This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Of course, I'm as guilty of everyone else of producing shots that others have seen time and time again. I guess it the way you develop as a photograher: get inspired by some shot and try to reproduce it, or else stumble across some scenario which you then think looks cool, only in 6 months time to see similar everywhere (esp. now everyone can have their own gallery online). So, without wanting to upset too many people I thought we could communally point out the styles or shots that get your goat and start wanting you to shout "Think for yourselves!!".
There are the climbing ones:
1. The bum shot.
2. Boulderer, hand reaching to camera, shallow depth-of-field. Guilty as charged -- thought it looked nice when I first saw it.
3. A mountain with snow on it. Amazingly, they do all look the same you know. Unless it's got stunning relief modelling lighting, or colour.
4. The silouetted leader at the top of the crag, possibly with moderately nice sunset behind. Usually titled "End of the day". (partly guilty)
5. Prayer-flags. A pet hate. Why do people think they look interesting? Have their retinas just been starved of colour by the last week of suffering on a big hill?
6. Little figures on a glacier or suchlike.
7. Over the top photoshopped shallow depth-of-field. It doesn't make your picture of someone on a VS look professional, it makes them look like an action man, silly.
Geneneral Photography
1. Waterfalls. I need the loo.
2. Mountain/trees/sky/etc perfect mirrow image in a lake/pool/pond/bathtub. Actually, any of the above reflected in a bath would be much more original.
3. Over saturated landscape, polerizer madatory, rule of thirds, water movement optional. (guilty guilty guilty)
4. Macro of a flower. You are not a bee, resist.
5. Black and white shallow DOF of urban decay. It's not art, it's rubbish (literally). I can't believe anyone can actually 'say' anything with these images anymore, as they're so ubiquitous. I guess they're seductive, as we're not used to seeing this way with our eyes, but be original people!
6. Travel portrait of some old geezer with no teeth. He's not a guru, he just chews things that are bad for him.
7. The sunset. Ok you captured the sky nicely, but all that featureless blackness is a waste of space. Try grad filters, or even try getting up early and see how much better dawns are.
8. HDR inside of a church/cathedral. Is this becuase it's the only use of HDR that actually looks pretty?
There are the climbing ones:
1. The bum shot.
2. Boulderer, hand reaching to camera, shallow depth-of-field. Guilty as charged -- thought it looked nice when I first saw it.
3. A mountain with snow on it. Amazingly, they do all look the same you know. Unless it's got stunning relief modelling lighting, or colour.
4. The silouetted leader at the top of the crag, possibly with moderately nice sunset behind. Usually titled "End of the day". (partly guilty)
5. Prayer-flags. A pet hate. Why do people think they look interesting? Have their retinas just been starved of colour by the last week of suffering on a big hill?
6. Little figures on a glacier or suchlike.
7. Over the top photoshopped shallow depth-of-field. It doesn't make your picture of someone on a VS look professional, it makes them look like an action man, silly.
Geneneral Photography
1. Waterfalls. I need the loo.
2. Mountain/trees/sky/etc perfect mirrow image in a lake/pool/pond/bathtub. Actually, any of the above reflected in a bath would be much more original.
3. Over saturated landscape, polerizer madatory, rule of thirds, water movement optional. (guilty guilty guilty)
4. Macro of a flower. You are not a bee, resist.
5. Black and white shallow DOF of urban decay. It's not art, it's rubbish (literally). I can't believe anyone can actually 'say' anything with these images anymore, as they're so ubiquitous. I guess they're seductive, as we're not used to seeing this way with our eyes, but be original people!
6. Travel portrait of some old geezer with no teeth. He's not a guru, he just chews things that are bad for him.
7. The sunset. Ok you captured the sky nicely, but all that featureless blackness is a waste of space. Try grad filters, or even try getting up early and see how much better dawns are.
8. HDR inside of a church/cathedral. Is this becuase it's the only use of HDR that actually looks pretty?
In reply to Jon Read:
As with any form of art, establishing ones own style in photography and avoiding cliche is probably more difficult than mastering technique.
As with any form of art, establishing ones own style in photography and avoiding cliche is probably more difficult than mastering technique.
In reply to Jon Read:
Ah you beat me to it...
I was going to add:
1. Obvious (blatent tone mapping) HDR (just because I can).
2. Thin wide panoramas (just because I can).
3. Uncropped images (How did the CCD designer know the best aspect ratio for this picture?).
And as you said, guilty on all charges - but trying to improve.
