The worst cliches

[Jim Salvas]

It's not the popularity of a subject which makes a cliche, but the sameness in the interpretation of it. After all, sonnets are all about love and they all require a very restricted form, but poets like Shakespeare created great art despite this "cliche."

Take the first thing on this list, sunsets. The subject can seem trite, but the challenge is to interpret the individuality of a sunset in a new and artful way. I think I've done that a few times.

Or, take the simple corporate headshot, a cliche if ever there was one. Even there you can find room for expression and individuality.

So, maybe we should take such a list as a challenge.

Someone once said that "to take photos nobody has taken, you must stand where nobody has stood." There's a germ of truth there, but there is also that challenge to stand where many have stood and to create something new.

 

[Glen Barrington]

are those 'street' photographers too cowardly to openly shoot their cameras so all their 'street work' is of people's backsides. At least the trend is away from using those 300mm lenses! Sorry to the current crop of 'street photographers' who use long lenses, but there is a difference between stalking and "street".

And what's pathetic are those little periscope lenses so the photographer doesn't even have to muster the courage to actually point it at ANYONE!

I really don't understand your hostile attitude about this.

Do you think there's something inherently sleazy about taking a candid shot of someone, rather than announcing yourself before every photo and seeking permission every time?

Yes - if the photo is stolen it isn't candid photography. Look up the meaning of "Candid". It doesn't mean hidden, its primary meaning is frank, open, honest. I know that some dictionaries confuse Candid photography with taking photos against the will of the subject, but that is just more dilution of meaning, much the same way people now confuse "Macro" with "Close-up". Those dictionaries are wrong.

I try to be discreet when shooting, though the camera itself isn't discreet (one of those long lenses you mentioned). I also rarely have people facing me and aware of the camera, that's a posed shot and often they're less interesting than candids. Posed shots look like vacation photos.

More photos of strangers backsides.

A lot of people just feel huge social awkwardness trying to ask a stranger for permission to photo and would prefer to just snap one quietly. Some of us aren't built for rolling up to a person and confidently saying HI! I'M BLAHBLAH AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE YOUR PICTURE! [extends hand to shake].

That isn't necessary, you openly take their photo, you let them take part in the process, and if they object, you politely erase the photo. Anything less is immoral.

It's not stalking, I don't understand why you'd say that... stalking is about fixating on one person, and control, and intimidation and harrassment. I'm not interested in any of those things, I just want to take an interesting pic and I never follow one person around. I usually have forgotten about any individual person or shot an hour later.

If you can't break down that wall, you aren't DOING street photography, you ARE stalking people or maybe "Pre-stalking". Whatever it is, it AIN'T street or candid photograpy.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

 

[TheDman]

It's not the popularity of a subject which makes a cliche, but the sameness in the interpretation of it. After all, sonnets are all about love and they all require a very restricted form, but poets like Shakespeare created great art despite this "cliche."

Take the first thing on this list, sunsets. The subject can seem trite, but the challenge is to interpret the individuality of a sunset in a new and artful way. I think I've done that a few times.

Or, take the simple corporate headshot, a cliche if ever there was one. Even there you can find room for expression and individuality.

So, maybe we should take such a list as a challenge.

Someone once said that "to take photos nobody has taken, you must stand where nobody has stood." There's a germ of truth there, but there is also that challenge to stand where many have stood and to create something new.

 

[CreeDo]

If you call someone a "stalker" when they are NOTHING like that, that's hostile!
That's a very insulting term for someone who has a healthy mind and no bad intentions.

It's like in your mind, these two things are the exact same -

• I take a picture of a random dude on his smoke break, who I will never see again, and put it on facebook because I thought the way he was leaning and smoking looked cool

• I take an upskirt shot of my secret obsession from the shrubs in a park and put it on a porn site.

They're not the same! If you are in public, you are consenting to have people lay eyes on you. That includes total strangers, and that includes people you're unaware are looking at you. Unless you have some psychosis, there's no reason you should be ok with 500 total strangers in a shopping mall see you, but 50 strangers on the internet is upsetting.

By your extremely weird and strict definition, the guy who took this photo was a stalker if Ali didn't see him and the photographer didn't ask Ali for permission to publish it -

 

[DenWil]

Anyone walking down train tracks looking into the lens- which is most likely wide open.

Backlit headshots/ portraits.

Pulling any shadow up more than one stop and pretending that is how it is supposed to work.

