It’s fascinating to hear others views on what is or isn’t deemed original in landscape photography. I have quite a simplistic view of what I’d class as original, for me it all boils down to composition. I often hear the argument that the same scene will never be the same and whilst the weather and the seasons are always changing I personally don’t feel that’s a strong enough argument to class something as original. Another argument that’s often discussed in favour of copying is that nobody owns the landscape, I’d like to suggest that nobody owns the English language but it doesn’t stop singer/songwriters for getting into trouble for stealing lyrics. For instance imagine Ed Sheeran copying word for word Pink Floyd’s Comfortably Numb, would this be deemed an original Ed Sheeran song? It would sound different sure but the words haven’t changed. What would be the likely outcome if he were to release the record had he not sought the permission of Roger Waters and David Gilmour? He’d likely end up in troubled waters. Why then is it acceptable for photographers to copy composition without at least passing on some form of credit to the original photographer who saw the composition?
I had a lovely walk out at Holme Fell in the Lake District recently and took a handful of images whilst the rain fell and the light shone. Two of the compositions I recognised instantly as the work of others and on sharing I credited the photographers who were first to capture the scenes, although my versions were completely different. For me despite the obvious differences in conditions the things that I could actually control in terms of composition and camera settings didn’t differentiate them enough from the originals to count as my own. In fact I actually feel a degree of shame for taking the photographs in the first place, despite them being rather nice.
An image of a birch with the Langdale Pikes drenched in a passing shower, a subject first photographed by Colin Bell.
A similar view but with birch trees previously photographed by Mark Littlejohn.
I took a few more images that morning that I didn’t recognise as anyone else’s and the way I feel about them is far more positive than the other two. From my perspective to complete the artistic process I need to connect with something that I’ve seen, the joy comes from creating something from a section of the landscape that spoke to me. I suppose that’s why I’m often found walking amongst trees in the woods, yes I absolutely love the quiet and the solitude that these environments provide but I also want to create something that feels original to me and trees provide endless opportunities to create original photographs.
It’s I suppose quite a controversial subject and opinion to say that many of the images from popular locations that I see are borderline plagiarism, you could argue that there is two examples of such above. There’s huge value in originality and I sometimes feel that we can sell ourselves short by believing that every image that we take is original. Bare with me, I’m sure this will come across as me being arrogant and elitist but I often here photographers describing themselves as artists, I don’t witness any other art form giving away compositions for free, or it being widely accepted as a free for all. Imagine if I were to trace the Moana Lisa but painted in the gaps in slightly different colours and called her Loana Misa. Would that be acceptable? Would it be original? Of course it wouldn't and I struggle to see the difference between that and taking a composition that I’ve seen before.
There’s huge benefits to copying in the learning process and I do feel like there’s a place for it in landscape photography but I’d always give credit where possible to the original photographer, it feels like the right thing to do.
I’m sure that my views will likely sit uncomfortably with some but it would be great to hear your thoughts around originality and landscape photography.
Thanks for reading.