alexguerra Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Which would you say are the most BORING photography categories/genres? Looking at the photo.net critique forum for instance, I have to put Wedding/Social high in the first place of boredom. The second place for the Cars and Vehicles section... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbb Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 If something is boring for one usually one has no knowledge or understanding of it. We all have different tastes. Instead of picking on something we do not understand it is much better (IMHO) to concentrate on our own work - time is going to be spend much more productive. Personally I wouldn't waste time trying to 'prove' that my genre is more interesting than other ones. In fact if something appearing boring to me I try to avoid it but not talk about it. Like TV, I never turn it on even that I own one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexguerra Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 I made this question only as curiosity and based on the viewer's point of view, not on the genre the viewer/photographer likes to photograph. For instance, I do like landscapes and whenever I have the chance I photograph them, but that fact doesn't prevent me to realize and to find that the great majority of landscape photos in photo.net are boring, because they are repetitive. Certainly each person has its own concept of what they find boring or exciting. This is not a matter of taste as you said IMO. <p> <i>"If something is boring for one usually one has no knowledge or understanding of it."</i> - I really don't agree with this at all. I find reality shows and soap operas on TV very boring. Do they need much understanding or knowledge? <p> <i>"Personally I wouldn't waste time trying to 'prove' that my genre is more interesting than other ones."</i> - You got it that way, but it has nothing to do with that, as I mentioned above. I wouldn't find offensive at all if someone would tell me that my photography style is boring (even though I'm not sure I have one), as long as I enjoy doing it. I didn't make this question to stir those kind of feelings. It's really just curiosity, so it shouldn't be taken personally by anyone I guess. <p> BTW, I do not even own a TV =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert x Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Abstract and Fine Art - because they never are ? Weddings must rank pretty highly though. This is not supposed to raise the hackles of wedding photographers, but the last thing I want to look at is photos of a wedding of someone I don't know. Even if I do know them it's usually a chore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john mackay Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 <p>That�s what it feels like to look into the images of Jeff Ascough�s incredible, evocative and emotional available light wedding photography. Shot using a triage of Leica M6�s largely on Neopan his images are so in tune with the moment that they transcend the traditional notion of wedding photographs and evoke such incredible emotion. You can�t help but feel that this man has such a reverence and sense of worship for the wedding, it�s every subtlety and nuance.</p> <p>A tribute to the emotion and subtlety of available light photography. So, get yourself a cup of your favourite stuff, turn your speakers on and become immersed in the ceremony, the love and the very heart and soul of the wedding as you�ve never experienced before by <a href="http://www.jeffascough.net/main.html">Internationally Acclaimed Wedding Photographer - Jeff Ascough</a>. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 It is fun to look at wedding photos of people that you know. My son, when he was a toddler, spent hours looking at my wedding album. But perhaps he was just trying to figure out where he was 3 years prior to his birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbb Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 <I>BTW, I do not even own a TV =)</I> <P> <I>I find reality shows and soap operas on TV very boring.</I><P> So you make special effort to find the place to watch them? =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_meeds Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 For me the most boring thing I can do in photography is studio photography of people I don't know. Sure, the process could be somewhat interesting (although it doesn't float my boat), but when I get the photos processed I don't care about them. Excellent wedding photography can be interesting - here's a friend of mine, another who takes a more artistic view of the genre (http://www.grosvenorphoto.co.uk/). The problem though is probably weaning customers off the set piece - they might like some arty shots, but they still want to see "the bride's family", "the grooms family", etc. I have had great fun at weddings being the semi-official "informal" photographer, but would never commit to doing the formal, high risk stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert x Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Sorry John - I just can't do it......I like the first picture on the site, but then it just goes all wedding on me. I wasn't meaning this to be applying to the photo.net forums though - I thought it was just about talking genres generally. I also will admit that there will always be an exception or two that prove the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Hello Alexandre, good post and I agree that there are boring genres. You mentioned weddings and cars, I agree. Weddings because of the formulaic approach, the please the masses thing. Cars because, well they are just cars. For me the most boring genre of all is Astrophotography. Robert X, not sure if fine art is all that fine, sometimes maybe but depends on how you see it and who did it. Generally I agree with you. I think you could shoot a wedding with a turnip if someone paid you to do so, but would that give more pleasure than a Leica M6? Of course, it would be more fun. Reality shows and most T.V. is very boring for me, so I watch very little T.V. and usually combine it with working out at the gym, I like the news and current affairs. