Odd views on photography

[Majeed Badizadegan]

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.

Very well said. Why preclude yourself from anything?

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.

I respect your opinion much less after reading this. Let me guess, a 50 year old with the social intelligence of a teeny bopper?

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."

These words are very true, and especially applicable here. As Buckster has explained, most everything has been done already. So where one draws their line in the sand is largely irrelevant.

 

[Derrel]

One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....

HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search


Half Dome + photo - Google Search


Antelope Canyon slot canyon + photo - Google Search

 

[Alex_B]

One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known, shiopworn location. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or ranger station, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....

HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search


Half Dome + photo - Google Search


Antelope Canyon slot canyon + photo - Google Search

But many of these look the same .. so just go there and take those images which were not taken of those places... in the worst case, take images of the photographers there

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Since when do opinions need to be qualified?

Opinions are just that - opinions. I still don't understand why they need to be "challenged"...

If you believe an opinion is often a direct reflection upon your intelligence (which I do), then when you state an opinion without qualification, you open the door to be challenged.

For example, if I started a thread and voiced my opinion (this isn't what I believe, but for illustrative purposes):

"All of you who shoot with a DSLR are just too incompetent and skill-less to shoot film."

How do you think that would go? My opinion would be challenged. I would be making an absurd generelization, and people would react to it.

"landscapes are boring" is a similar heavy-handed generalization.

 

[The_Traveler]

I respect your opinion much less after reading this. Let me guess, a 50 year old with the social intelligence of a teeny bopper?

This kind of snarky little response seems to make you and Buckster happy - and you both seem to like to wax long about 'stuff' - perhaps in an attempt to seem deep.
Well, it's not working, mostly because it's all opinion with not much of anything to back it up except your fervent desire to sound as if you know something.

My opinion is just that; I don't expect that anyone would change their mind based on what I say unless the ideas resound personally with them.

res ipso loquitur

Perhaps you should put me on ignore also; that would save a lot of angst on your part.

 

[Alex_B]

I feel ignored here .. maybe because I do not try to polarise

Calm down chaps. Put each other on ignore and sleep well tonight. This is just the www.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....

HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search


Half Dome + photo - Google Search


Antelope Canyon slot canyon + photo - Google Search

Right Derrel, I hear what you're saying. Your point is taken.

I just feel there are too many variables to imply that all photographers take the same image at the same locations repeatedly. This doesn't factor in the variance in equipment used, time of day, weather, time of year, location, perspective, skill, or vison. I don't agree that photographing the same area is just an exercise in futility.

But some places have surely been more photographed than others, I hear you.

There are lots of landscapes in our world that have hardly been touched by photographers as well.

 

[spacefuzz]

One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....

HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search


Half Dome + photo - Google Search


Antelope Canyon slot canyon + photo - Google Search

Have you been to those places? If you havnt then you cannot understand how beautiful they are and how compelled people can be to photograph them. I dont care if Ansel Adams shot Yosemite Valley, I hadnt shot yosemite valley and that makes all the difference. Do you do photography for yourself or for others? If someone took a shot of a model in the past, why would you want to shoot them? Your photographing something thats already been photographed? (by the logic in this thread)

Its ART people, chill out. Like politics and religion, everyone has their own opinion. My opinion is this thread is kind of painful.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Perhaps you should put me on ignore also; that would save a lot of angst on your part.

Why would I put you on ignore? I have no angst against you.

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.

I must admit, I am shaking in fear at the possibility of this happening to me. To unwittingly be made fun of, in public;

**GASP

Please have mercy.

 

[Bossy]

I don't mind shooting things that have already been shot. In fact, I have a bucket list of "has beens" to shoot. The NY skyline was one, and I checked that off last month. I just LOVE to shoot, and I want to be able to have those images for myself. I don't really care who did them when, or if everyone and their mother has that shot. I've shot Yosemite before, and it is beautiful and breathtaking. Its about documenting my experience and my time there, not about taking a shot that everyone else has taken.

Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*

​

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*

​

But a lot of this thread equates to someone not liking pancakes (for whatever reason) and someone else calling them an idiot for not liking pancakes. Some here are arguing against a matter of taste or preference, not a matter of skill, inteligence, or education.

Because someone finds landscape images boring does not preclude anyone else from enjoying them.
O||||||O did not tell anyone they are wrong for shooting or enjoying landscape images. He stated an opinion of taste. His opinion. His taste. No amount of arguing will invalidate his opinion.

EVER!

 

[Alex_B]

Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*

But a lot of this thread equates to someone not liking pancakes (for whatever reason) and someone else calling them an idiot for not liking pancakes. Some here are arguing against a matter of taste or preference, not a matter of skill, inteligence, or education.

Because someone finds landscape images boring does not preclude anyone else from enjoying them.
O||||||O did not tell anyone they are wrong for shooting or enjoying landscape images. He stated an opinion of taste. His opinion. His taste. No amount of arguing will invalidate his opinion.

EVER!

But remember, the thread was started by quoting someone who does think he holds the truth which cannot be challenged. Someone who does not like pancakes and who implies that all others who do like them are apparently wrong

The discussion afterwards was just the usual thing of half-reading and anticipating things not written, ending in the usual fight about nothing or at least not much.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

But remember, the thread was started by quoting someone who does think he holds the truth which cannot be challenged. Someone who does not like pancakes and who implies that all others who do like them are apparently wrong

The discussion afterwards was just the usual thing of half-reading and anticipating things not written, ending in the usual fight about nothing or at least not much.

This. Those who aligned their opinion with him were knowingly or unknowingly subjecting their opinions to be challenged.

 

[Bossy]

Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*

But a lot of this thread equates to someone not liking pancakes (for whatever reason) and someone else calling them an idiot for not liking pancakes. Some here are arguing against a matter of taste or preference, not a matter of skill, inteligence, or education.

Because someone finds landscape images boring does not preclude anyone else from enjoying them.
O||||||O did not tell anyone they are wrong for shooting or enjoying landscape images. He stated an opinion of taste. His opinion. His taste. No amount of arguing will invalidate his opinion.

EVER!

It seems to me more like, I hate pancakes but I love waffles, and someone calling them an idiot because they are essentially the same thing in different form

I have no comment on the rest hah, I get that often things you type aren't quite how you would say them, and it should be assumed that its opinion unless stated otherwise (and backed up thoroughly!)

​

 

[Alex_B]

But remember, the thread was started by quoting someone who does think he holds the truth which cannot be challenged. Someone who does not like pancakes and who implies that all others who do like them are apparently wrong

The discussion afterwards was just the usual thing of half-reading and anticipating things not written, ending in the usual fight about nothing or at least not much.

This. Those who aligned their opinion with him were knowingly or unknowingly subjecting their opinions to be challenged.

some probably unknowingly ... some for provocation ...