Can anybody spend time attempting to appreciate photographs without become bored with certain techniques or subjects? The idea of 'doing something to death' is related to the concept of kitsch (homework: read all the earlier threads in this group), but I think it is slightly different. A photographic cliche refers to something that can be quite powerful in small doses, but as the viewer becomes exposed to ever more examples, it loses the power to please? Maybe the concept of cliche is unique in that it is extremely relative, only growing in the viewer's eye through repetition. I suggest that it is often a shared relativity, with large numbers of photographic consumers often experiencing the phenomenon of photographic cliche in parallel (1X can use up a lifetime of umbrellas in just a few short weeks).

 

I readily admit that the more often I see something that can easily be categorized as a common subject or form of processing, the harder it is for me to be impressed by it. I would like to think that I actually am open to having profound experiences of visual aesthetic impact from kittens, milky waterfalls, or über haloed images with colors and contrast from some parallel universe in which Ansel Adams would have been a bookkeeper. I try to keep an open mind, and every once in a while, I do encounter a photo of a puppy dog that actually does knock my sox off (or chews them up when I'm not looking).

 

What do you most like to dislike? What's your photographic pet peeve that just won't go away?

 

Are you a photographic Scrooge, categorically against any and all examples of cliche, or do you encounter the occasional Tiny Tim of a kitty cat or bird on a stick that is so well done, so exceptionally created, that it transcends cliche in your eye?

 

Do we all start by creating photographic cliches, and learn to go overcome it as we mature as photographers? (Dare I phrase it 'improve in our art?')

I am only interested in the image itself.

I don't care if a motif or a "making of" is repetitive. To me that doesn't tell anything about the quality of the image but only about the artist.

 

If it is what some might call a repetition, i will not find a new inspiration but may have a nice time while watching something nice or only slightly new. Even if an image is repetitive, it might have an aspect of "new" in it?

 

I very often find a convulsive search for fresh and new ideas often more boring and distancing as a well done remake. That only depends on the quality of the story. If that it weak or only beauty without depth, i feel bored. But that again is not a matter of repetition but of the concrete content

 

No I still enjoy images for themselves, and don't compare them or measure them in comparison to the photographers creativity or luck (what he just witnesses).

My few observations:

 

1. Cliche is relative to viewers. An image may look original to a novice but a trite to a seasoned master. Meanwhile, an untrained eye may not detect the subtle difference in a piece of work that looks familiar in appearance (we often fail to see the variation and refinement).

 

2. Special approaches and subject matters are more likely to become cliches than common ones. It is because the beauty of being "special" or "unique" will be destroyed when repetition makes it not special/unique anymore. For example, we have seen too many portraits of women with hairs blown up by wind or fans (even for indoor portraits) and we may be fed up by this "special" treatment; but we may not have problem with much more portraits that use ordinary methods.

 

3. Cliche often reflects "acquired" taste. We actually have two directions in our aesthetic experiences: repetition can make us feel bored, but can also help us get used to something and develop a desire for it (this is partly why we love some of our traditions).

 

Overall, I believe that the excessive supply of something will diminish its value.

 

When reading this, a recently found article came to my mind https://expertphotography.com/top-10-photography-cliches-you-should-avoid-to-improve-your-photography/ where the author adopts a more or less radical approach regarding (avoiding) clichés in photography. With regard to flowers, I rather disagree as I find them a so vast photographic field that it is almost exempt from beeing cliché. But this is as much my personal view as the author expresses his view on clichés. He addresses the beginners in photography, but I think also more experienced photographers may find food for thought in this article.

Well if you do plenty of curation you will come across some motifs that you see all the time and get quite bored of even if they are really well executed. Here are the most common:

 

1) Fisherman throwing nets.

 

2) Bull rider with spraying mud.

 

3) Butterfly.

 

4) Robber fly.

 

4) Staircase.

 

5) Rocks and milky water.

 

6) Milky Way sky.

 

7) Old face.

 

8) Lonely tree.

 

9) Lonely boat.

 

10) Sunset.

 

There are excellent and exceptional photos of all the mentioned motifs, but they are really done to death so they need to be super good for me to be interested.

