What Are The Most Clichéd Photos In All Of Photography

[tony field]

I think there's a definitional difference between "popular tourist spot" and cliche.

Nobody taking tourist photos is trying to pass their work off as unique.

Suntan, so what's the difference?

For example lets take Paris. Paris is certainly a "popular tourist spot" but that doesn't make it cliché. Now take a shot of the Eifel Tower, that's traditionally cliché but it can be shot so it's not purely a cliché, you just have to put a more creative spin on it. Here's an example, here's the Eifel Tower but it's not purely about the tower itself but so identifiable that it's obviously Paris. Is this shot purely a cliché or just a tourist hot spot or something different?

John


The Proposal

The good (or bad thing about a commonly displayed cliche location is that it forces the viewer to have a personal good/bad perception of the image. For example, if I see an image of one of many arcades in London, I personally am positively disposed to the photo for personal reasons.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[John Gellings]

Sunsets, BiF, macro flowers, self portrait with camera to the eye, silhouettes (guilty), super wide angle tree or rocks shot, wedding photography, standard photos of pretty things, etc.

That said… this book is worth looking at:

Loading…

aperture.org

Spoiler: if you listen to the advice in the book, you find there is nothing left to photograph. Ultimately that’s the point that one person’s cliche is another’s favorite type of photo. Some people really love the beautiful cliches and it’s all they want to do. I guess it really comes down to what you want to accomplish with your photography.

 

[tony field]

A cliche idea does not necessarily result in a cliche photograph!!

When I am excited by a story I might use the essence of part of the story as the basis for a photograph. I had an image that was appropriate for the idea of "death of Ophelia" from Shakespeare's Hamlet. Although her death by drowning was never shown on stage it is well as illustrated by various famous artists, I tried my hand photographically:



You can extend such ideas in various ways and avoid cliches

Based on a painting

Another character of photographic interest is the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland.



There are many ways to get inspired by cliche ideas and do essentially unique images.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[Suntan]

I think there's a definitional difference between "popular tourist spot" and cliche.

Nobody taking tourist photos is trying to pass their work off as unique.

Suntan, so what's the difference?

The answer was in my second sentence.

 

[JohnSil]

Let's face it, folks. Virtually everything in the world has been photographed 50 gazillion times. That's the reality.

Thus it ends up that my original composition is in fact (or perhaps after the fact) a cliché.

So this begs the question, at what point does any photo become a cliché? If we have never seen a photo of it before then certainly to us it is not a cliché though we may wind up seeing it as so in the future.

John

 

[tony field]

Let's face it, folks. Virtually everything in the world has been photographed 50 gazillion times. That's the reality.

Thus it ends up that my original composition is in fact (or perhaps after the fact) a cliché.

So this begs the question, at what point does any photo become a cliché? If we have never seen a photo of it before then certainly to us it is not a cliché though we may wind up seeing it as so in the future.

I suspect images becomes a cliche when some "Experts" make the declaration.

John

 

[pentax mono]

Let's face it, folks. Virtually everything in the world has been photographed 50 gazillion times. That's the reality.

Thus it ends up that my original composition is in fact (or perhaps after the fact) a cliché.

So this begs the question, at what point does any photo become a cliché? If we have never seen a photo of it before then certainly to us it is not a cliché though we may wind up seeing it as so in the future.

I suspect images becomes a cliche when some "Experts" make the declaration.

John

Cliche are photos or art in which the photographer / artist uses a concept which has been overused and lacks original thought ....

the photos lack a deeper meaning either literally or artistically or emotionally

you are basically a copycat when you make cliche images - its like "paint by numbers "

it means you don't have the ability to bring something more to the table .... you don't have an expert eye for the visual arts or you have not been exposed to them ,,,, your work is shallow and you are never one step ahead of the viewer ..... its like a movie which does not reveal more on a second viewing .... or a book when reread.

now if you are a pro and you are getting paid to produce a particular product the whole concept goes out the window

Cindy Sherman :

 

[tony field]

Let's face it, folks. Virtually everything in the world has been photographed 50 gazillion times. That's the reality.

