similarity

thebaz

i know the irish Times look at my flickr from time to time, i posted this last Saturday

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/2220462997/

The front page of the irish times today
http://www.ireland.com/

rymus

looks like you were standing next to their guy

Mellor

To be honest, I don't realy see it.
Its two pictures of a line out, hardly original. The fact that the sun is behind both lineouts is bound to happen from time to time.

thebaz

Mellor wrote: »

To be honest, I don't realy see it.
Its two pictures of a line out, hardly original. The fact that the sun is behind both lineouts is bound to happen from time to time.

thats it , the lineout is pretty bland , unless its the paul o'conell shot , i thought the silhoette effect was a little different, i'm probably a bit paranoid after they used a shot from my flickr last year , without telling me.

unreggd

they dont seem similar

all the posts in the back in your pic have lights on them

the one from the IT doesnt.........

magicbastarder

are you suggesting they sent out a photographer with a brief to capture a shot similar to yours?

thebaz

unreggd wrote: »

they dont seem similar

all the posts in the back in your pic have lights on them

the one from the IT doesnt.........

it was a different game , mine from Saturday , the IT from yesterday , i suppose you can't copyright ideas , i'm probably a tad paranoid -- just thought the idea looked very similar to me

thebaz

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you suggesting they sent out a photographer with a brief to capture a shot similar to yours?

chill -- no - but they used one of mine last year without asking , i rarely take sports shots , the idea just seamed very similar

SOL

You could probably learn quite a bit from this. I'm not trying to be mean but the irish times one is quite a bit better, and it is always useful to see what other photographers do with the same subject.

thebaz

SOL wrote: »

You could probably learn quite a bit from this. I'm not trying to be mean but the irish times one is quite a bit better, and it is always useful to see what other photographers do with the same subject.

i know the Irish times one is better (a lot) , i was only testing a lens at some low level match that happened to be on -- they probably came kitted with full pro gear -- it was just the idea i was on about -- anyway doesn't matter -- i'm probably alone in what i see

Paulw

There's only so many "type" shots you can take at most sports events. You shoot off a few hundred shots, and then see what ones can be used. Sometimes you get brilliant action shots, and sometimes it's one that's more obscure.

I wouldn't read anything at all in to the fact that their shot is somewhat similar to yours. I probably have a good few of rugby games where the lineout jumper went up in to the sun. But, I probably would have deleted the shot as useless.

thebaz

sports is not usually my thing (prefer playing) , so just early morning paranoid -- think i'll just stick to me usual stuff , and leave sports to the experts

i'll be posting up some "usual" stuff later

rymus

you're not paranoid.. they really are out to get you. Don't leave your guard down for a second. They just want you to think you're being silly for being paranoid.

thebaz

rymus wrote: »

you're not paranoid.. they really are out to get you. Don't leave your guard down for a second. They just want you to think you're being silly for being paranoid.

your all out to get me

rymus

dont think of it like that... we're just constantly watching you, waiting for you to mess up so we can take you down. It's not as bad as it seems... ITS WORSE!

thebaz

rymus wrote: »

dont think of it like that... we're just constantly watching you, waiting for you to mess up so we can take you down. It's not as bad as it seems... ITS WORSE!

7 days off the cigarettes makes it worse :eek:

ThOnda

It was the first thing I did in the morning - to compare those two different shots.

Oriel

...and the Times had the sense to crop their photo.

PaulieC

Oriel wrote: »

...and the Times had the sense to crop their photo.

*pulls up my chair and opens my popcorn*

rymus

it's uncanny really... 'they' must have surgically installed some kind of cerebral probe while you were sleeping. How else could they know where you are and when you're there? Gives me the chills just thinking about it tbh.

Covey

de Baztards

Calina

thebaz wrote: »

thats it , the lineout is pretty bland , unless its the paul o'conell shot , i thought the silhoette effect was a little different, i'm probably a bit paranoid after they used a shot from my flickr last year , without telling me.

Please don't take this the wrong way but...silhouette effects are pretty much standard in photography. There is nothing whatsoever original about them; I use them all the time when the sun is in the right place for me, even for sports shots.

TBH, neither of these is even particularly good, they are both burnt heavily, the IT one in particular and I really don't think the flare adds to it.