Ah you beat me to it...
I was going to add:
1. Obvious (blatent tone mapping) HDR (just because I can).
2. Thin wide panoramas (just because I can).
3. Uncropped images (How did the CCD designer know the best aspect ratio for this picture?).
And as you said, guilty on all charges - but trying to improve.
In reply to Jon Read: Damn...what am I meant to take photos of now I ask you?
I'm going to have to go and delete most of my gallery now, just to satisfy you
{Well, I'm not actually going to delete them!}
I'm going to have to go and delete most of my gallery now, just to satisfy you
{Well, I'm not actually going to delete them!}
In reply to Jon Read:
Ha ha! Rather mean and harsh, I do know where you're coming from though.
HOWEVER...I think working through the cliches is, for some of us, a "necessary evil". I've never taken a climbing shot that I've found to be particularly successful because I instantly started out trying to avoid "cliche", but frankly this left me a bit directionless. My favourite climbing pic I've taken recently has nothing original in style about it (just a medium-wide shot straight down the face to a leader grunting his way up, above the gear). I think it looks good, but it's not original or striking. I think as I take more of these I'll work out what _I_ want to do to make them a little different (difficult not to take a cliche shot on Stanage though eh )
Oh hang on you're fishing for more cliche nominations aren't you. Hmm let me think...you've been pretty comprehensive there actually (in fact I think you've covered nearly every photograph ever taken apart from two:
wide angle, low-angle shot across salt flats in high key mono, with a rock or - if lucky - a skull, or - if really really lucky - a bit of abandoned exhaust pipe for foreground "interest"....and "street scene from cafe" including a bit of motion blur, a bit of your table in too-sharp focus in the foreground, and always always a "mysterious" woman in a nice coat)
Ha ha! Rather mean and harsh, I do know where you're coming from though.
HOWEVER...I think working through the cliches is, for some of us, a "necessary evil". I've never taken a climbing shot that I've found to be particularly successful because I instantly started out trying to avoid "cliche", but frankly this left me a bit directionless. My favourite climbing pic I've taken recently has nothing original in style about it (just a medium-wide shot straight down the face to a leader grunting his way up, above the gear). I think it looks good, but it's not original or striking. I think as I take more of these I'll work out what _I_ want to do to make them a little different (difficult not to take a cliche shot on Stanage though eh )
Oh hang on you're fishing for more cliche nominations aren't you. Hmm let me think...you've been pretty comprehensive there actually (in fact I think you've covered nearly every photograph ever taken apart from two:
wide angle, low-angle shot across salt flats in high key mono, with a rock or - if lucky - a skull, or - if really really lucky - a bit of abandoned exhaust pipe for foreground "interest"....and "street scene from cafe" including a bit of motion blur, a bit of your table in too-sharp focus in the foreground, and always always a "mysterious" woman in a nice coat)
In reply to Jon Read:
ha ha, good call.
I think I might perhaps be guilty of General photography (5) <cough>
and General Photograph (4) made me LOL
can I just add the biggest cliche of all:
just because it's in black and white doesn't mean it's a great photo, people.
ha ha, good call.
I think I might perhaps be guilty of General photography (5) <cough>
and General Photograph (4) made me LOL
can I just add the biggest cliche of all:
just because it's in black and white doesn't mean it's a great photo, people.
In reply to Marek:
I'd disagree on this one - sometimes working within the confines of the frame with the intention of not cropping can be a positive thing - I mean, if it worked for ol' Henri Cartier-Bresson...
> (In reply to Jon Read)
>> 3. Uncropped images (How did the CCD designer know the best aspect ratio for this picture?).
I'd disagree on this one - sometimes working within the confines of the frame with the intention of not cropping can be a positive thing - I mean, if it worked for ol' Henri Cartier-Bresson...
In reply to Tall Clare:
Ooops, looks like I have some kind of bee/human identity crisis going on. :-S
> >
> and General Photograph (4) made me LOL
>
>
> and General Photograph (4) made me LOL
>
>
Ooops, looks like I have some kind of bee/human identity crisis going on. :-S
In reply to Jon Read:
and ooooo I bloody hate this one, and I blame photoshop (even though yes, pedants, I know people were creating this effect with film too) - the image made black and white, with one detail picked out in colour. No no no no no no NO.
and ooooo I bloody hate this one, and I blame photoshop (even though yes, pedants, I know people were creating this effect with film too) - the image made black and white, with one detail picked out in colour. No no no no no no NO.
