# Odd views on photography



## Projectionist76 (Mar 11, 2012)

I just can't let this leave my mind; I saw this discussion on flickr and now I'm oddly frustrated by this guy's views on photography.

Flickr: Discussing why ansel adams ? in Ansel Adams (Legendary Landscape Photographer)

Is he an advanced troll or is this view shared by others?

"_I have a rule...to make a photo...There should be one of 2 criteria,
of why to take a photogragh...
The subject should be Alive or Rare.
anything...not fitting in this category...few if any pics should be taken 
of it. (I am thinking mountains...here.)

Besides the beauty or interest a photo conveys...
it also helps us remember...and gives a since of history.
Mountains...fail miserably... on all 4 of these criteria.
After all...you can not remember what never goes away.

Humanity...is tops...and life...is tops...rocks are not.
when I think of all the notable people that lived in Adams 
lifetime...MLK, Mother Teresa, Babe Ruth,Josephine baker,
Albert Einstein...the list goes on and on.
while all these remarkable people...were here....
Adams was out in the woods taking Images of rocks...
blows my mind...wish I had lived when he lived....
I wouldnt have wasted my time._"

"_I can add...my theory for what its worth about trees....
Though nature...a tree is alive....I love trees.
However, and most importantly...A large group of trees 
is a worthless photo.
How can I be so arrogant....you say.
simple logic....A photo of a large group of trees shows nothing
of them individually...only a mass of trees.
I would think it best not to photograph more than three of them,
so the uniqueness of each one, can be appreciated._"

"_Bravo...but do some people...too.
A photo is a document of history...
a landscape is never really history..it is mundane
it can be lovely at times I spose...
but again...shouldnt we focus on Humans...animals as well
not the dirt we trod upon !

mountains/landscapes dont make
it...they are the stage the actors play on.
Much like photographing the table...instead of flowers sat upon it._"

To me he sounds like an arrogant clown but since I'm kinda new to the different philosophies in photography I wonder what you have to say.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 11, 2012)

I sort of agree...

Landscapes bore me.  While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.

This line in particular stands out to me:
"_After all...you can not remember what never goes away."

_Most landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

An opinion is just an opinion. 

A writer writes. 

A barely literate writer forms a barely coherent opinion.


----------



## ann (Mar 11, 2012)

Hard to say,  it is clear to me that he doesn't care for landscape photography.

Frankly, I studied with several outstanding landscape photographers and in the late 70's decided it wasn't for me. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate well done work.

What if no one ever made a wonderful image of a mountain or tree, (fill in the blank here with any ARAT image) would the majority of the world even take notice of these sights sometimes I don't think so.

How people view of a lot of what we as photographers are drawn too is totally different. A post card shot maybe but fine details I don't think so.

Besides the west does not look like an AA photo, that is his vision and his interpretation.

Look at Clive Butcher"s swamp images how many people would see such beauty, i dare say few.

Frankly, I would encourage you not to fret too much over this , he of course is entitled to his own opinion, but these days the internet brings out the strangest folks looking for 15 minutes of fame


----------



## Projectionist76 (Mar 11, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> I sort of agree...
> 
> Landscapes bore me.  While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.
> 
> ...


But that's your opinion and it doesn't bother me the least. This guy though, seems to have a very limited view on what should be able to be photographed. He puts humans and human activity as the only thing photography should be about.
Personally manypictures of people bore me and nature is bigger and more important to me.

I guess I just wanted to rant about something that bothered me.
Maybe you have to look at the actual discussion to know what I mean.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 11, 2012)

Projectionist76 said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of agree...
> ...


Yeah, saying that you should only photograph living or rare things is a little extreme...  I think it basically comes back to the question of "what is art?" - everybody has a different answer, and this is that guy's answer.


----------



## Projectionist76 (Mar 11, 2012)

ann said:


> Hard to say,  it is clear to me that he doesn't care for landscape photography.
> 
> Frankly, I studied with several outstanding landscape photographers and in the late 70's decided it wasn't for me. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate well done work.
> 
> ...


Yes, if no one ever took pictures of our landscapes and earth not many would be able to know the planet we live on. Not everybody travels as much as I do for example. I know I shouldn't fret and care what he says but I'm new to the field and was confused.

Thanks for telling me about Clive Butcher. Very nice images!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> I sort of agree...
> 
> Landscapes bore me.  While I do appreciate the work Adams has done for the photographic field, his "work" never really did much for me.
> 
> ...





It's funny when people say "landscapes bore me". This is a great example of how individualism and opinion can be one of the most irritating things conceivable.  You mean to say, capturing a landscape and moment in time that will *never happen again *in the exact same way for the rest of time, *that is as unique and timeless as any other type of photography,* bores you? 

Saying all landscapes are boring is just crap. Just plain nonsense. 

It would be the equivalent of saying 
All portrait photography is boring.  
All sports photography is boring. 
All abstract photography is boring.  
All stock photography is boring.  
All black and white photography is boring. 
All wedding photography is boring. 

Why not take it a step further? *All photography is boring*. By your logic, this is just the next logical step, right?

It's just a cumbersome over-generalization.

I keep an open mind and appreciate art and beauty in all mediums and forms. 

I guess appreciating the beauty and finer points of our world are missed on some because it's just "boring".


----------



## KmH (Mar 11, 2012)

"_I have a rule...to make a photo...There should be one of 2 criteria,
of why to take a photogragh...
The subject should be Alive or Rare.
anything...not fitting in this category...few if any pics should be taken 
of it. (I am thinking mountains...here.)

_Who are we to say mountains are not alive.

Mountains are born, mountains age, and mountains die.  But they do so at a rate so much slower than human life.

The common fruit fly - *Drosophila melanogaster *- is often used for genetic studies because a new generation appears every 10 days or so. Drosophila melanogaster's shortest development time, from egg to adult, is 7 days, and that developement time is temperature controlled.

To a fruit fly, humans may seem as forever as mountains seem to be to people. 

So I think the guy that wrote that has way to narrow a perspective on things.

