UKC

*somebody* (i.e. the writer of this article) is sounding a little grumpy... but how many of his points do you agree with?

http://brainz.org/14-horribly-overused-photography-tricks/

In reply to Tall Clare:

Quite a few, but I confess I hadn't seen the book/lens heart one before.

It's missing a couple of others too:

- the long shot down the empty railway tracks
- the skywards shot in the middle of a forest.

In reply to Tall Clare:
all except food porn.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Funny read, I agree with most, but have probebly been guilty of them too! The HDR one really is a good point though, you see so many over-done images or images with no care taken on them

In reply to Tall Clare: As an HDRite I am offended... but then again, I am used to it, sigh.

I really enjoyed the site linked at the bottom of the page though "Top 10: Weirdest Looking Emo Kids" http://totallytop10.com/current-affairs/odd-news/top-10-weirdest-emo-kids?u...

I'm a bad man.

In reply to Lemming: the wierd emo's were amusing.

I personally have never seen the book lens before. Thus far I'm only guilty of the traffic at night sin, but that was a time lapse so I consider myself exempt. I'm yet to try the slow exposure water, I'm desperate for a heavy downpour so I can try it out on a window to see the effect. As for the cute girl... she wont let me take photos of her and I don't have a rocking chair.

In reply to Tall Clare:

The article is a bit self defeating in that I saw a few techniques and thought "oh cool I didn't know about that, I'll be using that one!".

In reply to Tall Clare:

Fairly accurate. I happen to like the long exposure water thing though.

The HDR at the bottom is one of the worst I have seen for a very long time. Halotastic!

In reply to Tall Clare:

Very funny read - have to say I have a particular strong dislike for isolated colours too!

Another that was fun to start with, but has now been slaughtered is setting the camera timer & flash putting it on the floor & then have everyone peering down at it in a tight group. Usually with mixed results, usually of drunk people & no one looking particularly flattering!

In reply to Tall Clare:

Nothing wrong with food porn and some of his observations were "fun" harmless tourist shots. Have never seen the lens trick before,
He did find a fine HDR example.

Just as well he's not seen some of the classic climbing photo cliches.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I don't have enough cute girls blowing things in my photos,

In reply to Ireddek:

A group of drunk people peeing down at the camera?

They aren't using mine!

In reply to Tall Clare:

Photo challenge:

All 14 in one shot......

In reply to Tall Clare:

Interesting thread re. clichéed locations here:
http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/guilty_as_charged

In reply to Tall Clare: They forgot beach huts. Bloody beach hut pics :|

In reply to rrrock!:

Also ruined cottages, usually silhouetted against the sky, or old window frame with peeling paint, old farm machinery in corner of a field, one animal looking like it is kissing another of a different type.

In reply to sutty:

You just reminded me of those countryside museums that consist entirely of rusty, obsolete farm equipment of unguessable function. Climbing & photography related because the last one I visited was on a rainy day on Arran & I accidentally took more than 0 pictures.

In reply to sutty:

Or any lanscape photo with a bit of pleasant fluffy cloud with the title "Clearing storm", or "After the Storm" etc etc.

In reply to Tall Clare:

This sort of crap.
http://bit.ly/ehb9Ny
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1606/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1606-1...
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_517/1277895884748OlC.jpg

Nothing wrong with a bit of extreme wide angle close up if at least a little thought has gone into it, but a lot of them seem to tell me nothing other than that photographer has just spent £x00 on a 12-24 zoom or whatever, before thinking about whether they really needed it, and is now struggling to not get their own feet in every pic whilst attempting to justify their expenditure

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Those who live in glass houses...
http://www.blue-straggler.net/Beacon-Hill-Dec-2010/
http://www.blue-straggler.net/Centon%2018-28/

My lens was kind of a freebie though.

