I was recently going through some of Galen Rowell’s old essays and came across “Beyond Coincidence” in the Inner Game of Outdoor Photography. Rowell was an inspiration for me when I was learning photography. I vaguely recall reading it back in the day — back before I was selling prints and running workshops. In the essay, he writes about multiple different photographers producing similar or even the same compositions and then selling those works as their own. He ponders about whether those works are derivative, and if so whether or not they should be shared, used for monetary gain, or even if the person making the derivative should be taken to court if they used it for profit.
I do think there is a difference between wanting to get a similar shot to another photographer (I still want a Yosemite tunnel view shot) and the "Instagram effect" where you are taking photos of a particular place for a meme or because everyone else is doing it. But in the end, a photographer needs to trust their own eye and vision and not just be a copier of others. That's the value of taking a course like yours in person with a group of other photographers, too, I think, so one can experience directly how that works. How a half dozen of us can be in the same area, but get a wide variety of shots based on what we see and what we like and where our art takes us.
This happens a lot with my photos, and I am also of the same attitude. What can you do? The culture has changed to the point that now it’s expected that people will copy, which I think is sad. It’s definitely way more fun to come up with something originals I try to tell students that. I just did a long post about photographing icons that you should check out.
Thank you for the the thought provoking article Nryan. Art is full of people finding "inspiration" from past work - although I am sure that blatent copying would be frustrating (how much money lost are we talking here?). A different (more provocative perspective) - the landscape is giving the photographer a gift (or the photographer is taking the photo), receive this gift with gratitude. It is not owned by anyone.
Back in the day when Rowell wrote his article, the money lost could be in the several thousands per image. It's different now, but back then there was a lot of money in photography licensing.
I appreciate the gift idea. I try hard (and fail sometimes) not to personify the environment. But if we were to make the landscape into a being that could give gifts, you'd think the landscape would give the gift of originality to everyone. 🙂
What I find interesting is that college presidents get fired over plagiarism, but in landscape photography plagiarism, copying other people's compositions and locations, is just part of the game. As a learning process, I have no issues with it. As a source of inspiration, I have no issues with it. But the goal after learning photography and composition should be being original, don't you think?
Thought provoking article. I agree with your take on it. Would be quite flattering to have someone try and recreate an image I photographed and even more complimentary if I helped them
create or further that vision into something uniquely their own. Hopefully someday I will be able to take a workshop with you. Until then I will continue to enjoy your newsletter and your work. Thank you for making me think and helping me progress as a photographer. Have a great week and hoping you get your colder weather 🙂
I have seen a lot of photos over my years and gone to the location to capture an image. But I try to make it my own even if others recognize the location. I never try to copy what others have done. On two occasions I have been accused of stealing another photographers photo but I have never stolen an image. Never will. I recall one time I was at a popular location and there was a photographer there that had a copy of a magazine with a photo of that spot. He was adjusting his gear to make an exact copy of the shot. Why? Make it your own. Always try to make it your own vision.
Interesting topic as always. I just ran into this myself, as a student. I was taking a class on long exposure and the instructor did this really fun “jiggle “ with holiday lights in a very iconic area of my town. I went down to practice the lesson and ended up in same place. I tried the “jiggle “ almost identical. I loved my pic and was proud of it, posted it on our online group site but did start with “I couldn’t help but put myself there…”. But I even felt funny with it showing just the class participants. As a beginner of intentioned photography I do spend time with folks I like cause it’s hard to find all the local places to photograph. And I find lots of others are there and each photograph has some element of uniqueness.
Bryan makes a lot of sense on many aspects of photography in his comments in this newsletter, as per usual. With a population approaching 8 billion +- and a gazillion smart phones with amazing cameras it’s hard to imagine anyone getting a totally unique photo of anything anymore. So, in addition to Bryan’s comments I would add there is the experience value of being in the moment of wherever you are in composing “your photo” in your minds eye. The value in the fine photo workshops such as Bryan does and I have attended many over the years, provide the valuable linkage to places, people (new friends) and great experiences which cannot be duplicated by just trying to figure out where someone took a photo and then duplicate for whatever reason.
When you’re learning to paint, it is very common to spend quite a time copying other’s work. It teaches you composition, technique, mixing pigments to try to match a color, all sorts of things. But that doesn’t mean you stop there; the hope is that you will take those lessons and skills, and create your own compositions, develop your own techniques, using colors that you select, and make your own art. Based on what you see, not on what someone else has seen. You’ve said the same thing I think, and with the same hope, that your students move beyond imitating into a unique expression. This method seems to have worked for a few thousand years, I think it’s worth continuing.
Seems odd that some would make a selfish claim to a particular view or perspective image of the natural world as if they “own” it outright, when anyone else could also visit the same public place and envision a similar artistic take on the inherent aesthetic value of the same scene.
Mimicking a master is how we learn, whether it’s learning to talk, learning a certain dance, learning a language, or learning photography. I suppose the hope should be that the student eventually also learns to be creative and expand into new areas of their craft. Or in photography that they develop their own eye and create new and interesting images. But of course, not everybody develops that creative gene. Some will be satisfied with creating a few photos that are like other wonderful images. I have absolutely done that myself from time to time, even though I’ve been photographing professionally for more than 20 years.