Besides AFAIC, anyone that routinely uses ... , and that won't use the shift key when appropriate, has little credibility. I only read the part I quoted here, and skipped the rest on that basis alone.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> You mean to say, capturing a landscape and moment in time that will *never happen again *in the exact same way for the rest of time, *that is as unique and timeless as any other type of photography,* bores you?



well, yes. It is to me.
It pretty much stays the same and what is different about it doesn't interest me - and my opinion is much more important to my own photography than anything you say. 
Because you think it's interesting, well go ahead and shoot it.
But your opinion about other people's likes and dislikes has no real factual or logical basis and is just an opinion.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 11, 2012)




----------



## Josh66 (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of agree...
> ...




Yes, you are absolutely correct - I can't believe I never realized how much I hate photography before.  Anybody want a Fuji GF670 and Canon 1N RS?  I'm selling all my gear now.

The answer to your question (in bold) is Yes.

Re-read what I wrote - Landscapes bore me.  Yes, it's true - I do not enjoy landscape photography.  "*Most* landscapes are very 'forgettable', IMO.."                         - My opinion, and I stand by it.  I have seen very few landscapes that were not forgotten 10 minutes after seeing it.

I also think most (maybe all) wedding photography is boring.  Same goes for stock photography - that's kind of the point with stock photography though, isn't it?  Bland images that could be used for anything...  Sports as well - not really interested...



Is it so hard to imagine that not everybody likes what you like?


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > You mean to say, capturing a landscape and moment in time that will *never happen again *in the exact same way for the rest of time, *that is as unique and timeless as any other type of photography,* bores you?
> ...



Sure, neither does yours. Neither does anyone's. But ruling out an entire sub-discipline of photography is close-minded. 

Let's take a moment and analyze your signature image.  If you returned to the spot where this image in your signature was created, are you ever going to be able to recreate the image in the exact same way? 
The light falling on the path the way it has? 
The amount of saturation of the dirt? 
The light coming through at the end of the road? 
The position of the trees? 
The position of the people?

You'd be hard pressed to get anything close to it. 

Is your photograph a moment in time that will never happen again? Yes. Was it a moment worth capturing? Yes. 

But, so are landscapes. If it doesn't interest you, fine. But when people say an entire sub-discipline of photography is "boring" to them, it's weak. 

Photography is capturing a moment in time. 

If it's a picture of a mountain, a person, a tree or a flea, it's still a moment in time.


----------



## SCraig (Mar 11, 2012)

I don't recall ever having walked out on the deck in the morning, whether it be at a motel at a vacation destination or at home, and remarking, "God what a gorgeous tree".  I do, however, recall walking out on a motel deck on numerous occasions and remarking, "God what a view!"


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> If it's a picture of a mountain, a person, a tree or a flea, it's still a moment in time.


And you really think that all "moments in time" are equally 'interesting'?


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Mar 11, 2012)

Judging by his photos, I don't think I could care any less about what his thoughts on photography are. In my opinion, the most elitist people are typically the ones who demonstrate the least amount of skill and have the least amount of experience. No reason to point out the hypocrisy of his "philosophy" versus is actual body of work.

If that's what he wants to think, let him be miserable and never grow his abilities.


----------



## Projectionist76 (Mar 11, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > If it's a picture of a mountain, a person, a tree or a flea, it's still a moment in time.
> ...


Not to everybody obviously. But everyone is different.

Hugs all around!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Yes, you are absolutely correct - I can't believe I never realized how much I hate photography before.  Anybody want a Fuji GF670 and Canon 1N RS?  I'm selling all my gear now.
> 
> The answer to your question (in bold) is Yes.
> 
> ...



You didn't say "_*Most* _landscapes bore me":

You said:



O|||||||O said:


> Landscapes bore me.



So now that you've clarified your verbiage, I don't see a reason to challenge your opinion. You're perfectly welcome to it.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> And you really think that all "moments in time" are equally 'interesting'?



Not necessarily, but unique, yes.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2012)

I like to take pictures of trees...

I like to take pictures of plants...

I like to take pictures of rocks...

I like to take pictures of buildings...

I like to take pictures of people...


I like to take pictures!


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you are absolutely correct - I can't believe I never realized how much I hate photography before.  Anybody want a Fuji GF670 and Canon 1N RS?  I'm selling all my gear now.
> ...


You're correct - I did not say 'most' landscapes bored me...  I did say that 'most' of them were forgettable though.  I think any reasonable person could have concluded from what I wrote that there might be the occasional exception to the rule...  And, it is after all, just my opinion...

To me, landscapes (most of them anyway) lack emotion.  That makes them boring - to me.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 11, 2012)

"The world is going to pieces and people like [Ansel] Adams and [Edward] Weston are photographing rocks!"
Who said it? Henri-Cartier Bresson. 

All I can put in Ansel Adams' favour is that he did manage to get Yosemite Park saved. He never set out to be a photographer. He was a pianist. His arthritis made him give up his music and so he lived as a park ranger. He just happened to photograph where he was.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> You're correct - I did not say 'most' landscapes bored me...  I did say that 'most' of them were forgettable though.  I think any reasonable person could have concluded from what I wrote that there might be the occasional exception to the rule...  And, it is after all, just my opinion...
> 
> To me, landscapes (most of them anyway) lack emotion.  That makes them boring - to me.



I don't agree my reaction was unreasonable. 

After being annoyed by the rant in the OP, I was particularly bothered by this:




O|||||||O said:


> Landscapes bore me.




Hence the reaction.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2012)

chuasam said:


> All I can put in Ansel Adams' favour is that he did manage to get Yosemite Park saved.


How?


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Landscapes bore me.
> ...


You mean the context that you chose to ignore in your quote there...?


What are you even trying to argue?  Why are you even looking for a reason to "challenge my opinion", as you said?  Can't you just accept that people are going to have opinions different than your own?

Yes, landscapes bore the **** out of me.  Why does that bother you so much?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Is your photograph a moment in time that will never happen again? Yes. Was it a moment worth capturing? Yes.
> But, so are landscapes. If it doesn't interest you, fine. *But when people say an entire sub-discipline of photography is "boring" to them, it's weak.*



You're trying to make some grand statement and your proof that the other person is wrong is that 'it's weak.'

There are lots of things in photography that I think are so boring I wouldn't turn around to shoot them - landscapes, headshots in a studio, most sports shots.
But I don't give a crap if other people like them - or hate them - or anything about them - because it's personal likes and dislikes.

So there is no great statement to be made here - that everyone should love to shoot everything because it's a unique moment in time and space.
Man, if anything sets off my piece-o-bs meter, it's that statement.








You don't like what the guy said.
You think he's a pretentious, pompous piece of empty skin - so what?
He's not making you shoot what he shoots or vice versa.