In reply to l21bjd:

There goes my gallery then.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Cross processed group portrait taken in a park - with all the colours of the kids' playground slides and swings and roundabouts rendered all funkadelic - on a sunny day (I suppose that might be covered by that site's "Lomography" hate though)

In reply to ChrisJD:


I've just been reading an article in the latest issue of Landscape GB and getting a bit depressed about my own photography.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I recently found a climbing example, starring yours truly as Mr. Tickle:

http://www.spectral3d.co.uk/misc/delago.jpg

In reply to davidbeynon:

That looks more like an unfortunate result of the composition than a deliberate "wacky" effect though. That's been taken in s good context for a wide angle lens. It's the "exaggerate perspective for the sake of it just because I can" aspect that grates.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I suppose you are right, although I'm not impressed with what happened to my arms. OTOH I'm considerably younger in that pic than I am now.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Slow-sync flash and light trail, especially of mountain biking in the woods. Can't find an example easily.

Here's superwide and slow sync together though! Double trouble!
http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/slow-s...

In reply to Tall Clare:

Almost every picture of Buachaille Etive Mor ever taken falls into at least a couple of those categories.

In reply to DougG:

Don't forget why they are cliches, people like them and they sell.

Not all churches look like the Gaudi, well if they want them finished they don't

In reply to Blue Straggler:
If you cant find an example easily is it overly cliched?
Its been done to death yes, but I think for good reason.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Game on That would be pretty awesome

In reply to sutty:


A mere 6 years from completion according to one report!

Its still (probably) the most extraordinary building in the world: inside its a geometric orgy of dizzying, lurching columns, like some high-dimensional intrusion into our world from a very different Universe.

I've never got over just how damn 21st Century Gaudi's designs were/are: all sensual organic forms more Geiger hallucination than mere architecture...

PP.

In reply to SeanB:

This I *have* to see!

PP.

In reply to Tall Clare:
All of them except the time exposed water and traffic ones.
Other than that I agree with him

In reply to sutty:


Guilty m'lud...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonjacques/4027321802/


At least its not a caravan! ;0)

In reply to Simon:

touche (imagine that e with an acute accent on it)

In reply to Tall Clare:

Whilst all of those techniques are massive cliches and especially horrible in some cases, I laughed at how the site has this article linked to it: http://totallytop10.com/current-affairs/odd-news/top-10-stunning-forced-per...

In reply to Tall Clare:

Touché, AltGr gives you the accent, unless on a phone.

In reply to TheseKnivesMan:

Most of those aren't "forced perspective" shots!

In reply to sutty:

ah, thank you.

I wasn't aware of a proliferation of scabby caravan images out there but shall bear it in mind for future.

In reply to Tall Clare:

This is a cliched climbing shot now;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/search.html?text=+gargoyle+flake&x=0&a...

In reply to Blue Straggler:


That's not fair from me. I actually quite Hipstamatic pics! I say this under the assumption that it's set up so you get a random effect and that (heavily faux-processed) pic is the only one recorded

In reply to Blue Straggler:

it's set up so you choose the 'film' and the 'lens' and then you've got a broad sense of what the effect might be. I think it's Instagram where you apply the filters after you've taken the shot. I like Hipstamatic - my current facebook profile pic is a hipstamatic one. As was the last one. And the one before that. Not that I have an iPhone, mind.

In reply to PontiusPirate:

I'm glad it wasn't finished (assuming that by "the Gaudi", sutty means La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona) - there were to be Holiday-Inn-style words installed on it according to the historical exhibition I saw at the location in 2007.

In reply to Tall Clare:

that makes sense. ta

In reply to Blue Straggler:

In fact the only thing stopping me going full cliché was that my lens doesn't focus close (watch this space though....24mm full-frame macro...)

In reply to Tall Clare:

Problem is we're not cutting edge, although we'd all like to be. You can get yourself all arty and try and be "influenced" by the likes of Stephen Shore, William Eggleston,Paul Strand et al (guilty as charged....) but at the end of the day most of us are like our mates that play in cover bands or tribute acts, we're never going to be the next Smiths or Mercury winners..... does it make it wrong?

