In curations in 1X, there is an criteria called Originality.  Could someone tell me what exactly this Originality mean in curation?  Does it mean uniqueness of the photo, or the reality of the content of a photo?  Thank you for anyone who answers this question.

Hi Bing,

My interpretation of originality in the curation process is; uniqueness.

Kind regards,

Gerda

Thanks, Gerda.  My interpretation is the same as yours.  I, however, got an impression that many photographers refer the "originality" as the degree of reality of the contents of a photo in curations.

Bing

I find that a bit unlikely, but with so many people from different countries and possibly different knowledge or interpretation of the English language, you may be right. I can't speak for other photographers, though.

What made you question this in the first place? Did you receive comments that lead to this impression?

Originality is one of a number of criteria here at 1x.com that make no sense to me.  It should never be one of the criteria people judge an image on.

Let me suggest an example.  There are millions of images taken of famous sites; Niagara Falls, the Eiffel Tower, etc.  By most people's definition, those images are not "original" because so many different people have photographed them.   I have seen some stunning and original images at these places, but I suspect a lot of the moderators at 1x.com would score the images poorly because they are "not original".

Everyone will photograph the same subject differently.  I have been at group photo shots where we all photographed the same subject, but none of the images looked alike.  Different framing, composition, camera settings, shooting position, etc. all meant that virtually every image is unique.  In fact the only way that I can get two (or more shots)  that are virtually identical is to take multiple shots using a tripod and not changing any camera settings.

I'm sorry that I have not answered your question, but it is because I feel that the concept of originality is wrong and makes no sense in this context...

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

Originality: the quality of being special and interesting and not the same as anything or anyone else.

Any perspective or processing which is different from common presentation can be called original in my opinion .The object, place, etc may be common but if a photographer presents the same in different style then it can be called original.

Anything original will be copied, until someone comes with absolutely new different approach 

Hello,

I would say it means to either capture a unique subject, like a really rare bird nobody has seen before, or doing a new unique take of something very familiar like the Eiffel Tower for example.

Good light, Ralf

Lately I stumbled upon a polaroid by Wim Wenders, from which I thought: "Wow, this is an image only Wim Wenders could have the idea to do it that way." It's the "Valley of the Gods, Utah, 1977".  I think this image has a lot of originality.

https://loeildelaphotographie.com/en/event/instant-stories-wim-wenders-polaroids/

But I doubt that this image would have made the cut within the 1x members. I like it though.

Cheers, Hans-Martin

Love it =)

Originality could also mean that you are capturing a unique event or moment in time or that you have a very special personal style like the photo in the link.

Cheers, Ralf

Hello I think the improvement room are connected to each other and there are six choices to try to improve photography .If you were the curator of the exhibition ,maybe you have the choice in your hands at that time and you might want to see a photograph with something special in addition,

or just one more personal touch (however you can be aware of how difficult it is in certain situations).In the landscape it is quite complicated to be original, because many places have been photographed thousands of times from the same point and with good lighting conditions(and that’s not all because the images are processed in a comparable way).Talking about landscape photos, someone brings the example of postcards, or a landscape photo sometimes even good when it appears in travel magazines ,but a bit generic.

Maybe some artist should make the opposite effort, that is to try to stay in the track and not exaggerate too much.In any case, you can work on the composition or on the light for a more convincing photo.

Here is for example an original photo of the Empire State Building.

I completely agree with the point Manfred made.

Bing

Hi All,

"Originality" is too general, generic and subjective of a term to be useful in curation.  Even if AI searched a database of 10 million photos to find an original one, it would most likely fail.  There are just too many photos taken and made even in just one day.

"Original" is not the same as "unique".  Something unique can be created from something original.  Every person is unique due to DNA, but not everyone is original.

Two photos can be original and the same except for noise and both would be unique.

Al

Originality is essential in all domains of the arts. The subjects are always the same but what differentiates them is the artist's unique take. In a landscape it may be the moment chosen for the shot, the place and the angle, what is in focus and what stays in the background, the post processing, the treatment of colours... So many elements that together form the unique view of the photographer and the story or emotion he/she tries to tell. It is my opinion that an artist cannot be "taught" how to be original, it is a voice that comes from inside, from real feeling, artistic education and experience.

I hope the originality is understood as you described, but unfortuately the reality is that the originally is often understood in a very shallow way.

Originality seems like a good quality for a photo to have.  But what is original today can become tomorrow's common cliché.  It's easy to mistake clever new editing tricks for originality. 

Think of the first time you saw a photograph done with the Intentional Camera Movement (ICM) technique.  Perhaps it was a idyllic forest scene with a meandering path leading you deep into the frame.  The technique helped the image stir some thoughts or feelings by making it seem unreal and dreamlike.    Or maybe it was a cityscape with the image of tall buildings and traffic jiggled up and down from the slow shutter speed to give a sense of the nervous excitement of a big city.  Again - technique used to say something in the visual language. 

The first images in that style seemed unique and original.  The technique was clever, fresh, and expressive.  As time went by, more and more ICM photos were posted.  Photoshop's 'Filter>Blur>Motion Blur' allowed you to control the amount and direction of the blur precisely.  The first hundred or so images were impressive.  But after seeing the technique used thousands of times - and often simply as an eye-candy gimmick rather than something to make the photo speak to viewers - what was original became tiresome cliché. 