 

Like Jay said, I think it can be a good idea to take pictutres of common motifs in the beginning of your photography career to learn to perfect basic techniques and eventually finding your own style.

Umbrellas.

i think that unfair, therefore:

 

hats

birds

clocks

rocks

fog

rain

snow

man on overloaded bicycles

man at work

fire and smoke

empty streets

blurred skys in architecture

traits of car lights on a street

cars

horses

whales

fish

dogs

cute children

beautiful looking, young, more or less nude women, lying around as if lost...

 

the longer is think, .... i should sell my equipment, all is done :-)

 

i doubt that the motive alone might lead to a solution how to qualify. On a daily base is see images of the mentioned motives, which invite me still to look at and enjoy.

 

it is the point Ralf mentions by right: "super good done" and an often seen motive is a winner again.

 

PS: only to go for shure :-) I don't mean my list serious. It is meant humorous, to overemphasize and by that to make my point

Ralf and Christoph have given very good examples. Let me use one of them to illustrate my point: special subject matters or approaches are more likely to become cliches.

 

No one thinks portrait of people is a cliche, but portrait of cute children can be. Why? Because cute children are "special" (in relative terms, of course). However, when people chase after this "special" motif, we will see too many of similar pictures therefore they are no longer special, and we get bored about them.

 

It is not that we cannot take picture of cute children any more. But, as Ralf pointed out, we have to be "super good" for that.

 

On the other hand, if we do not intentionally look for cute children (or old people with deep wrinkles), but study people's characteristics and personalities, we are more likely to capture something new, as there are infinite types of people around us.

 

It is the same for special approaches (e.g., frame in frame, slow exposure for water falls, hairs in wind for women, etc.). We cannot use them as formulas and apply them over and over again. Instead, we should ask the following questions when we take a picture: What am I going to capture? What in that touches me? What is the best way to present it?

 

It is better, I believe, if we start from life (i.e., what stirs our heart), not from what is fashionable, we may end up with less cliches. Life can be common in appearance, but it contains unlimited possibilities and it is a rich source for inspirations. If we start from concepts, although it is needed in many cases, we may deplete our ideas quickly. Good photographers will find things extraordinary out of the ordinary, not apply the extraordinary ideas repeatedly and turn them into something ordinary or cliches.

 

I agree with Thomas. It is not the "flower", but rather the inclination to follow fashions (what is popular), that causes cliches.

There are some very common depictions that might look interesting to a large number of people the first time that they see them, and may always have a level of interest to a small number of people, but for the rest of us, 'visual fatigue' occurs.

 

The first time someone managed to capture a photograph of a bird in the wild, it must have been quite extraordinary and interesting. But at this point in my photographic journey, I struggle to work up much enthusiasm for a static photo of a bird sitting on a stick.

 

I think I used to like waterfalls, but over the past couple of years, I've seen enough to last me for a few decades. A few of them still do manage to visually stimulate me, and its usually when the photographer has avoided turning the water into milk.

 

I like old rusty machinery. I probably don't like it as much as some people like kittens and puppies and birds, but I like it, and I probably have more appetite to see photos of rusty machinery and crumbling walls than do most people. For a couple months back in 2008, I thought Photomatix was a really cool way to portray the texture of old things. I still think it is great way to depict texture, but my tastes very quickly evolved to something that avoided lurid colors and deep halos.

 

Cliche can start with the subject, or it can end with the technique--in either case, it represents a relative lack of photographic vision. Cliche requires no imagination, because it is a form of imitation.

 

 

These are very well said.

1. Make a distinction between images and artists.

 

2. Something old may contain something new. We need first to develop the capability to detect it.

 

3. Trying being new for its own sake is a cliche as well. For me cliche is a result of following fashion.

 

Also:

 

Repetition is something we cannot totally avoid. As a matter of fact, our vocabulary (language) and mode of thinking are part of our traditions (we are always within some cultural or intellectual paradigms). When we speak, 99% of the ways of expression are shared by others. That is the base of our communication and continuation of history. But on the other hand, we do need something fresh to break existing paradigms to move forward. That is the evolution of history. But I am not going to change the current topic to this more general philosophic one here. Just what to remind us that things are subtle and complicated.

