BBC news article, interesting read

440Hz

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6936444.stm

Have a read of this folks!

Interesting article, think the reference to using sites like Flickr as source material might upset a few heads though! Worth a read anyway.

thebaz

440Hz wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6936444.stm

Have a read of this folks!

Interesting article, think the reference to using sites like Flickr as source material might upset a few heads though! Worth a read anyway.

That'll do to photography what Westlife did to music

Eirebear

How so Baz?

Is it any different from someone cloning things out, or using multiple exposures to change the way they scene looks?
Why shouldnt it be made more accessable to people who cant afford 500 quid for photoshoop, or have the time and ability to learn its uses?

I think its a fairly good idea...in principle.
What does worry me though is the mention of sites like flickr....how will that work? surely you cant just "take" parts of peoples photos and stick it on a bit you dont like of your own no?

thebaz

Eirebear wrote:

How so Baz?

Is it any different from someone cloning things out, or using multiple exposures to change the way they scene looks?
Why shouldnt it be made more accessable to people who cant afford 500 quid for photoshoop, or have the time and ability to learn its uses?

I think its a fairly good idea...in principle.
What does worry me though is the mention of sites like flickr....how will that work? surely you cant just "take" parts of peoples photos and stick it on a bit you dont like of your own no?

I'm not a fan of cloning , photography should capture reality , even though i've been experimenting with ps myself, still think it should only be used to tidy stuff up , not to re-create reality -- if you want to re-create reality , paint it -- if photography become too hi-tech , it will stop been an art form ... is photocopying Art ?? then again others might say is flickr Art ?

Eirebear

thebaz wrote:

I'm not a fan of cloning , photography should capture reality , even though i've been experimenting with ps myself, still think it should only be used to tidy stuff up , not to re-create reality -- if you want to re-create reality , paint it -- if photography become too hi-tech , it will stop been an art form ... is photocopying Art ?? then again others might say is flickr Art ?

Without getting into that argument....i was shot down the other day...it still burns

I dont think it will ever be seen a legit in terms of "art"(this new thing)...only a means to an end, the end in this case being better holiday snaps, and tbh i dont think thats a bad thing.

And surely photograph yhas always ben "hi-tech"?

I think image manipulation is an artform in its own right, depending on how you use it though....

magicbastarder

Eirebear wrote:

the end in this case being better holiday snaps, and tbh i dont think thats a bad thing.

if it keeps holiday snappers happy, fair enough.
but from the interested amateur viewpoint, why bother taking a camera if your photos are going to be cadged together from what's available online?

Eirebear

magicbastarder wrote:

if it keeps holiday snappers happy, fair enough.
but from the interested amateur viewpoint, why bother taking a camera if your photos are going to be cadged together from what's available online?

Yeah that...as i said is my problem with it.
Surely their are copyright issues where it says it lifts from flickr etc?

mikeanywhere

Eirebear wrote:

Surely their are copyright issues where it says it lifts from flickr etc?

That is the whole point of the thread being raised. What gives them the right to use other peoples images to satisfy someone elses?

Now the only way I can think they can "get away with it" is if the licence for the image is set for Creative Commons use (obviously depending on which one is chosen) etc where the image owner as no issue of it being used and abused.

440Hz

mikeanywhere wrote:

That is the whole point of the thread being raised. What gives them the right to use other peoples images to satisfy someone elses?

Zackly

shepthedog

Kinda begs the questions why not take the picture correctly in the first place
Its back to the whole when is a picture no longer a picture but a created image.. I prefer just to try take the picture as it is in front of me at the time.. Feels more real.

mikeanywhere

shepthedog wrote:

Kinda begs the questions why not take the picture correctly in the first place
Its back to the whole when is a picture no longer a picture but a created image.. I prefer just to try take the picture as it is in front of me at the time.. Feels more real.

Law of averages means that everyone wont take a perfect picture every time and this is maybe what they are banking on.

Eirebear

mikeanywhere wrote:

That is the whole point of the thread being raised. What gives them the right to use other peoples images to satisfy someone elses?

Now the only way I can think they can "get away with it" is if the licence for the image is set for Creative Commons use (obviously depending on which one is chosen) etc where the image owner as no issue of it being used and abused.

And in my original reply to baz...i said the same thing.
But i was also replying to Baz' "westlife comment" where i was trying to get accross the fact that on the whole i didnt see it massivley affecting the art of photography, instead just the holiday snappers.

As long as it doesnt affect peoples rights to their work, then it doesnt really bother me either way to be honest.