I do think there is a difference between wanting to get a similar shot to another photographer (I still want a Yosemite tunnel view shot) and the "Instagram effect" where you are taking photos of a particular place for a meme or because everyone else is doing it. But in the end, a photographer needs to trust their own eye and vision and not just be a copier of others. That's the value of taking a course like yours in person with a group of other photographers, too, I think, so one can experience directly how that works. How a half dozen of us can be in the same area, but get a wide variety of shots based on what we see and what we like and where our art takes us.
This happens a lot with my photos, and I am also of the same attitude. What can you do? The culture has changed to the point that now it’s expected that people will copy, which I think is sad. It’s definitely way more fun to come up with something originals I try to tell students that. I just did a long post about photographing icons that you should check out.
I read your post which reminded me of this one that I had written.
I live in Two Harbors MN and this photo is in my living room and it’s soooo amazing!!!
Thank you Brian!!
Thank you for the the thought provoking article Nryan. Art is full of people finding "inspiration" from past work - although I am sure that blatent copying would be frustrating (how much money lost are we talking here?). A different (more provocative perspective) - the landscape is giving the photographer a gift (or the photographer is taking the photo), receive this gift with gratitude. It is not owned by anyone.
Back in the day when Rowell wrote his article, the money lost could be in the several thousands per image. It's different now, but back then there was a lot of money in photography licensing.
I appreciate the gift idea. I try hard (and fail sometimes) not to personify the environment. But if we were to make the landscape into a being that could give gifts, you'd think the landscape would give the gift of originality to everyone. 🙂
What I find interesting is that college presidents get fired over plagiarism, but in landscape photography plagiarism, copying other people's compositions and locations, is just part of the game. As a learning process, I have no issues with it. As a source of inspiration, I have no issues with it. But the goal after learning photography and composition should be being original, don't you think?
Thought provoking article. I agree with your take on it. Would be quite flattering to have someone try and recreate an image I photographed and even more complimentary if I helped them
create or further that vision into something uniquely their own. Hopefully someday I will be able to take a workshop with you. Until then I will continue to enjoy your newsletter and your work. Thank you for making me think and helping me progress as a photographer. Have a great week and hoping you get your colder weather 🙂
I have seen a lot of photos over my years and gone to the location to capture an image. But I try to make it my own even if others recognize the location. I never try to copy what others have done. On two occasions I have been accused of stealing another photographers photo but I have never stolen an image. Never will. I recall one time I was at a popular location and there was a photographer there that had a copy of a magazine with a photo of that spot. He was adjusting his gear to make an exact copy of the shot. Why? Make it your own. Always try to make it your own vision.
Interesting topic as always. I just ran into this myself, as a student. I was taking a class on long exposure and the instructor did this really fun “jiggle “ with holiday lights in a very iconic area of my town. I went down to practice the lesson and ended up in same place. I tried the “jiggle “ almost identical. I loved my pic and was proud of it, posted it on our online group site but did start with “I couldn’t help but put myself there…”. But I even felt funny with it showing just the class participants. As a beginner of intentioned photography I do spend time with folks I like cause it’s hard to find all the local places to photograph. And I find lots of others are there and each photograph has some element of uniqueness.
Bryan makes a lot of sense on many aspects of photography in his comments in this newsletter, as per usual. With a population approaching 8 billion +- and a gazillion smart phones with amazing cameras it’s hard to imagine anyone getting a totally unique photo of anything anymore. So, in addition to Bryan’s comments I would add there is the experience value of being in the moment of wherever you are in composing “your photo” in your minds eye. The value in the fine photo workshops such as Bryan does and I have attended many over the years, provide the valuable linkage to places, people (new friends) and great experiences which cannot be duplicated by just trying to figure out where someone took a photo and then duplicate for whatever reason.
When you’re learning to paint, it is very common to spend quite a time copying other’s work. It teaches you composition, technique, mixing pigments to try to match a color, all sorts of things. But that doesn’t mean you stop there; the hope is that you will take those lessons and skills, and create your own compositions, develop your own techniques, using colors that you select, and make your own art. Based on what you see, not on what someone else has seen. You’ve said the same thing I think, and with the same hope, that your students move beyond imitating into a unique expression. This method seems to have worked for a few thousand years, I think it’s worth continuing.
Seems odd that some would make a selfish claim to a particular view or perspective image of the natural world as if they “own” it outright, when anyone else could also visit the same public place and envision a similar artistic take on the inherent aesthetic value of the same scene.
Mimicking a master is how we learn, whether it’s learning to talk, learning a certain dance, learning a language, or learning photography. I suppose the hope should be that the student eventually also learns to be creative and expand into new areas of their craft. Or in photography that they develop their own eye and create new and interesting images. But of course, not everybody develops that creative gene. Some will be satisfied with creating a few photos that are like other wonderful images. I have absolutely done that myself from time to time, even though I’ve been photographing professionally for more than 20 years.
Well said, great points.
Oops Bryan!!!