In reply to Jon Read:
> Of course, I'm as guilty of everyone else of producing shots that others have seen time and time again. I guess it the way you develop as a photograher: get inspired by some shot and try to reproduce it, or else stumble across some scenario which you then think looks cool, only in 6 months time to see similar everywhere (esp. now everyone can have their own gallery online).
>
thinking further, *are* these the processes that people go through? How odd. >
In reply to Tall Clare: Gotta agree with that one.....HATE those shots!
In reply to Jon Read:
Technique is easy.
Creativity is very, very difficult.
Almost anyone can do the former, almost no one can do the latter.
Technique is easy.
Creativity is very, very difficult.
Almost anyone can do the former, almost no one can do the latter.
In reply to Tall Clare:
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA! HA! HA! HO! HO! HA! Ha! Haaaa! Ha ha ha ha ha! Hee hee! Ho! Hoo! Ho. Hooooooo.....
You're bad.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA! HA! HA! HO! HO! HA! Ha! Haaaa! Ha ha ha ha ha! Hee hee! Ho! Hoo! Ho. Hooooooo.....
You're bad.
In reply to Jon Read:
As someone who takes a lot of photographs but is not a 'photographer', I am blissfully ignorant of what makes a good photo, and as such will continue to churn out cliche after cliche. =P
As someone who takes a lot of photographs but is not a 'photographer', I am blissfully ignorant of what makes a good photo, and as such will continue to churn out cliche after cliche. =P
In reply to Alex Roddie:
how many people on here would describe themselves as 'photographers' though?
how many people on here would describe themselves as 'photographers' though?
In reply to Tall Clare:
surely anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer? or do you mean "photographer" <waving bunny-ear fingers>
> (In reply to Alex Roddie)
>
> how many people on here would describe themselves as 'photographers' though?
>
> how many people on here would describe themselves as 'photographers' though?
surely anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer? or do you mean "photographer" <waving bunny-ear fingers>
In reply to taine:
I think in the 'bunny ears' sense I was thinking about people who make money from photography (liek Alex, or Richard Carter), or study it at a deeper level (like Simon C, for instance). Just a pondering anyway, that's a bit tangential to the thread.
I think in the 'bunny ears' sense I was thinking about people who make money from photography (liek Alex, or Richard Carter), or study it at a deeper level (like Simon C, for instance). Just a pondering anyway, that's a bit tangential to the thread.
In reply to Tall Clare:
You're probably right, but I have almost no awareness of photographical issues whatsoever ... learning about photography made my brother paranoid and reluctant to take photos unless they satisfied his many requirements. I far prefer to take every picture I can, without worrying about whether they are good photos or not. Of course this approach is not without drawbacks! =D
You're probably right, but I have almost no awareness of photographical issues whatsoever ... learning about photography made my brother paranoid and reluctant to take photos unless they satisfied his many requirements. I far prefer to take every picture I can, without worrying about whether they are good photos or not. Of course this approach is not without drawbacks! =D
In reply to Blue Straggler:
>low-angle shot across salt flats in high key mono, with a rock or - if lucky - a skull, or - if really really lucky - a bit of abandoned exhaust pipe for foreground "interest"..
Damn you, thought I had got away with that one
If you can take a good cliche picture you are doing well, after all they are only cliched because people like taking and looking at them.
More cliche pictures, slow shutter speed of water in a river such as this, in fact he has lots of cliches in his folio, though it is a good one;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=23982
>low-angle shot across salt flats in high key mono, with a rock or - if lucky - a skull, or - if really really lucky - a bit of abandoned exhaust pipe for foreground "interest"..
Damn you, thought I had got away with that one
If you can take a good cliche picture you are doing well, after all they are only cliched because people like taking and looking at them.
More cliche pictures, slow shutter speed of water in a river such as this, in fact he has lots of cliches in his folio, though it is a good one;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=23982
In reply to Tall Clare:
there do seem to be loads who do it pro or semi-pro (eg snax, stakhanovite, diablo, henry iddon, jools, chrisjd?, jonathongriffith?...more?
> I think in the 'bunny ears' sense I was thinking about people who make money from photography (liek Alex, or Richard Carter), or study it at a deeper level (like Simon C, for instance).
there do seem to be loads who do it pro or semi-pro (eg snax, stakhanovite, diablo, henry iddon, jools, chrisjd?, jonathongriffith?...more?
