View Full Version : Delicious Clichés
Sometimes when I go out into the field I can't help but feel I am merely wading through photographic clichés, pointing my camera at prototypically overdone scenes and basically gorging myself on raw visual syrup. But gosh darn it, sometimes it feels good to be a junkie! What could be more trite than Ye Olde Waterfall shot, right? But sometimes it just doesn't matter, I just need my fix of gooey color and oversharpened microdetail. Maybe it's like the pizza of photographs; you've done it all before but it's still good. This is my first box of Porta 160 and so far this is the only color LF photo I've taken which I actually like. Kind of grainy (even without my sharpening madness) but this is the closest I've come to not despising the dreary matter-of-fact color image. It gives me even more respect to you guys who shoot great color stuff, cause damn—it ain't easy to do!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3085682527_9958ecc796_o.jpg
Charles Carstensen
8-Dec-2008, 10:33
Great shot. Excellent contrast, color and composition. It is one slow shutter speed photographs of water that I like. Will make a great 30x40 print - eh?
I thought I'd seen all of these,
but that one really stands out-
very good indeed-
joseph
Actually this one was one of the faster shutter speeds. I did four frames in total. The others are all super smoothed-over (and two out of focus:mad:), but this one was luckily not bumped out of focus AND had good water detail. Now that I think of it I shot this horrid cliche on three different films, Porta 160, TMAX and Velvia 50. Haven't seen the Velvia yet, but I suspect I cocked it up. You get so spoiled winging it with bw film and then the chrome comes along and says, "NO! WRONG meter reading! It should have been f/22.005 not f/22.000 you silly fool! Exposure denied!"
It will make a good 23.75x23.75" someday, but as fate would have it I've got matte paper and MK black in my Epson. Hmph. Should have bought the damn HP instead.
Bruce Watson
8-Dec-2008, 10:53
Great minds think alike maybe -- here's mine. (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=nc&img_num=1) From the other direction. In B&W. But the shutter speed is about the same ;-)
I like it myself. My wife likes it so much she insists that it's always hung somewhere in the house. What's wrong with liking cliches? Popularity is what makes them the cliches they are, yes?
Why does it look like it was polished with steel wool?
Monty McCutchen
8-Dec-2008, 11:17
Nathanm
this is very well done
monty
Why does it look like it was polished with steel wool?
Might be where his comment of "over-sharpened" comes in...but it works well.
But if we are talking cliches...what about this one! I took it to play with the 28" element of my 12-21-28 Turner Reich on my 8x10, but I actually fell in love with the image and its light.
Vaughn
Richard M. Coda
8-Dec-2008, 11:29
Great image! Yes, color is hard for us BW guys sometimes. I'm just getting the hang of it after 27 years of BW! In fact, I take Rod Klukas' LF class here in Scottsdale. Our "final" is Wednesday night. I'm showing 16x20 color prints from 4x5 Velvia just to shake everyone up a bit. And now for something completely different!
Paul Kierstead
8-Dec-2008, 11:58
Wow, that really works. I am no big fan of fuzzy water shots, but I quite like this one; it certainly has a more abstract quality the keeps the eye and mind.
Donald Miller
8-Dec-2008, 12:10
Really very well done. I like this a lot.
David Karp
8-Dec-2008, 12:32
One of the things that make this such a nice photo is the fact that it is not really all that fuzzy.
And isn't it a cliche to worry about whether or not someone's photo is a cliche?
Well, I only worry about my own photos being cliché, but I suppose if everyone adopted that same view then nobody is actually worried about cliché. If that makes any sense. If we apply Ansel's score\performance analogy then it might be a case of starting off with a really cliché score, but making up for it with great performance. So even though I felt guilty about aiming at moving water the end result still made it worthwhile. Something like that…
I should be so lucky as to make cliched photos like all of the above.
David Karp
8-Dec-2008, 13:21
I guess that my attitude is to make the photo, regardless of whether it might be cliche or not. Had you self-edited and not made the photo, we would have been the worse for not seeing it, "cliche" or not.