Some of those cliches are just plain wrong though

In reply to Ireddek:

I don't like these either! Climb magazine has sadly had a lot of these recently with winter climbers in their bright Goretex jackets against monochrome or desaturated cliffs.

Alex

I don't have a problem with any of these cliches. What a rant.

There are far too many original (but crap) artists out there. Don't try to be original, try to be good... the rest will follow.

In reply to Tall Clare:

squishing heads and famous landmarks never gets old, does it?

In reply to Tall Clare:

I think some of these cliches are techniques that photographers, professional or otherwise go through. Some are definitely corny (supporting the leaning tower of pizza) but others are a victim of their own awe. I like light trails, yes they have been done to death but its probably because they look good. Same goes for Buchaille Etive Mor and all the other mountain scenery, waterfall and forrest shot, they look so darn good, especially when your there, it's difficult not to shoot them. To me, many of these shots display the demonstration of a technique that is in the arsenal of the photographer and there are many many more where they came from.

Climber climbing towards the camera, overhangs, acrobatic manouvres etc these are so done to death as photographs but I'd happily see another one.

In reply to Graham T:

Me too. Those are the ones I think as a photographer you can't help wanting to experiment with. They are techniques rather than 'shots'. Whereas the ring/filter in the pages of the book thing is just a particular composition.

Anything still life is a cliché of sorts. For all the truth that light on the Lakeland fells is different everyday for me I'm still bored looking at these sorts of pictures. Candid action is the way forward, which makes things more difficult and interesting. Not only do you need a camera but you need lightening reflexes and be a chameleon with bags of charisma and an access all areas smile. If you're female you get a head start unless your in a scrum. Try practising on defenceless tramps.

In reply to Tall Clare: Im not sure if my dick is a photographic cliche but I never get tired of taking pictures of it. My mobile phone has over a hundred pics of it, most in B&W. I felt I might be a pervert but I was in the library in Sheffield looking at some pictures of Widdop by Fay Godwin and in the foyer were some books on sale and I found one to be full of black and whites of the male penis.

The Buchaille Etive Mor is a test piece, photographing it is akin to climbing Little Chamonix. I think it was TobyS who posted a pic of a car on its roof infront of the BEM? One can always give something a new twist.

In reply to Fawksey:

See what went wrong there? you ended up in a library, got influenced by books and started taking pics of yer old fella.
At least it was in B&W, colour would just be pervy.

In reply to Tall Clare:
My, but he did get out of bed the wrong side, didn't he? I wonder if the real clue is in item 6 about and other photographers selling long exposure water shots for $400?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I'd be willing to tart nmyself for $400 a throw.... curiously that popped up in the thread DougG linked; people will supply the print buying public with what they want, even if they feel it's cliched pish. Going back to my music anaolgy does that make them the same as wedding bands? playing the pish to pay for the kit whilst really wanting to be something else?

Working in an industrial setting I've noticed over the years that the topless calendars that were once de rigeur have all been replaced with what can only be described as landscape landfill, there would appear to be a market out there for really shit landscape.

In reply to Tall Clare: Photographic cliches, or photographic snobbery?

H does sound as though he got out of bed not only on the wrong side, but in the wrong county! He seems to be trying to tell us that he's a better photographer than those who take the pics he describes.

There does sometimes seem to be a tendency for certain folk who consider themselves to be a 'good' photogrpaher to look down and sneer on the efforts of the point-and-shoot masses!

In reply to Fawksey:


So, can you recommend a good macro lens?

In reply to Tall Clare:

None.

I think the biggest conceit is that photographers (generally incl. non-pro's) "have" to consider what anyone else will think of their photos. For most of us the online publishing of your pictures is only intended for our friends, who might be interested in our young/old shots and humour or tasteless landscapes.

Surely the pro's need the dross so they can shine by comparison?

Or is it just that they used to make a living out of these now overused tricks and now resent that they are no longer caught between the horror of being populist and earning or arty and broke, now all that's left is arty and broke?

In reply to Tall Clare: one of the biggest cliches has to be black and white. Convert the photo to B&W, increase contrast and darken a few shadows, add a sprinkling of grain and hey presto! ...it's a serious, arty shot.