 

This does not mean we do not have a problem of cliche. We do, and I personally dislike cliches, especially the blind and excessive repetition of something that has been proven to be successful.

 

I have common experience. Things change nature through time. As we see more, we become more "sophisticated" and less forgiving, meaning that we are less likely to be impressed (but rather bored) by something that used to appear exciting, or still exciting to many others.

 

On the other hand, as we move forward, we also learn to appreciate something that looks common but contains substantial differences in terms of refinement and further cultivation. Just one example: Chinese calligraphy presents the same characters in thousands of years. But we can still see different styles, qualities, and personalities, which beginners can hardly detect. I enjoy classic portraits and traditional landscapes, partly because I can see the photographers' intentions and efforts relevant to the particular objects/subject.

 

But I do not like cheap repetitions. As Jay pointed out, lack of vision (or one's own vision) is the problem.

 

Anything that isn't a one click capture, IE a photograph. So:

 

Creative edit

Conceptual (with more than one image)

Any exercise in fantastical Photoshop processes.

 

You may as well be a painter not a photographer.

 

Photography is about capturing the story in the instant it happened not creating something that is only in your mind.

 

My words do not really do this reply justice but I guess you will get my message.

 

Don't tell that the darkroom artists like Adams :-) He is not a photographer according to your point of view :-)

 

Staged street shots (Doisneau and many others) are created in mind -> not photography according to your definition

 

I am afraid, that the question about cliche cannot be answered by a technique only or a purist demand of "out of the cam".

I know cliche images done out of the cam and deep thought messages done in CE or massive editing.

 

The story behind, the thoughts about content a n d making of -in my eyes - make the difference.

 

Don't tell that the darkroom artists like Adams :-) He is not a photographer according to your point of view :-)

 

Staged street shots (Doisneau and many others) are created in mind -> not photography according to your definition

 

Christoph, I think you are not quite seeing my point. Adams worked at his images but they were still one click, one image however contrived they were.

My point was about images that are not photographs when presented but amalgams of images and process. The two forms should not be compared together. Each has its place and I am not saying that constructed images are wrong. They are just not photographs.

I agree I am going a bit off topic but I feel strongly about this topic

 

 

True. But sticking to vision is not always the motivation since it is the harder path. If people "think" there is a formula to success they will follow that formula. Photography seems more and more to be a battleground of concepts ... the most unique and new concept wins. And the moment there is a winning concept it opens the floodgates and the same concept gets iterated endlessly aka derivative works.

 

But how is this any different from the repetitions of concepts in classical art? For e.g. Trinity or Madonna and Child to take two themes from Christian art. The way I see it we don't complain about them quite as much because each work has the touch of the artists hand creating so much differences in the details. The hand creates infinite variations and such nuances are captured that we can see for ourselves the different mindset and approach of the artist although the concept is identical. When we recreate a concept in our photography can we ask ourself what new we are adding? Even if its the exact same idea can we try to differentiate ourself and add our own special touch? If the in-camera file does not bring out this difference can we do something different in post-processing with Photoshop?

 

 

I completely agree with you. However if we limit photographers to only capturing reality we lose a lot of creative ideas which we need. Allowing manipulations in camera, post camera and subject staging, allows photographers to overcome the limitations of reality and better express the ideas in their minds. Yes it is no longer photography in the true sense but that does not matter in my opinion.

My original intent with the thread was to discuss specifically the concept of cliche, and I'm not convinced that highly constructed photographs should be referred to as such. I'm happy to enter into an extended debate on the topic 'What is a photograph' , but I suggest starting a new thread in this same Forum.

 

As a purist yourself, I'm sure you can appreciate the benefit of maintaining very precise and strict taxonomical practices, yes? ;-)

Cliches, inasmuch that I am tired of them myself remembering thousands of photographs, are there because that's what most people like. A beautiful girl is relatively more cliche than a not so pretty girl but time and again statistically people will like more beautiful girl portraits than other portraits. I am tired of umbrellas being one of the focal points but most people will continue liking it no matter what. As a photographer, you can try to get rid of all cliches in your photography and then most likely less people will like it but a few might like it more. Then you can choose your audience and decide whom you would like to please. You can always say "I'd like to please myself only" and that is partially true but only partially, otherwise we would not be here on 1X, trying to please at least curators as well ....