Arne Croell
8-Dec-2008, 13:22
another cliché - mountain and moon... (showing the Fründenhorn in Switzerland)
Terence McDonagh
8-Dec-2008, 13:40
I just ask myself a few questions:
[1] Do you like the photo?
[2] Would you like to see it hanging on your wall?
[3] Do you have a friend who wants a copy to hang on THIER wall?
A "yes" to any of the three means I don't care if it's a cliche.
I had a lot of photos of steel mills and bridges (I'm a structural engineer) that I didn't know were cliche because I hadn't yet "discovered" Bernd and Hilla Becher, or David Plowden.
So I'll raise the next topic. Is it a cliche if you don't KNOW it's a cliche?
Terence McDonagh
8-Dec-2008, 13:44
And Nathan, I think the photo is fantastic.
Although I think it's even stronger if you drop the bottom third or so (the last little "bay" of low water), where it loses the variety of color and becomes a more uniform blue.
This is how it first appeared on my screen, and I think it has a bigger impact. Very, very vibrant and dynamic.
gmoizant
8-Dec-2008, 14:25
HELLO ,
really nice ,
which speed and aperture ?
Best regards
Brian Vuillemenot
8-Dec-2008, 14:52
HELLO ,
really nice ,
which speed and aperture ?
Best regards
Great shot- cliche is by no means a bad thing. There's a reason why certain photo subjects become cliche- because people really like them (and they sell)!
AutumnJazz
8-Dec-2008, 15:01
Nathan, the picture in your OP looks like a freaking painting...
Why does no one upload desktop-sized pictures? I need new backgrounds! :(
Good question, Gmoizant. I can't remember exactly, and didn't take notes; but it was most likely 1/15th or 1/30th, maybe faster. I know the shutter on my 180mm lens sticks open at anything longer than 1/8th so it must've been faster than that. ƒstop might've been ƒ5.6 or ƒ8. Usually I hate opening up the lens, but in this case I was able to use scheimpflug without having to worry about blurry tree trunks. Nice. I also think I might've refocused this particular exposure after manhandling the camera with the big heavy Grafmatic back. I am pretty sure the rear tilt got mashed for the first shots.
I just got the Velvia shots back for this one. Not as good. Most of them turned out fine, but I am a little disappointed in that there's no grossly oversatured lovin' happening. They look quite natural. Hmph.
QT Luong
8-Dec-2008, 15:14
The only real drawback of doing cliches is that they will not end up in the art museum.
Probably true, but more than likely the only way I'll end up in the art museum is if I pay the admission like everyone else! Ha!
The bw conversion looks pretty nice too. But there's no way in hell I'm shooting color and converting to b&w on a regular basis; too dang expensive!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/3082135722_44cd4cb63b.jpg
Nathan Potter
8-Dec-2008, 18:09
Like Terrence above I like the focused sense of motion in the top part of the image. Imparts a sense of exhilaration to me. Cliched or not, manipulated or not, this is terrific photography.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
AutumnJazz
8-Dec-2008, 22:05
I don't see how the OP is an example of a cliché.
Glad to hear it! Well, maybe cliché is not the right word. Maybe commonplace or prototypical? I dunno, it just seems like moving water photos are one of those things photographers visit quite often.
What would ya'll consider a true photographic cliché subject? How about the 'ol holding-up-the-leaning-tower-of-pisa juxtaposition? Ha! Anyone done a proper large format, alternative process print of your friend holding up the tower? :p
AutumnJazz
9-Dec-2008, 02:18
It looks like a painting to me...I really like it.
And water is all around us; it is more-or-less impossible to avoid it.
walter23
9-Dec-2008, 02:27
Cliché? Bah, what's not cliché now? How many billions of photographs have been taken in the last decade? The last century?
I don't think there's a single original thing left to do. Of course if I could think of it I'd do it :)
arca andy
9-Dec-2008, 02:53
Cliches? 90% of all photographers produce cliches, the other 10% are using large format!
