How to avoid photography cliches.

[alfredo]

I live in fear of "PC's" , but I do it anyway. So below is an article with some common sense ideas about avoiding yet another boring picture of the Grand Canyon (or other such place).

http://www.photographyblog.com/articles/how_to_avoid_photographic_cliches/

[NV Whino]

1. I think our new member, Gamey

exemplifies the advice in the article.

[alfredo]

2. I will check out his/her work

Ijust did. Yeah, I like the way he explores angles.

[regnaD kciN]

3. The problem is...

...I can guarantee you that the most "original" shot you come up with will have been done before. Probably by someone already famous. And, if you look, you'll be able to find that shot all over the Internet. There's really only one exception -- images that are original because they are so bad that no one would have ever thought of capturing them that way. ;-)

The fact is, photographs are not unlike stories. As someone pointed out, there are only eight plots out there, and every story conforms in some way to one or more of those eight. Similarly, there are only a number of good ways to capture a given location, and you can bet that there will be a plethora of photos of each of them already.

As for me, I concentrate on creating good images of a given location, rather than obsessing over "original" images. If they turn out to be somewhat "original," fine. But, if I ever stopped before capturing an image, and asking myself if I was sure it was totally original, I'd never be able to press the shutter again.

(BTW, avoiding "photographic cliches" and avoiding "another boring picture" are two different things entirely. As I hinted at above, it's more-than-possible to take a photo that is relatively original and yet utterly boring, simply because the image is badly composed or an idea better left in the circular file. By the same token, many acknowledged photographic cliches are anything but boring. Can you really say the blogger's second Antelope Canyon photo is more interesting than the first? Or, for that matter, believe that no one else had ever taken that exact same composition before they did?)

[alfredo]

5. My last visit to the farmer's Market was met with the

realization that I was just one of maybe a half dozen others photographing the scene. I moved on to the courthouse.

[Stevenmarc]

4. It's all about

developing a visual vocabulary that stops you from shooting one in the first place. When you're traveling, go into any tourist gift shop, take a look at the post card rack then avoid shooting anything that vaguely looks like anything on that rack.

[alfredo]

6. You got to take at least one photo of the family by the car.

[regnaD kciN]

7. "Developing a visual vocabulary" should NOT be about...

...stopping you from shooting something. That doesn't result in a "visual vocabulary," but in the photographer's equivalent of writer's block, where you are so obsessed about "not shooting a cliche" that you wind up not being able to shoot anything.

And, believe me, I know whereof I speak.

To my mind, the "look at the post card rack then avoid shooting anything that vaguely looks like anything on that rack" is the most destructive advice that can be given any photographer. Basically, it will give that photographer an unending internal monologue of "What about this? Nah -- it looks too much like something someone else already took. Then, what about this? No, that's been done before, too. Maybe this? Better not -- it looks vaguely like something else I've seen elsewhere." The end result being that the photographer leaves without shooting anything, with the possible exception of a few images that wind up being terrible (and don't begin to capture the spirit of the place), because they were made with the overriding obsession of "shooting something different" rather than "shooting something good."

Far better to encourage people to take what is before them, capture the obvious images whether or not they've been done millions of times before (hey, you might come up with a combination of light and atmospheric conditions that better all of them), then move on to capture elements of the place that may not have been shot over and over before. From my experience, you need to take in those things about the place that have so fascinated the multitudes of photographers that have been there before you to reach the point where you are ready to "see beyond."

[Stevenmarc]

8. First of all

this is a conversation about photographic cliché and how to avoid it, which quite frankly, easily 90% of anyone with a camera in their hand couldn't give a crap about, don't worry about the postcard advice it's not for them. People love shooting photographic clichés, but then again most people only shoot snapshots and aren't all that interested in making a photograph.

However, there are people out there who shoot with vision and value cultivating their visual vocabulary as a tool to realize their vision. It's not about obsessing on what not to shoot but knowing fairly instantaneously what is going to work and what isn't going to work and not taking 500 shots hoping for the happy accident in the midst of a cliché.

[regnaD kciN]

9. The problem is, you're conflating several very different arguments...

You now say that you're talking about knowing "what works and what doesn't." But the original blog post was not about that, it was about them awful old "photographic cliches." As was your initial suggestion (at this point I'm not sure whether it was tongue-in-cheek or not) about making sure you didn't shoot anything that was similar to what might be found in a postcard rack. But those are very different matters -- the reason something has become a "cliche" or shown up on postcards is specifically because it has proven to "work."

If you merely want to encourage people to learn what works and what doesn't, there are many compositional ideas, suggestions about how to use light, etc., to help them recognize what works and what doesn't. But that is far different from merely saying "don't do anything that is vaguely like what anyone else has done." My point, which I stand fully behind, is that, if a shot "works," the odds are that it has been done before, maybe hundreds and thousands of times before, and that, if you are driven solely by wanting to avoid what anyone else has done, you're more likely going to wind up being restricted to ideas that have been discarded because they didn't work...and hoping for the very "happy accident" you deride.

[Mira]

10. Thoughts on the subject as I understand it,

a long long time ago, in a landscape far far away (Ecuador) I was taking photos as I have my whole life long with whatever I had for a camera, with however was the way to do it.
At that time, I was shooting with TriX and maybe a Minolta.

