8 Of The Biggest Photographic Clichés

[soulman]

I agree with others here that copying ideas is a good way to learn and it can be quite satisfying to create your own lush-waterfall-with-mossy-rocks-and-milky-water shots and other common photographic topics. For me though, the fun is in trying to find something new within the constraints of the fact that everything has been done. I've seen lots of great long exposure waterfall shots and it's not often I see a really good one, so I don't tend to seek them out or do them myself. Likewise with the over-saturated sea shore sunrise/sunset/stormcloud with rocks in the foreground. I just don't see any particular reason for me to rehash what has already been done so well, so many times before. If I want to see great beach shots, I can buy books of them, or spend time on Flickr or other photo sharing sites.

There are people here and no doubt on other sites like this one, some of whom have clearly outstanding skill, who seem to just keep taking the same photo over and over again. Obviously people have their reasons for doing this, but I don't understand the appeal. On the other hand, I see a bit of stuff from time to time that puts a new twist on an old theme and this is much more fun to view for me. It's not like it has to be oh-my-god-completely-fresh-and-oh-so-original or anything, but an honest attempt to see a familiar thing from a slightly different perspective is what makes for enjoyable music, writing and most other creative pursuits I find.

I think this is why some of the most interesting work I see here and elsewhere is done by beginners - because it's done before they start learning how it's done.

[atky]

What no mention of sport or motorsport Slow pans 2/4 fronts podium shots crash shots the list goes on and on.

[arthurking83]

I agree with others here that copying ideas is a good way to learn .....

actually don't think it's a good way to learn.
I've said this before and I kind of understand it only from my point of view and experience... you tend to get caught up with the same basic ideas, and it becomes hard to break.

You're right tho, it's a good way to understand the nature of the technical aspects such as exposure, light balance, focusing, what limitations the gear has and so forth.
This can be important in becoming proficient in using the gear you have at hand. That is, how the camera handles and works and using some or all of the features it has. Understanding lens limitations such as flare, the use of filters or software to overcome dynamic range issues .. and so on and so forth.

But this would be best done in a coaching environment, where the learning can be structured, even if it's minimal. This coaching can be either on a person to person level, or via the use of forums.

But to just say that it's a good way to learn, can be a bit misleading, although my reasons are a bit abstract as to why.
I think that if you simply learn by copying, you do yourself no favour in developing your own eye.. that is your own way of seeing things.

I think this is why we get this cliché debacle pop up every now and then.
It could be due to the way we learn. Rather than simply learning the tech aspects alone, that is removed from the actual process of taking images, we teach ourselves or get taught via examples, these examples become etched in our minds and we use them as the basis for out future endeavours.

I'd be curious to see if it's possible to give someone that has never seen a photo of any kind and get them to take photos .. just to see what they see.

it was interesting to see how my son played with his first ever camera and the resulting images he shot with it. I wouldn't exactly call it cliché(but then again he can be a bit weird).
Now my daughter!! Well!.. there's a completely different outlook to life. In some ways her initial images were a bit 'cliché' to a degree, but they were of bits that would be categorised as unpostable, and even if I could I wouldn't! Needless to say her first images had to be DELETED with extreme prejudice!

[ApolloLXII]

When you think about it, there are very few photographers who are doing something truly unique.

I knew that, eventually, this would get mentioned and it is so very true. There are very few photographers whose work stands out because of it's fresh perspective and/or style.

Now, seeing how some of us would like to sell our photos and be recognised for our efforts on some sort of regular basis, which type is going to sell more or garner the most attention? A cliché type of photo that proliferates practically everywhere because it's been done to to death or a photo that stands apart from the rest because of some aspect related to it's content, subject matter or level of skill? It's a no brainer.

The one thing that ALL photographers should do from time to time is to stop taking the same type or genre of picture and try something else entirely different. Experiment, push the boundaries rather than just going over the same old ground. If you are happy shooting landscapes (or whatever takes your fancy), try a different approach such as leaving the disc of the sun out of the shot and try and capture the colours being reflected off the landscape. Perhaps a new shooting angle, it's entirely up to the individual. This applies to any other "genre" as well. The bottom line is that the real innovators and experimenters will be the ones that get the work and the recognition while the rest will wonder where the market has gone or why people are asking to use their pics without paying. Taking the same sort of pic over and over again is ok but I'm sure you will find that, if you experiment and explore with your photography, you will learn something that you may not have known of before as well as adding to your skills. The more you extend yourself, the better your photos and camera skills will become.

[Xenedis]

Now, seeing how some of us would like to sell our photos and be recognised for our efforts on some sort of regular basis, which type is going to sell more or garner the most attention? A cliché type of photo that proliferates practically everywhere because it's been done to to death or a photo that stands apart from the rest because of some aspect related to it's content, subject matter or level of skill? It's a no brainer.

If we're talking about the majority of people who buy photographic images, then my money's on the cliché image being the one that will sell.

Why? Because the people who make the stuff (ie, photographers) aren't the ones buying the stuff.

The people who generally want to buy a photographic image are not necessarily photographers or artists, and might simply like an image of a familiar subject or location -- y'know, 'postcard material', because it makes something familiar to them look good.

The exception would probably be art collectors who want something different rather than an image they can find on any postcard.