----------



## KmH (Mar 11, 2012)

John Muir and others became increasingly concerned about the excessive exploitation of the area of the Sierra Nevada mountains that included Yosmite Valley. Their efforts helped establish Yosemite National Park in 1890.

Ansel Adams was born in 1902. Ansel Adams become a Sierra Club member when he was 17, and was on the Sierra Club Board of Directors from 1934 to 1971.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 11, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > If it's a picture of a mountain, a person, a tree or a flea, it's still a moment in time.
> ...



It is not the responsibility of the photographer to entertain the audience, but rather to understand the environment which we find ourselves in. I do not think that an argument about the dullness of an image is valid: the photographer felt it interesting enough to study and document, why must the photographer cater to anything else aside from truth?

---

I don't like Ansel Adams, not because I find his work boring - any such opinion on the matter is is bigoted, as if my own world view and how it shapes my personal ideologies of aesthetic is more valid than his or anyone elses. What I don't like about Adams is the hypocrisy of the new modernist and the cult of objectivity. For me, this idea is shallow and a simplistic view of photography that the "camera doesn't lie" - yet Adams would routinely manipulate exposure in order to emphasize tonal regions of greater "importance" or drastically darken the sky to emphasize more "interesting aspects". How are such methods "objective" what is objectively "most important". Then there is the whole problem of how cameras aren't capable of recording events themselves, but rather the reflected photographic energy in any given FOV. Photography cannot ever be truly objective, and even in a pre-postmodern vantage point Adams and his f64 weenies should have been able to see this hypocrisy for the marketing tactic which it was - especially given the lack of access to color photography. How is it any different to use a red filter any less pictorial than manipulating the image after exposure?

While this is prob a fairly esoteric complain that perhaps best be left in the realms of politics and religion, what I find more obnoxious than Adams and the New Modernist approach is the worshiping of Adam's subject and style.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Is your photograph a moment in time that will never happen again? Yes. Was it a moment worth capturing? Yes.
> ...



It's because it is weak. Ruling out an entire sub-discipline of photography because you don't like it *is* narrow-minded.

I never said I photograph everything and anything, but I never close my mind to a sub-discipline of photography. I'm open to lots of different photography. It doesn't mean that I engage in all these different types of photography. 

It means I can appreciate the art, implementation, and expertise that goes into the creation of an image.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2012)

KmH said:


> John Muir and others became increasingly concerned about the excessive exploitation of the area of the Sierra Nevada mountains that included Yosmite Valley. Their efforts helped establish Yosemite National Park in 1890.
> 
> Ansel Adams was born in 1902. Ansel Adams become a Sierra Club member when he was 17, and was on the Sierra Club Board of Directors from 1934 to 1971.


I was really hoping to get an answer from chuasam, but okay.

So, it was his work on the board of the Sierra Club, nothing to do with his photographs, that saved Yosemite?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> It's funny when people say "landscapes bore me". This is a great example of how individualism and opinion can be one of the most irritating things conceivable.


 
Wait...what???

This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen put forth on this forum.

I think what would be even more irritating, is someone trying to force their opinion on those they disagree with. 
But then, that pretty much sums up politics and religion, doesn't it?

In general, landscapes bore me too.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 11, 2012)

With all due respects, this thread proves that the earth really is the insane asylum for the universe and that humans are the inmates.  Seriously, in the grand scheme of things this whole issue means what?  

No matter what we talk about, we are talking about ourselves&#8221; 
&#8213; Hugh Prather,


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > *In general*, landscapes bore me too.
> ...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 11, 2012)

:roll:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 11, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Rotanimod said:
> ...




There's nothing more irritating than improper quoting.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 11, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 11, 2012)

Since when do opinions need to be qualified?

Opinions are just that - opinions.  I still don't understand why they need to be "challenged"...

I stand by what I said - I wrote how I really feel.  You are free to feel differently, and it won't bother at all me if you do.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 11, 2012)

Particularly opinions based on taste rather than ignorance.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2012)

I could NEVER, EVER see another single photo of Half Dome, Antelope Canyon, the Grand Canyon, Horseshoe Bend, the lone Cyprus at Pebble Beach, and about 45 other tired, cliched,worn-out landscape destinations--and I would die a happy man never having seen those places in photos. One of the single biggest "issues" with landscape photography is that so,so,so sickeningly many people try and re-create the same tired old cliche shots we saw from Ansel Adams. He worked from a two-wheel drive automobile almost all of the time, so most of his popular subjects were within 100 feet of a road or highway. Not like Galen Rowell, who was UP IN THE CLOUDS, often a day or two or three days' trek from the roads, and whose landscapes were actually* inspiring and one-of-a-kind.* In the modern era, I am absolutely SICK of seeing Horseshoe Bend and Antelope Canyon....you know the two locations I am speaking of--the ones where *the tripod footprints look like three soup cans sunk into the ground*...the SAME pic is made day after day,all year long by a parade of togs...just as so many people drive to the locations Ansel Adams shot from, and plop their cameras down in the same,tired old spots...

There are other destinations (Niagara Falls,for example) that are so,so,so over-shot and cliche that the term "landscape photography" today means about 75% of the shots are just *"postcard views"*. There are some fine landscape shooters,like Clive Butcher and Alain Briot, but there are also a couple tens of million "postcard and cliche shooters" who have diluted the value of the genre. TO some people the term "landscape photography"is this same tired, worn-out, kitschy "postcard" style stuff.

But the guy in the OP...yeah...he's a bit extreme. But hey, whatever. He has his own point of view. No skin off of my nose.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I could NEVER, EVER see another single photo of Half Dome, Antelope Canyon, the Grand Canyon, Horseshoe Bend, the lone Cyprus at Pebble Beach, and about 45 other tired, cliched,worn-out landscape destinations--and *I would die a happy man* never having seen those places ....


You, our very own cranky, twisted, Derrel?  Happy????    Go on... pull the other one, it's got bells on!!!

