Yours, I feel, is a little too busy and too much indistinct detail. I think Oriel's implication that the photograph might benefit from a crop isn't far wrong except the angles are such that getting a good crop out of it is probably difficult.

my two cents' worth.

rymus

but ya still gotta admit it's a bit freaky... I think there's definately some evil plot afoot...

baz, I wholeheartedly recommend that you invest in the below;

Calina

is it the thought of a 5D has you as giddy as you are at the moment?

rymus

yes... that and massive amounts of pathetically bad filter coffee

Oriel

Calina wrote: »

I think Oriel's implication that the photograph might benefit from a crop isn't far wrong except the angles are such that getting a good crop out of it is probably difficult.

What I meant was - the only reason to shoot into the sun is to create an image of silhouettes (see the Times shot for example).
thebaz was... well just shooting into the sun.
A zoom, or in this case a recovering-crop would have created an effect of some control on the shot.
As it is, it's just overexposed at the sun and horribly under exposed everywhere else.

Calina

But the angle at which he shot it, I think, didn't allow for it at all. In my view, the photograph would have had far more promise if he had been standing a few degrees around to the right and shooting from lower down. In which case he might also have been away from the light fixture. As it is, there's far too much for the figures to fade into so it's hard to get anything out of it at all.

I dunno. Maybe I spend far too much time calculating where I am related to the angle of the sun when I'm out.

Oriel

Calina wrote: »

But the angle at which he shot it, I think, didn't allow for it at all. In my view, the photograph would have had far more promise if he had been standing a few degrees around to the right and shooting from lower down. In which case he might also have been away from the light fixture.

Agreed.

thebaz

Oriel wrote: »

...and the Times had the sense to crop their photo.

i'm getting something ready for you, so get sharpening the axe

Oriel

thebaz wrote: »

i'm getting something ready for you, so get sharpening the axe

I'm not sharpening any axe baz.

Fenster

All other considerations aside, it looks like the processed the bejesus out of that photo to recover it.

Calina

The IT one?

thedarkroom

QUICK!!!! BAZ, HE'S BEHIND YOU....WATCH OUT!!!! Look, it's Eric Luke again. Go away Eric, leave our Baz alone, you're freaking him out. Get off his case and go get your own ideas.
Seriously though, does anyone ever take a truly original photograph anymore with absolutely no influence (inadvertantly or otherwise) of any sort from any other image. It could be a painting, a photograph or some sort of illustration but chances are that every time that you take a photograph there is an image lurking in your subconscience which is telling you to 'do it this way, it will look great from that angle..' etc etc. While your image or subject might be original, your interpretation will have been influenced by your life-experiences, and that includes visuals.
I would certainly feel that no photographer, if they are truly honest with themselves, could with certainty say that what they have produced is completely and absolutely unique. I would not consider this to be a criticism of anyone's work and this does not mean that people can no longer be creative or original in their work. Far from it, everyone should look at their work with a critical eye but it is human nature that you will contrast and compare with others' work to use as a benchmark or see how others have handled similar subjects.
I include myself in that and I have been at it for thirty years. I enjoy taking landscapes but why do I pick up and browse through a book by Joe Cornish or Ansel Adams or Edward Weston. I've taken many portraits but I still like to look at work by Yosuf Karsh or Annie Leibovitz and others. If I didn't feel that they had something to offer me then why do I look? Why do I look if I don't feel that I might use this influence in some way, not deliberatly plagiarise but unconsciously. Am I unique in this? You must be honest with yourself.

Dades

Darnit.

Anywhere where they might have that IT pic archived?

thebaz

were all out to get each other , i need some nicotine --

anyway , i would differ , i think we all should hopefully view the world uniquely and have a different take on what we see -- otherwise how boring photography would be , like viewing stock holiday or wedding snaps .
But i take your point influences are everywhere , some subtle , some not so , and i think its good to have good influences .... but the idea of replicating some good shot , wouldn't appeal to me (and please , i'm not refering to my average rugby shot , it was the idea) -- and Eric Luke is a good photographer . Like music the the spark should be creative and something somewhat new

Paulw

I don't think any two people take the same photo. Just look at any boards outing. Multiple people taking photos of the same subject and they are all different.

You'll always get a different view, different angle, different light, and therefore, get a different image.

Miguel_Sanchez

I don't see the similarity.

http://www.ireland.com/homepage/images/1201501727655.jpg

[edit]Must check posting date before replying [/edit]