Thus it ends up that my original composition is in fact (or perhaps after the fact) a cliché.

So this begs the question, at what point does any photo become a cliché? If we have never seen a photo of it before then certainly to us it is not a cliché though we may wind up seeing it as so in the future.

I suspect images becomes a cliche when some "Experts" make the declaration.

John

Cliche are photos or art in which the photographer / artist uses a concept which has been overused and lacks original thought ....

It depends on where/how the inspiration comes about and is used. You could argue that Cindy Sherman overuses her cartoonish style to the point that her style becomes a cliche for others and that is her signature as an artist.

the photos lack a deeper meaning either literally or artistically or emotionally

you are basically a copycat when you make cliche images - its like "paint by numbers "

it means you don't have the ability to bring something more to the table

If people want your images compared to other folks you must be bringing something more to the table. But be aware that might simply be a nicer representation of the same cliche.

.... you don't have an expert eye for the visual arts or you have not been exposed to them ,,,, your work is shallow and you are never one step ahead of the viewer ..... its like a movie which does not reveal more on a second viewing .... or a book when reread.

Indeed true. I actively or subliminally create images based on stories from books, movies etc that I am familiar with, This is almost a basis for a cliche.

now if you are a pro and you are getting paid to produce a particular product the whole concept goes out the window

Not necessarily. It may just a better version of a cliche that they like.

Cindy Sherman :

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[jiberlin]

Let's face it, folks. Virtually everything in the world has been photographed 50 gazillion times. That's the reality.

...

I agree that almost every possible subject is photographed, but in many cases only with very conventional perspective or composition. Finding new perspectives or compositions of a well known subject is the true challenge.

 

[Cherry_F]

It's like any other country, people just flock in the "not-to-be-missed" spots because they have already seen pics of those places.

In 1984 or so there was an essay in a newspaper, written by a guy living in Manhattan. He was apparently part of the "well educated" crowd, and having a bit of money. He said that at a lot of the "well educated, having a bit of money" dinner parties he would go to there were a lot of people that had just visited China, then, around 1984.

The title of his essay was "Why I am not going to China".

He said that 15 or 20 years earlier the big trend in his crowd was going to Eastern Europe. He himself had gone there, Eastern Europe, and at some point he was standing on a street corner in some city in Eastern Europe, and he wondered why he had ever bothered to make the effort to arrive on that street corner. It seemed like he had made an error, for him, in his opinion.

Having gone to Eastern Europe when it was the hot trend, he figured that he could just skip the "going to China" trend, 15 years later.

I would think his viewpoint was not entirely correct. Travel can be fun and interesting, but yet, there was something in what he said. I forget what he praised instead, but it might of been going to a baseball game with friends. Or something like that.

But it was a pretty light, casual, essay. He seemed to be almost sarcastic, but not entirely.

I remember visiting Eastern Europe when I was a student. I think it was a bit like Nepal for the hippies. It was not easy to get there, almost impossible to travel alone. Those countries were both "closed" and idealised, as communism in France was still popular among young people. So, I would say the approach was different. It was not about seeing a specify identified famous spot, like Niagara Falls or Mont-Saint-Michel. It was more about trying to check how it was, living in those countries.

But I understand the approach of this guy, although he seems a bit of a dandy to me. In fact it's all about distinction, not following the trend.

 

[tbcass]

Here is the thing that really gets me ..... people who buy expensive equipment and then go out and take the photos they think they are "supposed to take " because they have seen them on the cover photography magazines

or they proclaim that they are going on a photographic expedition of Iceland - because they heard its the hot place to go ( pun intended )

I went there when NOBODY was talking about the place - decades ago

don't copy .... come up with your own subjects and ideas

Don't go to Iceland and take photos ,,,,,, live with a Pigmy tribe for a month or seek out something unique

I agree with you. I've never been to Iceland but based on the photos I've seen there are a lot more interesting places to go.

