A question of ethics.

A fellow user of this board, whose identity I won't reveal insists on e-mailing me over trivial things such as bad spelling and grammer. This all started because he took offence that I placed a message informing the board that I had certain items for sale.

<p>

Now, low and behold, he says that I'm unethical because of a certain image on my website.

<p>

He quotes.. "You profess high ethics, which can somehow be determined if one checks your website (how? because you can take the same picture in Canyon de Chelly that O'Sullivan did); Unquote.

<p>

Here is the link to the image that so disgruntles this chap. Take a look and see for yourself. Is this really unethical.. if so, where on earth does this leave the Landscape Photographer in 2001? If that is the case I suppose there is very little else for us to capture on film.

<p>

http://www.nigelturnerphotography.com/Gallery-CDC.html

<p>

Leave you thoughts on the board.. I'd love to know you feelings on this subject.

<p>

http://www.nigelturnerphotography.com.

It is a common vantage point. Ansel Adams took a photo from nearly

the same position, commenting as well on Sullivan's photo, and how

similar his interpretation of it was to Sullivan's. Whether or not

you were aware that this had been done before doesn't really have

much to do with ethics at all.

I am trying but I can't, I can't resist it. It is 'lo and behold'.

Sorry about that.

I was just reading the Michael and Paula site today because of a post

I read on Azo and ran across an article Michael wrote about teaching

photography (called "On Teaching Photography"). The short version is

that everything HAS been photographed and a combination of emulating

the greats and uniqueness should and must be used together for a

photographer to develop his or her own style. While this article

doesn't directly answer the question, I thought of it immediately

when I read your post.

<p>

I've never been to Canyon de Chelly, but my guess is that there

probably aren't a ton of great vantage points to take that photo

from, and therefore doing what someone else has done in the past is

inevitable.

<p>

Short answer, don't worry about it, but don't run off and photograph

Delicate Arch, because that's been done. :)

Nigel:

<p>

You didn't capture the same photons... you're clear. Vantage points

are not the issue, every captures their own light.

Nigel;

<p>

A popular place with a limited number of vantage points is going to

lead to a large number of similar photographs. What do you do in

Yosemite Valley? Shoot it & enjoy. I see nothing unethical about your

image. Besides, both AA & O'Sullivan made their images in B&W.

<p>

Years ago in a local gallery I saw a show of B&W photos that looked

like the photographer found Ansel's tripod holes in Yosemite. I would

say that that show borders on being plagarism when taken as a whole.

A single photo does not.

<p>

~Ted

I believe that O'Sullivan is notorious for assuming credit for

photographs that he did not actually take. Your photograph seems quite

good, and very straight-forward as an image. (An actual print would

certainly look much better than the web image.) I am sure that others

have also seen this very beautiful site in a similar way. One might

want an image that somehow has you as in individual photographer more

in evidence. But that is another consideration, and aesthetic concerns

need more space than these little forums can provide. I mean a real

conversation in depth would be needed to even start to get close to

first aesthetic principles. I do not see anything unethical about your

photograph. Ii is a fine celebration of a special place. As they say,

carry on.

The land is always changing. The light is never the same twice. Your

film, materials and technique are different from O'Sullivan's. Above

all, you are not O'Sullivan, and you do not live in O'Sullivan's age,

and you have come after O'Sullivan, so your intentions cannot be the

same as O'Sullivan's (even if you believed they were, they could not

be). There is no ethical question here, at least with regards to

plagiarism or anything of that nature, at all.

Hey Nigel, there is a little button in Outlook express called block

sender, I recommend you use it and forget this bozo........

As to your picture, is fine, not unethical to take a pic from the

same place as other have done! heck if that was the case nobody

should take more pictures of Lower antelope!

yours is color and O'Sullivan's is black & white. As others have

pinted out it is a pretty common view. I think you should out the

person who is harassing you. Either that or just set an e-mail

filter to block his incoming missives.

I will identify myself as the fellow user about whom Mr. Turner is

apparently attempting to draw comment. I made the mistake of sending

a PRIVATE email to him suggesting that he not advertise things for

sale on the help forum. I was polite and to the point about it.

This led to lectures on my need to "get a life," a claim that selling

stuff wasn't revealed as a taboo by his search of the site rules

(huh?) a claim to high ethics evidenced by his having a website (huh

again? the Columbine killers had a website which proves...?) the

interesting revelation that he was selling the same stuff on ebay at

the same time he was trying to interest all of you folks in buying it

(but wait, this was OK because he just wanted to know if you were

interested, he never said he'd actually sell it to you, so he's got

you there, etc. etc.). There was the grandiose claim that he was

morally obligated to tell you all what he was selling, etc. I

deleted the last several emails I got from him without reading them.

There was an earlier thread (which was, thankfully, deleted) in which

he took other people to task for criticizing his English. (It was

YOUR FAULT for not speaking his way. The preferred spelling of

grammar is "grammer," apparently, and if you don't know the right

word then go ahead and use its second cousin.) I don't think I

suggested and I did not mean to imply that placing your tripod where

others have before is unethical, the point was that he claimed his

website demonstrated his ethics which I couldn't quite comprehend.

