Reflections of Buddha


Status
Not open for further replies.

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#1
Taken at a very much over-visited and shot location... Buddha Tooth Relic Temple.

Had originally intended to submit this for their competition, but I got lazy to print in the end :bsmilie: Plus, don't think there was a chance to win anyway.

Right, on to the photo itself. This was taken some time back actually, and of the entire visit, this incidentally was also the only shot I made. And probably one of the last few shots on my old nikon d200. Not being one who normally shoots objects/things like this, hope I provided a slightly different view of the same thing.

No manipulation other than slight adjustment to the WB (competition rules). 1/40s @ f4.

How does the overall effect of the photo look to you? Comments, critique, and personal flames are all welcomed :cool:

 

Jun 13, 2006
116
0
0
#2
The composition is too simple. it is just a mirror image,

suggest if photo is taken from another angle. It may show depth as well as your technique.
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#3
No manipulation other than slight adjustment to the WB (competition rules).
Hmmm... the words at the bottom of the picture were added by the camera?

How does the overall effect of the photo look to you?
It is a nicely done shot - it could sell e.g. as a postcard. However, you're just reproducing the view as it undoubtedly was designed to be seen; I don't see originality in it. While the credit for the technical execution of the photograph may go to you, the credits for the art go to whoever made and set up that statue.

I'm not sure about Singapore law, but since you didn't add a significant artistic concept, in some countries the copyright for this photo would belong to the artist who set up this scene - in fact, the photograph might count as an unauthorized copy.
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#4
Mmm ok. Maybe let me explain a little more. Yes, it's just another reflection shot. But usually the reflection isn't visible to most, the table that I caught the reflection off is usually covered with uh.. sorry I don't know what you call it, but its those glass cups with tealights in them, flower offerings etc. It just so happened that they were clearing it to wipe/clean when I spotted the reflection and took the shot. That was my main thought behind the photo, a "new" view of a very familiar scene in the temple. The usual scene with a little "extra".

LittleWolf: You mean the "by Jom - 2007" ?. Heh. I didn't expect people to consider watermarking to be manipulating the photo. Since photography is allowed and in fact actively encouraged, I don't think the issues of copyright would apply in this instance. Thanks for bringing it up though. Reminds me of many cases in the states whereby the photographer was sued for "unsavoury" pictorial of certain brand names in the photographs.
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#5
LittleWolf: You mean the "by Jom - 2007" ?. Heh. I didn't expect people to consider watermarking to be manipulating the photo. Since photography is allowed and in fact actively encouraged, I don't think the issues of copyright would apply in this instance. Thanks for bringing it up though. Reminds me of many cases in the states whereby the photographer was sued for "unsavoury" pictorial of certain brand names in the photographs.
Maybe I'm nitpicking about the "out of camera thing". On the other hand, small inaccuracies like this can easily cost credibility. Once the audience finds a discrepancy, it's only natural to wonder "what else..." and look at the rest with a more critical eye.

Concerning copyright, I should have used less legalistic language. For me, it's not so much about laws, and I think it's fine to take such photos within the context of "fair use", especially if the temple people encourage it. It's just that the "by Jom" tagline sounds a bit like claiming artistic ownership. Let's assume your photo won the competition - wouldn't there be the nagging feeling that it won not because of the merits of the photo, but because you're riding on the laurels of the artist who set up this scene?

A more drastic example, if I go to the Louvre in Paris and take a straight photo of the Mona Lisa, would it be appropriate to label it "by LittleWolf"?

As a postcard or a documentary "product photo", I think your picture is good. The flip side is that a good "product photo" shows the artistic intention of the product's designer, not that of the photographer. C&C on the artistic merits would thus not be about your photo, but about the arrangement in the temple that you photographed.
 

Jun 13, 2006
116
0
0
#6
Mmm ok. Maybe let me explain a little more. Yes, it's just another reflection shot. But usually the reflection isn't visible to most, the table that I caught the reflection off is usually covered with uh.. sorry I don't know what you call it, but its those glass cups with tealights in them, flower offerings etc. It just so happened that they were clearing it to wipe/clean when I spotted the reflection and took the shot. That was my main thought behind the photo, a "new" view of a very familiar scene in the temple. The usual scene with a little "extra".

If this is just an accidental production, then i will agree that the technique is good. But imho, i do not see much depth of the composition. But definitely good to be use as part of a portfiolio.
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#7
LW: Actually no. The target was to photograph scenes/things in and around the temple. Thus... the watermark was just to claim the rights to the photo. (anyway, I only watermark those I post up on the web as image theft and misappropriation is rampant). So... if the idea is a photography competition, I'm still unable to comprehend the part about "claiming artistic ownership" and "nagging feeling". From what I understand, what you're implying is taking photo of "another photo", or replicating someone else's exact shot from the exact same position, angle, framing etc. Maybe the watermark is slightly misleading, but how different is it from say... (C) XYZ Photography ?

cavendish: thanks. Will keep in mind to have more interesting compositions.
 

Mar 13, 2007
2,252
0
0
Atlanta, GA
#8
Hmmm... the words at the bottom of the picture were added by the camera?



It is a nicely done shot - it could sell e.g. as a postcard. However, you're just reproducing the view as it undoubtedly was designed to be seen; I don't see originality in it. While the credit for the technical execution of the photograph may go to you, the credits for the art go to whoever made and set up that statue.

I'm not sure about Singapore law, but since you didn't add a significant artistic concept, in some countries the copyright for this photo would belong to the artist who set up this scene - in fact, the photograph might count as an unauthorized copy.
last spoken to a friend who's reading law in nus in his final year, a photographer who snaps the picture owns the copyright to the image inside the camera, no matter what scene.

perhaps thats in a singapore context only.
 

Mar 13, 2007
2,252
0
0
Atlanta, GA
#9
jom -> i think this picture's pretty well done but i would definitelly appreciate a larger field of view, i.e. more towards the left and right.. seems a little tight to me.

definitely an uncommon shot, esp only to be captured when they clean the altar/table.. then again.. maybe over the years the table wont be that glossy anymore.

if you post this in one of those "buddhist forums" etc i would believe it would be quite a favourite.
 

Jun 13, 2006
116
0
0
#10
LW: Actually no. The target was to photograph scenes/things in and around the temple. Thus... the watermark was just to claim the rights to the photo. (anyway, I only watermark those I post up on the web as image theft and misappropriation is rampant). So... if the idea is a photography competition, I'm still unable to comprehend the part about "claiming artistic ownership" and "nagging feeling". From what I understand, what you're implying is taking photo of "another photo", or replicating someone else's exact shot from the exact same position, angle, framing etc. Maybe the watermark is slightly misleading, but how different is it from say... (C) XYZ Photography ?

cavendish: thanks. Will keep in mind to have more interesting compositions.[/QUOTE

My 2-cent worth of advice. Photo is not just a picture. It is capturing a moment and has a theme. Thus in a reflection, try not to be so symatrical in the compostion..
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom