Every photo has already been taken. They're all imitative, in that they're all ways of looking at the real world. Don't worry about it. Paul
On Dec 5, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > There are certain photos, or types of photos, that are taken so often they > have pretty much become cliche. They're pretty, that's why they've been > taken so often, but so many people have taken pretty much the same shot, that > not only has someone probably already taken it, they've probably done a > better job of it than you. > > I'm not saying that they aren't worth taking, like I said, they're pretty, > you can learn a lot from taking just about any photo, and the opportunity to > compare your work with others is another potential learning opportunity. > > When I was on my photo walk the other day, I realized that a lot of the > photos that I was taking were playing on the theme of repeating patterns, > bikes on a row, rowboats, or canues stacked up, the "plaid" peso, I posted, > treads on a tractor: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157628282737593/ > > I think that they are all nice photos, and it takes developing the eye to a > certain point to start seeing those photos, but when I think about it, I've > seen some variation of almost all of those photos before. I realized that my > photography has progressed to the point that what I'm taking are second order > cliches. > > There is nothing wrong with these formulaic photos, and most people who don't > look at a lot of photos, probably wouldn't even recognize the existence of > the "second order cliche". This brings up a question that I find interesting, > at what point will I be taking "third order cliches?". Or more generally, > what are the different orders of cliches? > > 0th order: Just look at facebook. Duckface self portraits, or almost any > self portrait taken with a camera at arms length. The "posed" shot of > friends in front of landmarks, or people drinking at a bar. They don't make > it to first order because they are generally done without any artistic > intent, they're generally meant as "just snapshots". > > 1st order: People are trying for a pretty photograph, and these are the ones > that everybody sees and photographs: Sunsets, light shining through the > backs of waves at the beach, pretty girls in the standard poses, star tracks, > HDR, and most photos that play with low depth of field. > > 2nd order: Repeating patterns of objects: bicycles, cars, shopping carts, > skeins of yarn. A moody photo of someone, or something on a rainy day, > getting rid of distracting backgrounds by using lighting to leave them in the > dark, or blow out the light in the background. Likewise, extreme cropping and > detail shots, which get rid of distracting details in the background by not > including them in the photos, even if it means not showing large portions of > the subject. > > Note, that the above paragraph pretty much lists most of my major creative > techniques over the past couple of years. What do you consider the different > levels of cliche to be? What's next? What are third and fourth order cliches? > > > -- > Larry Colen [email protected] (from dos4est) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
