Hey everyone. I am a recovering social scientist so I am used to discussing fuzzy concepts such as what is "original" in photography. On one hand we could argue that there is nothing original now in photography. We are merely repeating and reinterpreting existing themes. On the other hand we could say there are still original photos all the time. In landscapes, whoever first photographed the Namib desert would be original or would desert shots being repeating an existing theme? How we process our work could be original too although we could say we are repeating and reinterpreting themes in that case too. I think the most originality is probably in the conceptual edit genre.

 

So I would be interested in hearing what you think makes a shot original.

 

Hi Rob,

 

** ....- I'm interested in what you write about "What is 'original' in photography".

 

** ....- But before that I want to know what you mean by the word "original", if the purpose of the original is "the result of such records when we press the record button" ....... I was quite dubious in this case, but no matter how I still believe as well ....... "there are people who still do"

 

** I know ....- photography starts from the use of negative film, in black and white era of my work in the darkroom to process what I record, I scored myself, I do crop to produce molding compositions for the better, I do dodge & burn to strengthen existing tone ..... "only to the extent that I am able to do"

 

** ....- Then in the digital age, inevitably I got to know him. It turns out ...... what I could not do in the analog era (the use of negative film), in the digital era virtually all we can do, as an example ...... we can do the crop easily, remove something disturbing image, change color according as we wish, even the "add" something that does not exist (for this part I always avoid) ..... and so on.

 

....- ** It happened in the digital age, so I'm also interested in what you write.

Rob ...... seems in the present era / digital era can all work on, so does the word "original" is still relefan for us to talk about? .....

 

....- .... ** In closing I want to say ...... I believe there are still quite a lot of people trying to still can maintain a sense of "original" is ....... I will always remember the words words that sound like this ..... "WE CAN fool / or rough Deceptive PEOPLE, BUT WE CAN NOT fool / Deceptive OUR OWN HEART".

 

Regards

Johanes Januar

Johanes,

 

I think if any reviewer of photography declares a photo to be 'original' or not and if that review matters then it is still relevant. Do you agree?

 

If it is still relevant to discuss originality, I guess we need to narrow down the definition of original to a single photo. As you wrote, there are different dimensions of a shot that all could result in someone' shot being declared as "original".

 

I am thinking the photo subject is one dimension, the camera technology another. Also, the technique in taking the shot, and finally the editing software could all be "objectively" original, assuming the viewer had complete information of course.

 

As you write, technology in the past opened original opportunities. We can assume that will happen in the future with something like Virtual Reality. Imagine someone 'walking' through your landscape shot. So I think we can agree that new technology, new techniques, and new software can still create opportunities for original photography.

 

An original photo subject is the one that is difficult to define. But I heard a discussion among journalists once and they concluded that there are "no new news stories". Themes with new events, new places, new characters happen all the time but the themes.... they are the same. Governmental change, social movements, wars, famine, development are old stories in human history.

 

But let me rephrase the question you ask about whether it is still relevant to discuss "objective". Should photos be judged by their originality?

 

Cheers,

Rob Corkran

 

Hello Rob,

 

....-* * Happy to be reading your response .... thank you for it.

 

....-** To be honest I'm not writing anything serious, I appear to be less clever in this, forgive me. I just wrote a not serious only.

 

....-** Why I'm interested in topics that you write, I felt like trying to explicate what I also feel at this time regarding the word "original" in photography, because so many I see photo works that are created and displayed at this time, including those that appear at 1x.... it appears the involvement of the photographer in the picture showing results much assisted by using fotoshop for repair. For this ... and I will also do it ... to the extent that I have mastered. So in my opinion the word "original" for now indeed feels very "doubtful" to be trusted by all of us.

 

....-** Full although I doubt with the term "original", but I still believe in the existence of people who still maintain with what he was doing, everything for the sake of maintaining a sense of the "original" ... in other words ... ... ..... "original" there's still that maintains its presence. For example ... I see your works which presents most of the photo of the landscape, I can still feel the presence of the word "original" that remains you preserve.