 

I think it's far more easier to make an image that is not a cliche, if you want to make an image with an idea or subject that has been photographed a lot before you have to distinguish your image from other already very good images. So I think when someone can beat a cliche like for instance the lonely tree I really don't care that I have seen a lot of lonely trees before.

Person (almost always a woman) behind a piece of glass covered with water drops.

and more umbrellas

 

you can't have too many umbrellas

 

LOL! I have a woman behind the glass here, wintery landscape reflection instead of water drops. Half a cliche ;-) ?

Transcendence of a cliche.

 

It's easier to make a non-cliche, true, however it's harder to please most with a non-cliche. This is not a cliche: http://1x.com/photo/258882/all:user:45800 , liked by relatively few. This is cliche, for those who know, and is widely liked: http://1x.com/photo/569087/all:user:45800 . There are two main types of viewers: those who look at photographs only occasionally and those who have seen it all. Old timers might remember my discussion The Public and The Elite, largely on this topic (http://oka57.livejournal.com/36981.html ). So, it is easier to please public with cliches, exceptional or not, does not matter, and really mostly only experts are bored with them.

 

So, it is easier to please public with cliches, exceptional or not, does not matter, and really mostly only experts are bored with them.

 

I think this hits the nail on the head. Well said

 

I agree with you on that, it's also the reason why I'm am here, on two other websites where it's all about popularity I almost never received a comment or something like that. How can I learn something if nobody says a word? If a website is based on votes my images end up on page 100 really quick, never to be seen by someone again. I'm glad there's a change to get your image published here when your popularityscore is lower as 60% :))

 

But for me the fun part is transforming an idea into an image. Photography is not my job, for me it's just for fun so I don't have to please the public. I think I couldn't enjoy making something that I have already seen before.

Photographer and clinic-giver Mike Moats has a very compelling set of slides that consists of 'here is what I have found sells,' and 'here is what photographers like'. He came up with a set of characteristics for things that people who buy photographs want. He's also heavily involved with the new Topaz Glow filter, which likely will never be used to create a well-regarded photo on 1X and will likely never result in a first prize in a local camera club--but the filter is fun to use, and I can easily envision success with it in the microstock market.

 

I used to belong to a camera club in Bracknell, Berks, and had a chance to work with Brian Steptoe, FRPS. He's one of the organizers of the 'contemporary photography' group within the Royal Photographic Society, which is trying to encourage photographic work that isn't necessarily created with the intent of winning photographic prizes, but, still has significant human value. When I was in the club, we did a book project together, and I saw in the RPS Journal that he recently organized an exhibit on photographic books.

 

My most fulfilling photographic experience was in high school. My home town has benefited from some very enthusiastic and capable teachers who generated a multi-decade tradition of journalistic excellence (still continuing after 40 years). Our yearbook was a serious publication, and the constant challenge of having to capture useful, let alone attractive and interesting, photographs of all genre: sports, portrait, drama, snaps, closeups, etc was incredibly stimulating. You can see my favorite stuff in this time capsule: http://photos.heiserhollow.net/index.php?album=That%2070s%20Show/BHS1978/Favorites/

 

No longer having a yearbook to work for, the most interesting photographic challenge I've been able to come up with is trying to get blue ribbons in club competitions and accrue points on web sites.

 

Yes, I've certainly got photographs that please me personally, and that is fine. But isn't it much, much more exciting to please someone else? Anybody can like their own pictures. Its much more interesting for me to make pictures that other people like. The trick lies in figuring out your audience.

I see here +- 500 images/day and many similar, cliche images!

 

Try to make the difference:

 

Go out shooting when all others stays in.

Point left when everybody point at the right.

Avoid places or themes who are photographed dead.

Wait for the good light and mood in landscape/nature.

Make sure the composition and crop in strong in architecture.

Tell a strong story in street/everyday/documentary.

Photograph the soul and expression of a model.

Be honest in macro and original in subject.

Make us laugh with humor pictures.

The night can be very special.

