Results of my little experiment...

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

06/02/2004 10:40:28 AM · #1

Firstly, this is not a "bitch" a "moan" or a "rant". It's just something interesting I found.

I decided to do an experiment to see what people would think if I entered a completely different shot into the Multiple Light Sources challenge, which used a similar technique as another of mine.

is my new shot, using a similar technique to this one:

First of all, notice the differences between the 2. The composition is completly different, the angle is completely different, the message is completely different, the lighting is completely different, the orientation is completely different. In fact, the only thing that is the same is the filter I used, and you can't even see that for the most part in my new shot.

I say I used a similar technique, not the same technique. It is a lot hard to get 2 shadows using multiple light sources than 1. It requires a completely different approach.

Now, let's take a look at some of the comments I got:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

I'm voting as if you are cribbing from yourself and are Konador, if not please deduct three points.

Thanks for not taking off 3 points as it was me :) But the thing is, what difference does it make who took the photo? I didn't invent the idea myself, I'd seen it done before with glasses and stuff.

Originally posted by christie3:

Um...unless you're Konador, this looks suspiciously a lot like the "Love" submission ( and ribbon winner! ) for the Shadows II Challenge...

I am Konador, but even if I wasn't, why would it suddenly not look like the ribbon winner in the shadows 2 challenge? Actually, it looks nothing like the ribbon winner in the shadows 2 challenge. Nothing about it is the same :)

Originally posted by BruB:

I,m curious to know the creator of this one. Is this Knador that already did this //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=43950 or a copy cat ?

Nice picture nonetheless.

It's me, but even if it wasn't, it wouldnt be a copy cat, as the photos are completely different.

Originally posted by hgpayne:

I don't doubt you reshot this for the challenge, but I swear I've seen this exact image in an earlier challenge -- maybe even by you!

Is my other entry the one you meant? It doesn't look like the exact same image to me :)

Originally posted by Nazgul:

rather unoriginal to use the same idea twice

It's a similar idea and a similar technique, but I would never go as far to say it was the same.

---

Okay so there are a few comments which I was expecting, and were all results of my little experiment, so don't take it the wrong way if I mentioned yours. I don't mind at all and I was grateful for every comment.

Now, I've only ever seen this technique (or a similar technique) done once on DPC and that was done by me, yet people still complained a lot that it was unoriginal and that I copies the "Shadows II" shot. How many flower shots do you see? How many landscapes? How many portraits? You may say every landscape is different, but my two shots are also different, so what's the problem?

I guess I found out what I already expected but hoped would not be the case. I'm still glad a lot of people appreciated the new take on the idea. Anyway, I'll shut up now :)

Message edited by author 2004-06-02 10:41:13.

tyt2000

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/02/2004 10:51:10 AM · #2

They are different, thats why I still gave it a 10. You executed it well.

Good luck...

daisy77

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

06/02/2004 10:53:38 AM · #3

thanks for this interesting message konador. a similar issue came up (tho' not during the voting as what happened to you) with my park bench entry in the unusual viewpoint challenge. park bench thread i think the difference between your entry and that of a flower is that there is a premium on unique viewpoints so that when a similar unusual technique or contrivance is used, there is suspicion and concern on the part of many voters who are familiar with the "original."

i think both your entries are lovely and i'm sorry if there was deduction for it's similarity to your earlier work. i agree that just because you seem to be the first to do this, you don't own the idea and a new take on it should be welcome and judged on its own merit.

(interesting the word "divorce" in the anterior heart--a little subliminal somethin'-somethin'?)

best regards

drgsoell

Olympus C-750UZ

06/02/2004 11:02:20 AM · #4

Doesn't the fact that you were doing an "Experiment" expecting the comments you received plus the fact that you actually GOT those comments mean that the shots ARE very similar?

Not to say there is anything wrong with doing a take on another good shot, imitation and satire beign acceptable forms of flattery.

I'm not sure what results you were expecting or whether you were dissapointed in those results. It shouldn't matter. As has been stated many times in the forums, "It's almost impossible to come up with anything new any more".

Good shot.

drg

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

06/02/2004 11:17:32 AM · #5

I agree with your thoughts, but I also understand why someone would vote it down ("understand" ... not "agree with"). How many times have we seen the water drops on the glass? It's a 100% awesome technique every time I see it ... but the "WOW, GREAT IDEA!" factor is gone.

I actually like the second version better. Well done Ben.

nicoledb

Nikon D70s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/02/2004 11:25:33 AM · #6

Well, I do find the two shots rather similar. I liked the Shadows submission better, for several reasons:
* the red is much more intense in the Shadows submission, obviously because there's only one light source.
* the framing of the book is more interesting with the diagonal line.
* the background text is more interesting in the Shadows submission because of the graph, in the MLS submission the actual text you intended to show (on marriage) is partly in the shade.
* to the credit of the MLS submission: the multiple light sources are very obvious, without them being in the picture, compliments!