In reply to taine:
but another idle pondering... where does one draw the line if you don't get paid? amount of time spenty photographing? ability? how would that be defined?
how about streapadair? consistently top of the pops on here but I don't think he makes money from it?
but another idle pondering... where does one draw the line if you don't get paid? amount of time spenty photographing? ability? how would that be defined?
how about streapadair? consistently top of the pops on here but I don't think he makes money from it?
In reply to sutty:
Yes, this is the "flipside" to the OP.
One comment about cliche always sticks with me - when David Lean was sent to Venice to film "Summertime" he was reminded (because the producer thought he was going to be all arty) that "some scenes and views are cliched for a good reason - film them!" (or words to that effect). So, as I suggested in my first reply, I don't actively try to avoid cliche (but I've always avoided taking a picture that I am pretty sure that I'll never look at)
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> If you can take a good cliche picture you are doing well, after all they are only cliched because people like taking and looking at them.
>
>
> If you can take a good cliche picture you are doing well, after all they are only cliched because people like taking and looking at them.
>
Yes, this is the "flipside" to the OP.
One comment about cliche always sticks with me - when David Lean was sent to Venice to film "Summertime" he was reminded (because the producer thought he was going to be all arty) that "some scenes and views are cliched for a good reason - film them!" (or words to that effect). So, as I suggested in my first reply, I don't actively try to avoid cliche (but I've always avoided taking a picture that I am pretty sure that I'll never look at)
In reply to taine:
a very good point - hence my disclaimer about it being a half-formed pondering as i have a bit of a hangover
a very good point - hence my disclaimer about it being a half-formed pondering as i have a bit of a hangover
In reply to taine:
Your question is wise, and reflects a much larger pondering of mine - when does one start to call one self an [ANYTHING]er? e.g. I drive a car every day, but I am not a driver
Your question is wise, and reflects a much larger pondering of mine - when does one start to call one self an [ANYTHING]er? e.g. I drive a car every day, but I am not a driver
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Probably when the activity becomes the end in itself rather than an adjunct to something else. So most on here are climbers who just so happen to take photographs as opposed to someone who uses climbing as a means to get photos. If you see what I mean...
ALC
Probably when the activity becomes the end in itself rather than an adjunct to something else. So most on here are climbers who just so happen to take photographs as opposed to someone who uses climbing as a means to get photos. If you see what I mean...
ALC
In reply to Jon Read:
8. Downward 45 degree shot of leader on European sport route (always suspiciously just above a bolt) with rope trailing away into infinity. Also known as the climbing magazine cover cliché!
Chris
8. Downward 45 degree shot of leader on European sport route (always suspiciously just above a bolt) with rope trailing away into infinity. Also known as the climbing magazine cover cliché!
Chris
In reply to Blue Straggler:
oooh I got called wise <puffs chest>
i have to admit I thought it was fairly half formed (I too have a bit of a hangover)
> (In reply to taine)
>
> Your question is wise,
>
> Your question is wise,
oooh I got called wise <puffs chest>
i have to admit I thought it was fairly half formed (I too have a bit of a hangover)
In reply to Jon Read:
Sometimes we launch into a photo with a determination to rip it to shreds without realising how much money the photographer has spent on kit. It's a poor attitude that I think most of us have.
Sometimes we launch into a photo with a determination to rip it to shreds without realising how much money the photographer has spent on kit. It's a poor attitude that I think most of us have.
In reply to Tall Clare:
How's the gear shopping going? I hear you've got a wedge burning a hole in yer purse.....
How's the gear shopping going? I hear you've got a wedge burning a hole in yer purse.....
In reply to Jon Read:
Nice list, but you forgot
9. Inversions. Come on, they're only clouds that have died.
Woops
Nice list, but you forgot
9. Inversions. Come on, they're only clouds that have died.
Woops
In reply to streapadair: I love that description and will be no doubt steal it in future...
In reply to Lemony:
You're welcome. I pinched it in turn from a Martin Amis novel (Money/Success/London Fields?) where he refers to 'dead clouds'.
You're welcome. I pinched it in turn from a Martin Amis novel (Money/Success/London Fields?) where he refers to 'dead clouds'.
In reply to Jon Read: Guilty on several counts m'lud
> 4. Macro of a flower. You are not a bee, resist.
I'm very guilty of this - but then I'm incredibly attrracted to flowers - a bit like a bee infact.
