Odd views on photography

[imagemaker46]

There are fields of photography that I find boring, however it doesn't make them any less important, or valuable. Each image is a moment in time that can't be replaced. I find looking at landscapes boring, but would not find shooting them boring. I find weddings boring, and looking at wedding photographs boring and shooting them boring, but that doesn't make them any less important than shooting sports or portraits or static catalogue photos.

 

[Forkie]

Frankly, considering the state the planet is in, I think it's VITAL to shoot landscapes to preserve the memory of how it was. Imagine if there were no landscape shots of the Maldives. In 50-100 years time, no one would know they ever existed.

 

[Diffuser]

Well, to each his own. People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us. Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.

That said, there's certainly a market for landscapes, as there is a market for all genres, and it seems that most people can be grabbed by a well done landscape, even if it's been done before, even if it's been "done to death". Millions of people every year buy postcards and calendars and prints and posters of landscapes because viewing them grabs them in some way, and that includes all the ones that have already been "done to death". People know who Adams is because his images still sell to people who find those images inspiring in some way, so they hang them on walls, put them on desk calendars, computer screen wallpapers, and all the rest of it.

If you've never stood in front of a Peter Lik print that's 4 or 5 feet wide, you may not get the full impact of what a well-made landscape can do to your senses. Likewise, if you've never actually been to Yosemite or the Grand Canyon or the dozens of other famous places that have been "shot to death", you may not get why people can't help themselves when they're standing there engulfed in a landscape that has so much impact on the senses, and you should probably get out more and go to to those places to get a better understanding of the dynamic that drives the photographers who shoot this stuff, and the people who appreciate it.

As for copycats, that can be said of every genre. Why shoot portraits with the lights arranged in one of the dozen "classic" ways that's already been done a million times? Why pose your model the same way it's been done a billion times already? In fact, you probably use the same poses and lighting over and over and over, not caring or worried at all that it's been "done to death". You think it's really all that unique that you stick a different face in the shot each time, while using the same poses and lighting and focal lengths and DOFs from session to session to session?

A billion school head shots are identical in terms of lighting and pose and "cheese" smiles and cropping, and yet every year we get a millions more of the same. Corporate head shots, same thing. Glamour magazine covers have about a dozen different looks, repeated millions of times.

Still lifes, water drips, bug macros, birds on branches, seagulls in flight, every animal you've ever heard of, flowers in bloom against black velvet, sunrises and sunsets in every conceivable configuration with water or rock or grass or a barn or a couple or a lonely person, and a million more themes - done to death. Pregnant woman holding her belly, ring in a Bible with heart shadow, muscled man holding a baby, homeless people laying in the street - all done a million times already. And so on with a million more themes. "Oh, how boring", says the elite "tog" with his nose in the air, "how utterly banal".

Taken to it's logical conclusion then, if you can't shoot something that's NEVER been shot before, you're just a copycat, so why even have a camera at all?

I don't hold to such pretentious, extremist, egotistical points of view. Those who do are welcome to them, but I have little respect for such opinions, personally. I will shoot whatever catches my eye or stimulates my senses, even if it's been done a million times. And then I will share it with others, some of whom will enjoy and appreciate it on some level, some so much that they will buy it even, while others will find it boring and banal and not worth the time it took them to glance at it, and that's fine too.

Thanks god, love that post. I was almost starting to regret having opened this thread. That's a lot of negative views on photography and what can/should/should not be shot, or is done to death ... too much baggage to take out with me in my head when I go again for the next enjoyable moments of shooting ... maybe landscapes ;-)

I was just enjoying to learn more about what would be good to know to improve my photographic skills ... but 'what to shoot' or 'what not' is not something which is part of this.

 

[Diffuser]

Frankly, considering the state the planet is in, I think it's VITAL to shoot landscapes to preserve the memory of how it was. Imagine if there were no landscape shots of the Maldives. In 50-100 years time, no one would know they ever existed.

Unfortunately, too right

 

[The_Traveler]

Well, to each his own. People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us. Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.

Taken to it's logical conclusion then, if you can't shoot something that's NEVER been shot before, you're just a copycat, so why even have a camera at all?

I don't hold to such pretentious, extremist, egotistical points of view. Those who do are welcome to them, but I have little respect for such opinions, personally. I will shoot whatever catches my eye or stimulates my senses, even if it's been done a million times. And then I will share it with others, some of whom will enjoy and appreciate it on some level, some so much that they will buy it even, while others will find it boring and banal and not worth the time it took them to glance at it, and that's fine too.

No one in this thread said anything about types of photography other than their own being copycats, only that they find that uninteresting to see and boring to do.
There is no 'logical conclusion' to be drawn from that.
You are calling photographers whose points of view, whose opinions, are different from your own 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

I don't enjoy taking pictures like landscapes or birds or studio portraits that other people find enticing. I don't care about film speeds or developes or special papers. I don't worry about raw converters or plugins.
And I don't care what other people shoot - or what they like.

I don't think that makes me 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

It is only when people try to convert others to their own ideas that I find them 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

 

[Buckster]

Well, to each his own. People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us. Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.

Taken to it's logical conclusion then, if you can't shoot something that's NEVER been shot before, you're just a copycat, so why even have a camera at all?

I don't hold to such pretentious, extremist, egotistical points of view. Those who do are welcome to them, but I have little respect for such opinions, personally. I will shoot whatever catches my eye or stimulates my senses, even if it's been done a million times. And then I will share it with others, some of whom will enjoy and appreciate it on some level, some so much that they will buy it even, while others will find it boring and banal and not worth the time it took them to glance at it, and that's fine too.