I didn't vote this down because of originality or lack thereof. I gave it a 7 because I liked it, but didn't like it that much, for the above reasons.

BTW, I do agree with you that being a copycat or not doesn't have anything to do with the value of the picture.

jimmyn4

Canon EOS-7D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/02/2004 11:26:11 AM · #7

I thought your love entry was much much better. That's just me. I didn't leave a comment but the angle in this particular photo didn't really interest me at all. I honestly thought someone else was trying to do yours again but didn't execute it as well:) Seemed really flat. I did give you a 6 though so don't think I was one of the people to mark you low.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/02/2004 11:52:06 AM · #8

The shadows shot is a very clever concept that works so well because it takes an object we all recognize ( the filter ) and makes a novel use out of it. You were the first person I saw who did the book + circle = heart so I give you credit for originality, which with such an elegantly simple idea which is a lot of its value. (Three points is too harsh though, one or two is more realistic.)

In the MLS shot we can't see the circle who's shadow is transformed into the heart, only a bar (that we understand must be a circle seen from above), and therefore since you don't see both shapes, in an effort to make sense of what we are seeing we use logic and know that the bar must be a circle, and this put me in mind of the shadows shot since this reference allowed me to understand what was going on. I know this is rather opaque but Iâ��m trying to make sense of why the second shot feels so derivative of the first. I think the very cleverness of the first diminishes the second. A more common application of the same principle, reading glasses in evening light for instance, lack originality, and therefore could be judged solely on execution.

Ben Franklin said that a man who quotes himself is a bit like a general who awards himself medals. Of course Ray Lichtenstein ran the same quote his whole life and was hailed as a genius.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/02/2004 12:02:37 PM · #9

Originally posted by drgsoell:

Doesn't the fact that you were doing an "Experiment" expecting the comments you received plus the fact that you actually GOT those comments mean that the shots ARE very similar?

Well, I don't think so. I know the nature of DPC as I've been here a pretty long time, and I knew I would get comments like that, but I still wanted to test it out. I believe I made the shots different enough to each have their own merits, and be rated as 2 separate photos. I agree that my original shot was better, and I think my new shot got the score it deserved, so I'm not complaining about that. I was just making an observation that my shot gets called unoriginal when it's only the 2nd such shot on the site, when there have been at least 3 water drops, bug macros, motorbikes, etc (all of which a very worthy of winning each and every time!).

I just wonder whether I would have been called unoriginal if I'd done a new version of one of these shots of mine:

Judging from the 2nd place photo I don't believe I would :) Great shot laurie :)

Message edited by author 2004-06-02 12:22:30.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

06/02/2004 12:08:41 PM · #10

Ben, personally, I think it was unfair if people deducted simply because they thought it was based on your other shot. And I applaud you for coming out and pointing this out to people that it shouldn't matter who took the photo. I can't imagine what photography would be like if we always had to worry if someone took the same shot.

Reminds me of the argument over redmoon's telephone booth shot that won and that other photographer came in and claimed "copy!". I do recall the discussions about this technique as well, and I think you've handled it all very well.

This is certainly not an "overused" idea on DPC.

Actually, on a positive community note, I think people were just trying to "protect" your other photo which was dear to them!

Zal

Nikon D200

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

06/02/2004 12:09:12 PM · #11

C'mon--to say that the two photos are "completely different shots" is just stretching it a bit, don't you think?

I fully understand that different techniques had to be used to cast the shadows, but there are many more similarities in the end result than there are differences.

It remains a great photo, and technically well executed, but "completely different shots"? No.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

06/02/2004 12:11:18 PM · #12

Originally posted by Zal:

What's the same in the end result other than the fact there is a heart?

Canon EOS-60D

06/02/2004 12:11:21 PM · #13

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Actually, on a positive community note, I think people were just trying to "protect" your other photo which was dear to them!

I agree with this...personally, I thought you were being "copied" and the result wasn't as good as "your" original. I didn't deduct for that, but it didn't garner a higher-than-average score from me because it simply wasn't as appealing as the original was (that WOW factor, I suppose). :o)

heida

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/02/2004 12:23:41 PM · #14

I think that the composition were better in your first shot,
It is both pictures of a red filter on a book with heart shadows...
different angles thats all ...
Its like you take a picture of a cat with flower in his mouth at a brown carpet, just from different angles..
The pictures are good though, would be good in a series of prints.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

06/02/2004 01:04:12 PM · #15

I found this today ... thought it fit the conversation