Bzzzz
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I'm a bit confused here, is the phrase 'Cliche' to do with snobbery or something like an intellectual put-down of either the image or the person who took the image?
I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I know what I like to look at and try to visualise when I fire the shutter of my camera. If I manage to shoot a steriotypical cliche shot, does that make me less creative/intelligent/inspirational because I didn't realise I was doing it?
Should I now look down my nose at cliched images in an attempt at looking or sounding cleaver?
> (In reply to sutty)
> [...]
>
> Yes, this is the "flipside" to the OP.
> One comment about cliche always sticks with me - when David Lean was sent to Venice to film "Summertime" he was reminded (because the producer thought he was going to be all arty) that "some scenes and views are cliched for a good reason - film them!"
> [...]
>
> Yes, this is the "flipside" to the OP.
> One comment about cliche always sticks with me - when David Lean was sent to Venice to film "Summertime" he was reminded (because the producer thought he was going to be all arty) that "some scenes and views are cliched for a good reason - film them!"
I'm a bit confused here, is the phrase 'Cliche' to do with snobbery or something like an intellectual put-down of either the image or the person who took the image?
I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I know what I like to look at and try to visualise when I fire the shutter of my camera. If I manage to shoot a steriotypical cliche shot, does that make me less creative/intelligent/inspirational because I didn't realise I was doing it?
Should I now look down my nose at cliched images in an attempt at looking or sounding cleaver?
In reply to The Lemming: a cliched landscape is anything you would expect to find on a chocolate box, jigsaw puzzle, or postcard
In reply to morphus: So we decry anything that MIGHT actually SELL then???
Yet seem to want to be PROFESSIONAL?
Hmmm.
OP. Great list.
You also missed the 'One Tick Pony' PGs, who only seem able to take ONE shot...
Yet seem to want to be PROFESSIONAL?
Hmmm.
OP. Great list.
You also missed the 'One Tick Pony' PGs, who only seem able to take ONE shot...
In reply to morphus:
It was landscape photography (and photographers) that started me thinking about cliches. However, it wasn't the simple chocolate box style image I was thinking about, but about the 'fine art' landscape community. I mean, here are people that have spent £thousands on medium format kit, yet make pilgrimages to particular spots where adams or cornish or waite or rowell or whoever made a nice picture. Can't they go somewhere different to Dunstanburgh Castle??
Perhaps cliche is the wrong term; maybe formula or facsimile would be a better description of the accused.
It was landscape photography (and photographers) that started me thinking about cliches. However, it wasn't the simple chocolate box style image I was thinking about, but about the 'fine art' landscape community. I mean, here are people that have spent £thousands on medium format kit, yet make pilgrimages to particular spots where adams or cornish or waite or rowell or whoever made a nice picture. Can't they go somewhere different to Dunstanburgh Castle??
Perhaps cliche is the wrong term; maybe formula or facsimile would be a better description of the accused.
In reply to es:
Me too. Why is it when people thinking of macro stuff that they only end up taking (and showing) pictures of flowers? Could take a close up of anything, really everything, but it's only flowers that end up out there. Perhaps, like sunsets, they satisfy some base criteria for our eyes and minds:
contrast - tick
diagonal lines - tick
vivid colours - oh yes.
abstract possibilities - aye go on then.
pretty picture - indeed.
?
Me too. Why is it when people thinking of macro stuff that they only end up taking (and showing) pictures of flowers? Could take a close up of anything, really everything, but it's only flowers that end up out there. Perhaps, like sunsets, they satisfy some base criteria for our eyes and minds:
contrast - tick
diagonal lines - tick
vivid colours - oh yes.
abstract possibilities - aye go on then.
pretty picture - indeed.
?
In reply to Jon Read:
Actually I'm going to take that back in part as looking through my flower shots ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenoclimb/sets/72157594484501972/ ) i realise that more often than not - they feature flowers in a landscape.
Although when taking pictures of flowers a quite often take close ups for identification - then try to take another shot for the photo.
Actually I'm going to take that back in part as looking through my flower shots ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenoclimb/sets/72157594484501972/ ) i realise that more often than not - they feature flowers in a landscape.
Although when taking pictures of flowers a quite often take close ups for identification - then try to take another shot for the photo.
In reply to Jon Read: The reason I like photography is due to the general opinion of most people being either, 'thats a good photo', or, 'I don't like it', with not much more thought behind it than that. All this talk of cliches and overused styles makes me think of music jounalism bores, where everyones an expert and new music has to be cutting edge and unique or no-one likes it.
