|
Musket posted:Your 2 year old could probably make art, but could your 2 year old shoot warzone photography? A 2 year old might have trouble holding up a professional grade DSLR. I'm sure a properly trained 4-year-old Afghan could take warzone photography, though. That gives me an idea for a charity...
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
xzzy posted:I hate how artists talk. Why couldn't he just say he didn't like having a dog and a factory in the photo, so he edited them out? Going by that quote, I bet he wanted to have to edit them out, to highlight the need to use technology to see the aesthetic/poetical concept of the river (kinda inverting Heidegger). Perhaps he named it Rhine II to highlight the fact that it's not the Rhine you're looking at, and it's not an image of the Rhine you're looking at, it's an image of someone's idea of the Rhine that you're looking at (eg a picture of a second Rhine). edit: nope im wrong http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gursky-the-rhine-ii-p78372/text-summary I guess if you substitute "the contemporary Rhine" in that last bit it works, but its deffo his second Rhine picture. Art is hard. 
Spime Wrangler fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Yeah, like he used a thesaurus to pick each word. No, just a high-end version of Microsoft Word.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Hey dakana, glad I could grab you in a thread lull. You never actually explained why the statement "anyone there and with a camera could take this photo" infuriates you? I couldn't find anything on google. And Weegee said "F/8 and be there" which I think pretty much means the same thing and people quote that all the time. Does it make you angry when someone quotes a photographer saying it? I can't find any of your photos? Do your photos look like they could be taken by anyone, is it all about you feeling special? It's a pity your name is so common, otherwise I'd google and critique you in the Terrible Photos thread. I see you like guns from your post history, my uncle in law used to shoot dogs that would roam onto his property at night and deliver the corpses to the owners the next day. He'd shoot your dog if it did that; do you have a dog? Sorry. Why does the statement upset you, or turn you into a Jekyll-like lovely-syntax snark-beast? Help learn me better photograph taking & talking, please. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
I totally double-posted and want to kill myself now. I think it was because I'm stealing Internet and I'm fairly certain they're onto me and they keep turning it on and off but they've completely underestimated my patience. I'm playing the long game. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Wow okay I know it's taintchat and all, but let's all be civil and courteous and gentlemanly and poo poo. And I guess don't shoot anyone's dog too or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
I shot some dogs once. From a moving vehicle, on public property. I don't know how that relates to art or photojournalism. But, it was through a dirty window, which is a metaphor for something, I'm sure of it! SD 053 Dirty Window Dogs by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Some powerful schadenfreude for you all, just read the plagiarists statement at the bottom of the article  http://www.petapixel.com/2012/12/11/photogs-find-paintings-that-look-just-like-their-photos-hanging-in-a-gallery/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
she didn't even plagiarise any particularly interesting pictures either. Just looks like humdrum flickr explore stuff
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:she didn't even plagiarise any particularly interesting pictures either. Just looks like humdrum flickr explore stuff Haha you just looked at the photos without reading and saw the girl and decided she's the artist didn't you? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Some powerful schadenfreude for you all, just read the plagiarists statement at the bottom of the article You know, I can understand being a bit upset about someone not crediting you while working in a bit of a is-it-plagiarism-or-is-it-art grey zone, but jesus christ at least try to settle the situation like an adult. But no, instead of contacting the guy, discussing things, and maybe coming to a mutual agreement the immediate reaction had to be whipping up a facebook mob to burn this guy's career to the ground. Making the dude destroy the paintings on top of everything else is simply juvenile revenge for a bruised ego.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:You know, I can understand being a bit upset about someone not crediting you while working in a bit of a is-it-plagiarism-or-is-it-art grey zone, but jesus christ at least try to settle the situation like an adult. So its ok for someone to steal your photos, make paintings out of them without giving you credit. Just going along like the idea was 100% their own? Thats ok? Good to know. The adult thing would have been to not steal someones work to begin with. The painter got what they deserved. It may not be how you would have handled it but it was handled. The painter deserved every ounce of hate.  You dont make a career on the coattails of someone elses hard work and talent, unless your Krock or Urban Outfitters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
While destroying the guy's career with the reddit mob is a bit excessive, I think his post-discovery behavior falls under the "I'm sorry I got caught" mantle. The painter didn't contact the photographers to ask permission to trace their work, or let them know he was doing it or make arrangements before he ripped off their work. He could have taken several easy steps to keep everything above board before tracing, painting and hanging the derivative work in an art gallery; instead he saved the photo from flickr or instagram and went to work. He chose not to do the right thing, and they responded with the nuclear option. Maybe the story skips a few steps, like the photographers trying to contact him (perhaps at the gallery) and being blown off? e:   Me & Musket, bros for life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
