|
I don't think he's saying that he could make shots that are equal to or identical to Lawrence's shots (I don't know the guy, I'm not going to call him by his first name. Seems weird.) What he's saying is that if he or anyone else went to this village, it makes sense that they're going to take photos that could be seen as an attempt at copying, because there just ain't that much to shoot. I also don't think that these are the strongest images in Lawrence's portfolio by a long shot. The lighting is, to me, incongruous with the setting, whereas it feels seamless in the some of the other sets. That said, if Verges really did set out to mimic the work he had seen, that's a raw deal. It is interesting though, because if you take a look at this guy's site, he has some really nice work that is very different from the Mentawali images. But then again, even Lawrence acknowledges that it was not *his* purely original idea-- he got the idea to photograph these people because he read about them and looked at the images the anthropologist had taken. Presumably, he thought that these were really interesting people, and that he could make images that were far more interesting than the anthropologist had taken (which seems a safe bet, most anthropological photography leaves something to be desired). Everything is shades of gray after all. edit: I'm not sure I buy the idea that this guy really dilutes Lawrence's portfolio. The work is clearly not as good, and this guy is not working in even remotely the same circles. Yes, he spent a great deal of time and money on getting his photos, but effort put in isn't what makes a portfolio, it's the quality of the images presented. Verges is a travel photographer, not a commercial shooter. It seems unlikely to the extreme that his dupe shots will cost anyone any work. TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 18:12 on May 6, 2010 |
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Post your portfolio link. A shorter echo of Tsar: I think the point isn't, "Hey, anyone could shoot that," but rather that it's likely those are the subjects and locations anyone would shoot who shot that tribe. The similarity in subject/composition isn't particularly meaningful, alone. Given the difficulty factor in getting to this location and these people, and the fact that this particular guide doesn't do this trip regularly, well, those are the more significant factors that lead me to conclude the second photographer was likely deliberately imitating the earlier shots.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Verges is a travel photographer, not a commercial shooter. It seems unlikely to the extreme that his dupe shots will cost anyone any work. I can see your other points, but I don't know about this one. Imagine if only one person had intimate portraits of homeless people, how powerful that portfolio would be, versus the fact we have now seen hundreds if not thousands of well taken shots of people with weathered faces in ratty clothes down on their luck. It dilutes an images power when you've seen that subject matter too many times. Even if they don't travel in the same circles, I am highly suspect that this doesn't devalue the impact of his personal portfolio at all. Just looking at the second set of images from the 2nd photographer made me a little more bored with Joey's when I went back. Maybe that says something about a lack of pure power in the original work, but businessman and photographers for decades have used originality or difficulty to add value to their work. (lion guy in the mud for instance)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:The fact you've never done pre planned conceptual stuff shows. I don't think that Tsar Aleksi or myself are saying that Joel L is being unoriginal because he took photos of an indigenous tribe. You just can't expect to be the only person to ever take photos of that tribe or even to use studio lights when working in the field. As Aleksi said it's more of a discussion of the idea that isolated tribes are not as isolated as some might believe. Many people from various ethnic groups in the developing world make an industry out of giving westerners an "authentic" experience. I don't see why you're getting belligerent about it; demanding to see foolish pianst's portfolio (which is irrelevant to the discussion) or pointing out that Aleksi does not do conceptual work. Not all photographers consider themselves artists. With that being said I think Verge most likely got his idea to shoot this tribe from Joey L's work. The similarities are too great. However, I don't know the whole story so who knows. TsarAleksi posted:The other thing that bothered me a lot about this particular series is the way that he uses the group name to title his photos. "The Mentawai" strongly implies that these photos summarize the people in a way they most certainly do not. Good point on the title. I just finished a book called A Russian Journal by John Steinbeck and Robert Capa. Steinbeck and Capa traveled around the Soviet Union in 1948 and were actually able to leave Moscow and travel quite a bit. Great book with typically great Robert Capa photos. The thing that I probably like the most about it is that Steinbeck made the point that this was A Russian story not the THE Russian story. I think a lot of people tend to get caught up in the idea that you can define a people through a single (even prolonged) experience with them.  Google Books Link Unfortunately it does not have any of Capas photos in the preview. I am sure if someone is interested one can find them on Magnum's site. edit: Took too long to write this and the discussion has moved on a bit from my original points but ah well gently caress it ZoCrowes fucked around with this message at 18:24 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