I like photograpy because I don't have to think too much, I just take a picture and thats it. Debating whether it's too cliched or not unique enough just doesent really interest me at all, and actually makes me less confident of going out and taking shots. I'd rather just do what I do, and if other people don't like it, fair enough, it only took me a few seconds anyway. Likewise when I'm looking at other peoples photographs, I only really ever think, wow thats amazing, or meh, not so great. I find this is one of the few mediums I can do this with. Unlike music, a bad photo doesent offend me, but a good one brings a lot of pleasure.
My opinion: Overanalysis stifles creativity. Too much judgement brings out the cynic
I like photograpy because I don't have to think too much, I just take a picture and thats it. Debating whether it's too cliched or not unique enough just doesent really interest me at all, and actually makes me less confident of going out and taking shots. I'd rather just do what I do, and if other people don't like it, fair enough, it only took me a few seconds anyway. Likewise when I'm looking at other peoples photographs, I only really ever think, wow thats amazing, or meh, not so great. I find this is one of the few mediums I can do this with. Unlike music, a bad photo doesent offend me, but a good one brings a lot of pleasure.
My opinion: Overanalysis stifles creativity. Too much judgement brings out the cynic
In reply to Jon Read: Maybe the pursuit of the novel and non-cliched is a cliche in itself
In reply to Dr Avid:
>My opinion: Overanalysis stifles creativity. Too much judgement brings out the cynic
Hell yeah! You Brits wanna ease up a little...
>My opinion: Overanalysis stifles creativity. Too much judgement brings out the cynic
Hell yeah! You Brits wanna ease up a little...
In reply to Tall Clare:
Yeh, but he's crap. Bill Brandt, theres your man, or even Brassai!
> (In reply to Marek)
> [...]
>
> I'd disagree on this one - sometimes working within the confines of the frame with the intention of not cropping can be a positive thing - I mean, if it worked for ol' Henri Cartier-Bresson...
> [...]
>
> I'd disagree on this one - sometimes working within the confines of the frame with the intention of not cropping can be a positive thing - I mean, if it worked for ol' Henri Cartier-Bresson...
Yeh, but he's crap. Bill Brandt, theres your man, or even Brassai!
In reply to dan bailey:
Everyone always says that!
Everyone always says that!
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Also known as 10 o'clock high as over used by Greg Epperson.
> (In reply to Jon Read)
>
> 8. Downward 45 degree shot of leader on European sport route (always suspiciously just above a bolt) with rope trailing away into infinity. Also known as the climbing magazine cover cliché!
>
>
> 8. Downward 45 degree shot of leader on European sport route (always suspiciously just above a bolt) with rope trailing away into infinity. Also known as the climbing magazine cover cliché!
>
Also known as 10 o'clock high as over used by Greg Epperson.
In reply to Jon Read:
In all honesty, does anyone really give a shit....you sound like snobby old gits. lighten up. Have a laugh. And mibbe try to enjoy life without the constant need for critical analysis....
In all honesty, does anyone really give a shit....you sound like snobby old gits. lighten up. Have a laugh. And mibbe try to enjoy life without the constant need for critical analysis....
In reply to Jon Read:
Have a few friends in the US who started out on a career as professional photographers.
First thing they did was study photography books by famous landscape photographers. Second thing several of them did was to go on a road trip to take photos of all the scenics that everyone takes.
Bryce Canyon, Zion, Mesa Arch with sun on its roof, Bristlecone Pine trees etc etc...............
After such a trip, and learning from taking the cliches (and other views they witnessed), they started to......... "Think for yourselves!!"
There's nothing wrong with taking the cliches.
Have a few friends in the US who started out on a career as professional photographers.
First thing they did was study photography books by famous landscape photographers. Second thing several of them did was to go on a road trip to take photos of all the scenics that everyone takes.
Bryce Canyon, Zion, Mesa Arch with sun on its roof, Bristlecone Pine trees etc etc...............
After such a trip, and learning from taking the cliches (and other views they witnessed), they started to......... "Think for yourselves!!"
There's nothing wrong with taking the cliches.
In reply to Jon Read:
Got a new one..Music or photos which is better..see???? purely subjective
Got a new one..Music or photos which is better..see???? purely subjective
In reply to Jon Read:
I can't believe nobody's mentioned Roland Barthes and the death of the original yet.
tsk.
<ahem>
I can't believe nobody's mentioned Roland Barthes and the death of the original yet.
tsk.