I'm just going to step in here - Iceland is an insanely beautiful place. Don't let your photographic prejudices stop you from going there (though beauty can be found in all sorts of places, everywhere).

There are beautiful places to photograph everywhere, many, in my case, within a few hours' drive. I would rather photograph Yosemite or the Grand Canyon than go to Iceland. It's not that Iceland isn't a beautiful place because it is. There are so many great places in the world to photograph that, unless you travel so much that you are running out of places to go, Iceland would be low on my list. I live in the US and almost everything I see in photographs can be seen in my own country. Maybe if I lived in Great Britain I would feel differently.

 

[Mako2011]

I would rather photograph Yosemite or the Grand Canyon than go to Iceland. It's not that Iceland isn't a beautiful place because it is. There are so many great places in the world to photograph that, unless you travel so much that you are running out of places to go, Iceland would be low on my list.

Having been to many many places (except Australia) I would respectfully disagree. Spent a few weeks over a few trips in Iceland now and would put it in the top 10. A number of things to see/photography you won't find else where. A very unique place and the people are a hoot. I found some of the waterfalls more interesting than some of the more famous ones in the world... and if one has the ability...the scuba there is just amazing. A shame if one dies before seeing it. Lots of really unique photo opportunities

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Let's face it, folks. Virtually everything in the world has been photographed 50 gazillion times. That's the reality.

But that’s not true. Even if we exclude water areas, some ridiculously large percentage of the Earth has never been set foot on, at least by photographers.

Sure, everybody goes where everyone else goes, and tourists usually go where the authorities and business owners at a place want them to go. So sure, you’ll probably end up taking photos like everyone else. Even if you drive out into the country, you’ll likely only travel along a well-traveled narrow ribbon of highway, or in a wilderness you’ll stick to the trails. Even mountaineers limit themselves to a handful of safe routes.



Even in densely populated areas, there are places which remain unphotographed. Imagine an old house where a little old lady has lived for the past seventy years, who doesn’t own a camera and has few visitors, and so no one knows of her extensive and historic macramé collection. There are new vistas that appear with construction or demolition. Some areas are simply inaccessible and have been for a long time.




--

The Refracted Light

A website about the Art and Science of Photography

therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[John Gellings]

Here is the thing that really gets me ..... people who buy expensive equipment and then go out and take the photos they think they are "supposed to take " because they have seen them on the cover photography magazines

or they proclaim that they are going on a photographic expedition of Iceland - because they heard its the hot place to go ( pun intended )

I went there when NOBODY was talking about the place - decades ago

don't copy .... come up with your own subjects and ideas

Don't go to Iceland and take photos ,,,,,, live with a Pigmy tribe for a month or seek out something unique

I agree with you. I've never been to Iceland but based on the photos I've seen there are a lot more interesting places to go.

I'm just going to step in here - Iceland is an insanely beautiful place. Don't let your photographic prejudices stop you from going there (though beauty can be found in all sorts of places, everywhere).

There are beautiful places to photograph everywhere, many, in my case, within a few hours' drive. I would rather photograph Yosemite or the Grand Canyon than go to Iceland. It's not that Iceland isn't a beautiful place because it is. There are so many great places in the world to photograph that, unless you travel so much that you are running out of places to go, Iceland would be low on my list. I live in the US and almost everything I see in photographs can be seen in my own country. Maybe if I lived in Great Britain I would feel differently.

 

[cutterpup]

What almost everyone seems to be missing is that their are people, and I am one of them, that do not plan vacations with family and other non-photocentric people for the sake of taking pictures.

My neighbors spent a month this past winter in South America birding with a guide. They took only their phones for picture taking. Photography had no place in their plans.

