Define "original" Photography

There isn't much quite honestly. There was a thread here a few months ago about the slot canyons in AZ and how they are over photographed. Those who talked about it were split on whether they would actually shoot there if they had a chance. Those that would not say that because there are already so many slot canyon images out there.

That said I think the best most of us can do is find some new perspective that hasn't been done before. Or simply try to shoot the best cliche shot that you can. Those of us who view this more as a hobby are less concerned about what's been done and take a lot of pleasure in just being out with the camera. In June I was hiking around the Pictured Rocks National Lake Shore and I got some shots I was very excited about. Yes, every one of them has been done, but these are mine and I had blast. And I daresay that a couple of the shots I made are better than most I see online of the same locations.

And if your goal is to sell prints, some of the cliche stuff that's well done sells the best.

RE:..."Define Original"

Rephrasing a well known quote

"I know it when I've done it"

sorry chuck, i never meant to change the question/content haha but you gave a good answer...


IN FACT I NEVER CHANGED THE TITLE lol haha strange

Strange. At one point the title was just "define", without the ""original" Photography" part.

There are two kinds of original. The original, as in the master for a set of copies and there's original as in an original idea or concept. The former does not exist with digital photography, the latter I suspect is quite rare.

I can do that but I am still trying to find out what came first, the chicken or the egg. Neither question can be answered.

DK digital, that is a good answer...

chuck de la rosa, please excuse me and forgive me for the misunderstanding with the title change ;)

my bad chuck

usually its that you are the one that took it. and i guess no editing.

others will say that it has to be unique or something.


----Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

Everything is a remix.

In general there is no such thing as "original". Every artist and work is inspired and influenced by other artists and workers, consciously or not.

Os like the title of that one video: Every thing is a remix.

Originality only exist when talking about bring new ideas to a tradition and time.

But in general, and in my opinion, originality is the particular experience of a creator well projected in their work. Their particular experiences developes a particular perception, perspective and interpretation of things in life or life itself, and this particularity in their works that we use the generalist word: Originality.




----
www.marciofaustino.com

Here's the thing- it's easy to copy. But I've stood inches from another photographer at a scene, clicked the shutter within seconds of them, and still come up with a different shot. Is it completely original? Probably not. But I don't let that stop me from taking the photo. There are so many variables- Exposure settings, lens selection, point of focus, depth of field, point of view. That's just at the time of exposure. Then there's the editing- black and white or color? High saturation, low saturation? In between? Selective color? Add grain to the image? High contrast? low? The list goes on.

Those people who said they wouldn't shoot a slot canyon because so many others have? Fine. More room for me. I'll happily go and try and put my own spin on it. To say you won't do it because it's been done before is a cop out.

I have to align with Rick, and I am not really a photographer. Just with the advancements alone of technology as cameras get better and better, a photo that someone takes with a camera of today's technology is different than any digital photo took twenty years ago, and so it has to be new, or at least a better quality image. Better = Different, as in not the same..it can't be, for the technology did not exist years ago. It is like saying all of mankind's technical achievement's have already happened...when actually we really know so little. It is not a matter of pride to say that something can be new, it is actually more of a matter of pride to say that we have achieved everything already. It is like an ever-opening flower.

I am not sure if subject matter counts as originality. But if it does then who was to first person to focus in a significant way on the giant floating offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? Now who was the first to offer it as art prints.? Who has the largest collection? Not me, I am number 2, but it is pretty close. Who was the first to do a blue light twilight of an deep water rig instead of a stock lighting shot? Probably me.

https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/bradford-martin?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=324687

HA - Floyd... love the comparison...

This is one of those discussions we could rather be producing or marketing art rather than having.

One of the definitions of original is unique, and to achieve that you need to make a picture instead of taking a picture.

A.

Interesting 'original' thoughts........so, why bother wasting time here, hysterical !

In a photography, original: Willkinson

Alessandra,

My thoughts as well, I echo unique and, to add my paraphrasing of the rest of your answer, creative.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

I have a rough time thinking that anything in the art world is original. It's all some combination of derivative or copy, or theme and variations, but to a degree. The degree is the thing...whether it's a direct steal or a case of "inspired by" or the fact that it's another of 500,000,000 sunset photos. I think I'd have to go back to my 4th grade teacher's admonition, which was to "do your own work".

I'm convinced that everybody knows, in their gut, what they're doing is original or not, photography or anything else.

