Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by EvilGenius, Feb 21, 2019.
At least it's brought some good chatter back to the OCAU photography section (one positive)
I was browsing and came across this article. It sounds like something went a bit awry a few years ago? Burnout?
Not an excuse, but may be some personal issues contributed to this?
Of course, also in the organisations comments re wellbeing etc etc. I think in one the videos I posted she mentions this briefly.
But consequences are still consequences..
Scott and Adam's posts always give me a chuckle
I agree, she has made money through dishonesty (at the bare minimum) to the detriment of others. That includes the many sponsors she was previously "brand ambassadors" for that she would not have had without all of the awards she had accumulated. She also went out of her way to lie about works, e.g. the bonsai tree that was not taken by her - she made up some story about it being her mum's and associating it with her death - this also fools people into evoking an emotion through a lie.
Regardless of whether you agree that her work is photography or not (illustration is a better description in my opinion), the breadth of the dishonesty and cheating is not a simple mistake, it was an ongoing and calculated deception. Many others have been robbed of appropriate recognition and opportunities due to this behaviour and those people are the real victims in this.
Yes, even when the prizes are re-awarded, that won't make up for the loss of opportunity the new winners would have had in the interim and there'll also be a pall over the award. Who could get excited about being awarded a prize after all of this?
That other guy with the moon photo only recently "admitting" that it was a composite makes me (as an outsider) get the impression that she's not alone in the bullshit department.
Apparently Ken Duncan the landscape photographer raised the "is this photography?" question previously. https://petapixel.com/2016/09/10/line-photo-illustrations-pure-photography/ It seems to me way easier to include others' work in a composite with a lot of elements than in a portrait, landscape or other "regular photo". I think they should at least separate out "normal photography" from these graphic artworks, I can't imagine how you could even judge one against the other, they are 2 different things - it's like judging a photo against a painting. The fellow that she pinched the "teardrop" image from calls his work an illustration (or words to that effect). It'll be interesting to see whether the contest people now divide up the categories.
how dumb is she. the clip art and the tree and stuff could be EASILY recreated yourself using a wacom and probably 10 minutes of time if you're a pro.
the windows and overlay thingo just needed to be distorted a bit and they wouldn't have matched and she wouldn't have been found out
it's like when using copyrighted music on youtube, the algorithm won't match if you put low level white noise in the back ground or if you slow/speed it up a bit. it's so simple to make it your own.
what a fucking idiot
You aren't describing how to "make it your own" but how to disguise that it's not yours. Any manipulation to avoid detection wouldn't have turned the images she used into her own photographs.
i'm calling her an idiot for cheating and doing it badly, when she could have cheated and got away with it so easily
She could never have gotten away with stealing the "teardrop" art, only with the more minor clipart elements.
if she had warped the teardrop a bit, the lines of the tear drop wouldn't match the stolen art lines, so the guy doing the investigating would have never discovered the rest of the stealing
Well, I assume anyway
Anyone seeing the two images would know. Especially the creator. Changing a bit here and there might foil a computer, but not a person. She did change some things, but she would still have been unable to overcome the creator's claim, because she did not have any raw file, whereas he did.
Well, most people knew it was a load of BS that photo. I do put this in a different league, whilst Peter Lik may have done composites and not told the whole truth about that fact - he at least took the damn photos contained within the composites. Whilst not confirmed, it is also likely that in this case the source material were not licensed works (would someone really allow someone to license their work AND claim it was their own original work? seems unlikely) - so both using works not created by them, but taking credit for them AND not paying licensing for the usage of someone else's intellectual property.
On the topic of Peter Lik, I'm pretty sure it was something I saw on Fstoppers that said that he has an army of re-touchers, with a typical single photo release having had at least a week of full-time work put into re-touching and adjustment work - not by Peter himself.
Didn't he actively bullshit about the circumstances in which he took "the photo", along the lines of "it was my dead mother's bonsai"?
But as I said, he actually took both photos that made up the composite. So even if he tried to make people think it was captured as a single shot, at least he wasn't stealing someone else's work nor was he entering it into a competition and blatantly breaking the rules. I certainly don't condone what Peter Lik did with that image (and others), but this is in an entirely different ballpark.
Not on the particular point of bullshit. He lied just as blatantly as she did. If people bought prints of it because they believed his lies, then he's defrauded those purchasers in the same way that she defrauded the contest organisers. On the "pinching others' work" front, she's on her own, he didn't do that, but on the excrement scale, they're both swimming in it.
Latest development, a very well written statement from NZIPP....much better than what the AIPP released:
"Furthermore, Ms Saad’s conduct indicated an intent to deceive and mislead the outcome of the investigation." hmmm, not good.
Doesn't know when to stop does she...
Probably provided more files that either weren't hers or weren't the files used in the images she submitted to the competition. Kinda sad.