To copy a Photogs style to get paid or not too - that is the question.

WestEndBoy

Just a few comments: Ethics and the law are different.

1. The law protects "intellectual property" but a person claiming their "intellectual property" has been infringed has the burden of proving that it really is a unique thing they created and not simply a set of standard lightroom sliders that are available to all who use the program. They didn't create those sliders; they just combined them in some way. An example is Nikon's AF system. Samyang has a great 85mm f1.4 lens for only $300 but it is MF. Why don't they just copy Nikon's AF system and add it to the lens to sell more? Because Nikon would sue them for infringing upon Nikon's intellectual property which Nikon created. Samyang has to either license the AF system from Nikon (which Nikon won't do) or they have to reverse engineer it in some way they can claim is their own creation.

2. Ethics can be of two kinds: professional and personal. Professional ethical standards are sometimes written down for the profession to follow and sometimes a matter of internationally published scientific literature. For example there is an essentially world-wide agreement among doctors that certain conditions should be treated in certain ways. Ebola will be treated the same no matter where it is diagnosed in the world. To not follow that protocol will be considered unethical and malpractice. To some extent the law will enforce professional ethics but the law will not enforce the ethical standard that a doctor should treat his patient with courtesy. You cannot sue a doctor for his or her lack of courtesy as you can for his or her malpractice. However, personal ethics are very, very different. "Proper" ethical behavior will vary among cultures, among ethnic groups in the same country, among different regions in a country and even among different religions in the same small town. When it comes to personal ethics we should realize it is more a matter of personal and cultural behavioral preferences than it is a matter of abstract right and wrong. We should be tolerant of different people from different backgrounds and in different groups making different decisions as to what is "right and wrong" and we should see those choices as just different choices, not a right or wrong behavior according some universal standard of behavior.

The issue TTJ describes is one of personal ethics in the context of his Midwest community. There is no legal or national standard answer to his issue. It is really a matter of personal behavior: what kind of person do you want to be?

Well said Donaldjose.

spraynpray

Agreed about the mid-west. I wish I had those worries. Where I live in the UK, the population density is high and the competition is fierce. The worries are low about offending people because every man and his dog are photographers these days. The other day I came across a woman advertising family portrait sessions at her home for £15 including two 10 x 8's. WTF!

I lose most work because of price and it isn't a surprise when there are desperate idiots around like that.

Rx4Photo

^^ This is the reason I believe that a photographer that truly wishes to keep an edge in the game needs to either bone up on his or her post processing skills (including adding textures or painterly effects) or bringing on someone who can do it as a team. I see so many photographer's websites where the pictures look pretty much SOOC. The average client might see those photos as slightly better than what they can get on a cell phone and be willing to pay little bits of money for it. BUT, if a photographer presents a portfolio full of "improved" images then if clients truly want that look, they should expect to and be willing to pay more for that look.

Since the beginning of this thread I've always thought that the style of this particular photographer that @Bokeh_Hunter has been referring to involves more than an isolated subject and a creamy background. Take for example photographer Lisa Holloway. She not only shoots with a 200mm f/2 lens but she processes her images in a very distinct way that has become her trademark look. Anyone with $$$$ can buy a 200mm f/2 but not everyone can create her images just because that's the lens on the camera.

Golf007sd

I may buy a 200mm/f2! Actually, her processing doesn't look terribly complicated and I think most people with desire to put in a couple hundred hour can do it.

The 200 F/2 bug must be going around. I took the blue pill and it solved the problem. The prognosis of my illness should be complete on Monday.

Msmoto

I am waiting for the next version of the 200mm f/2.0……or maybe I am just saving up…. but, this is in my "wish list" as I can see the new TC-14EIII on the back, and viola, a 280mm f/2.8. That is tack sharp!

Photobug

I may buy a 200mm/f2! Actually, her processing doesn't look terribly complicated and I think most people with desire to put in a couple hundred hour can do it.

The 200 F/2 bug must be going around. I took the blue pill and it solved the problem. The prognosis of my illness should be complete on Monday.

We expect some pictures on PAD with the new lens Golf007sd.

Bokeh_Hunter

@Rx4Photo - Some of Lisa Holloway's images are darn close to the look but the difference of focal length. (Canon 5dmkIII w/Canon 200mm f/2.) There somewhat of a similar style and editing to it as well.

Canon does do "people" better especially in the skin tone color shifts. It dawned on me that is what the photographer I was talking about and what Mrs. Holloway is color shifting many images towards those tones. A bit of exploiting the tone shifts.

What I have found mostly in my experience and looking at others, it does seem many of the best really use one lens and master it. (Obviously they use others when needed.) You see a lot of it with rangefinders where some masters a 50mm or 35mm - if for no other reason than that is all they can afford.

WestEndBoy

@Rx4Photo - Some of Lisa Holloway's images are darn close to the look but the difference of focal length. (Canon 5dmkIII w/Canon 200mm f/2.) There somewhat of a similar style and editing to it as well.