In my traveling group, a group of artists, was a photographer. She fascinated me. She got up at the crack of dawn to catch the "dawn's early light", she crawled through cabbages, she had light meters and lots of knowledge. I got to watch things and a way of photographic thinking I had never been exposed to before.

I hung around her. You know me well enough to know I'm always curious, I observed what she took photos of, and what she left by the wayside.

Once we stood at a building with (visual alliteration in full display) columns after columns diminishing in perspective with shadows trailing and I was mesmerized. I took (a few only - this cost money still) pictures with my eyes shining, and she did not lift her camera.

When I asked her why she was not taking a single shot of this spectacular vista she shrugged and said: I have too many like that in my files already.

This made a great impression on me. I thought about it then, and to this day I think about it.

And from those thoughts a simple photography philosophy came about for me which makes me remember that I am in this for my own pleasure. It's not how I make my living. It's what I do because I want to preserve for myself in the best way I can memories of what I saw and felt and as I keep doing it I learn and my product gets better.

Just because I might have seen something extremely similar before does not take away the beauty of what's in front of me right now. I must take it with me, to remember, to compare, to learn.

This may not exactly hit the spot of thoroughly understanding the issue presented, which I think has sparked some good discussion (thanks, Alfredo) but it is what came to my mind, so I thought I'd write it down.

I think, long story shortened, what I am saying is that this incident stayed with me to where, when I make a fool of myself taking photos in a given setting
I do not hesitate or even think about those who have already done it perfectly, or think about that I have maybe been here before and taken pictures then and that it might behoove me to find a new and different way to show it.
Because life goes on and scenes change and light changes and settings change and my way to hold the camera and my way to see all change.

Nothing I do today is the same as in my files. I do think that I have a way of looking and framing, and thinking, which shows in photos, that is all mine. Like all of us.
Just as it should be. There are those who say they can spot a photo I took without knowing I took it.

That's good enough for me.
I have some photos I took, for my own excitement and pleasure, of the Grand Canyon, and of Antelope Canyon.
And they are so very much mine, probably the poorest examples of visuals in those often photographed places, but they are mine, and my memories, and my attempts to "take it home" and to learn and improve.

I never think about quirky angles or unusual settings, though I produce them a lot of the time
because
when you love taking pictures,
and nobody or nothing can stop you
that's what happens when you lift your camera in spite of that you already might "have it in your files."

:)

[regnaD kciN]

11. Very well put!

:applause:

[alfredo]

12. I give myself different tasks. This past week I worked on

text illustration. I used a wide depth of field to use the background to say something about the subject (or help tell the story).

[Elfin Yeti]

22. Your thoughts are exactly the way I feel!

I love the freedom to shoot the way I please because I am not shooting to please anybody but myself which is precisely why I remain passionate about photography. What a pleasure to read what you wrote -- straight from the heart!

[Mira]

23. AWWW thanks, Elfin Yeti, I just found this.

If you were here I'd give you a real

:hug:

[Gamey]

13. Tindalos Alfredos Stickyglues

Wow, thanks for the welcomes and gracious comments. The support of and encouragement to persons in this forum is unparalleled. Thanks again. You all make the difference.

Photography may not be the best thing to do but it has to be better than somewhere between running a restaurant and getting kisses from a dog.

Anyway, cliche on!

Click.

[alfredo]

14. Play is serious business. That's how you learn.

Now take that image again with different aperture settings to see what it does. It will probably not improve an already fine picture, but it will give some indication of what wide or narrow (shallow) depth of field does.

Play with the subject.

[alfredo]

15. Sometimes the cliches can be a learning experience. It

allows you to compare and contrast. It also allows you to play with filters and settings to see how a specific image got a specific effect.

[regnaD kciN]

18. One photographer on another forum pointed out...

...that painters being trained in the "old school" method (as apprentices to a master) would often be assigned to paint their own copy of a famous work, with the idea that figuring out how to paint it to look exactly like the original masterpiece was the only way to learn the techniques that would allow you to paint your own works as you would like them, instead of being limited by your own technique. The same can be said of attempting to capture your own version of a well-known photo. (However, that's not my main reason for opposing the "don't shoot anything you've seen anyone shoot before" philosophy; it's that its an unreasonably-limiting behavior that may well cramp creativity rather than promote it. If and when I go to Yosemite again -- the last time was when I was six and didn't own a camera -- I'm sure I'll shoot Tunnel View. Similarly, if I make it to Grand Teton, I'll get the famous Snake River and Schwabacher Landing shots, and then go on to try to find some less-familiar compositions of my own. I find that, if I rule out a given photo opportunity because "it's been done before," I generally won't be able to find anything else worth shooting thereafter, whereas, if I capture the obvious shots first, I'll be able to more-easily see less-familiar subjects from then on.)

[alfredo]

21. I wouldn't rule out taking a shot of the familiar subject,

but when you've taken that shot, look for the different, the path less travelled.

[Sheepshank]

16. ok so where do we stand on..

...puppies on stairs?

[alfredo]

17. Wouldn't that hurt the puppy?

[Sheepshank]

19. yeah---you're right.

Don't hurt the puppies!!!!!
I assume stairs are ok then....or rather not ok then?

[alfredo]

20. But standing anywhere on the pupp[y is not OK.