The thing is that well-taken photographs of people in tribal regions that are extraordinarily difficult to get to and require weeks or months of work to get are not something that only one person has taken. Hell, there's an entire magazine dedicated to it that has been in print since the 1930s.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:The thing is that well-taken photographs of people in tribal regions that are extraordinarily difficult to get to and require weeks or months of work to get are not something that only one person has taken. Hell, there's an entire magazine dedicated to it that has been in print since the 1930s. Has some kind of yellow border or something... BTW congrats on finishing your degree. I get mine handed to me Saturday. Any post-grad plans?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
I feel like I have seen both sets of pictures a millions times, this kind of noble savage photography has existed as long as white, privileged people have trekked into the jungle with cameras. What is more interesting to me is how a Westerner can try to claim ownership of this subject matter. Someone way more interesting than JoeyL: http://www.pieterhugo.com/ http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/08/pieter-hugo-hyena-and-other-men.html http://www.rachelhulin.com/blog/2010/04/hallo-weekend-hallo-pieter-hugo-and-mona-kuhn.html http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/2008/07/africa-as-freak-show-pieter-hugo.html http://amysteinphoto.blogspot.com/2009/10/response-to-pieter-hugos-photographs.html A lot of that is :NSFW:
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I feel like I have seen both sets of pictures a millions times, this kind of noble savage photography has existed as long as white, privileged people have trekked into the jungle with cameras. What is more interesting to me is how a Westerner can try to claim ownership of this subject matter. The Heyena and Other Men series is amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:
If you use, "anyone could have shot that, including me" as your argument as to why something isn't worthwhile, then yes, your own body of work is important, because if you could not in fact shoot it, then your entire argument is based on a false premise. National geographic has a huge budget, this was a self funded venture (which does make a difference). I'd be interested to see if NatGeo ever did an article on the Mentawai (I bet they have) and look at the photos to see how they compare. You guys are treating this like it's a cut throat business that anything not illegal is fair game, which while technically correct, devalues the artform of photography. If the guy has nice work (which some of it is ok on his site) he should come up with his own ideas, so we can see some new stuff, not copy someone elses. All legal issues aside, it was lovely to do. brad industry posted:I feel like I have seen both sets of pictures a millions times, this kind of noble savage photography has existed as long as white, privileged people have trekked into the jungle with cameras. What is more interesting to me is how a Westerner can try to claim ownership of this subject matter. He doesn´t claim ownership of it. In fact, I wonder if anyone actually read the url that started the discussion. In his own words: In conclusion, Diego- I am not mad at you… I should be flattered that you like my work enough to travel across the world in a plane, then a 10 hour boat across the ocean and then day(s) inland trek just to rip it off. However I ask that you move on and fine something a little more personal to you. Also I dare any of you to claim that if I took your 5 most recent images, and then tried to duplicate them as exactly as I'm able, and then put them forefront in my portfolio, you wouldn't be a little upset. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 18:38 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:
You don't stand a chance with this kind of talent. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
brad industry posted:
Also I find Pietur Hugo's work way more exploitive and patronizing than JoeyL's. It's almost by definition look at these crazy (black) savages and how savage and different they are from us. I know he and others claim it's meta, but I don't buy it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Has some kind of yellow border or something... Nothing in anthro for the time being anyway. I really enjoy it and find it fascinating but I'm not terribly interested in heading right into academia. poopinmymouth posted:Also I find Pietur Hugo's work way more exploitive and patronizing than JoeyL's. It's almost by definition look at these crazy (black) savages and how savage and different they are from us. I know he and others claim it's meta, but I don't buy it. Yeah it feels like it's going way way too far in the opposite direction of 'noble savage' to just... 'savage.' I though that the critique in that last link was really dead on.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:46
