.

Also, I'm not as possessive with my works as long as thte person who's using my work without permission is not using it for commercial gain. Lots of time, even, I've taken pictures for major electronics companies and then their dealers just use those pictures on their website. I'll let them, although legally I can ask them to take them down, why? I don't nickel and dime for something like that. I have bigger fish to fry.

That's where we differ and I'm cool with that.

Out of context or not, you still had no legal right (or ethical one for that matter) to remove the copyright from my photo--and then repost the altered photo. Instead you should have used one of your own to demonstrate your point. Period. By removing the copyright from mine then reposting the altered image, you broke the law. Copyright law doesn't care if it was commercial use or not. Bottom line, you did an illegal and unethical thing, and I'm NOT "cool with that."

Go fry your fish. But leave mine in the pond.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Don't worry, I will leave the small fishies in your pond. Although I respect your view, what I did was still under "Fair Use" because the purpose of the alteration is for educational purpose. To educate that by amblazoning "copyright" watermark is not going deter anybody.

 

[ducklite]

Don't worry, I will leave the small fishies in your pond. Although I respect your view, what I did was still under "Fair Use" because the purpose of the alteration is for educational purpose. To educate that by amblazoning "copyright" watermark is not going deter anybody.

Even if it was legal under "Fair Use" it was unethical, you should have used your own work to demonstrate your point. That's what respect is about, otherwise it's just lip service.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

now you're talking out of context again.

You were talking about "LEGALITIES", now you're talking about "ETHICS", those are two different beasts. You said what I did was illegal, I stated that what I did WAS, in fact, legal and protected by US and Canadian law.

From these posts over here it seems like you're the only one who are so very scared to have your image(s) stolen. Just don't show them to anybody, it's real safe that way.

This is my last post on this thread, I don't want to deal with paranoia.

 

[ducklite]

now you're talking out of context again.

You were talking about "LEGALITIES", now you're talking about "ETHICS", those are two different beasts. You said what I did was illegal, I stated that what I did WAS, in fact, legal and protected by US and Canadian law.

From these posts over here it seems like you're the only one who are so very scared to have your image(s) stolen. Just don't show them to anybody, it's real safe that way.

This is my last post on this thread, I don't want to deal with paranoia.

I also said ethics. People who can't back up their actions run. I guess we see where you stand.

And for the record, I believe you are the only person on this thread who feels it's OK to alter other peoples work without permission. Unethical.

As far as not wanting my work stolen--I have to sign contracts before I can photograph my subjects. Those contracts often restrict the use of my photo's, and I enforce this restriction as neccesary. But then again you take pictures of inanimate objects under controlled conditions that could be taken by anyone, so it's not an issue as much for you I guess.

Anne

 

[Dan Murphy]

.....As far as editing someones images I would ask before I went and corrected things and reposted it.....

I do think (and I certainly may be wrong, LOL), this is what 88 was referring to. At least this is what I was referring to in my reply somewhat earlier. I have seen pictures posted, just for the sake of posting pictures on some of the 'let's see your photos' threads, and then somebody's picture edited, with a "I think this is better' comment. The thread/s I am/are thinking about were simple, 'let's see some neat pictures', and some have taken it upon themselves to say, 'here, this is better'. Again, I may be wrong, but, I do think this is what the OP meant here.