Canon does do "people" better especially in the skin tone color shifts. It dawned on me that is what the photographer I was talking about and what Mrs. Holloway is color shifting many images towards those tones. A bit of exploiting the tone shifts.

What I have found mostly in my experience and looking at others, it does seem many of the best really use one lens and master it. (Obviously they use others when needed.) You see a lot of it with rangefinders where some masters a 50mm or 35mm - if for no other reason than that is all they can afford.

It certainly lends itself to the creation of a trademark look.

WestEndBoy

I may buy a 200mm/f2! Actually, her processing doesn't look terribly complicated and I think most people with desire to put in a couple hundred hour can do it.

The 200 F/2 bug must be going around. I took the blue pill and it solved the problem. The prognosis of my illness should be complete on Monday.

I also have that bug. But I will wait for about three years. If an updated version is out, I will buy that. Otherwise, it will be the new 400. Both will be in my bag eventually.

donaldejose

I looked up Lisa Holloway's images and technique. Quite impressed! She makes a strong case for a 200mm f2. I noted in many comments she posted that she searches out what she calls "pools of light" in which light is blocked from one side, comes in from the opposite side and some open sky behind the photographer provides catchlights in the eyes. Of course, there has to also be a large distance between the subject and the background to create a soft background behind the face. Because her images are so warm I questioned if she really was shooting in the shade but I guess you could easily fix that by changing your white balance. All in all, some good stuff to copy.

WestEndBoy

I just looked at Lisa Holloway's images. She almost has Pitchblack's talent. Certainly gives us mortals something to aspire to.

It is certainly a good ad for a 200mm f/2.0. However, I am sure that if I handed her my 135 DC 2.0, she would achieve a similar look. Not saying a 135 is a 200, but I think it is important that it is Lisa's talent that we have all noticed, not her 200mm lens.

But unfortunately, I still have "Wantus Purchasus" when it comes to the 200 and 400.

Rx4Photo

^ Lisa Holloway ... all that talent and 10 kids in tow. Brilliant in my book!

MikeGunter

Hi all,

There is mimicking style, then there is something else.

Here is a photo I post sometime ago in PAD.




Here is a photo that has shown up at a popular photo stock file.




There's more than a little similarity.

;-)

My best,

Mike

SquamishPhoto

An updated version of the 200 f2 is probably going to cost $8-9,000 if they give it the same treatment that the 400 f2.8 received. Food for thought.

WestEndBoy

Yeah, I figure $8,000 - $9,000 too.

WestEndBoy

The current version of the 200/f2 is already the highest rated f-mount lens in the Dx0 Mark database. Waiting for an upgrade and paying up to 50% more seems positively preposterous.

Hmm......I had not considered that. I will need to investigate this lens more closely.

SquamishPhoto

The VR1 copy can be had used for just above $3,000 if you look really hard. The difference between the two is marginal. I got my VR2 copy new for $5000 including taxes the year it came out. Clerical error, FTW! :P

Photobug

Hmm......I had not considered that. I will need to investigate this lens more closely.

Be very careful when investigating that lens. That could put a huge dent in your savings account. =D>
I had the opportunity several years ago to use this lens for about five minutes. Later when I checked out the images on a computer screen the edges were amazing.

WestEndBoy

The dent is inevitable. Two dents actually. I tried out the 400mm 2.8 last year.

WestEndBoy

I have done some reading on this lens. It seems that I have underestimated it (and I estimated highly).

Optically, it is essentially the same as the VR1 Pitchblack.

Now I just have to save some coin......

SquamishPhoto

It has the Nano coating on it, which the VR1 lacks and the results are supposed to be in line with what Nikon traditionally attributes to the coating - improved flare resistance, better antireflective qualities as well as increased contrast and clarity. Its VR is a big improvement as well and you get the A/M button to keep the inevitable nudges on the huge focus ring from affecting focus.

Bokeh_Hunter

Now that talk has gone on for over a page - how about we clean up the thread and begin a 200mm F2 thread?

donaldejose

Actually, I would like to get back to the original discussion of a unique style. I did very much enjoy looking at Lisa Hollaway's style and learning from her about how she did it with natural light. TTJ could you post the website of this person you have been saying has a unique style? I would like to see the photos.

KnockKnock

I don't think this was mentioned earlier, but copying is often and can be considered a form of flattery.. When money is involved it's more often preceded by other reactions. It was mentioned earlier that talking to the original pro about it would be interesting. It could lead to referrals if they're too busy to take on the demanded workload. But even if it doesn't, the discussion would show respect for and concern about not wanting to offend them, and that can never hurt.

FlowtographyBerlin

Now that talk has gone on for over a page - how about we clean up the thread and begin a 200mm F2 thread?

I find it fascinating how on this forum, "style" always quickly turns into "I need to buy things" (mostly from the "the more expensive, the better" category), but it's rarely about actually learning about styles and how to achieve them – no matter if you have the hot 180mm f/1.8 VRIII nanocrystal lens.

Maybe 'fascinating' is not the right word, though.