[remin]

I think at some point, people need to move away from the regular cliched photos we see everywhere, surely everyone gets bored of shooting the same thing, I know I do (but then again, my attention span if I'm not really concentrating on something, goes straight out the window).
I've tried shooting things differently, even if its only slight. Too bad they haven't turned out all that great , but getting slowly getting there.

That said, the whole idea of photography is to convey your own emotions, ideals, thoughts and/or tell a story...so each to their own.

[ricktas]

Now, seeing how some of us would like to sell our photos and be recognised for our efforts on some sort of regular basis, which type is going to sell more or garner the most attention? A cliché type of photo that proliferates practically everywhere because it's been done to to death or a photo that stands apart from the rest because of some aspect related to it's content, subject matter or level of skill? It's a no brainer.

Yeah it is a no brainer. Go to any market, and look at the photos being sold there by photographers, or look at postcards etc. Product shots, glamour shots being sold to magazines.

They are more often than not, based on the clichues.

* The landscaper at the markets sells photos of smoothed water from waterfalls, or sunsets over the beach, why, cause they sell well.
* Postcards are generally land and sea scapes of iconic local areas, for the very reason these iconic places are nice to look at. You never see a postcard of the local rubbish tip.
* Product shots, done in a light tent, with a nice white background, no shadows. Again cause this presents the product in the best way to sell.
* Glamour shots, an airbrushed model in a bikini sells..simple!

Experimentation is good, but that is not going to sell your photos. Sticking to tried and true, in what the market wants, is how to sell photos. Experimenting is what most professional photographers do in their spare time, for personal satisfaction and learning. It is not what a client wants, in most cases

Clichued Rules when it comes to selling photos.

[jev]

Perhaps we shouldn't look at the list for its contents, but the message it sends holds something pretty valuable. A cliché, according to wikipedia, is "an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect". It excludes a very important thing IMHO: originality. Sure, clichées are good to learn. But a child learning to walk doesn't make art, it's just learning not to fall over.

Would you like to see toddlers from around the world as they take their first steps? I wouldn't...
Would I go to the theater to see "the Nutcracker" performed by the Moscow Ballet? If that was my cup of tea, yes, I would!

The same is true for photography. Would you visit a museum when it was full with images of sunsets and dirty kids? I certainly wouldn't! But I do visit a local gallery that shows original work, that always has some thought-provoking or otherwise interesting imagery.

Does that mean I do never look at pictures that are described in that list? Yeah, I do... but not for their photographic value (which really isn't there), I look at it for sentimental reasons. And I certainly don't hang them from a (virtual) gallery wall for all to "enjoy".

Clichées may sell, that's true. Well-executed clichées sell even better. There obviously is a market for "crying gipsy girl". There also is a large market for Ikea furniture, but I wouldn't want to compare a chair named "Pello" with the original Mart Stam chair. The ikea chair though is sold many, many times. The Mart Stam chair, maybe twice.

[Kym]

When in learning mode I don't see it as copying ideas.

Take the average noob who is going to take a pic of a waterfall and wants the milky water effect (never having done it before).

What will they learn?
- Use a tripod?
- Use filters?
- Use low ISO?
- Use slow shutter speed and closed aperture?
- Deal with a large tonal range, esp blown hightlights?
- Some PP skills?
and put all that together to get a good result!!

They will have to try it many times with many variations and they will learn a lot.

Next time they might try HDR (which is most likely to be overcooked ) to get detail in the dark areas.

And so on!

How else do you learn this art without doing?

[ving]

call me mr cliche!

[Xenedis]

call me mr cliche!

But I cannot see your arm extending towards the camera...

And there's no Sydney Harbour Bridge or sunset in the background.

[geoffsta]

call me mr cliche!

But I cannot see your arm extending towards the camera...

And there's no Sydney Harbour Bridge or sunset in the background.

Yeh. it is a cliche shot. Should go under the bird section.
I'm sure it's some kind of goose

[Xenedis]

Yeh. it is a cliche shot. Should go under the bird section.
I'm sure it's some kind of goose

Looks to be more like a galah.

[mechawombat]

Ving

Your doing it WRONG!
you need to be wearing a bikini and standing in a bathroom or bedroom.

oh and the Duck face don't forget the duck face. Playing Duck Hunt on Facebook is so easy like shooting fish in a barrel

[ving]

Ving

Your doing it WRONG!
you need to be wearing a bikini and standing in a bathroom or bedroom.

oh and the Duck face don't forget the duck face. Playing Duck Hunt on Facebook is so easy like shooting fish in a barrel

care to show me how its done?

[mechawombat]

Here you go Ving

[arnica]

Love this thread .. I rarely see so many togs come out to defend their work/hobby.

In my opinion, it doesnt matter if the shot has been done to death, it's about your work. many have said, if you enjoy it, why should you change your approach?

[ving]

but thats not you doing it mechawombat!!!!

i want a pic of you doing it.

[Danielle10]

Yeah I take cliched photos, I've just done the smoke and water etc and will keep doing it as I'm learning that type of photography and want to use the equipment I have. I'm really happy with the cliched photos I've taken as I haven't taken them before. I k ow this thread isn't having a dig at someone just wanted to add my 2 cents

As for the selfies... My profile pic is a selfie :-P

[ving]

my only pet peve is kids with dirty faces... does the dirty face tell a story (eg, little miss found the birthday cake... guilty!) if not clean it. oh and i dont need to see running noses either