Shooting random people going about their lives and labeling it profound.

Shooting people (often children) pretending they are not being photographed.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Well, that's the motive, anyway. [shrug]

 

[justinwonnacott]

Pictures that fall into the "find a bum " school of street photography

anything involving cracked mud

pictures of cubans rolling cigars, with their old cars, or posing on Havana streets

99% of the snaps from drones

HDR processed landscapes during the "magic hour"

Lomography of any kind - especially smelly are the lensbaby stuff

Blobs of light made with a fast lens wide open

nearly everything called labelled "mature or adult", this means nearly all of those ridiculous nudes that look like landscapes, boudoir images, cheesy glamour shots of models justified as an homage to beauty, youth, innocence or whatever. Double demerit points if pastel chiffon is visible in the shot or a motorcycle.

 

[christom]

A ridiculously overrated country when it comes to the landscape. No offense to any Icelanders.

--
If you troll or flame, I stop responding. Get back on topic, I continue responding. Forums are for freely discussing and debating topics. Don't take it personal if I disagree with you.

There plenty of potential for interesting pictures there but 1,000,001 essentially similar picture of ice on a beach and Gulfoss get rather dull.

The point is the landscape is ridiculously overrated. I'm being generous because I can't recall seeing any landscape photo from there that impressed me.

--
If you troll or flame, I stop responding. Get back on topic, I continue responding. Forums are for freely discussing and debating topics. Don't take it personal if I disagree with you.

Don't think I'd go that far... none of these are any good?

The photos themselves are technically competent but the landscape is ridiculously boring and unimpressive.

--
If you troll or flame, I stop responding. Get back on topic, I continue responding. Forums are for freely discussing and debating topics. Don't take it personal if I disagree with you.

 

[M H S]

Pictures that fall into the "find a bum " school of street photography

anything involving cracked mud

pictures of cubans rolling cigars, with their old cars, or posing on Havana streets

99% of the snaps from drones

HDR processed landscapes during the "magic hour"

Lomography of any kind - especially smelly are the lensbaby stuff

Blobs of light made with a fast lens wide open

nearly everything called labelled "mature or adult", this means nearly all of those ridiculous nudes that look like landscapes, boudoir images, cheesy glamour shots of models justified as an homage to beauty, youth, innocence or whatever. Double demerit points if pastel chiffon is visible in the shot or a motorcycle.

Dead Sea critters on plates

Random buildings of no particular architwcturayinterest

People walking around minding their own business, shopping or buying hamburgers... Extra credit for cropping off heads and tilting your camera

A lot of judgmental people on this thread who's own work just plain sucks.

I'm no Adams, bresson, Maisel, or arbus... But neither am I going to bash people for taking nice photos of pleasing subjects for the purpose of enjoyment or money

Geez there are some egomaniacal folks of mediocre talent on this site.

 

[justinwonnacott]

Dead Sea critters on plates

Random buildings of no particular architwcturayinterest

People walking around minding their own business, shopping or buying hamburgers... Extra credit for cropping off heads and tilting your camera

A lot of judgmental people on this thread who's own work just plain sucks.

I'm no Adams, bresson, Maisel, or arbus... But neither am I going to bash people for taking nice photos of pleasing subjects for the purpose of enjoyment or money

Geez there are some egomaniacal folks of mediocre talent on this site.

Michael when you refer to my own pictures it is personal and judgemental. Did I hurt your feelings or something? Lighten up - it is not about you. The topic is cliches , or to put it another way images or themes that are so prevalent we mentally groan " dammit not AGAIN" when asked to look at them.

I mentioned some, and still feel that they can be categorized that way even if you feel that my work just plain sucks (you won't get far as a critic with THAT incisive comment) or that you contend I am an "egomaniacal mediocre talent" who shoots buildings of no particular "architwcturayinterest" . My work has nothing to do with this, actually.

I will make a positive comment about your work instead . . . Your puppy shot is great - nice lead to the big archive have on flickr ... eh?

Peace or whatever.

 

[skanter]

are those 'street' photographers too cowardly to openly shoot their cameras so all their 'street work' is of people's backsides. At least the trend is away from using those 300mm lenses! Sorry to the current crop of 'street photographers' who use long lenses, but there is a difference between stalking and "street".

And what's pathetic are those little periscope lenses so the photographer doesn't even have to muster the courage to actually point it at ANYONE!

I really don't understand your hostile attitude about this.