:greenpbl:


----------



## Projectionist76 (Mar 11, 2012)

My gripe with the guy in my OP is mainly his view on photographs of mountains and landscape as "worthless" and "mundane". And the constant talk of people, people, people. bla bla bla. Of course you owe it to yourself and others to shoot something original and not the postcard views but that wasn't my problem with this view.
Anything that the photographer finds interesting and/or beautiful is _worth_ shooting! People can then have their opinions about the work but to say it's worthless is infuriating me.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 11, 2012)

Ansel Adams did well enough. Huzzah. He was a commercial photographer who worked for a lot of the large corporations *envy*
 His images of the Kings and Kern rivers were used effectively in Washington D.C. during Congressional discussions that ultimately yeilded the 1940 legislation founding Kings National Park.
THERE!
What annoys the bejeeezus out of me are his endless copycats. People who get astronomers to figure out when to get the exact photo that Ansel Adams got. Seriously people, the picture has already been taken, why repeat it? Fanboys are so annoying.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 12, 2012)

People who expect their take on things to be taken on by everyone else are sadly deluded individuals. Yes, I appreciate other people have their own opinions; often I learn something from listening to or reading the thoughts of others (about myself as well as about them). I try to keep an open mind about photography but at the end of the day it isn't Adams, Hedgecoe or Freeman taking the photo - it's me. I choose what I use my time and film on, not some member of a forum who found a soapbox.


----------



## andywag (Mar 12, 2012)

I read a few of his responses on that thread and all I can say is that the guy is a prat and a troll.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 12, 2012)

Well, to each his own.  People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us.  Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.

That said, there's certainly a market for landscapes, as there is a market for all genres, and it seems that most people can be grabbed by a well done landscape, even if it's been done before, even if it's been "done to death".  Millions of people every year buy postcards and calendars and prints and posters of landscapes because viewing them grabs them in some way, and that includes all the ones that have already been "done to death".  People know who Adams is because his images still sell to people who find those images inspiring in some way, so they hang them on walls, put them on desk calendars, computer screen wallpapers, and all the rest of it.

If you've never stood in front of a Peter Lik print that's 4 or 5 feet wide, you may not get the full impact of what a well-made landscape can do to your senses.  Likewise, if you've never actually been to Yosemite or the Grand Canyon or the dozens of other famous places that have been "shot to death", you may not get why people can't help themselves when they're standing there engulfed in a landscape that has so much impact on the senses, and you should probably get out more and go to to those places to get a better understanding of the dynamic that drives the photographers who shoot this stuff, and the people who appreciate it.

As for copycats, that can be said of every genre.  Why shoot portraits with the lights arranged in one of the dozen "classic" ways that's already been done a million times?  Why pose your model the same way it's been done a billion times already?  In fact, you probably use the same poses and lighting over and over and over, not caring or worried at all that it's been "done to death".  You think it's really all that unique that you stick a different face in the shot each time, while using the same poses and lighting and focal lengths and DOFs from session to session to session?

A billion school head shots are identical in terms of lighting and pose and "cheese" smiles and cropping, and yet every year we get a millions more of the same.  Corporate head shots, same thing.  Glamour magazine covers have about a dozen different looks, repeated millions of times.

Still lifes, water drips, bug macros, birds on branches, seagulls in flight, every animal you've ever heard of, flowers in bloom against black velvet, sunrises and sunsets in every conceivable configuration with water or rock or grass or a barn or a couple or a lonely person, and a million more themes - done to death.  Pregnant woman holding her belly, ring in a Bible with heart shadow, muscled man holding a baby, homeless people laying in the street - all done a million times already.  And so on with a million more themes.  "Oh, how boring", says the elite "tog" with his nose in the air, "how utterly banal".

Taken to it's logical conclusion then, if you can't shoot something that's NEVER been shot before, you're just a copycat, so why even have a camera at all?

I don't hold to such pretentious, extremist, egotistical points of view.  Those who do are welcome to them, but I have little respect for such opinions, personally.  I will shoot whatever catches my eye or stimulates my senses, even if it's been done a million times.  And then I will share it with others, some of whom will enjoy and appreciate it on some level, some so much that they will buy it even, while others will find it boring and banal and not worth the time it took them to glance at it, and that's fine too.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 12, 2012)

There are fields of photography that I find boring, however it doesn't make them any less important, or valuable.  Each image is a moment in time that can't be replaced.  I find looking at landscapes boring, but would not find shooting them boring. I find weddings boring, and looking at wedding photographs boring and shooting them boring, but that doesn't make them any less important than shooting sports or portraits or static catalogue photos.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 12, 2012)

Frankly, considering the state the planet is in, I think it's VITAL to shoot landscapes to preserve the memory of how it was.  Imagine if there were no landscape shots of the Maldives.  In 50-100 years time, no one would know they ever existed.


----------



## Diffuser (Mar 12, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Well, to each his own.  People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us.  Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.
> 
> That said, there's certainly a market for landscapes, as there is a market for all genres, and it seems that most people can be grabbed by a well done landscape, even if it's been done before, even if it's been "done to death".  Millions of people every year buy postcards and calendars and prints and posters of landscapes because viewing them grabs them in some way, and that includes all the ones that have already been "done to death".  People know who Adams is because his images still sell to people who find those images inspiring in some way, so they hang them on walls, put them on desk calendars, computer screen wallpapers, and all the rest of it.
> 
> ...



Thanks god, love that post. I was almost starting to regret having opened this thread. That's a lot of negative views on photography and what can/should/should not be shot, or is done to death ... too much baggage to take out with me in my head when I go again for the next enjoyable moments of shooting ... maybe landscapes ;-)

I was just enjoying to learn more about what would be good to know to improve my photographic skills ... but 'what to shoot' or 'what not' is not something which is part of this.


----------



## Diffuser (Mar 12, 2012)

Forkie said:


> Frankly, considering the state the planet is in, I think it's VITAL to shoot landscapes to preserve the memory of how it was.  Imagine if there were no landscape shots of the Maldives.  In 50-100 years time, no one would know they ever existed.



Unfortunately, too right


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 12, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Well, to each his own.  People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us.  Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.
> 
> Taken to it's logical conclusion then, if you can't shoot something that's NEVER been shot before, you're just a copycat, so why even have a camera at all?
> 
> I don't hold to such pretentious, extremist, egotistical points of view.  Those who do are welcome to them, but I have little respect for such opinions, personally.  I will shoot whatever catches my eye or stimulates my senses, even if it's been done a million times.  And then I will share it with others, some of whom will enjoy and appreciate it on some level, some so much that they will buy it even, while others will find it boring and banal and not worth the time it took them to glance at it, and that's fine too.



