[traderdrew]

Virtually every possible image of tigers, mantids, roses, glaciers, tornados etc has been shot and re-shot and displayed over the last ~1.6 centuries.

You can almost say the same for architecture so, why would anyone want to take a photo of certain bridges and buildings?

I know one thing about nature photos, depending on who the photographer is, I never get tired of looking at them. I enjoy the nice bokeh backgrounds behind the subjects also.

[TaoMaas]

Name the genre and replace it in the OP's rant. Maybe someone should figure out what floats his boat and hit it with a torpedo.

I totally agree. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[HGMonaro]

I totally agree. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

me too!

and using a view camera is never boring... everyone who sees you wants to ask questions!

We're planning a US trip next year which is too include a roadtrip thru Yosemite and Utah NP's. Looks like I'm not allowed to take a camera, unless I take pictures of Monument Valley with the camera held on a 32.3454 degree angle. No one could have done that could they!

[Eric J]

Bob:

Very interesting and I fully agree...thought provoking what you wrote, thanks for that.

I'm also a big fan of Ansel Adams. I study his work and think constantly about his photographs. His work is immense; full of technical perfection and artistic perfection. He somehow managed to bring life to an otherwise boring landscape, I guess through perfection and proper timing (angle of light).

Anyhow, I also like this which you might have seen: Vincent Munier : Wildlife Photographer [it was posted on another forum, so it's not my original find]

Very different styles and approach; one is more alive and raw (Vincent), while Adams is a bit more like work of a perfectionist. I like both and I'm hugely motivated by both, and hopefully one day I might be able to develop my own approach or style.

Tx.
Eric J.

[bkpix]

Eric,

Munier does do nice work: Well composed, but also moody and dramatic, with just enough edge to make it interesting. And he embraces crappy weather, which, being an Oregonian, I can completely understand.


Thanks for the link.

BK

[jpzk]

While I will not pretend to be an expert in nature photography, the subject always has been a comforting one to me, I spend 90% of my photography (very amateur by the way) time doing "outdoors" photography.
That includes scenery and wildlife.

The act of doing the actual photography is often times more rewarding than the actual results I get, in spite of trying real hard to get a few keepers each time I go out.
When I am out in the wild for instance, I find that totally exciting, no boredom whatsoever.

Then the question: do I find it boring? Should really read: "When" do I find nature photography boring?

Only when I return home to view my pics of that day and realize that most of them are "flat", then I do get bored, wondering sometimes why I have spent a whole day out, specifically to take pictures, and I am not satisfied with the results. That is one big "boredom", more precisely a sense of frustration.

I could say the same things for other types of photography I try: portrait - not very good at this -; street - certainly not my best attribute - etc. But I do have fun while I am doing those type of pictures.

To summarize, I don't find nature photography per se to be boring, nor any other type, but the results can sometimes become very flat and ... boring!

JP

[Marc Langille]

You can almost say the same for architecture so, why would anyone want to take a photo of certain bridges and buildings?

I know one thing about nature photos, depending on who the photographer is, I never get tired of looking at them. I enjoy the nice bokeh backgrounds behind the subjects also.

Well stated! That's often been my goal in many cases (not all): clean shooting so the background supports the subject, not distracts from it. Easier with longer lenses of course.

Bob:

Very interesting and I fully agree...thought provoking what you wrote, thanks for that.

I'm also a big fan of Ansel Adams. I study his work and think constantly about his photographs. His work is immense; full of technical perfection and artistic perfection. He somehow managed to bring life to an otherwise boring landscape, I guess through perfection and proper timing (angle of light).

Anyhow, I also like this which you might have seen: Vincent Munier : Wildlife Photographer [it was posted on another forum, so it's not my original find]

Very different styles and approach; one is more alive and raw (Vincent), while Adams is a bit more like work of a perfectionist. I like both and I'm hugely motivated by both, and hopefully one day I might be able to develop my own approach or style.