<ahem>
In reply to 1234None:
I did one of these the first time i used my slr camera. It was indeed cheesy, ha ha!, But..it came oot quite good! ;oP
I did one of these the first time i used my slr camera. It was indeed cheesy, ha ha!, But..it came oot quite good! ;oP
In reply to dazza72:
>Have a laugh.
That is what people are doing, look at some of the galleries of some of the people who have posted, they sell their work.
Nobody is taking this seriously apart from you. It is a reminder though to not get lazy and not look for that shot in a million you know is there for the taking.
>Have a laugh.
That is what people are doing, look at some of the galleries of some of the people who have posted, they sell their work.
Nobody is taking this seriously apart from you. It is a reminder though to not get lazy and not look for that shot in a million you know is there for the taking.
In reply to Tall Clare:
It was a conspiracy Clare by all who have read this thread.
We were going to mention whatisface and his whatisjimmy, but we group-thought that it would take away one of your forum triumphs that give you that little warm glow of intellectual superiority that help you make it through the day.
Hence you got to mention whatisface and his whatisjimmy first, you are an original.
Wasn't that nice of us all?
> (In reply to Jon Read)
>
> I can't believe nobody's mentioned Roland Barthes and the death of the original yet.
>
> I can't believe nobody's mentioned Roland Barthes and the death of the original yet.
It was a conspiracy Clare by all who have read this thread.
We were going to mention whatisface and his whatisjimmy, but we group-thought that it would take away one of your forum triumphs that give you that little warm glow of intellectual superiority that help you make it through the day.
Hence you got to mention whatisface and his whatisjimmy first, you are an original.
Wasn't that nice of us all?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
hee hee
it was posted with tongue in cheek, Mick.
hence the 'ahem'.
pomposity isn't one of my strong suits.
have a nice day!
hee hee
it was posted with tongue in cheek, Mick.
hence the 'ahem'.
pomposity isn't one of my strong suits.
have a nice day!
In reply to Narya:
A guy called Martin Elliot took that particular photograph.
http://www.the-tennis-girl.co.uk/
A guy called Martin Elliot took that particular photograph.
http://www.the-tennis-girl.co.uk/
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> hee hee
>
> it was posted with tongue in cheek, Mick.
>
> hence the 'ahem'.
>
> pomposity isn't one of my strong suits.
>
I can confirm that>
> hee hee
>
> it was posted with tongue in cheek, Mick.
>
> hence the 'ahem'.
>
> pomposity isn't one of my strong suits.
>
In reply to Tall Clare:
Busted again Clare. No use in backtracking with your tongue in cheeks, emoticons, ahems. or whatevers.
Doesn't work with this forum crowd.
Yuk. I've got two weeks of that coming up.
Busted again Clare. No use in backtracking with your tongue in cheeks, emoticons, ahems. or whatevers.
Doesn't work with this forum crowd.
> have a nice day!
Yuk. I've got two weeks of that coming up.
In reply to Jon Read:
Given your derision of the cliche Jon I was wondering what you would advise in terms of creating a good shot in terms of:
Photographers position relative to the climber/ boulderer
Recommended lenses
Depth of field vs speed
Thanks
Given your derision of the cliche Jon I was wondering what you would advise in terms of creating a good shot in terms of:
Photographers position relative to the climber/ boulderer
Recommended lenses
Depth of field vs speed
Thanks
In reply to Jon Read:
Don't forget the classic "self portrait from inside a car via the wing mirror" shot that every photographer has to have.
Or a self portrait taken with the camera covering half the face in a shiny object like a mirror or bauble.
Don't forget the classic "self portrait from inside a car via the wing mirror" shot that every photographer has to have.
Or a self portrait taken with the camera covering half the face in a shiny object like a mirror or bauble.
In reply to Jon Read:
Can I add a specific photographic?
Buchaille Etive Mor with flowing water in front of it (on long shutter speed). Done to death!
Can I add a specific photographic?
Buchaille Etive Mor with flowing water in front of it (on long shutter speed). Done to death!
In reply to Jon Read:
Im guilty as charged on all accounts, I like waterfalls, they make me feel wet
I find these have been done to death
1. Portrait of person, shot in square format, standing dead upright, expressionless, centre of frame, theres usually some shi*e wallpaper and a house lamp involved.
2. Shots of derelict buildings with some fellow art student sitting in a corner in the foetal position, window lit, badly peeling wallpaper usually.Save that for the macro.