No one in this thread said anything about types of photography other than their own being copycats, only that they find that uninteresting to see and boring to do.
There is no 'logical conclusion' to be drawn from that.
You are calling photographers whose points of view, whose opinions, are different from your own 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

I don't enjoy taking pictures like landscapes or birds or studio portraits that other people find enticing.  I don't care about film speeds or developes or special papers. I don't worry about raw converters or plugins.
And I don't care what other people shoot - or what they like.

I don't think that makes me 'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'

It is only when people try to convert others to their own ideas that I find them  'pretentious, extremist, egotistical.'


----------



## Buckster (Mar 12, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Well, to each his own.  People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us.  Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.
> ...


Whether you realize it or not, you fit the bill more than most.  It's because of your many a-hole coments over time that I honestly don't care what you think about this or anything else, which is why I put you on ignore long ago.  Why I bothered to even read this post is beyond me.

Back to the bottom of the bin you go now.  Have a good one.  :er:


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 12, 2012)

> Whether you realize it or not, you fit the bill more than most.  It's because of your many a-hole coments over time that I honestly don't care what you think about this or anything else, which is why I put you on ignore long ago.  Why I bothered to even read this post is beyond me.
> 
> Back to the bottom of the bin you go now.  Have a good one.  :er:


Another directly ad hominem attack because you don't like my opinions.
It must certainly be tiring to be so right when others are always wrong.

Bit, I know why you read my posts.
It's because you write these long diatribes, criticizing others and making yourself out to be the modern day version of a photographic Joan of Arc. Then you can't help but wonder how well your bursts of wisdom are accepted by the crowd.
I may be egotistical (because that's natural to be happy with oneself and it is difficult to discern) but I'm not pretentious nor extremist - and I don't think you could point out anything I've said that fits that bill.
However, since you don't read my posts, you won't know how happy I am that you aren't reading my posts and that leaves me free to make fun of you in public after your next blather and you won't know it.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 12, 2012)




----------



## KmH (Mar 12, 2012)

Forkie said:


> Frankly, considering the state the planet is in, I think it's VITAL to shoot landscapes to preserve the memory of how it was.


The planet hasn't always been this way. This is just the way the planet is now.

The planet is a dynamic place.

There is little doubt human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is changing the atmosphere. However, cyanobacteria radically changed the planet's atmosphere too - 2.8 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria are still around in abundance too, and today account for 20&#8211;30% of Earth's photosynthetic productivity, plus they convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450 Tera Watts.

Where I'm sitting here in Iowa has at several different times in the past been at the bottom of a 2 mile thick ice sheet, and at another time in the past was ocean front property.

Not many people know there is a huge metorite impact crater in northwest Iowa near Manson. The crater is 22 miles across and 3 miles deep. Few people know about it because it's complete filled with glacial till and it can't be directly seen.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 12, 2012)

Now this would truly be an Odd View on Photography.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

Projectionist76 said:


> _The subject should be Alive or Rare.
> anything...not fitting in this category...few if any pics should be taken
> of it. (I am thinking mountains...here.)
> _


_

Very intolerant, and even short-eyes view. I would ieven disagree, if he said the subject should be not boring.

A good photographer can create interesting images even from dull subjects. Without this there would be no abstract photography 




			Besides the beauty or interest a photo conveys...
it also helps us remember...and gives a since of history.
Mountains...fail miserably... on all 4 of these criteria.
After all...you can not remember what never goes away.
		
Click to expand...


"history" only plays a role in documentary photography...

I agree in a sense that I prefer images of remote mountains, those you cannot reach by road and which have not been photographed to death by tourists. Hover, even the touristy mountains can be unique in unique light and weather, or with a creative photographer.

_


> _but again...shouldnt we focus on Humans...animals as well
> not the dirt we trod upon !
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

Oh, and not to forget, landscapes change at a very fast pace these days, every time I return to a particular spot in the wilderness somewhere, there is change ... less trees, more roads, or eben worse. Speaking of Europe and Central America in particular here. I was rather shocked on my last visit to the Guatemalan highlands ...

If the pace keeps going, in 30 years time there will be no wilderness left anywhere. Good if someone did document it photographically.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 12, 2012)

The ability to find something new and original and put one's place in history is what differentiates the truly great from the "also ran."


----------



## chuasam (Mar 12, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> View attachment 4102


my subset includes "things people will pay me to do."


----------



## chuasam (Mar 12, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> > Whether you realize it or not, you fit the bill more than most.  It's because of your many a-hole coments over time that I honestly don't care what you think about this or anything else, which is why I put you on ignore long ago.  Why I bothered to even read this post is beyond me.
> >
> > Back to the bottom of the bin you go now.  Have a good one.  :er:
> 
> ...


People embrace the cliche and done a million times before because they lack the confidence, originality and talent to truly forge a different path.
To quote Robert Frost: "
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I&#8212;I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference."


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 12, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Well, to each his own. People certainly will shoot only what interests them, and I guess that's true for all of us. Same for what grabs us as viewers; Some types of images do it for us and others don't, and I suppose that can extend to entire genres.
> 
> That said, there's certainly a market for landscapes, as there is a market for all genres, and it seems that most people can be grabbed by a well done landscape, even if it's been done before, even if it's been "done to death". Millions of people every year buy postcards and calendars and prints and posters of landscapes because viewing them grabs them in some way, and that includes all the ones that have already been "done to death". People know who Adams is because his images still sell to people who find those images inspiring in some way, so they hang them on walls, put them on desk calendars, computer screen wallpapers, and all the rest of it.
> 
> ...



Very well said. Why preclude yourself from anything?



The_Traveler said:


> Bit, I know why you read my posts.
> It's because you write these long diatribes, criticizing others and making yourself out to be the modern day version of a photographic Joan of Arc. Then you can't help but wonder how well your bursts of wisdom are accepted by the crowd.
> I may be egotistical (because that's natural to be happy with oneself and it is difficult to discern) but I'm not pretentious nor extremist - and I don't think you could point out anything I've said that fits that bill.
> *However, since you don't read my posts, you won't know how happy I am that you aren't reading my posts and that leaves me free to make fun of you in public after your next blather and you won't know it*.



I respect your opinion much less after reading this. Let me guess, a 50 year old with the social intelligence of a teeny bopper?



chuasam said:


> People embrace the cliche and done a million times before because they lack the confidence, originality and talent to truly forge a different path.
> To quote Robert Frost: "
> Two roads diverged in a wood, and I&#8212;
> I took the one less traveled by,
> And that has made all the difference."