Tx.
Eric J.

Eric J: Vincent Munier has some very compelling images! Enjoyed viewing his work very much.

Regards,
Marc

[johnmflores]

Anyhow, I also like this which you might have seen: Vincent Munier : Wildlife Photographer [it was posted on another forum, so it's not my original find]

Very different styles and approach; one is more alive and raw (Vincent), while Adams is a bit more like work of a perfectionist. I like both and I'm hugely motivated by both, and hopefully one day I might be able to develop my own approach or style.

Tx.
Eric J.

Thx for sharing. Very nice. He has a vision that's very different from current trends, which is very refreshing.

[rkj66]

Hi

Could not help supporting your opinion bkpix - even though the thread is somewhat old now.

I agree completely with your view on general photography trends. There are literally millions of shots of squirrels, sunsets, eagles in a quality far better than most amateur photographers are capable of making. So why shoot any more??

It IS boring as h?(/&). I almost get into at state of frenzy if i see another macro of a bug. It is absolutely pointless to shoot this, unless you are going to use them in a new textbook on bugs.

Look at works by - say Cartier-Bresson, Kertescz, Robert Frank etc. That is interesting photography for ya.

[AtlantaChris]

I'm going to agree with the OP's statements, but also disagree with some of them.
I could not agree more that if you are taking your camera out just to try to "duplicate" what AA did, or to mimic that shot in Arches NP that everyone has seen, then you might be missing the point of landscape photography all together. I agree with the OP, these kinds of reproductions are, frankly, sometimes, boring.
However, my landscape photography is secondary to my desire to get out and hike to remote places. I like going out early to see the lake when it is smooth as glass, going further than where the picnic benches are, etc. IF the shot presents itself, then I will get out my gear and try to capture the beauty. Maybe I'm a little strange, but I don't go out on a particular hike "expecting" to get a shot, but if I have my gear pack with me, I will be ready if there is something to shoot. I've never been to the Tetons, or to Canyonlands, or to the Oregon Coast... I would treat them just like my local parks, in that I want to hike WAY further than where most people will go. That is usually where the interesting shots are.

[philbaum]

Somehow i missed this thread, as someone else said, lots of thoughtful replies.

I was wowed by the Vincent Munier website. IMO, he is a wildlife photographer who mixes in a large element of composition in each image. Excruciatingly beautiful.

I joined a photoclub in a nearby town after buying my first dslr in 2007. Its been tremendously helpful and stimulating. I would do it again without doubt. There is one con however, i've experienced some strong conservatism from a few photographers. I suggested to one experienced photographer that we have a composition class or workshop - Answer: "we don't need it, i shoot birds. And his photos reflect his philosophy - there's always a bird in the center of each photo. Another photographer spends her time criticizing people's horizons, saturated colors and any attempt to use hdr.

One club in the area prohibits the display of any photos with color in them. Only recently have they let in digital images. Another club has a large volume of rules and regulations that would put any large corporation to shame.

my advice, make friends with the creative people you find in any organization or community, and enjoy the photographic world out there.

[normhead]

Getting into someone's head to decide if they are creative is problematic at best.

We are hardwired to be able to differentiate the subject of our focus from it's surroundings. I suspect what is being discussed here goes way beyond "the conventional wisdom as taught by whoever." A person faced with a whole confusing jumble of bushes and brush will isolate the one little bird hoping from branch to branch , and will actually select a still image taken at the best opportunity of the little critter, to remember for future reference. IN that way the camera is an extension. We isolate subjects with our cameras because that is the natural thing we do, camera or no camera. Learning techniques so that the camera does in 2D what our eyes do in 3D is hardly a product of some kind of artistic convention.