Do you think there's something inherently sleazy about taking a candid shot of someone, rather than announcing yourself before every photo and seeking permission every time?

Yes - if the photo is stolen it isn't candid photography. Look up the meaning of "Candid". It doesn't mean hidden, its primary meaning is frank, open, honest. I know that some dictionaries confuse Candid photography with taking photos against the will of the subject, but that is just more dilution of meaning, much the same way people now confuse "Macro" with "Close-up".

SP purist rules - no long lenses, no PP, no cropping, must use pinhole camera, blah blah blah. I "stole" the soul of this guy on the street last week with 300mm lens and feel perfectly fine about it. No, we didn't have a beer, sign any papers, or become friends first.

Just try to create interesting images without exploiting anyone's suffering, no guilt or worry, you are not hurting anyone and may bring some beauty or truth into then world.

 

[Lanidrac]

Here , over at TOP

Be sure to read the growing list of comments, as of this writing 2 pages worth. Reading the list is both amusing and chastening.

What is an F stop?

My camera looks better than yours.

 

[VadymA]

How are those worst cliches? If anything, they should be called the best cliches. The main reason why people want to repeat photographing those subjects is because they trigger emotional response, which is a main purpose of photography as a craft. Just like when a musitian wants to play Fur Elise of Summertime on his piano, or a carpenter wants to make a chest of drawers with his tools, I wouldn't call what they are doing a cliche. Yes, it has been done million of times before them, but it doesn't mean there is no need for them to do it as well. Photography is a craft that, like any other craft, can be mastered and improved while working on repeatedly similar subjects. And even the most typical subject can still have a very unique audience, like your family, friends, or a small local community for whom the value of the image is not only in its classical "cliche-ish" beauty, but also in the author as well. Just my thought.

 

[TheDman]

A ridiculously overrated country when it comes to the landscape. No offense to any Icelanders.

 

[christom]

A ridiculously overrated country when it comes to the landscape. No offense to any Icelanders.

--
If you troll or flame, I stop responding. Get back on topic, I continue responding. Forums are for freely discussing and debating topics. Don't take it personal if I disagree with you.

There plenty of potential for interesting pictures there but 1,000,001 essentially similar picture of ice on a beach and Gulfoss get rather dull.

The point is the landscape is ridiculously overrated. I'm being generous because I can't recall seeing any landscape photo from there that impressed me.

--
If you troll or flame, I stop responding. Get back on topic, I continue responding. Forums are for freely discussing and debating topics. Don't take it personal if I disagree with you.

Don't think I'd go that far... none of these are any good?

The photos themselves are technically competent but the landscape is ridiculously boring and unimpressive.

--
If you troll or flame, I stop responding. Get back on topic, I continue responding. Forums are for freely discussing and debating topics. Don't take it personal if I disagree with you.

You'd better be first in line to go to Mars then, because not much here on earth is going to satisfy you.

My country's landscape, and the landscapes of many other countries, satisfies me just fine. Drastically more impressive.

--
If you troll or flame, I stop responding. Get back on topic, I continue responding. Forums are for freely discussing and debating topics. Don't take it personal if I disagree with you.

 

[gregsk]

How are those worst cliches? If anything, they should be called the best cliches. The main reason why people want to repeat photographing those subjects is because they trigger emotional response, which is a main purpose of photography as a craft. Just like when a musitian wants to play Fur Elise of Summertime on his piano, or a carpenter wants to make a chest of drawers with his tools, I wouldn't call what they are doing a cliche. Yes, it has been done million of times before them, but it doesn't mean there is no need for them to do it as well. Photography is a craft that, like any other craft, can be mastered and improved while working on repeatedly similar subjects. And even the most typical subject can still have a very unique audience, like your family, friends, or a small local community for whom the value of the image is not only in its classical "cliche-ish" beauty, but also in the author as well. Just my thought.

Finally some sense. Cliche's become cliche's for a good reason. You could find photographs by Bresson, Adams, Kenna and other great photographers that fall somewhere on that list.

Lonely Trees and reflections? Here is both of them in the same photograph by Ansel Adams...

I remember watching one of Ted Forbes Videos on YT when he talked about his cat passing away the day before. He had photographed his had not long before. Yes, it is a photo of a cat but the emotional connection that this photo will have with Ted is unbelievable. Again, a cliche shot.

Here's one of my own:





Long exposure, water, clouds, location that has been shot million of times, you name it. I won't part with this image no matter how many people will call it a cliche.