But surely the real problem is that there are just so many photos and photographers now. How do you avoid the hackneyed idea when it's all been done already (a million times)? How do you make an impact with a photo without falling into the "overdone" trap? Who's going to write the article?

In reply to DougG: Thats the kind of talk that set the Yorkshire ripper off Doug.

In reply to owlart: Do you disagree with the entire notion of artistic criticism then?

In reply to SeanB:

Friedlander has a lot to answer for

In reply to Removed User: Exactly mate, its all been done no matter what we try! Much harder to be groundbreaking (if thats yer thing) nowadays than back in them 1900s..

In reply to SeanB:

Photographic innovations are mostly in the movies now. Small light high quality cameras allow combinations of composition and movement that were hitherto impossible.

Also a few interesting points raised by Rockwell when the D3 came out (re: the first shot)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/example-images.htm
is a shot that had never been done before.

In reply to SeanB:

These had not, to my knowledge, been done before. The technology has been around for a while but nobody bothered to combine (abuse?) the right bits. But this is not single-image stuff I guess, so doesn't quite come under the aegis of photography as defined in this thread.

http://blue-straggler.net/Rotography/HeaterColourRotation.gif

http://blue-straggler.net/Rotography/Decorative_Combo_8bit.gif

In reply to Tall Clare:

Ideas based work is where its at. Similar images may have been taken in the past but its the context you put them in that matters.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


The camera in the back of the goals shot? That old chestnut!

In reply to Andy Stephenson:

when you say 'convert to black and white'...?

<trudges back to workshop with hammer>
<resumes smashing of looms>

In reply to Tall Clare:

Slightly addressed by my superwide-angle whinge, but this can be done at all focal lengths. The piano.

Wide angle:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_204/1194259993uA1RWa.jpg


and the good old "shallow DoF"
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/232342/232342,127054029...

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/50543/50543,1133035878,...

and long exposure:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2288871096_13997489ee.jpg

In reply to Tall Clare:

I don't understand
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Andy?

FWIW I do sometimes try to salvage a picture by doing what Andy's described, but I'd never present it as clever art - I'd be open and say that the planned shot didn't work so I'm trying to compensate for what went wrong (usually slight blur, or a focus or exposure issue) by doing what I can.
I've also converted technically good pics from colour to b&w when that hadn't been the original intention, i.e. I hadn't shot with a "monochrome eye" e.g this one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/4519050902/

I am guilty, it's a fair cop

In reply to Tall Clare:

Oh yeah! Colour burst!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/4519051152/lightbox/

I spent some agonising(*) over whether to do this and put it on the web, but in the final analysis I decided that I liked it.

* I exaggerate.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I meant that to do that it'd have to be colour in the first place.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I figured that, I was posting for the benefit of others

Still....have you never printed to b&w from a colour neg?
(I have tried, it was a failure)

In reply to Tall Clare: I got the joke. At least, I hope it was a joke...

In reply to Tall Clare:

He seems to have picked some very odd targets. If he has a problem with people doing silly shots of themselves holding up the tower of pisa or pinching a giant monument or "my family now and thn" he might as well have a go at any holiday snapsor pamily snaps. surely no-one is pretending these are fine art or even especially good photographs?

Several of the others are just techniques and can be used or abused as much as any other technique and why shouldn't people have a go?

It seems his real problem is that it's easy to publish these things online so he's seen to many - well maybe he should be more intelligent in where he looks for interesting photography - there is plenty out there!

In reply to Tall Clare:

He missed out Gargoyle Flake at Bamford

In reply to taine:

If we are being cynical then lets not forget the advertising rev from the clicks

In reply to Blue Straggler: That wasn't 'artistic criticism', that was the author looking down his nose and pointing out that he's so much better than those other photographers because he doesn't take those kinds of shots.

Had he expressed himself differently, then it might have come across somewhat less grumpily (something which could be said about postings to UKC so often too, myself included of course).