There is a post on the miami times site claiming attempts by the photographer to phone the artist weren't returned, but it's not clear how much time was allowed to go by before taking it to the internet or if all of this was going on at the same time. I suspect there was more going on in the background than has been reported online so it's hard to pass judgement on what the correct course of action was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Haha you just looked at the photos without reading and saw the girl and decided she's the artist didn't you? no, I saw the artist being referred to as Miranda but didn't realise it was a surname on my quick skim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
"I didn’t steal these images. My only mistake was not giving the original artists credit." Loses all credability. "Now everything is all f**ked up. I don’t have a gallery. I don’t have a job. I don’t have any way to make money … Now nobody wants to buy my work, even though most of it isn’t a copy of anything." What I dont understand is how she can go on and on about her career being ruined when she was the one that chose to steal the art to begin with. Ohhhh I forgot they teach Self-Entitlement at the Art Institute of (CITY NAME) The correct course of action when someone steals your art is to what xzzy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Some people just don't know how to interpret Picasso.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Musket posted:The correct course of action when someone steals your art is to what xzzy? Why are you getting pissy at me? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm just saying that the reporting on this story is terrible because it doesn't do a good job providing a timeline of what happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Musket posted:So its ok for someone to steal your photos, make paintings out of them without giving you credit. Just going along like the idea was 100% their own? Thats ok? Good to know. I'm not saying it's ok to steal. I'm just saying the photographer acted like an rear end in a top hat and a child and certainly isn't a hero in this story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:I'm not saying it's ok to steal. I'm just saying the photographer acted like an rear end in a top hat and a child and certainly isn't a hero in this story. Try selling tapes (analog copies) of songs off the radio, or selling a recording of a song you haven't licensed, and when you get caught see if the RIAA/ASCAP makes you destroy them. My money is on "yes". The painter tried to profit by making a direct unlicensed copy of a work in a different medium. Even Shepard Fairey's famous plagarism of an AP photograph had a little bit of derivative work and originality, whereas this is just a straight up copy. If the painter had hung it up on his bedroom wall? Technically illegal, but no one gives a gently caress, no one's going to make you destroy it. Showing art at a gallery is most definitely commercial use and yeah, nothing wrong with seeing that the master isn't going to be used to generate more infringement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Good point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Try selling tapes (analog copies) of songs off the radio, or selling a recording of a song you haven't licensed, and when you get caught see if the RIAA/ASCAP makes you destroy them. My money is on "yes". You seem to be implying that the RIAA don't act like children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
So randomly, the original photographer is a guy local to me. He's mostly known for his illustrations and I didn't even realize he had done any photo work. Anecdotally, he's not a dude to really start poo poo and I'm glad he got it handled. He's a working artist who is going to be fine regardless. But this incident got me thinking. There are plenty of cases of people taking photos and either painting them or putting filters over them to be caught as plagarists. But has anyone seen a case where a painting is copied through a recreation of a photograph and gotten in trouble? I've seen classic paintings redone as photographs, but does that not count because the source material is so obvious and no one is trying to say that what they are doing is original?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Welp: http://photographyblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/when-is-black-not-black-when-you-would-rather-it-be-green.html/
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Welp: http://photographyblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/when-is-black-not-black-when-you-would-rather-it-be-green.html/ So it's unethical for someone to change the color of a sports team jersey? I mean it's not news, it's grown men in tights being paid money to play with balls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
I'm curious how this would go over among fans of NCAA football. Some of the comments on that article were lamenting the change in uniform colours from long ago, which seems like glancing off the issue and running into some unexpected discussion area. EDIT: Wandered into SAS>Football Funhouse and asked them. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:So it's unethical for someone to change the color of a sports team jersey? I mean it's not news, it's grown men in tights being paid money to play with balls. how does that even happen. who thinks that's a good idea? it was a televised game...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
Who cares about Sports Illustrated's journalistic integrity though? It's not like that time someone added missiles to an Iraq photo, it's a game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 13:09
|
|
|