Whether it is EARTH SHAKING or hardly makes a quiver.

or

Whether it's the WHOLE SHEBANG or just a minor element in the project.

or

Whether it's a new Concept or a new look at an old concept

or

Whether it's a new way of SEEING or a new way THINKING, or a new way of ACTUATING.


Ya know when you've done it......and have no need for others to tell you so


It needn't be a better way........That, we let others determine

Roger, your crab claw vultures are one of the few art concepts in the last few decades that is truly original.

I always think of original in terms of original to me, meaning I made this art using only elements that I myself created as in I took the original photograph that I then manipulated into art, or I created the art from scratch and it is not a derivative of something that already existed. Not saying I always make "original art" but I usually make unique art.

great thread!..........for me original means capturing an image and place where no photographer has EVER been. I guess that nixes slot canyon!!

Aristotle spoke of a legal phenomenon called PHRONESIS.
Now, there is a band that have taken that name - a jazz band!

But what phronesis directs us to is the idea that the 'accused'
must be judged apart from any overarching social, religious,
political, moral, philosophical structures etc etc.

Phronesis requires that judgement is on a case by case basis;
and must be free from the encumbrance, the influence, of any
pre-existing context, which only serves to colour the verdict!

So there are those who believe that in the creative arts, just
such a kind of phronesis exists, in that it keeps the art original.

It is probably too pure, too rarified a context; for if we have no
pointers to the origins of the piece of art/music/sculpture etc
it remains meaningless. Unless that is, it is such a paradigm
shift, that it redefines the world of art itself!

When you get to say that a piece of art is like so and so, like him,
like her, like them - and all these competing influences keep
coming around - it is then that the originality of the piece comes
into focus, as it is impossible not to use many many comparisons
in describing it.

Only then do we know that the artist has found
his/her unique voice; and not strayed too far from any frame of
reference for their art to have become arcane or obscure!

I find it difficult to put it into words. But I am going to try. It’s what my mind’s eye sees. What I want out of the shot. What do I visualize. It’s that certain spot I want to capture. I will be riding along headed to photograph a certain landmark, and I will see exactly what I want to capture, and it’s stop the car (which is not always feasible due to no place to stop safely, per my husband). So after we stop, I will walk back, trying to find that certain spot, the perspective that I saw, and have to take that shot. It can be very frustrating and I feel I miss a lot of photographic opportunities and possibilities. My possibilities, my moments in time. What am I feeling at that moment. So what I want with my shot is going to be different than what someone else wants. I know what I want in the picture and what I don’t want. And that is going to be different for everyone.

great answers guys, very interesting indeed...

Thank you for thread, John.

Such a question invites us to wax philosophical.

I have some ideas rolling around in my head, yet I will let them steep a bit in my subconscious before venturing forth with my own efforts. If, indeed, I do.

Meanwhile I will simply follow the thread in hopes of learning something.

fire away Walter haha

If I was to take my camera out on a clear night when there is a full moon, zoom in and take a photo of it, I would argue that even though full moon photos have been done zillions of times before by zillions of others, it would still be an "original" photograph and I would have every right to put my name on it and sell it here, as long as I wasn't looking at someone else's photo of the full moon at the time and was purposefully trying to replicate the framing exactly like theirs. If it comes from your own eye with your own camera, then you are the author, so it is "original," regardless of whether or not it has been done in a similar way before. Original is in quotes, because if Fine Art America prints out a photo of that moon photo, it really wouldn't be "an original" as far as the print goes. But the image still would be.

For legal purposes, it only means that you took the photo yourself.

John,

I have read and scanned, do not think anyone has said this.

Original photograph, during the film days, the negative was the original. As in originate.

So for film there is a basic main third definition to go along with the two often commercialized definitions. Original as in ideas and original as in painted canvas being the two sales concepts.

In the 60s it was original ideas. Later it was paintings v digital copies.

Original imparts rare, but that is becoming a different set of values yet again. Prices for high end original paintings have been dropping for the last two years. So I guess original painting is less of a factor today than perceived a few years ago.

Dave Bridburg
Bridburg.com
Post Modern Gallery

I have this question

Let's be clear, in the usage of "Original"

When someone paints the same "dumb old painting" of a "happy tree" along with a "happy mountain" and "happy clouds", others can rightfully say, that that's not very original.

Yet,

Since no 2 set of EYES nor HANDS are exactly the same,though, there is still that modicum of originality.

But, as an example,

When someone takes that same "dumb old photo" of a "happy, or not, statue",that was set up to be seen as the photographer sees it, can the resulting photo, be deemed original ?

Original is not copy :)

Creative is inovative