ICM is not new.  Towards the end of the 19th century, Photography had its 'Pictorialism' movement.  In the style of the time, photographers used various soft-focus techniques to make their photographs look more like paintings.  To blur the inherently sharp image of the lens, some would kick the tripod halfway through a long exposure.  ICM was born. 

Pictorialism had a good run, but eventually gave way to new movements that celebrated the camera's ability to make sharp, clear, realistic images. Alfred Stieglitz's Photo Secession led the way, and later Group f/64 with their concept of pure photograph. 

So I guess my point for this rant is that 'Original' and 'Unique' are subject to change.  Clever gimmicks shouldn't be mistaken for substance.  The best photographs have substance - they say something to the viewer.   In my opinion. 

. . . . Steven T.

Yes, it may be. It depends who is looking at the artwork. One must be able to understand photographic art in order to appreciate it. Otherwise how can one tell the difference between an ordinary shot and an expressive, artistic one? Art education is essential. It takes years and is never finished. What does it take to understand the originality and artistic value of a photographic work? Having seen thousands of photographs of accomplished photographers, having read about photography, watched famous photographers at work, browsed hundreds of photo magazines, having an idea about the history of photography and how it relates to other visual arts. If one is so passionate about photography as to spend so much money on equipment and so much time chasing images, one must also invest in the developing of a vision, of an understanding of photography. This is how we avoid being shallow, as you say many are in their approach.

I am convinced that here in the 1X community there are many photographers with a discerning eye for true originality and beauty.

Hi Ludmila,

Abstract photographers like Pete Turner and Ralph Gibson and abstract painters such as Jackson Pollack and Andy Warhol may disagree with you.

Al

Colleagues, my 2 cents for what it's worth on this subject.

When I first joined 1x and started curating, I was wrestling a little with myself on the concept of originality, but after spendingsome time curating and looking through galleries and searching certain key words to see what images are already published under that "key word or tag , I feel I have come to refine my criteria for "originality".

As I have posted here before, there are many images that have a similar look and feel in each of the genres, eg portraits, wildlife, architecture etc. While there are many very good images that get published, originality only occassionally crosses my screen.

I agree with Ralf and others here that originality can mean different things, such as a different take on a common subject matter, a unique subject matter that is not often seen on 1x, a unique processing technique of a common subject etc.. Originality on 1x for me is defined within the context of "fine art" and using all the images I see on 1x as a reference point (baseline). There are occassionally those rare images that just stand out from the plethora of the thousands of other images that get published, and it is these select images that I chose "originality" as a reason why I vote to publish. As the old cliche goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words", I find it challenging to define originality in words but I definitely know it when I see it. Of course it goes without saying that originality alone won't get my vote, the image has to be strong it other areas as well, it has to have good composition, good technical quality, a mood that is apparent, and an interesting subject, but originality probably pushes the image over the threshold of just another great image to one that stands out from the rest and it's then I hit the "Sublime" button.

I think this is a big topic in photography. I have tried over the last 4 years to get "better" and have put time into inspecting thousands of photos, here and elsewhere, even in online galeries plus reading, listening, watching videos etc.  It seems to me that there are innumerable phtos that are  technically great but similar and I struggle to see them all as "unigue" but as pointed out they can be original by point of view etc.

When I first say Yosemite photos by Ansel Adams I was blown away and they were unique because of his technique , exceptional B&W  rendering and attention to detail in presentation. I had not seen his subjects nor his technique before. His photos became an "ideal" that I screen images with. Yosemite pictures today don't impress me much, really good but I already saw the best. So I see his landscape art as the benchmark for others. Can new attempts at his scenes be original, yes! Unique, probably not.

Although it may not be a good criterion, I try to imagine an  image hanging on my wall or in my office. A better criterion may be whether that image stays in my head, like "Migrant Woman", "Steerage" or the "Cistene Chapel." I stiil have "El Capitan" in my head but no other rendering, so it was  unique ever after.

We all have different expetations. Maybe we want to take that picture of the El Capitan ourselvles, maybe we want to enance our skills to take better Product photos. I am interested in exploring and/or understaning photography as art, not commercial, so I am pretty free. I would rather take a "Unique" image or rather I would rather show 1x a unique image whatever it takes.

Hi William,

I think there are too many photos today to find something unique at initial view.  A photographer has to be radical in terms of view and photo content to stop a viewer on one photo for more than 2 seconds.

Very unique renderings of Yosemite views and El Capitan can be found on Ken Rockwell's site.  But I think they are too unique for 1x.

Photographers like Rockwell and Peter Lik make a living with photos at the outer edges of photography.  Their fine art photos are outside of the "normal" domain.

Al

Hi all,

recently I stumbled across a blog entry by an Italian photographer who gives an insight of his thoughts about uniqueness and originailty in today's photography. May this help you to understand the current situation. 

https://andreabianco.eu/blog/2020/01/26/originality-in-photography/

I don't like giving advice to photographers because photography is a very complex field and there are many different genres, so one piece of advice may work for one but not for another.

Still, I like to quote William Klein, who once said "Be yourself. I much prefer seeing something, even it is clumsy, that doesn’t look like somebody else’s work."

Good light, Hans-Martin

What a lovely article, so true and relevant. Thank you for sharing it with us!

Cheers