 Paragon at work 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:So it's unethical for someone to change the color of a sports team jersey? I mean it's not news, it's grown men in tights being paid money to play with balls. I don't like sports either but this is a little overly dismissive of a very bad precedent. Where's the line for photo manipulation? What publications are "allowed" to make a false recreation of events through photos? How do you determine this? If they'll alter something as unimportant and obvious as jersey color, what other poo poo will they alter? You might not think football is a big deal but it's not some cute little hobby that only a handful of people follow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:You might not think football is a big deal but it's not some cute little hobby that only a handful of people follow. It is a hobby. The point is that the is no legitimate news involved here. Sports Illustrated could make every jersey ever pink and the only thing it will do upset football fans. What bad precedent could possibly be set? Should I be worried that People magazine is going to photoshop a mustache on Justin Beiber next? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 13:59
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:
That's about right! The whole jersey thing is just bizarre. It does seem like it's more of a production error like SI indicated but it's still a pretty bad one. I'm guessing they tried to pop the greens and didn't noticed it affected the jerseys too? And maybe it slipped by because it seems fine if you don't know about the team. But for Sports Illustrated to gently caress something like that up is really really bad. There again you see poo poo like Kate Moss's daughter's given extra fingers on Vogue or Karlie Kloss getting an extra armpit on another cover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 14:10
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:It is a hobby. The point is that the is no legitimate news involved here. Sports Illustrated could make every jersey ever pink and the only thing it will do upset football fans. What bad precedent could possibly be set? Should I be worried that People magazine is going to photoshop a mustache on Justin Beiber next? Yes you should.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 14:12
|
|
|
Oh I agree that it is a production screw up that looks bad for them, just not that it has sinister overarching implications for the journalist community.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 14:15
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Who cares about Sports Illustrated's journalistic integrity though? It's not like that time someone added missiles to an Iraq photo, it's a game. I can name a person who will tell you how awesome SI is. I guess you dont get it as your not a working photographer. But in all seriousness I dont think SI should have altered the images in any way. Most people dont think SI when you mention journalistic integrity but why shouldnt a specialty news service not be held to the same standards as say Reuters or AP. What makes sports journalism exempt? It may not have the same impact to you as adding more missiles to photos but to some megafan out there, seeing their teams kit in a different color in a national publication might piss them off in the same manner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
It is a big deal because SI is generally regarded as a top tier publication, regardless of what people in this thread think of the "legitimacy" of sports. Any time one of these organizations publishes an edited photo, it makes everyone's life harder because of the way it erodes trust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Isn't it a bit silly to equate trust in legitimate publications from one that has an annual swim suit edition? I don't deny that it's a huge gently caress up just that edited images from an entertainment magazine doesn't automatically cause me to mistrust photojournalists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Just because you think sports is a dumb waste of time doesn't mean everyone else does. The NFL alone pulls in 9 billion a year, and the college teams feed directly into that machine. Sports are a major industry and SI has been documenting them for 50 years. They've won a number of awards for their coverage. For them to publish an altered photo is kind of a big deal, because they basically invented the idea of making magazines photograph heavy. They may not be as prestigious today as they were when I was a kid, but for the longest time they were basically the source for documenting sports.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Sports Illustrated IS a "legitimate" publication. It sells 8 million copies a week and reaches millions more online. It breaks stories and covers events. It is journalism and is expected to follow the same rules and is held to the same standards. This wouldn't even be a discussion if a reporter had decided to change the final score of a game, as it was a verifiable fact that was reported wrong, just like reporting a black jersey was green. If a magazine is illegitimate because you don't think its content is worthy, what in your almighty opinion counts? Does Outside? All they cover is silly hobbies. I certainly shouldn't care about AARP, they just cater to those icky old people. National Geographic's dumb, I don't care about fish or other countries. Just because you don't find a topic suitable to consider "legitimate," that doesn't mean it's not for lots of other people. And like xzzy said, any time any story crops up about problems, whether it be SI loving with some colors or Jayson Blair making up stories, it erodes the public's trust in all journalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
How in the world does white balance and increasing the exposure slider change a black jersey green? I've literally never had that happen to me, I'd notice if black objects were turning green all the time for me. Did he use color matching off a photo where they had green jerseys or something 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:27
|
|