These words are very true, and especially applicable here. As Buckster has explained, most everything has been done already. So where one draws their line in the sand is largely irrelevant.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 12, 2012)

One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....

HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search


Half Dome + photo - Google Search


Antelope Canyon slot canyon + photo - Google Search


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known, shiopworn location. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or ranger station, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....
> 
> HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search
> 
> ...



But many of these look the same .. so just go there and take those images which were not taken of those places... in the worst case, take images of the photographers there


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 12, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Since when do opinions need to be qualified?
> 
> Opinions are just that - opinions. I still don't understand why they need to be "challenged"...



If you believe an opinion is often a direct reflection upon your intelligence (which I do), then when you state an opinion without qualification, you open the door to be challenged. 

For example, if I started a thread and voiced my opinion (this isn't what I believe, but for illustrative purposes): 

*"All of you who shoot with a DSLR are just too incompetent and skill-less to shoot film."

*How do you think that would go? My opinion would be challenged. I would be making an absurd generelization, and people would react to it. 

"landscapes are boring" is a similar heavy-handed generalization.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 12, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> I respect your opinion much less after reading this. Let me guess, a 50 year old with the social intelligence of a teeny bopper?



This kind of snarky little response seems to make you and Buckster  happy - and you both seem to like to wax long about 'stuff' - perhaps in  an attempt to seem deep. 
Well, it's not working, mostly because it's  all opinion with not much of anything to back it up except your fervent  desire to sound as if you know something.

My opinion is just  that; I don't expect that anyone would change their mind based on what I  say unless the ideas resound personally with them.

_*res ipso loquitur*_

Perhaps you should put me on ignore also; that would save a lot of angst on your part.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

I feel ignored here .. maybe because I do not try to polarise 

Calm down chaps. Put each other on ignore and sleep well tonight. This is just the www.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....
> 
> HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search
> 
> ...



Right Derrel, I hear what you're saying. Your point is taken.

I just feel there are too many variables to imply that all photographers take the same image at the same locations repeatedly. This doesn't factor in the variance in equipment used, time of day, weather, time of year, location, perspective, skill, or vison. I don't agree that photographing the same area is just an exercise in futility. 

But some places have surely been more photographed than others, I hear you.

There are lots of landscapes in our world that have hardly been touched by photographers as well.


----------



## spacefuzz (Mar 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....
> 
> HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search
> 
> ...



Have you been to those places?  If you havnt then you cannot understand how beautiful they are and how compelled people can be to photograph them.  I dont care if Ansel Adams shot Yosemite Valley, I hadnt shot yosemite valley and that makes all the difference.  Do you do photography for yourself or for others?  If someone took a shot of a model in the past, why would you want to shoot them?  Your photographing something thats already been photographed? (by the logic in this thread)

Its ART people, chill out.  Like politics and religion, everyone has their own opinion.  My opinion is this thread is kind of painful.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 12, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Perhaps you should put me on ignore also; that would save a lot of angst on your part.



Why would I put you on ignore? I have no angst against you.



The_Traveler said:


> However, since you don't read my posts, you won't know how happy I am that you aren't reading my posts and that *leaves me free to make fun of you in public* *after your next blather and you won't know it.*




 I must admit, I am shaking in fear at the possibility of this happening to me. To unwittingly be made fun of, _*in public; 

*_**GASP

Please have mercy.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 12, 2012)

I don't mind shooting things that have already been shot. In fact, I have a bucket list of "has beens" to shoot. The NY skyline was one, and I checked that off last month. I just LOVE to shoot, and I want to be able to have those images for myself. I don't really care who did them when, or if everyone and their mother has that shot. I've shot Yosemite before, and it is beautiful and breathtaking. Its about documenting my experience and my time there, not about taking a shot that everyone else has taken. 

Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*​


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 12, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*​



But a lot of this thread equates to someone not liking pancakes (for whatever reason) and someone else calling them an idiot for not liking pancakes. Some here are arguing against a matter of taste or preference, not a matter of skill, inteligence, or education. 

Because someone finds landscape images boring does not preclude anyone else from enjoying them.
O||||||O did not tell anyone they are wrong for shooting or enjoying landscape images. He stated an opinion of taste. His opinion. His taste. No amount of arguing will invalidate his opinion.

EVER!


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*
> ...



But remember, the thread was started by quoting someone who does think he holds the truth which cannot be challenged. Someone who does not like pancakes and who implies that all others who do like them are apparently wrong 

The discussion afterwards was just the usual thing of half-reading and anticipating things not written, ending in the usual fight about nothing or at least not much.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 12, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> _*But remember, the thread was started by quoting someone who does think he holds the truth which cannot be challenged. Someone who does not like pancakes and who implies that all others who do like them are apparently wrong*_
> 
> The discussion afterwards was just the usual thing of half-reading and anticipating things not written, ending in the usual fight about nothing or at least not much.



This. Those who aligned their opinion with him were knowingly or unknowingly subjecting their opinions to be challenged.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 12, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > Its like, oh, ihop makes pancakes, thats so cliche that you want to make them at home. Oh, so and so took that picture, thats so cliche you want to take it yourself. *headscratch*
> ...


It seems to me more like, I hate pancakes but  I love waffles, and someone calling them an idiot because they are essentially the same thing in different form 

I have no comment on the rest hah, I get that often things you type aren't quite how you would say them, and it should be assumed that its opinion unless stated otherwise (and backed up thoroughly!) ​


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Alex_B said:
> 
> 
> > _*But remember, the thread was started by quoting someone who does think he holds the truth which cannot be challenged. Someone who does not like pancakes and who implies that all others who do like them are apparently wrong*_
> ...



some probably unknowingly ... some for provocation ...


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 12, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Bossy said:
> ...


I think even the text that was quoted in the OP is 'just somebody's opinion'.  The way it was written, I guess could be interpreted as telling people what to do or how to live - but I didn't read it that way.

Just a guy expressing his opinions on what makes a good photo...  Nothing more than that.  Clearly, a lot of people here do not agree with him - but that isn't really shocking or anything.


All I'm saying is, I like what I like, and you aren't going to change my mind.  I don't tell you what to shoot, don't tell me what to shoot (or what I can't ignore).


----------



## chuasam (Mar 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum.


I have been a school photographer. It is indeed the same crap over and over ad nauseum...till you puke.
The only person who cares to look at school photos are the parents' (and relatives) of the said subject....and maybe someone else 20 years down the road.
School photos rank barely above Passport photos in terms of individuality.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 12, 2012)

Bossy said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Bossy said:
> ...