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:He doesn´t claim ownership of it. I just find the situation surrounding it way more interesting than the (boring, cliche) photos both of them took. Clearly this other guy copied Lawrence, but what does that even mean when they both hired indigenous people who make a living posing for privileged Westerner tourists? We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had hired the same model from an agency, so what makes them different - that the situation is "authentic"? I am wondering what is "personal" about the images Lawrence took because to me these are about as deep or personal as a stock photo. poopinmymouth posted:Also I find Pietur Hugo's work way more exploitive and patronizing than JoeyL's. It's almost by definition look at these crazy (black) savages and how savage and different they are from us. I know he and others claim it's meta, but I don't buy it. I agree but at least they go a little bit deeper than bad Nat Geo wannabe cliches. The Hyena Men to me does come off as exploitative, but the Nollywood series is way more interesting and I don't think can be dismissed as racist.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I just find the situation surrounding it way more interesting than the (boring, cliche) photos both of them took. Clearly this other guy copied Lawrence, but what does that even mean when they both hired indigenous people who make a living posing for privileged Westerner tourists? We wouldn't be having this discussion if they had hired the same model from an agency, so what makes them different - that the situation is "authentic"? Hmmm, hadn't thought about it like that, and I think you're right. I guess my major problem with it, is that if it were me, I'd also be pissed, and that I hope it doesn't keep him from sharing in the future. Though I think we would be having the same discussion if someone hired the same model, and then lit them similarly, took them to the same location using the person's notes to know where to go, and made the model wear the same outfit.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You guys are treating this like it's a cut throat business that anything not illegal is fair game, which while technically correct, devalues the artform of photography. If the guy has nice work (which some of it is ok on his site) he should come up with his own ideas, so we can see some new stuff, not copy someone elses. All legal issues aside, it was lovely to do. I am not sure I agree with you. I think both pieces of work are nothing more than nice-looking documentary work when you consider the subject matter. Joey L didn't create those people with his imagination, he simply chose the matter in which to portray their "story." You can't lay claim to documenting something. You can be the first to do it in a certain way- which I think is a pretty significant feat that other people can't take away from- but the subject matter isn't yours to claim. edit: Ok should have read to the bottom of the thread, my bad.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 19:24
|
|
|
But Joey L's photos are technically better. Say what you like about the effect of studio lighting in the rainforest, but his images are better-composed and the lighting is easier on the eyes. The arguments in this thread sound a whole lot like people in the wedding thread going "I took photos at a wedding and then the bride said she got enough from Doctor Nikon and cousin Rebel and didn't buy any of mine  ". Yeah, it sucks, but if someone can poorly rip you off and make a dent in your business, then obviously the people you were selling yourself to weren't interested in what you specifically had to offer in the first place.It sucks that he got ripped off but I don't think it really devalues his work that much, because (1) his photos are better and (2) as has been said over and over, he doesn't own the concept of "taking photos of the Mentawi". I don't really consider it plagiarism to go and take "the same photo" as someone else at a different time under different circumstances. There are billions of photos of the Eiffel Tower, or NYC from the top of the Empire State Building, or Mount Rushmore, or any number of other things, and no one accuses anyone of "stealing their shot". If it's someone shooting over your shoulder and triggering all your lights, then yes, I'd consider that plagiarism. If you packed up and left, and they came back in with their own lights and set them up similarly and shot their own photo -- I think it's kind of sleazy of them but I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. I don't know. I just have this belief that if all you can sell is "no one happened to do this before" you're not actually selling anything unique. Some of the National Geographic shots happened on the spur of the moment and will never be possible to get again, some required months or years of coexistence and ethnographic research, some were just impossible to get to without a prolonged effort of some other kind. What makes those photos unique is the circumstances surrounding their creation. What Joey L did, on the other hand, was say "here's this tribe that is fairly easy to get to and is used to being photographed, well, I took photos from these angles and I used studio lighting." That's only unique until the next marginally ambitious guy finds a guide and drags his umbrellas into the forest, which is exactly what happened.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
orange lime posted:But Joey L's photos are technically better. Say what you like about the effect of studio lighting in the rainforest, but his images are better-composed and the lighting is easier on the eyes. The arguments in this thread sound a whole lot like people in the wedding thread going "I took photos at a wedding and then the bride said she got enough from Doctor Nikon and cousin Rebel and didn't buy any of mine I agree with you, but I also think intention should matter. Unless there is boatloads of schadenfruede involved, JoeyL's motivation was interest in this tribe he read about, his passion for travel and meeting new people, and his desire to make studio esque portraits of them. Whereas the copycat's, while we can't know exactly, were motivated in some form of, "look at these images i like that someone else made, i want some of those of my own". One attitude I respect, one I loathe.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