In reply to Tall Clare: most of them! and please god not another bicycle leaning against a fence, with or without snow on the saddle

In reply to pebbles: I have to close my eyes when I drive past the Buachaille, its such a cliche, Im almost sick in my mouth due to the over cheesiness of that hill.I cant bear to look at it, with all its flowy rivers in front and perfect traingular shape, god, its so hackneyed.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Well, I can only find one photo in your gallery with a stormy title, and it seems to be entirely appropriate. As well as being the kind of photo I wish I had taken.

In reply to SeanB: I'm prepared to except pics of the Buachaille from the cliches list, but HDR and "water looking like mist" definately goes into Room 101

In reply to owlart:

I didn't see him pointing out that he was "better", just ranting about seeing the same photos being taken again and again. I could whinge about the same rom-com screenplay formula being rehashed in the movies, without claiming to be a better film maker

In reply to pebbles:

HDR can be a powerful and useful tool in the right hands, so dumping HDR altogether is just wrong. Water looking like mist pleases me for some reason, so I'd keep that in.

In reply to pebbles:

oh poo... guilty as charged! http://www.flickr.com/photos/leodhasach/5214784679/

I counted nine!

In reply to Tall Clare:

The first camera I ever owned was bought in December 1996. I have just been scanning in a load of photos that I took during the first 4 months of owning that camera, when I was living in Greece. I knew nothing about "photography" as an art or a science, I just had this auto-everything Fuji zoom jobby (it was a nice camera actually). Apart from some photos of the Parthenon and Acropolis, Epidauros and Mycenae, I seem to have inadvertently avoided all the clichés from the list. I've also got a lot of dull and repetitive snapshots, but there's nothing to suggest that I was "trying" to do anything arty or clever, and I think that is possibly the route to cliché. I've suspected this for a while. Granted, the article is about "tricks" so it is addressing those who think they are being smart, I suppose.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Situation normal then.

Give someone a camera, say try to hold it level for taking pics of people and they will often come out woth a couple of shots you did not think of, because, THEY DON'T KNOW THE RULES. No thirds, just get on and take some pics. OK, most will be crap as art pics but great as memory pictures. Reminders of a day out or party or whatever.
The photographer who knows all the rules will struggle to get that innovative shot because they have got into a mindset.

You used to do your concert stuff and though a lot was crap there are some great shots in there because you broke the rules. Being a great artist means knowing when to break them, that is why I am crap.

In reply to sutty:

Yes, we all know this by now I think (and hope) but I thought it worth mentioning in the context of this thread.

In reply to sutty:

I still do concert stuff, just rather less of it and I don't tend to post up the links on here any more.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

My post was only part at you, more for the people who think they will never be any good unless they learn all the techniques.

Since I got a compact digital I have said sod it, and am back to a happy snapper, not a club photographer.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm finding this thread quite inspirational. I'm trying to get three clichés into one frame later (shallow-field, wide angle, a piano....maybe that'll make 4 we include "straight lines disappearing to a convergence point" though they will be so out of focus it'll be hard to tell)

In reply to Tall Clare:

There's nothing wrong with these cliches. The problems arise when you look at an image and the technique or 'cliche' gets in the way of looking at the picture for what it is. I.E HDR should be a way of enhancing a photo slightly, it shouldnt be the object of the photo.

In reply to taine:

+1, and well said.

I'll just add, though, that I do find the sometimes seeming insistence on photographing water falls & streams with long exposures --going to the extent of forcing this with ND filters-- strikes me as too cliche' and misguided. (I much favor seeing water flow, jump, & dance in sharp(er) detail, like jewelry.)

*kN*

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Coming up soon (hopefully in the next two days - putting film in for developing soon)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/5546794084/

I'm so fed up with the 'delete' cliche, I mean all the professionals do it, delete all their crap photos and only show people the good ones. I want to see all of them dammit, it's just rubbish when a 'good photo' becomes the object of the photo rather than quality being used as it should be, just to enhance a subject slightly.