Well may be not, but isn't the same in all creative industries, be it music, film, graphic design, what ever, that only 10% of the the work produced is original and the other 90%, at best, are just good copies??
May be originality is the thing that sets a great photographer apart from an good one?:)
Brian Ellis
9-Dec-2008, 09:57
I just ask myself a few questions:
[1] Do you like the photo?
[2] Would you like to see it hanging on your wall?
[3] Do you have a friend who wants a copy to hang on THIER wall?
A "yes" to any of the three means I don't care if it's a cliche.
I had a lot of photos of steel mills and bridges (I'm a structural engineer) that I didn't know were cliche because I hadn't yet "discovered" Bernd and Hilla Becher, or David Plowden.
So I'll raise the next topic. Is it a cliche if you don't KNOW it's a cliche?
I had a photo instructor who used to relate a story about devoting her MFA project to people wearing masks. Amazingly, neither she nor her faculty advisor knew of Ralph Eugene Meatyard's work. So she finished the project and it went before the committee that reviewed MFA projects where she unfortunately encountered someone who did know of Meatyard's work. They trashed her project, not exactly on the ground that it was a cliche' but because she was copying someone else. The fact that she didn't know she was copying someone else didn't matter. Applying that theory to cliches, I'd say it's a cliche whether you know it is or not. :-)
Wow! To hell with the photos, I'm gonna change my name to Ralph Eugene Meatyard!
But seriously, it's good that they cracked down. A little late though. Personally I would've flunked her for taking pictures of PEOPLE, nevermind the masks. Cripes, people have been photographed before. Like, a long time ago 'n stuff. What a ripoff artist! If we don't stamp out that kind of blatant copying the next thing you know you could have insane things like pictures of naked women or something. Dude, that is SO 1800s!
Wow! To hell with the photos, I'm gonna change my name to Ralph Eugene Meatyard!
Unfortunately, it is not pronounced "meat - yard"...
I guess it is one thing to know one is copying someone, but another not to know one's photo history and unknowingly copy.
Vaughn
Terence McDonagh
9-Dec-2008, 15:02
But there are so many obscure tangents of photographic history that you'll never know all of them. How many photography "fads" have we had just since the 1970s? Will sun-dappled slot canyons be cliche forty years from now when everyone forgets the current fad of them?
Folks with digital cameras and HDR software will still be "discovering" slot canyons decades from now. And ruining the photos.
I would like to see the photos referenced in Brian Ellis' story, because it would take much more than just a mask-wearing person to be considered a copy. I would assume there's a lot more similarities than that.
The unknowing copy\unknowing cliché thing works both ways, though. If the viewer also hasn't seen the alleged pre-existing similar work then it's not a cliché to them. Of course the more popular a certain thing is the harder it is to claim that you have never seen it before.
I do not believe that a subject matter can be cliche -- only the state of mind which produces a piece of artwork.
In my definition, cliche is bad because it represents a laziness in the artist -- laziness to think, laziness to feel. Ansel is my favorite photographer and tends to create similar images -- but none of them are cliche!
I don't think the OP photo was cliche, even though running water is popular in LF :)
Frank Petronio
10-Jan-2009, 21:58
I disagree, it is a cliche. No offense to Nathanm whatesoever but he took the easier way out and did a water shot not just unlike a few other photographers before him, but literally millions of photographers before him... That he did it with excellent technique in good light -- and that he chose the "best" frame to use, cropped it nicely, made pleasing color choices -- makes it a great commercial art piece done with skill. But how does it challenge anyone or move a conversation forward or really accomplish anything?
Maybe he needs to shoot this stuff to build a base to move on from, but it's just a pretty picture done with good technique. I want to encourage him -- he has a good eye and attitude -- even he admits it is a cliche -- but fawning over this picture won't make him a better photographer, it might even hinder his growth.
..