 

Greetings

Johanes Januar

 

A timeless topic! I agree that originality can lie in the subject/theme (see Sauco at https://1x.com/member/sauco) or processing (see Kiyo Murakami at https://1x.com/member/kiyo) . I would also add that the more complex a photograph is the more chances it has to be an original. Originality can be in details as well and then it mostly depends on the viewer. You can say "Oh, this is just another portrait of a middle age man" or you can say "I've never seen exactly this look or mood and it looks original to me" (see Marcin Wuu self-portraits at https://1x.com/member/marcinwuu/photos/latest) .

 

Anna

"I cannot find original photos" does not imply "There are no more original photos".

 

The world keeps changing so there will be no end to the supply of original photographs. Sure ... maybe the frequency of original photographs is lower now compared to the past but this is likely just because of the sheer number of photos taken now (estimated in the trillions every year)

 

My guess is that even the most simple photo a 1000 years from now will be unlike anything we've ever seen.

Dear Johanes,

 

 

Thank you.

 

Rob

Hi Anna,

 

Wow, I agree that there some incredible artists here and their work is like no other. I did write earlier that conceptual edit is where originality is probably easiest to find. But one could argue that the themes... portraits, fine art nudity, theatre d'absurd, macabre are not original.

 

Having said that I think we all can agree that one can repeat a theme within a photo genre but reinterpret it or represent it in a way that most well informed curators would agree is "original".

 

Okay but was is the value of say a landscape photo of a sunset which is taken and edited in non-original way but is beautiful?

 

Since we are highlighting some very creative photographers I will point to a couple at 500px I have tried to nudge to join 1x.

 

Jose Arley Agudelo https://500px.com/arleyagudelo

& Ichiro Murata https://500px.com/ichiromurata

 

Rob

Hey Kris,

 

I agree that there are/will be original photos and that is getting harder to do given that the bar has gotten a lot lower to be able to pull off great photos. So is it appropriate to chastise a great looking photo as not original?

 

I agree that the future will be different. As I think, virtual reality may be an exciting new realm.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

In fact, this is a difficult question. But the answer is simple - every picture is original, because there are no two identical pictures.

Hi Bonita, you are correct that each photo is individual and thus has never been created before but to me that is the broadest definition of originality.

 

Let me give you an example of where it gets more difficult. In Colorado one of the most common shots is a fall shot of the Maroon Bells and a lake in the foreground. To wit, I toured a local and and craft fair on Sunday and there were 6-7 landscape photographers, some from Colorado, some not, but everyone had a fall shot of the Maroon Bells. They all emphasized a wide angle view as well. So to me it would have to be a very different looking photo of the Maroon Bells and the lake before it for me to see any originality.

 

Rob

 

Yes, you are right, this is the broadest definition. However, I think it's unfair to each photographer to look for one of the photos of the same place to be original.

Bonnita,

 

For the most common American Western landscape points of view, one would never know if their shot was original. Thus I agree with you and this may be the thing we all know, that is we don't know. So to be generous we can call all shots original as per your definition.

 

It is fun to discuss this so thanks,

 

Rob

 

Hi Rob,

Well, Truly original is not so easy to find, but we will find it if we look hard enough....

Do you have HBO by any chance? There is currently a new Documentary about Andy Warhol's yellow Brillo box. It is under an hour I believe. It was fun to watch.

He took the Brillo box....the original in cardboard and made wooden ones identical to the cardboard originals..

They followed one of the boxes from when this couple first bought it for I think one thousand dollars around 1960 maybe...(the date is probably off a bit)...and they followed it as it went from buyer to buyer.. The last sale was a few years ago when it sold at Christies for about THREE MILLION DOLLARS.

When they asked Warhol did he think it was original he said...NO...(like they were nuts)...so they said..then why did you do it? He said...It was easy....

So there you go...he was honest. I think they made several hundred of the white ones and less than 50 of the yellow and only three of those were signed....

So I suppose we might not want to worry about original but rather how can we be creative with what is already out there...Just a thought.

Thanks for the post.

Phyllis