Troubled souls produce art all the time. (Placing your tripod in

exactly the same spot is unoriginal, but not unethical per se, though

it can happen, of course, that you work the landscape and find a spot

you like that someone else also happened to settle upon as a

preferred commposition. It can be plagarism or cooincidence.)

Actually I liked some of his photos. His point that we are all done

for and can't be original because this is 2001 is one I won't agree

with. It may be hard to do if you put a pepper in a funnel and make

that your starting point, but for the rest of nature I think it can

be done. Nigel's behavior, however, is a little strange (this

comment, like everything I say, is just my personal opinion) and

whether he plays by the rules or not, don't have the nerve to attempt

to educate him. Some people have one speed -- attack -- and if you

annoy them by suggesting that this website isn't Ebay they have only

one way of responding to you. The point of this post of his, I

guess, is to have something to do since I started ignoring him. The

idea is to take one sentence out of context and then publically post

it to get comments from people who don't know what is going on so

that he can say "tah dah" or whatever comes next with this person. He

wouldn't really "love to know your opinion" unless it is his. You've

been warned.

Well..... I think Kevin's response is very well thought out, I would

like to see your response Niegel.

In reply to the message from Mr Crisp.

<p>

You were the one who lectured Mr Crisp. Luckily I still have all the

emails, from both sides, and they show that I was polite, apologetic

and humble in my repies to you. I'd be more than happy to publish

them on here if you would like, then the readers can judge for

themselves.

<p>

Have yourself a good day Mr Crisp.

Don't we have better things to do than take pot shots at each

other? Encouragement, learning and sharing about

photography seems to be a hallmark of this website. Please

don't devolve it into something petty, personal and irrelevant.

Thank you.

yeah I agree with David, lets move on, I don't think this is going to

take us anywhere.

My point exactly David, I wasn't taking potshots at Mr Crisp.

<p>

Mr Crisp personally came out and identified himself as the person I

was refering to in my post, with his remarks about ethics. He then

procceeds into a tirad of things, that I had kept private, in an

attempt to blacken me personnally.

<p>

Have I ever launched an attack on Mr Crisp here?? I think not. But I

do feel that since Mr Crisp has said what he has said then I believe

I have the right to defend myself. Here in the public forum.

<p>

I have a copy of all the emails, which I feel will prove wrong many

of the things that Mr Crisp said in this public forum. I'll be more

than happy to publish each and every email (from both sides in the

order they were recieved) on this board to prove my innocence.

<p>

Then Mr Crisp will owe me a public apology.

<p>

PS. Sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes. Luckily for me I'm a

photographer and not a writer :o)

<p>

http://www.nigelturnerphotography.com

You guys gotta chill. No need to flex those 8x10 egos to the

detriment of all... including ones self. Life is too short....Let

the photography speak for itself....There are no saints here!

Nigel: Nobody cares. I don't even care, and I'm one of the

participants. If I offended you, then I'm sorry I did. Now that

I've managed to become "an uninteresting thread" I guess I'll move on.

Guess what, I think its okay to have a slanging match now and

again!! No one realy gets "hurt", it clears the air and everyone

makes up at the end of the day! bit like real life really. If

someone galls you then get it off your chest!! I can't recall any

"arguments" that got out of hand, and it shows that despite

communicating in cyberspace, at the end of the day we are all

human. Some kind soul will always step in and tell the warring

parties to chill out!! Paul

Come along now please chaps. There's a place for this kind of

bickering - it's called www.photo.net

<p>

Would be nice if the LF forum could maintain its traditional ego-free

status.

michael alpert - i believe it was matthew brady that is credited with

large numbers of photos which he did not take. o'sullivan worked for

brady during the war, but most of his photos are generally from the

later western exploratory expeditions on which he served as

photographer, so there isnt too much doubt that he actually took

those views.

<p>

inre: the chelly photo - i am not aware of where adams actually gave

o'sullivan credit for the original view - can someone point me at a

reference where adams discusses this? as far as

adams "interpretation" of the scene being so different from

osullivan's, i think old tim was just trying to document the view,

not create some dramatic, enhanced view using a red filter.

documentary photographers are, by definition, trying to record a

scene as it appears, not to create an alleged work of art.

RE: The Adams reference. I remember reading it, but can't remember

which book. Adams was talking about the difference in the final

prints, specifically the "old" version which was done on glass plates

that had extended blue sensitivity, and Adams could not match the

shadow detail with his film. Or something like that. I do not

remember who he referred to as the photographer. I only have 4 of his

books, so it's in one of them: The Camera/Negative/Print and The

Making of 40 Photographs. I'd guess The Print or The Making...

Re: JNorman's query on the source of Adam's commentary on the

O'Sullivan view of The White House. It is referenced in Examples,

The Making of 40 Photographs on page 127:

<p>

"A blue filter like the No. 47 would have given values very similar

to those of the O'Sullivan photograph, but I had lost my blue

filter. I used a green filter (Wratten No. 58), which better defined

the sunlit areas; it also darkened the shadows in the recess."....

Seriously, this is wasting everyone's time. Take it out in private

guys, this isn't a schoolyard and we're not going to take sides. I find

there's been an increasing number of off-topic postings lately and it's

starting to take away from my enjoyment of this forum, which I cherish

as the most professional *public* discussion board on the net. If this

trend continues an invaluable resource for amateur LF photographers

will be gone and a community destroyed.