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john mackay Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 That's Ok Robert :) I guess I felt the same way originally but seeing his photography was a watershed moment for me, not because I have any interest in shooting weddings--far from it. But because I realised at that point that whether my photography was boring or not really came down to me. Cheers...John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgreene Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Alexandre Guerra : <i>Which would you say are the most BORING photography categories/genres?</i><p>After shooting more than 640,000 frames of film? Damn near all of it. <br>I set down my EOS "Robocameras" in October and find it damn difficult to pick them up again. to shoot what? Weddings, clouds, flowers, kids, women, trees, landscapes? Thinking about shooting sometimes makes me queasy. My new FZ20 has got me outside again, camera in hand but even it sometimes does what the EOS cameras did and they bored me stiff.<p><I>Looking at the photo.net critique forum for instance, I have to put Wedding/Social high in the first place of boredom. The second place for the Cars and Vehicles section...</I><p>Yah, and going into their forums is an even worse trial.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbing Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I would have to say that the MOST boring categpry of photographs are 'dead-face' Rock album style portraits. You have all seen them...a bunch of people staring directly into the camera with absolutely no expression on their faces at all. If they get REALLY wild and creative they have ONE guy looking off to the side. I guess they think they look 'dangerous'. Woooo! I'm not sure why they think that people who look like they have absolutely no cognitive faculties at all were attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kahn Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Wedding, definitely. I'd rather BE in a wedding than SHOOT one. (No, wait.......let me think about that!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall ellis Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I have to agree with the wedding comments in the initial post. I am sure that these images are priceless to those in the photos, but they do nothing for me. And although I also find flower macros, sports, and most color images in general boring, it is impossible to rule out any category completely because every couple of years someone comes up with a very moving image in one of these genres. It all depends on what the photographer wants to convey in their image. It just seems like these genres have a lot of people just blowing film (or bytes as it were) on whatever and not spending any time previsualizing the shots. I'm sure that in any given genre there are those who really excel at making images that are moving and powerful, but some genres are flooded with snap-shooters so it's hard to spend the time sifting for solid images and I find myself avoiding those types of photos. A great example of an exception to the boring rule is a shot on this site (by Kiniki I believe) of a wedding photographer amidst a crowd of people at a wedding looking up and laughing at the photographer that really made me laugh. She was standing above the wedding, photographing down into the crowd when the wedding photographer spotted her and cracked a big smile and it just all clicked. It's just a great photo - simple, but conveying a lot of feeling and information cleanly and clearly. It's not your typical wedding photo, but still, it could be placed in that genre. - Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyMason1 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 bugs... except moths and butterflies...why photograph something that if it were on your neck you would smack it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Traditional landscape photography. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_cochran Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 For me the most boring genre is "street photography". Yes, it's boring looking at other people's weddings, and other people's formally posed shots, but that doesn't hold a candle to the boredom found in other people's everyday random moments. <p> Occasionally, a few street photographers capture humorous, passionate, sad, happy, or otherwise interesting moments. The best of it can be quite good. But the vast majority of what I see are poorly composed, technically flawed shots of urban background that don't tell a story or spark any interest in me whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Traditional landscape photography with children. Actually if I see another Weimaraner dressed up in a costume...no wait, that's not boredom, that's repulsion. Sorry I got those confused for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeaster Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Concert photos, children, weddings; sometimes in that order and sometimes shuffled. And to the poster who found fine art and abstract (my two favorite categories BTW) the most boring; I have to agree that they seldom are what they call themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 digital kitsch, especially black backgrounds, "flaming pear" reflections, and step-outside-the-frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 A lot of abstracts are mislabeled in part because there is no other logical place to put detail shots. I have a special fondness for found abstracts. If you can't tell what you're looking at, that's only part of the story. If you don't like abstract painters - Kandinsky, Miro, Rothko, etc. - you probably won't like abstract photography either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Weddings, children, pets. In each case, the people taking those pictures are usually doing so because of an interest in the subject, rather than just an interest in the photograph. That's not to say they shouldn't be taken, just they are inherently not really intended for public display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_noble Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Most definetly Weddings and some a lot of street photography. Street photography, i find, can be interesting if it has some interest (humour, "decisive moments", tells a story) and also if it becomes abstract, i.e graphic lines/colours/shapes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now