A nude picture can use an artistic component... etc.

 

The mood and impact is more important the a technical non saying image IMO.

 

Try to make our job more pleasant and surprise us.

 

P.S. Adams and many other strong photographers are the past, we are in 2015 and discover young photographers with a new style "out of the box", we should also appreciate them, they will become the Adams... in the future IMO

 

Wish you all success and a lot of photo pleasure:-)

 

/Ben

Excellent the part about Adams and the future Ben.

Thanks for the insights you offer

I think we need to look works of the legends like Edward weston and many more non-cliche photographers that shoot those photographs as a reaction of common photography cliches or ideas behind photography.. they were got a big amount of reaction by ''cliche'' lovers at there time. Trying to take non-chliche photographs is one of the most hard and honorable occupation of our time yet we are still same as a society for years. Edward weston got criticized because shooting a photo of a vegetable at that time and calling it hard. its been years for now but we still criticizing photos that tried to brake there chains.. what we are thinking... sad really ı now there is quite a lot modern photographers and lovers but they are the minority with all that major thoughts... at the and of the they whats art if there is no change in it..

Doruk Kurt

I'm ready to not see any more pictures of people looking at their mobile phone.

I am a bit fed up with all those skinny models overdressed outdoor, or long exposures.

 

These two "trends" in photography nowdays i do NOT like:

 

Adding vingette in post process, i hate it when people over use this,

Vingette setting is there to compensate if your lens makes vingette.

but almost every other photo i see, has copious amount of Vingette.

If you go and see the published photos, you don't really see it. wich is good

 

and secondly, the over use of "Clarity" setting. These are setting to compensate errors in the photo for example, if you take a photo with lots of light coming from the background, adding little clarity is not a bad idea. But again, almost every other photo i see, is floooded with copious amounts of added Clarity... why is this?

My understanding of 'clarity' is that it provides control over midtone contrast. Like tonemapping, it is a mechanism that allows you to emphasize texture. As such, I wouldn't characterize it solely as a form of 'correction'. Virtually any form of processing that allows manipulation of the tone curve has both 'corrective' and 'creative' implications.

 

Its really easy to just crank up the slider and make a dramatic looking image, without putting much thought or effort into it (and the same can be said of vignetting). Some of these images look like movie posters, and pimped up Instagram shots, so people are naturally drawn to a technique like that, and I think its valid to treat that as a photo cliche.

 

It is the case that no photographic output medium can provide as rich a display of information as the human eye and brain are able to perceive. All photographic technologies are compromises, using a limited set of dynamic ranges to present visual data to an eyeball that is accustomed to a much wider tonal range. The technology makers, and the technology users, are always forced to choose a subset of what the eye can actually see. Sometimes, this compromise consists of making the image bland and 'realistic' looking (but nothing based on a computer monitor or computer printer is fully 'realistic' today). Sometimes, the compromise consists of isolating one aspect of the subject, and using the limited dynamic range of paper and screen to depict that.

 

Digital photographers have a growing variety of tools that allow them to isolate and manipulate relatively narrow contrast bands. The Clarity slider in ACR was a start. Nik and Topaz are offering additional sliders, to allow more subtle and precise use of 'clarity'.

Jay Heiser, i checked out your photos, and the way you use clarity settings is just perfect. It doesn't look "pimped-out" or almost HDR kind of over-the-top clarity. You add impact to your photos, but they don't yell out "POST PROCESSINGGG". love it! I wish all photographers would think more about their way of post processing, not just: "hey this looks cool, lets crank it UP!!"

Thank you for saying that--I work very hard to find a balance. I do change the degree of midtone contrast of some of my photos over times, as I continue to experiment, and tastes change, and I do listen to critique and suggestions. I like texture in my 'abandoned' images, but I don't want those photos to be just about processing.

 

I've got a lot of images that are the result of combining bracketed exposure in Photomatix, almost all of which use Exposure Fusion (a couple use Tone Mapping), and I've got other images that are based on a single exposure, and both approaches are used in the same portfolio--its what works for each individual image. Nobody has figured out whether they are 'HDR' or not (technically, Exposure Fusion is not an HDR technique), and I prefer to keep everyone guessing.