When I do get to visit Iceland, I will be taking some gear and I will be taking pictures. But that is not my primary reason for going. I don't care if some of my pictures turn out to be a cliche. I will be documenting memories for me to look back on.

To me, this is not a game of one up manship. I don't care that John Doe is going to some tiny African country because the Iceland has been "over done." Good for John. I will go to where I want no matter how many people have been there before me.

 

[Mako2011]

What almost everyone seems to be missing is that their are people, and I am one of them, that do not plan vacations with family and other non-photocentric people for the sake of taking pictures.

I don't think this discussion is aimed at folks in that boat. Good boat to be in though! More aimed at a group of folks that are more "photocentric"...given it's in the "threads related to digital photography" forum. I to enjoy times when I'm not taking photos

 

[Mackiesback]

What almost everyone seems to be missing is that their are people, and I am one of them, that do not plan vacations with family and other non-photocentric people for the sake of taking pictures.

My neighbors spent a month this past winter in South America birding with a guide. They took only their phones for picture taking. Photography had no place in their plans.

When I do get to visit Iceland, I will be taking some gear and I will be taking pictures. But that is not my primary reason for going. I don't care if some of my pictures turn out to be a cliche. I will be documenting memories for me to look back on.

To me, this is not a game of one up manship. I don't care that John Doe is going to some tiny African country because the Iceland has been "over done." Good for John. I will go to where I want no matter how many people have been there before me.

I think we are kinda doing cartwheels over the definition of cliche. To me a location isn’t cliche, it’s popular. To me cliche is an overused photographic style. We have seen it with the colored rose in a black and white image, silky waterfalls, overused HDR, overused saturation, etc. It’s a style where a lot of people do it, then it fades from style.

To me, that is cliche, not taking your own version of half dome or the Eiffel Tower.

Some definitions of cliche in this thread practically covers everything. I don’t agree with that.

 

[Redhenry]

There are beautiful places to photograph everywhere, many, in my case, within a few hours' drive. I would rather photograph Yosemite or the Grand Canyon than go to Iceland. It's not that Iceland isn't a beautiful place because it is. There are so many great places in the world to photograph that, unless you travel so much that you are running out of places to go, Iceland would be low on my list. I live in the US and almost everything I see in photographs can be seen in my own country. Maybe if I lived in Great Britain I would feel differently.

Hi Tom,

I’m going a little off-topic but I do see your point, even though I live in Great Britain! A branch of my mother’s family emigrated 40 years ago to the American Midwest. One of my cousins visited some years back with her family. Her son, in his mid-teens, was quite dismissive of Britain because “everything’s squashed together, you can get to almost anywhere in a couple of hours!” I’ve visited the USA three times and found that the opposite was true for me - the country’s so big that it was hard to get my head around! I loved the landscapes I saw in America but I don’t hanker for those vast spaces, (or for Iceland). I like a landscape where you can see where it stops! Although I loved seeing the desert of Arizona and the Grand Canyon, I felt more comfortable with Acadia National Park in Maine - that’s on a scale we Brits can handle!

 

[JohnSil]

Don't go to Iceland and take photos ,,,,,,

I agree with you. I've never been to Iceland but based on the photos I've seen there are a lot more interesting places to go.

Iceland is an insanely beautiful place.

I live in the US and almost everything I see in photographs can be seen in my own country. Maybe if I lived in Great Britain I would feel differently.

LoL, LoL, LoL, tb are you indicating that there is nothing worth seeing in Britain??? Or was that a subconscious slap in the face to our bros that live across the pond? LoL

I will admit, I've been to Britain and though I only saw from Landon south, I don't recall seeing any thing iconic landscape wise. Maybe the north gets more Yosemite like?!

John

 

[JohnSil]

Maybe if I lived in Great Britain I would feel differently.

A branch of my mother’s family emigrated 40 years ago to the American Midwest.

My condolences!!! :-D

John