I love pancakes and waffles...I like waffles slightly more because they're crispier and can hold more syrup. mmmm But I'm not going to say no to Pancakes. 
Many people post here with the goal of finding others to agree with their own prejudiced points of view. They're not here to open their minds to something new.
I like crepes more than Pancakes...mmm wait..Hotcakes are good too.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> Just a guy expressing his opinions on what makes a good photo...  Nothing more than that.  Clearly, a lot of people here do not agree with him - but that isn't really shocking or anything.



Exactly, "what makes a good photo" ... not "what makes a good photo for him"

... whereas you clearly talked about the latter, he talked about the former, with quite some mission 



> All I'm saying is, I like what I like, and you aren't going to change my mind.  I don't tell you what to shoot, don't tell me what to shoot (or what I can't ignore).



And here you agree with what those arguing with you are saying.

So I do not get the point of the fight righ t now 


But maybe I am just too simple minded ...


----------



## jake337 (Mar 12, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of agree...
> ...




I find landscape Art boring.....


Much more beautiful in person.


It's just not that interesting to me... Oh well, I guess all forms of photography are now boring to me based on your logic.


But that is not true.


I find landscape Art boring.....




That does not mean I find the act of trying to create landscape art boring, just the viewing.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 12, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


I think I'm more of a waffle girl too. Although when pancakes get all soggy with butter...YUM. Can you believe I've never had a good crepe??? Sad day.​


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

Bossy said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Bossy said:
> ...



Try France for good crepes ... or my kitchen


----------



## Compaq (Mar 12, 2012)

KmH said:


> "_I have a rule...to make a photo...There should be one of 2 criteria,
> of why to take a photogragh...
> The subject should be Alive or Rare.
> anything...not fitting in this category...few if any pics should be taken
> ...




This is interesting. Current paradigm would say that mountains and rocks and rivers and such things are not alive. However, virus, bacteria, plants, animals and humans are said to be alive. We live, but at different "levels". Plants spread their genetic material, and only that. Animals reproduce, but also wants *satisfaction *of their needs (such as hunger). Humans are as plants and animals, but it's said we also have the ability of problem solving. Thinking about something and come up with ways to succeed.

What is life, *really? *Basically just a set of chemical reactions, controlled by physical and chemical laws. We're made up of a handful of elements, put together in the most spectacular way. It's not surprising that many biochemists are believers of intelligent design, because the chemistry of life truly is amazing. Personally, I like to think of Nature as our God.

So, at which level would a mountain live? They're mobile, but "only" due to gravity. They are formed, or born, but "only" due to continental plates colliding. They do not have any genetic material. They don't strive for reproduction, as other life forms do.


But mountains are definitely not boring. That narrow minded guy smells of a person born and raised in the city. Someone who barely knows what a cow or sheep is, let alone ever seen one. He/she sees some trees in the city park, but never witnessed a grand forests. If what's written is the true opinions of this guy, I feel sorry for him or her.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 12, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Just a guy expressing his opinions on what makes a good photo...  Nothing more than that.  Clearly, a lot of people here do not agree with him - but that isn't really shocking or anything.
> ...


I guess I just gave the guy the benefit of doubt.  I didn't really interpret it as "this, and only this, is what makes a good photo".  I think it was just his opinion on what interests him.  He just wrote it in a way that left it open for interpretation.

As far as people arguing with me, I really don't know what that is all about.  All I have been saying this whole time is that some subjects are boring to me.  I guess some people just can't stand the thought that their favorite subject bores the **** out of some people.  

Go shoot landscapes all you want, just don't expect me to jump in saying how awesome the photo is, lol.


----------



## Diffuser (Mar 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape".



I don't understand this, why? How can it be 'meaningless' when people are enjoying this and are learning and fine-tuning their skills? Isn't photography something about enjoyment in the first place, and not to impress others?
If it's all that meaningless and boring, might as well throw that camera into the bin and leave photography only for a few chosen ones ...  and buy a postcard? How much fun is that? ;-)


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 12, 2012)

Diffuser said:


> Isn't photography something about *enjoyment *in the first place,



How could you ... we are not here to have fun young man!


----------



## Diffuser (Mar 12, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> Diffuser said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't photography something about *enjoyment *in the first place,
> ...



Yeah, looks like it ;-) 

Actually, it's the same smoke & mirrors with all forums on the Internet. I would have thought a photography related forum would be different or more professional in that aspect, but not ;-)
People apparently get together to share the same passion for something, but if you see or read too much about the same, people start nick-picking on each other.

Maybe this also happens when people spend a tiny bit too much time online judging one picture after another. I can see how after a few years the next landscape picture in-line just doesn't cut the cake anymore
up to the point that it's meaningless.


----------



## spacefuzz (Mar 12, 2012)

Diffuser said:


> Maybe this also happens when people spend a tiny bit too much time online judging one picture after another. I can see how after a few years the next landscape picture in-line just doesn't cut the cake anymore
> up to the point that it's meaningless.



I have been in competitions where the judges actually will say, "oh another landscape sunset, 1 point".  And then score a studio shot very highly.  Its all opinion, and that is infuriating.


----------



## Diffuser (Mar 12, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> Diffuser said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this also happens when people spend a tiny bit too much time online judging one picture after another. I can see how after a few years the next landscape picture in-line just doesn't cut the cake anymore
> ...



I can see this happening when you say it like that ;-)

For me, being new to this all, it's quite shocking reading those various opinions people actually have about it. So I wonder if it might not be a better idea to stick to classes, books, learning material ... and keep an open and fresh mind.
It's a bit toxic to read that 'what you think is a lot of fun to learn and what can get accomplished', actually is quite boring and meaningless.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 12, 2012)

I was going to comment but I'm trying to come to terms with the fact that not everyone loves pancakes for the gifts from the gods that they are.  I think maybe some people have never experienced real maple syrup.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 12, 2012)

Diffuser said:


> For me, being new to this all, it's quite shocking reading those various opinions people actually have about it. So I wonder if it might not be a better idea to stick to classes, books, learning material ... and keep an open and fresh mind.
> It's a bit toxic to read that 'what you think is a lot of fun to learn and what can get accomplished', actually is quite boring and meaningless.