Photography as an art form should not be bothered with things "labelled" cliche's. It should not be bothered with labels at all. As long as someone enjoys it and there is an emotional connection between the image and the viewer, the rest does not matter.



Just my $0.02.

--
Greg
------------------------------
It Is All About Creativity.

ditchitall.com is for sale at Atom!

Ditchitall.com is the ultimate domain name for those ready to simplify and declutter their lives. This short and memorable name exudes a sense of freedom and liberation, evoking images of leaving behind the unnecessary and embracing a minim

www.ditchitall.com

MugenVision

Explore MugenVision’s 37 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Doug J]

Photogs that are relatively new to photography, or experienced photogs, find something new they like and decide to shoot it. Maybe a noob or experienced photog posts something that is new to them, asks questions about a composition or shot.

Why does this sometimes get relegated to the label of a cliche shot? Why is this important? The photog saw something (s)he liked and wanted to explore it, capture it and maybe do better. And posts the shot.

The crotchety old fart photogs may dis it, say they've done it countless times, as have others, over the past 100 years. Maybe with references to Adams or other past masters.

Who established the rule that before any photograph is shot, the photog must do in depth research to determine if a similar shot was taken before? What happened to the pleasure of individual photography?

Why would we want to discourage individual expression via photography with the "cliche" mindset?

Note: selfies are excluded from the above ;-)


Cheers,
Doug

 

[M H S]

Dead Sea critters on plates

Random buildings of no particular architwcturayinterest

People walking around minding their own business, shopping or buying hamburgers... Extra credit for cropping off heads and tilting your camera

A lot of judgmental people on this thread who's own work just plain sucks.

I'm no Adams, bresson, Maisel, or arbus... But neither am I going to bash people for taking nice photos of pleasing subjects for the purpose of enjoyment or money

Geez there are some egomaniacal folks of mediocre talent on this site.

Michael when you refer to my own pictures it is personal and judgemental. Did I hurt your feelings or something?

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Oh, the irony. But, I suppose irony is the specialty of artists (especially street photographers).

Lighten up - it is not about you. The topic is cliches , or to put it another way images or themes that are so prevalent we mentally groan " dammit not AGAIN" when asked to look at them.

So it is OK to be nasty about anonymous millions of photographers, but not an individual's work. The soccer mom's with their DSLRs, the old men shooting birds with their super-zooms, the hipsters with their Leica wannabes, the vacationers with their point-and-shoots (or, god forbid, cell phones). Those are all legitimate targets of the acid tongues (fingers) of the DPR critics. But, don't dare point out that you dislike an individual's work. I guess I just don't see it that way.

I mentioned some, and still feel that they can be categorized that way even if you feel that my work just plain sucks (you won't get far as a critic with THAT incisive comment)

Nor did you explain your distaste for the cliches you mentioned. The thread (mostly) wasn't about thoughtful critique, it was just plain nasty, degrading snobbery.

or that you contend I am an "egomaniacal mediocre talent" who shoots buildings of no particular "architectural interest" . My work has nothing to do with this, actually.

I fixed the typo, since apparently it was problematic for you. Is it clearer now?

How can your work have nothing to do with it? You were criticizing cliches, yet are as guilty as those who you deride.

Dead Fish:

[ATTACH alt="Ah, but this one is on sand. Your's are on a plate. As they said in Spinal Tap, "it's a fine line between clever and stupid." "]941356[/ATTACH]
Ah, but this one is on sand. Your's are on a plate. As they said in Spinal Tap, "it's a fine line between clever and stupid."

Boring Buildings:


Extra credit for black and white - but don't dare try any split toning, shadow lifting, or artificial grain

Random Strangers in the Street - I won't even bother

I will make a positive comment about your work instead . . . Your puppy shot is great - nice lead to the big archive [you] have on flickr ... eh?

Thanks. I guess you are a dog lover. One of my big regrets is that I have so few pictures of some of my past dogs. They were wonderful friends who are dearly missed.

Photos of family, friends, and loved ones are more valuable than great works of art to me. Though, I suppose I wouldn't mind owning Rhein II. I could just stare at it all day and understand the true horror of the modern world (or something like that).

"Old men miss many dogs" (attributed to Steve Allen)

Peace or whatever.

More irony?

 

[justinwonnacott]

Lighten up . . .

 

[TheDman]

A ridiculously overrated country when it comes to the landscape. No offense to any Icelanders.