Maybe he needs to shoot this stuff to build a base to move on from, but it's just a pretty picture done with good technique. I want to encourage him -- he has a good eye and attitude -- even he admits it is a cliche -- but fawning over this picture won't make him a better photographer, it might even hinder his growth.
Thanks for telling it like it is, Frank. Really.
I'm still struggling with the craft of it, let alone much of an eye for composition (and learning a lot here).
But nathanm, it looks like you have the craft down (and as well-exposed and framed an exemplar of this cliche' as I've ever seen). So you're probably ready to find your _own_ images.
nathanm
11-Jan-2009, 00:44
Oh believe me, my growth isn't being hindered at all! Oh wait, I thought you were talking about my growing midsection.
The water shot is simply about guilty pleasure in photography, where a cliché photo still satisfies because of execution, just as Frank describes. But shooting straight landscapes ultimately doesn't float my boat even though I still like them. Ultimately I want to do highly manipulated photos, but with the look of large format. I like fucked up looking things that seem as if they were shot in the 19th century, not like the modern Photoshop stuff that everyone is accustomed to. It's so hard to make digital look filmic, but you just shoot on film with the LF lenses and whatnot and the magic just happens for free. Then put all the Photoshoppery on top of that and it takes on more of a realistic feel in my opinion. The wet plate collodion guys are even more hardcore, with an additional heaping spoonful of Ye Olde Fashioned milky photo grunge added to every shot. Love it. If I had the knowledge and patience to do that stuff and throw in the Photoshoppery it would be even better. But I'll stick with film for now.
Pareidolia and mirroring are my current obsessions. This stuff I actually like and is what I want to do more of in the future. All the goblin faces were culled from an absolutely dreadful shot of a rotted log. I don't really think this is cliché, at least I hope not. But then again, who would hang such a thing in their living room? I don't know, but I like it. But if anyone thinks it's crap, that's fine too.
The lime kilns started off simply as an exercise in using this new fangled view camera to get straight verticals, but the neg got fogged to hell and then I turned it into this surreal thing which I really like. Unfortunately all my work was done on a low res copy and I haven't been able to reproduce the result again. Damn!
"Father Earth" is an accidental favorite. A dud shot of a tree in a park and a pretty bad portrait were combined for grins and this sort of Celtic woodman thing was born. I dunno, it just clicked. I wanna do more of these, with a large figure hovering over a landscape, maybe with more allegorical elements or something.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/3005297562_86428e5c6a.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/2901446532_ef6757f765.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/2302824664_ebaf3edd9f.jpg
Here's the crappola source material for the faces on the totem pole. Gadzooks! I guess a filter might've brought out some tonal separation, but even so this one is a real turd. But hey, all kinds of demons live inside it so all is not lost.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3395/3187354986_b8aca0ab23.jpg
Frank Petronio
11-Jan-2009, 06:17
Haha you're a trippy dude hiding in the guise of a landscape photographer ;-)
I disagree, it is a cliche. No offense to Nathanm whatesoever but he took the easier way out and did a water shot not just unlike a few other photographers before him, but literally millions of photographers before him... That he did it with excellent technique in good light -- and that he chose the "best" frame to use, cropped it nicely, made pleasing color choices -- makes it a great commercial art piece done with skill. But how does it challenge anyone or move a conversation forward or really accomplish anything?
Maybe he needs to shoot this stuff to build a base to move on from, but it's just a pretty picture done with good technique. I want to encourage him -- he has a good eye and attitude -- even he admits it is a cliche -- but fawning over this picture won't make him a better photographer, it might even hinder his growth.
I don't think the OP picture is great but I definitely enjoy it. I have never seen those brush-like textures coupled with colors indicative of the optical effects of water. It could make an impressive large print.
A water close-up is not cliche in and of itself -- as you seem to be suggesting (and I'm intrigued that you see no originality in this particular piece ). The original statement was that cliche is delicious, and a guilty pleasure.
I suggested a more specific definition of cliche, rather than praise the photo.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.