Re: Second order cliches
On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Bob W wrote: What you're talking about there are the types of photos shown as examples in books about photo composition, in which people 'obey the rules' and come out with something competent but dull. Pictorial, essentially, in that the subject matter is not important, just the formal properties. To get beyond that you have to take more interest in the subject matter, and use visual grammar as your servant, not as an end in itself. That isn't what I thought I was saying, but it's an excellent point. I wonder if there is a common stage in a photographer's development where they concentrate so much on technical mastery, that their photos become a little sterile. According to all of the rules, their photos are excellent... This is a issue across all the arts--all apprentice artists deal with this at some point in their apprenticeship. Take short fiction: there are lots of technically proficient short stories published in literary journals--and that's good--but in the end, only a few stand out because of subject--or in literary terms their characters jump off the page and the reader cares about them--or in other words--the character's are compelling--they are interesting subject matter. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Second order cliches
I think y'all are just getting wrapped around the axle over nothing. Worry about whether the photos you take express what you want them to express. Don't worry about whether someone else has already taken a similar photo. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Second order cliches
MARK! --- Original Message --- From: John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com Sent: December 6, 2011 12/6/11 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: Second order cliches I think y'all are just getting wrapped around the axle over nothing. Worry about whether the photos you take express what you want them to express. Don't worry about whether someone else has already taken a similar photo. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Second order cliches
On 12/6/2011 8:38 AM, John Sessoms wrote: I think y'all are just getting wrapped around the axle over nothing. Worry about whether the photos you take express what you want them to express. Don't worry about whether someone else has already taken a similar photo. That isn't quite what my point was. My point was more along the lines of what sort of photos do people tend to take at various points on their path of development. And, then wondering, where I can expect to go from here. Granted, there's that issue of if you know what is expected, that can alter what you do. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Second order cliches
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 l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Second order cliches
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 l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Second order cliches
What you're talking about there are the types of photos shown as examples in books about photo composition, in which people 'obey the rules' and come out with something competent but dull. Pictorial, essentially, in that the subject matter is not important, just the formal properties. To get beyond that you have to take more interest in the subject matter, and use visual grammar as your servant, not as an end in itself. Since very few of us are Henri Cartier-Bresson it helps to steal ideas from great photographers and artists (which HCB did too, of course). To steal this way you have to study the pictures you are stealing, and so you come to understand more about how they work, and you can start to build on that to develop a style of your own. B -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Larry Colen Sent: 06 December 2011 00:10 To: Pentax-Discuss List Subject: Second order cliches 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 l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Second order cliches
On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Bob W wrote: What you're talking about there are the types of photos shown as examples in books about photo composition, in which people 'obey the rules' and come out with something competent but dull. Pictorial, essentially, in that the subject matter is not important, just the formal properties. To get beyond that you have to take more interest in the subject matter, and use visual grammar as your servant, not as an end in itself. That isn't what I thought I was saying, but it's an excellent point. I wonder if there is a common stage in a photographer's development where they concentrate so much on technical mastery, that their photos become a little sterile. According to all of the rules, their photos are excellent... Since very few of us are Henri Cartier-Bresson it helps to steal ideas from great photographers and artists (which HCB did too, of course). To steal this way you have to study the pictures you are stealing, and so you come to understand more about how they work, and you can start to build on that to develop a style of your own. Excellent point, and a good point also for the discussion of photographic critique. If I ever have the time to start an online photo critique club, I can see that it would also be worthwhile to also mix in photos from the likes of HCB, Weston, Cunningham, Adams and discuss both what did, and did not, work about the photo. B -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