My point wasn't even kinda 'anyone could have shot those photos,' and I'll thank you to stop trying some kind of moronic callout based on a silly misreading. My point is this: torgeaux posted:A shorter echo of Tsar: I think the point isn't, "Hey, anyone could shoot that," but rather that it's likely those are the subjects and locations anyone would shoot who shot that tribe. The similarity in subject/composition isn't particularly meaningful, alone.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
God dammit if only he had used a Leica with Tri-X this wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 22:10
|
|
|
HPL posted:God dammit if only he had used a Leica with Tri-X this wouldn't be an issue. Ha, thinking the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 01:53
|
|
|
Poop, it's really not that bad traveling in undeveloped countries/regions. You'll do fine.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 03:44
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Hell, there's an entire magazine dedicated to it that has been in print since the 1880s. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3273679
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:spog wtf does your avatar mean ive been wondering for years Umm, I guess it is a handful of random thoughts together with playing with an animated gif maker. The young lady is Pink The quote is from Maggie Thatcher (how often do you hear the word 'stench' in politics?) The old guy was from a series of mughshots where the photographer made them really emotional by using a really shallow depth of field and moody lighting. And it replaces a previous avatar which caused people to hate me, but I've lost my copy of it. (Or the perhaps I should say that Pink represents my inner psyche, while the old guy represents my physical future and the quote represents my political views)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 11:10
|
|
|
spog posted:
http://fi.somethingawful.com/customtitles/title-spog.jpg You can usually find all your previous avatars by hacking the url a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 11:27
|
|
|
spog posted:And it replaces a previous avatar which caused people to hate me, but I've lost my copy of it.  And thanks for the explanation, I've wondered about it for a long time.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 11:32
|
|
|
Greybone posted:
I thought avatars were numbered, but in may case the only difference is .jpg/.gif. Clever you for finding it. People used to send me messages, telling me that they hated me, solely because of that one that I had. pwn posted:
I also think the old guy looks like an old relative of the kid, so there is a sort of a link. The mug shot was pretty unusual, obviously the police photographer was a frustrated artist.: 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 11:53
|
|
|
For those who would like a quick history of photography: 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
DJExile posted:For those who would like a quick history of photography: Calvin and Hobbes is a handbook for how I plan to raise my kids. until my wife beats me senseless
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
Cross posting from the video thread. http://vimeo.com/11435910
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
Paul C. Buff announces new polarizer- http://www.paulcbuff-techforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=538 Yeah, that'll show em.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:Paul C. Buff announces new polarizer- gently caress you Cali - I don't want your drat money. Great business plan.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 06:57
|
|
|
...wait, since when was paul c buff insane?quote:My suspicion is that, as we speak, governors of around 28 middle American states are considering mass secession into the new Confederate States of America. If this happens, it won't be like the civil war These states have the real power today, the energy resources, the workforce and constitutional attitude, the military might and the will to remove big government and public unions and corruption from their lives. If this should happen, the seceding states will become what America once was - a global superpower, while the remaining liberal states will sink into the Socialist/Marxist status Europe is headed for.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Californa uber alles 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 07:07
|
|
|
dakana posted:My suspicion is that, as we speak, governors of around 28 middle American states are considering mass secession into the new Confederate States of America. If this happens, it won't be like the civil war These states have the real power today, the energy resources, the workforce and constitutional attitude, the military might and the will to remove big government and public unions and corruption from their lives. If this should happen, the seceding states will become what America once was - a global superpower, while the remaining liberal states will sink into the Socialist/Marxist status Europe is headed for. Wow. So what's a good alternative to Alienbees?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
He just wants to take some heat off the problems he seems to have with releasing new products 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
PS I'm not racist because:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
You mean you guys didn't already know he was batshit?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
I just always assume that anyone who owns a business is basically evil and crazy. That way I find myself pleasantly surprised if they're nice.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2010 18:09
|
|