So, I'm not going to dwell on this, but long story short, you might be attributing characteristic human behavior to traditional training. And you also might be in error in your conclusions. It's quite possible that some people have discovered how humans like to view things. It could be genetic, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that it isn't. It could quite possibly have nothing to do with the opinions of magazine editors. Maybe the magazine editors are just good at knowing what we like intuitively , as opposed to because of our education. That kind of analysis would have to be addressed before I'd even consider giving any credence to the theory that I've been programmed to think a certain way. I'd have to ask, I never took an art class in my life, I was more interested in technical photography than anything artistic, I didn't learn the "rules" until I started teaching photography, and I found them to be nice guidelines but certainly not something to live by.. so how exactly did this happen, that I would be so influenced?

[BigDave]

Brett Weston started out imitating his father's style. Later on he had a style all his own. His style evolved.

I heard of a photographer that goes around shooting, actually imitating, the things that other photographers have done and sells it as his own work. How can it be plagiarizing if you have the negative???

It is easy to imitate what others have done. For me it is OK to do so under only two conditions, you are doing it to learn and you admit you were imitating the work of someone else!

Good landscape photography incorporates some basic rules and concepts, true, but sometimes the photographer needs to go beyond the basics and "see" another image. This creates a new vision. I see the problem as two fold, first, as equipment has become more foolproof, more fools are using the equipment. They are not sure what to shoot or how, but they get good exposures and they get lucky on composition sometimes. But they do not master the technology enough to repeat what they did before!

The second problem, and it is related to the first, they are not spending enough time shooting to "see" things differently. People enjoy the hobby and want to do better. I know because I make some extra money teaching them! I am always amazed how bad most of the students are in the beginning of the class and how good they get after 10 weeks or so. And I get them there by forcing them to look at things differently by NOT having them capture stuff (cars, birds, etc.), but by getting them first to capture concepts. How do you capture Rhythm? How about Tone? It makes them look harder at the world around them, and in doing so, makes them THINK about what they are photographing.

Too many people are willing to show you a nicely exposed image and pass it off as a good one. Many times it is not a good image. We marvel about Ansel Adams, but guess what, he did not show everything he shot. I firmly believe that there are two main differences between a good photographer and a bad one. First, a good photographer will get well composed and exposed images more often than not. Over time most of us can get this down. Time builds experience. But more importantly, the good photographer will know a good image and only show the good images! The bad images, or even the not so good ones, he keeps to himself and hopefully learns form them! The mediocre photographer shows you everything!

Boy, this thread has some long winded writers!

Regards,

[mysticcowboy]

I have two responses to the original post. The first is that much of what you said is true. Landscape photographers do tend to follow rules and look first for technical excellence.

My second response is, str8talk83: how arrogant. While it's true that little photography is deeply creative or new, it's also true that if the photographer likes it that's good enough. Or am I photographing to please your aesthetic? If it also happens that editors, judges or gallery visitors like the photos enough to buy them or award prizes, so what if the work looks like other's? At least it's accessible.

Creativity is wonderful. Engaging in it can be exhilarating. But it is not the only reason to photograph. Having your wife, or friend. or photo club buddy say, "oh that's nice," is good too. We are hardwired to seek approval. And I guarantee you that more people will comment positively on my landscapes than on my photos of discarded tires or my grainy black and white closeups of hands. Besides, sometimes it's nice to just shoot a technically good but "typical" photo.

So often when people put themselves as arbiters of taste or creativity the work they ooh and aah over becomes successively more and more ingrown, until only the in crowd can appreciate it. Calling the ordinary boring is so elitist.

I will refrain from sharing my squirrel photos, though they are cute. But here is a landscape that doesn't look like an Ansel Adams:

[RonakG]

Photography to me is a hobby and I treat it like a hobby. I don't care if I am taking a shot which has been done and dusted zillion times as it is still the first time for me. It gives me pleasure and satisfaction when I look at my results. One doesn't have to be different to enjoy something.

We all play sports but we aren't Michael Jordon or Ronaldo or Tendulkar, but we still enjoy playing that sport. It is not boring. Take photography in the same way.

I take photos for my viewing pleasure, not for others'.