3. rusty cars, motorway service stations and flyovers, no cars, desaturated, square format, usually a plastic bag involved in the foreground.....
The list is endless.but im tired and Ive got to get to bed.Got to catch that sunrise on CCD at 6am..
Im guilty as charged on all accounts, I like waterfalls, they make me feel wet
I find these have been done to death
1. Portrait of person, shot in square format, standing dead upright, expressionless, centre of frame, theres usually some shi*e wallpaper and a house lamp involved.
2. Shots of derelict buildings with some fellow art student sitting in a corner in the foetal position, window lit, badly peeling wallpaper usually.Save that for the macro.
3. rusty cars, motorway service stations and flyovers, no cars, desaturated, square format, usually a plastic bag involved in the foreground.....
The list is endless.but im tired and Ive got to get to bed.Got to catch that sunrise on CCD at 6am..
In reply to Tall Clare:
Oh well I guess i have to say I like cliche shots then because yours are interesting...
Oh well I guess i have to say I like cliche shots then because yours are interesting...
In reply to Jon Read:
It's only a cliché for me, but I have 600 photographs from this summer with green grass and a blur disappearing stage left that may or may not have been a swallow. Eventually I got one or two reasonable shots, but the perfect one still eludes me. I guess I should have heeded the advice to start with something slower...
It's only a cliché for me, but I have 600 photographs from this summer with green grass and a blur disappearing stage left that may or may not have been a swallow. Eventually I got one or two reasonable shots, but the perfect one still eludes me. I guess I should have heeded the advice to start with something slower...
In reply to nz Cragrat:
I think you'll find the snorting derision is tinged with some affection.
Position: whatever YOU think works
Lens: whatever YOU think you need
DoF vs speed: whatever YOU think works
The main point of this thread is to (a) have a bit of a laugh, and not take it all so seriously, and (b) take it seriously, and perhaps have a moment of reflection about what your inspiration is and how you get there.
I think you'll find the snorting derision is tinged with some affection.
Position: whatever YOU think works
Lens: whatever YOU think you need
DoF vs speed: whatever YOU think works
The main point of this thread is to (a) have a bit of a laugh, and not take it all so seriously, and (b) take it seriously, and perhaps have a moment of reflection about what your inspiration is and how you get there.
In reply to The Boy From Space:
lamp -- love it! Guffaw.
> 1. Portrait of person, shot in square format, standing dead upright, expressionless, centre of frame, theres usually some shi*e wallpaper and a house lamp involved.
lamp -- love it! Guffaw.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Totally agree - it depends who you are taking photos for. The only way to learn is to take what you think is a good photo then analyse later - if it still rocks your boat in six months time and means something to YOU then surely it's achieved it's aim, if other people also like it then surely that's an added bonus.
KEEP TAKING THE PICTURES
Ansel Adams - http://www.anseladams.com/ (nuff said)
Okay - who clicked on 'tennis girl'??
leafbone
Totally agree - it depends who you are taking photos for. The only way to learn is to take what you think is a good photo then analyse later - if it still rocks your boat in six months time and means something to YOU then surely it's achieved it's aim, if other people also like it then surely that's an added bonus.
KEEP TAKING THE PICTURES
Ansel Adams - http://www.anseladams.com/ (nuff said)
Okay - who clicked on 'tennis girl'??
leafbone
In reply to leafbone:
I find the jauxaposition of posts mentioning the tennis girl and tongue in cheek disconcerting
I find the jauxaposition of posts mentioning the tennis girl and tongue in cheek disconcerting
In reply to Jon Read:
I haven't read everyones input, but have we had naked , pregnant (micro) celeb annoyingly covering her breasts with her arm and cradling bump with other arm whilst looking at the floor?
I haven't read everyones input, but have we had naked , pregnant (micro) celeb annoyingly covering her breasts with her arm and cradling bump with other arm whilst looking at the floor?
In reply to Michael Woods:
She is not looking at the floor;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Vanity_Fair_August_1991.JPG
She is not looking at the floor;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Vanity_Fair_August_1991.JPG
In reply to Jon Read: rusting truck overgrown with weeds in a field
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Just for the avoidance of doubt - is a rust aero engine on some moorland OK?
> (In reply to Jon Read) rusting truck overgrown with weeds in a field
Just for the avoidance of doubt - is a rust aero engine on some moorland OK?
In reply to Marek: Yep, that's ART.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...