No one in this thread said anything about types of photography other than their own being copycats, only that they find that uninteresting to see and boring to do.
There is no 'logical conclusion' to be drawn from that.
You are calling photographers whose points of view, whose opinions, are different from your own 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

I don't enjoy taking pictures like landscapes or birds or studio portraits that other people find enticing. I don't care about film speeds or developes or special papers. I don't worry about raw converters or plugins.
And I don't care what other people shoot - or what they like.

I don't think that makes me 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

It is only when people try to convert others to their own ideas that I find them 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

Whether you realize it or not, you fit the bill more than most. It's because of your many a-hole coments over time that I honestly don't care what you think about this or anything else, which is why I put you on ignore long ago. Why I bothered to even read this post is beyond me.

Back to the bottom of the bin you go now. Have a good one. :er:

 

[The_Traveler]

Whether you realize it or not, you fit the bill more than most. It's because of your many a-hole coments over time that I honestly don't care what you think about this or anything else, which is why I put you on ignore long ago. Why I bothered to even read this post is beyond me.

Back to the bottom of the bin you go now. Have a good one. :er:

Another directly ad hominem attack because you don't like my opinions.
It must certainly be tiring to be so right when others are always wrong.

Bit, I know why you read my posts.
It's because you write these long diatribes, criticizing others and making yourself out to be the modern day version of a photographic Joan of Arc. Then you can't help but wonder how well your bursts of wisdom are accepted by the crowd.
I may be egotistical (because that's natural to be happy with oneself and it is difficult to discern) but I'm not pretentious nor extremist - and I don't think you could point out anything I've said that fits that bill.
However, since you don't read my posts, you won't know how happy I am that you aren't reading my posts and that leaves me free to make fun of you in public after your next blather and you won't know it.

 

[table1349]

 

[KmH]

Frankly, considering the state the planet is in, I think it's VITAL to shoot landscapes to preserve the memory of how it was.

The planet hasn't always been this way. This is just the way the planet is now.

The planet is a dynamic place.

There is little doubt human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is changing the atmosphere. However, cyanobacteria radically changed the planet's atmosphere too - 2.8 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria are still around in abundance too, and today account for 20–30% of Earth's photosynthetic productivity, plus they convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450 Tera Watts.

Where I'm sitting here in Iowa has at several different times in the past been at the bottom of a 2 mile thick ice sheet, and at another time in the past was ocean front property.

Not many people know there is a huge metorite impact crater in northwest Iowa near Manson. The crater is 22 miles across and 3 miles deep. Few people know about it because it's complete filled with glacial till and it can't be directly seen.

 

[table1349]

Now this would truly be an Odd View on Photography.

 

[Alex_B]

The subject should be Alive or Rare.
anything...not fitting in this category...few if any pics should be taken
of it. (I am thinking mountains...here.)

Very intolerant, and even short-eyes view. I would ieven disagree, if he said the subject should be not boring.

A good photographer can create interesting images even from dull subjects. Without this there would be no abstract photography

Besides the beauty or interest a photo conveys...
it also helps us remember...and gives a since of history.
Mountains...fail miserably... on all 4 of these criteria.
After all...you can not remember what never goes away.

"history" only plays a role in documentary photography...

I agree in a sense that I prefer images of remote mountains, those you cannot reach by road and which have not been photographed to death by tourists. Hover, even the touristy mountains can be unique in unique light and weather, or with a creative photographer.

but again...shouldnt we focus on Humans...animals as well
not the dirt we trod upon !

mountains/landscapes dont make
it...they are the stage the actors play on.
Much like photographing the table...instead of flowers sat upon it.

"

I prefer those landscapes, where only few people have set their feet upon. His view is quite arrogant indeed

To me he sounds like an arrogant clown but since I'm kinda new to the different philosophies in photography I wonder what you have to say.

You might be new to the field, but you already know much more than this narrow-minded person

If he just does not like strawberry ice cream, that is OK, but he should not make this a philosophy and try to enforce it on others
He is implying the same logic as religeous or political fanatics ... they have the only truth and all other opinions are worth nothing

My advice, just ignore the troll ...

 

[Alex_B]

Oh, and not to forget, landscapes change at a very fast pace these days, every time I return to a particular spot in the wilderness somewhere, there is change ... less trees, more roads, or eben worse. Speaking of Europe and Central America in particular here. I was rather shocked on my last visit to the Guatemalan highlands ...

If the pace keeps going, in 30 years time there will be no wilderness left anywhere. Good if someone did document it photographically.

 

[chuasam]

The ability to find something new and original and put one's place in history is what differentiates the truly great from the "also ran."

 

[chuasam]

View attachment 4102

my subset includes "things people will pay me to do."

 

[chuasam]

Whether you realize it or not, you fit the bill more than most. It's because of your many a-hole coments over time that I honestly don't care what you think about this or anything else, which is why I put you on ignore long ago. Why I bothered to even read this post is beyond me.

Back to the bottom of the bin you go now. Have a good one. :er:

Another directly ad hominem attack because you don't like my opinions.
It must certainly be tiring to be so right when others are always wrong.

Bit, I know why you read my posts.
It's because you write these long diatribes, criticizing others and making yourself out to be the modern day version of a photographic Joan of Arc. Then you can't help but wonder how well your bursts of wisdom are accepted by the crowd.
I may be egotistical (because that's natural to be happy with oneself and it is difficult to discern) but I'm not pretentious nor extremist - and I don't think you could point out anything I've said that fits that bill.
However, since you don't read my posts, you won't know how happy I am that you aren't reading my posts and that leaves me free to make fun of you in public after your next blather and you won't know it.

People embrace the cliche and done a million times before because they lack the confidence, originality and talent to truly forge a different path.
To quote Robert Frost: "

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."