Define "Original Photographer"

[linguine]

Well I could go either way with this but I think Kestrana’s “Could someone else take credit for making this photograph?” litmus test would be a good measure if we decided to allow this. Or we could just institute a don’t ask don’t tell policy.

[CauseISaidSo]

Just to throw another log on the fire, what about the use of an intervalometer? There’s nobody pressing the button then, yet the person who setup everything would have to be considered the photographer, no?

[orionid]

Here’s a special case: Say I’ve brought somebody up to my big research telescope and we’re taking what I like to call ‘pretty pictures’ (usually I’m alone up there, but Rav visited once. It was cloudy, though so we got nothing). Given that the operation of the camera in this situation is a bit involved, I would probably have to be pressing all of the buttons, but somebody else could be directing me about composition, exposure, etc. If I then press the ‘Expose’ button, do I instantly become the photographer, even thought I’ve done only the job of a trained monkey? I’m leaning towards no. This is, in fact, what we have at a lot of the big observatories-dedicated operators directed by astronomers doing the actual research. The telescope operators aren’t called astronomers-they just press the buttons. To play devil’s avocado, though, it would be hard not to give credit to the operator. It’s a bit of a grey area, to be sure.

See, I’m leaning towards the opposite. The astronomer is the customer that says “Give me an OIII(R), Ha(G), SII(B) false-color of M51 (NGC 5195)” and you set up, make, and stack the exposures. It’s your shot. Likewise, if I were hanging out at the observatory and said “you know, I’d like to get a shot of the Rosette Nebula in standard Ha, OIII, SII RGB lines,” even if you let me sit down, and you puppeteer me through the process, I’m going to take that home and tell everyone “Look at the Photo that Plamadude hooked me up with.” Now, if you were to say “Now try one on your own” and I pointed the scope at the orion nebula and carbon-copy repeated everything we did on the previous, I’d call that one mine since I actually did the work without a puppeteer/coach.”

Edit: Technobabble removed.  My other paragraphs said it better without confusing people

To put this back towards Ennuipoet‘s analogy, if the customer says “I want a photo that looks like this excruciatingly long list of details,” and Joe McNally pulls it off perfectly, even if his assistant trips the shutter for him, it’s still Joe’s photo. It doesn’t matter who specified the details required or who pushed the button. It matters who pulled off the technicalities of it.

Another potential grey area could be Kestrana‘s and my photoshoot yesterday where one of our friends was modeling for us. I set up the lighting and some of the settings on her camera as a baseline, but Kestrana directed the model, composed the shot, and adjusted the settings as she saw fit within the confines of the lighting I gave her. If anything I say it makes the shots even more hers because she had to adapt and conform to the lighting I gave her. Conversely, the shots I took in between with my camera, are inarguably mine.

So, yeah, after a few days mulling over the thread and things like this, I guess my opinion falls inline with most of the above. If you can legitimately, in good conscious, call it your own, regardless of who pushed the button, then it’s all good. If you think there’s too much doubt, or someone else of sound mind might say “That’s not really your shot.” Then it’s not.

[orionid]

Just to throw another log on the fire, what about the use of an intervalometer? There’s nobody pressing the button then, yet the person who setup everything would have to be considered the photographer, no?

Not necessarily. Say I set the intervalometer on the KAP (kite) rig, then kestrana hangs it off the line and flies the kite controlling altitude and position, I’d say those are very much her photos.

[olavf]

Orionid makes a good point re: Plamadude‘s ‘special case’, I think. It sounds a lot like someone setting up the camera so someone else could push the button. I think most people would agree if it were a standard film camera and the same thing were done, that it’s a “not really yours” kind of deal.

On the other gray end – where he and Kes were doing the modeling – I’d say that really isn’t that gray at all. Helping with initial setup isn’t the same as taking artistic control, or even significantly affecting the artistic process. Certainly not any more than offering tips or suggestions during a shoot.

The gray area in my mind is setting up the shot (and camera), handing the camera to someone else, and telling them where to point it. That seems like there’s a more direct influence on the shot going on (as opposed to an indirect influence).

If we go back to plamadude‘s case, I would suggest that if one were ‘pushing the buttons’ and asked for help when they didn’t know how to do something, then they could probably claim ‘ownership’. Not so much if someone were giving them step-by-step directions.

[ennuipoet]

Another potential grey area could be Kestrana‘s and my photoshoot yesterday where one of our friends was modeling for us. I set up the lighting and some of the settings on her camera as a baseline, but Kestrana directed the model, composed the shot, and adjusted the settings as she saw fit within the confines of the lighting I gave her. If anything I say it makes the shots even more hers because she had to adapt and conform to the lighting I gave her. Conversely, the shots I took in between with my camera, are inarguably mine.

In that situation I would say that co-photographers share the credit. Either or both of you could reasonably say you were the photographer. You probably shouldn’t both use shots from the Set in a contest, but even if you did I would vigorously argue that it was kosher.

One of the things about being a photographer rather than just “taking the picture” is creativity. A monkey can push a shutter, but it can’t compose a photograph. I would say in the end, if you created it, you own it.

[Kestrana]

You probably shouldn’t both use shots from the Set in a contest, but even if you did I would vigorously argue that it was kosher.
.

We actually try not to use shots from the same set/specific location/outing in any contest.

[olavf]

We actually try not to use shots from the same set/specific location/outing in any contest.

Same here, but that’s not always possible. (like this week’s contest – we’re kinda subject-limited)

[Kestrana]

Yeah understandably so. It happens sometimes but where it’s avoidable we avoid it. Although the Urban Art contest might cause some blood-letting over who gets to post our virtually identical pictures of graffiti depicting the abominable snowman eating penguins…

[orionid]

Yeah understandably so. It happens sometimes but where it’s avoidable we avoid it. Although the Urban Art contest might cause some blood-letting over who gets to post our virtually identical pictures of graffiti depicting the abominable snowman eating penguins…

I took the shot first!

/I guess that makes me Han….

[nobigdeal]

I think we are beating this thing to death. I am of the opinion that if you conceive and set up the shot, which includes composition, lighting and camera settings but some else actually pushes the button for you because you are unable to, then it’s your shot. However I can also see the argument against such notions. So on that note I will put my vote squarely in the Don’t As Don’t Tell camp.

[olavf]

Mountains is going to be interesting like that for us too, I think. Fortunately, neither of has drawn blood…yet

[Author]

Posts