When is your photograph not your photograph?

I don't think it s a simple yes / no question. There's a gradation between almost all the photographers work (eg a landscape that has been affected by human habitation) to about half-and-half (eg a photo of a dance or a creative architectural image) to almost none (a straight copy of someone else's picture). For me the subject of a portrait, street photo, glamour shot, nude or any other picture including a person owes a large or small part to the subject's own input.

There are certainly some very thought-provoking responses to this topic.

 

It's one I've actually been thinking of quite recently. I made this shot early last year (broke the lens in the process, but anyway...)

 

<a href=" title="D2/M4248E2 On The Money by jb17kx, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1136/1119311512_d9d5f17437.jpg" width="500" height="313" alt="D2/M4248E2 On The Money" /></a><br />

 

That shot is a close-up of detail on the face of an Australian bank note (the $10 note, to be precise). I'm very happy with how it came out, and several people who've seen it have been very impressed by it. An enlargement hangs on the wall in the house of one of my friends.<br /><br />

 

I'm naturally quite pleased with that. But part of me feels that it was really nothing to do with me. After all, I didn't make the portrait or the line drawing. I didn't arrange it nicely on a bank note - I just set up some light, whacked a few close-up filters on the lens, tripped the shutter, and did some work in Photoshop.<br /><br />

 

Sure, it's my shot. I made it black & white, I cropped it, etc, but somebody else actually put the content in that frame for me to manipulate.<br /><br />

 

Should I really take credit for an image that could be reproduced by anybody with a half-decent camera and Picasa?<br /><br />

 

That, I suppose, is the quandary.