Allow me to amend your statement a bit:

_It's a bit toxic to read that 'what you think is a lot of fun to learn and what can get accomplished', actually is quite boring and meaningless to *some people.

*_The majority of people (photographers and non-photographers) appreciate nature and the beauty within it, so landscape shots are naturally appealing. Look at Trey Ratcliff, a landscape photographer on Google+.. In a matter of months he's accumulated 1.5 million followers. 

Some people don't like it. Some take it as far as to lay blanket statements on the matter "landscapes are boring" and such. Just make sure you understand that is their opinion. It's just noise. Don't allow that to keep you from an open and fresh mind. I don't.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 12, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> I was going to comment but I'm trying to come to terms with the fact that not everyone loves pancakes for the gifts from the gods that they are.  I think maybe some people have never experienced real maple syrup.



I laughed out loud. ​


----------



## MTVision (Mar 12, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:
			
		

> I was going to comment but I'm trying to come to terms with the fact that not everyone loves pancakes for the gifts from the gods that they are.  I think maybe some people have never experienced real maple syrup.



Way off topic but.....I love real maple syrup. I'm from Vermont - how can I not. 

The other day in the news, it was reported that some dude was selling fake maple syrup online but claiming it was Real Vermont Maple Syrup. The guy ended up selling it to a Vermonter for an astronomical amount. Whoever bought it knew it was fake so the cops set up a sting (kind of). They bought syrup from this guy and the Vermont agriculture department tested it and it was made from cane sugar. I believe he was arrested and charged with fraud and some other things. Only in Vermont would fraudulent maple syrup make the news.


----------



## spacefuzz (Mar 12, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> Look at Trey Ratcliff, a landscape photographer on Google+.. In a matter of months he's accumulated 1.5 million followers.



Well to be fair Trey has been around for years, perhaps just not on google +.  But yes he certainly is doing a popular style of landscape photography.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....
> 
> HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search
> 
> ...


So what?  If going there and shooting that same scene makes them happy, why should that bother you or anyone else?


----------



## Projectionist76 (Mar 12, 2012)

My second thread ever on TPF and it started infighting.
I'm sorry. 

I just wanted your views on an arrogant photography-police who actually said that people _should not_ take pictures of mountains.
That is quite different from people on here saying that landscapes are boring. 

OK?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 12, 2012)

It's all good!


----------



## Bossy (Mar 12, 2012)

Just some fun landscapes for ya  
9GAG - Just Eyegasm 2 for you guys !

​


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 12, 2012)

Projectionist76 said:


> My second thread ever on TPF and it started infighting.
> I'm sorry.
> 
> I just wanted your views on an arrogant photography-police who actually said that people _should not_ take pictures of mountains.
> ...





There are tons of people in this world that will tell you what you should be doing. but who cares. its there loss. arguing with them is generally pointless.


----------



## ann (Mar 12, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Look at Trey Ratcliff, a landscape photographer on Google+.. In a matter of months he's accumulated 1.5 million followers.
> ...



Around for years, really, he has only been photographing since about 2006 not long at all.

He has been a force for HDR and is great at marketing.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 12, 2012)

Good thread!!! Lots of smoke, but not much fire. Plenty of personal insults to go around! Snarky replies, and pissy retorts!!

Now, where's that jug of *GENUINE* Vermont maple syrup at???


----------



## Forkie (Mar 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> One thing Buckster seemingly forgot to address in his exposition about the million school portraits per year--each portrait is of an entirely different, unique individual. Not the same chit, over and over and over, ad nauseum. ANother thing--the vast majority of people who are "moved" to take landscape photos are basically just collecting cliche images on film or digital captures--just re-creating "postcard images". Basically meaningless, straightforward renditions of well known,hackneyed, shopworn locations. These peoples' time and effort would be better spent buying a postcard or two at the giftshop or tourist info center, and then striking out on their own, away from the Ansel Adams roadside attractions locations and the tourist trap landscape locations, and into the actual "landscape". But only perhaps 1 in 100 photographers does that...as seen below...same old chit, over and over and over and over and over and over....
> 
> HOrseshoe BEnd + photo - Google Search
> 
> ...



I couldn't help noticing that every single one of the photos of those places which have been photographed over and over and over are different. 

Even the water is a different colour in every single shot of the Horseshoe Bend.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 13, 2012)

I just don't understand why people get some exercised about other people's likes and dislikes and struggle both to convince everyone else how they should think and to justify what they want to take pictures of? 
It's like a religious compulsion.

I expect to hear a doorbell and someone will be there with a portfolio of pictures to convince me that this is what I should be taking pictures of.


----------



## Overread (Mar 13, 2012)

*sips coffee and glares at thread*
or would sip coffee if I liked it - it suits the mood....

Anyone got an E-Rose 5 line summary of the last 7pages?


Though if you want my take on the original post - its just one persons view on what interests them and does not interest them in a photo. Nothing more and nothing any less. If you want to take shots to interest that person by all means follow that advice, but eh I don't care nor know who that person is and they ain't paying me to shoot either so -- I'll happily let them shoot what they want to and view what they like and I'll go my way 


Oh and I like pancakes! 
(Am I safe to admit to that or am I in the pancake hating thread?)


----------



## bazooka (Mar 13, 2012)

I generally don't like ihop because it's so freaking noisy, at least during breakfast hours; but their pancakes are pretty darn good.

I also read the original thread as a guy who is just posting his theory on what he shoots and doesn't shoot.  I didn't read it as him trying to impose his will on anyone.  It does seem like a narrow view, but that's just as valid as a wide-open-shoot-anything view.  I'd think it'd be much easier to develop a recognizable style when you narrow yourself to a small range of subject matter.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 13, 2012)

iHop for breakfast? Thats crazytalk, you have to go at like. 2 am ​


----------



## bazooka (Mar 13, 2012)

Bossy said:


> iHop for breakfast? Thats crazytalk, you have to go at like. 2 am



I remember those days too, but that was over a decade ago.


----------



## Bossy (Mar 13, 2012)

bazooka said:


> Bossy said:
> 
> 
> > iHop for breakfast? Thats crazytalk, you have to go at like. 2 am
> ...


<3 awww I can relate, my iHop afterparty days are over too. 

​


----------



## TheFantasticG (Mar 13, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> An opinion is just an opinion.
> 
> A writer writes.
> 
> A barely literate writer forms a barely coherent opinion.


 
Man, that sums it up perfectly.


----------

