Stupid overused cliches in photography

I guess I have been pretty conservative shooting film over the years. I remember Dad laughing at me considering a motor drive way back in the late 70’s.

“All that’s good for is wasting film”

I never bought one.

I think I might have taken 4 pictures of my feet in 50 years. In each case it was to convey perspective.

The beauty of cliches (landscapes, sunsets, beautiful women) is they ease troubled minds.

I don’t think that’s so much it. I offer the following, not as a solution but a counterpoint.

Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking and attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence.

—Hannah Arendt

Cliches are simply a manifestation of common threads in Human Nature.

I expect there might be a bit of conscious imitation as well.

I was intrigued by MO’s statement about photography and science and thought would I get the same “buzz” from looking at a RF photo as I would from a mathematical proof (something simple like Euler’s equation that links e,i, pi, 0,and 1) and the answer is, wait for it, yes.

 

 

Did the buzz ease your troubled mind?

;)

It is an Elegant Universe......

I see that you shoot many of the same clichés that I do. That is the relevance here, IMO. It's like sunsets. There are literally millions of them online, including a dozen of my competent but no better examples; yet, once or twice a year I see one that can still make a direct emotional connection.

You seem not to understand what a cliche really is. It is not a sunset, not a sunrise, not a portrait. I do not shoot cliches, and overused ones - at all.

The opening post is nonsense (much like his rant aboot MP and street photography) but a varied portfolio might deflect from that.

That is not nonsence, because there are other threads online about overused and dated cliches (earthy cast, feet with touristic BG, on and so on). And they were not started by me - they were started by different authors. If you don't see that thousands of people copycat each other this is your problem.

The fact that Ruslan wins portfolio competitions (“tits oot for the lads”) and still life settles everything for me :)

Win a contest on Viewbug or make your work be published in National Geographic.

You have not ever seen the works I told about. I do not shoot tits, nor asses, not penises, etc. I do a useful curator's work and teach.

I wonder why you write here your idiotic assumptions and I am shocked by your unability of using Google to find what I really do,

I have several people among my friends whose works were published in Italian Vogue.

Their opinion has much more credit to me.

The beauty of cliches (landscapes, sunsets, beautiful women) is they ease troubled minds.

They are NOT cliches, they are subjects. Find out what cliche really means.

I also feel bored to stay on this site which seems to become more and more toxic. I feel frustated to see how pretentious idiots (with pretentious nicknames) out of the photo.net stuff like illiterate posts and comments in this thread.

So I say goodbye to the forum for good! I have a lot to do today!

ruslan rakhmatov does produce mesmerizing beautiful photos. His credentials are solid & his work is impressive.. imo.

It is consistent, polished, predictable & formulaic in style. As a professional that is not a bad thing. Many pros rely on the sort of funneled consistency that ruslan exhibits. The benefits of this kind of consistency usually outweigh the disadvantage. The downside is when the style becomes less expansive, a one trick pony & a cliche of your own work... lack of original thought.

Many PNers probably would, could appreciate his insights... Unfortunately it comes with a looking down the nose attitude for other perspectives.

I think I will win exactly zero awards with my crappy cell phone photos on ViewBug.

Maybe you would Supriyo. Viewbug awards (likes, potw etc) are in abundance some well over 100,000 awards. You have5000+. and If you did win you don't come across as someone who would use it as proof of your debate point, agenda.

members with

Thanks Inoneeye. I now understand what they refer to as awards, are probably similar to our likes, although there seems to be a separate 'love' button there as well.

Where is the Likes/Awards Exchange?

What is the current exchange rate?

Do I get to thank God, My Family, and the Academy?

LMAO.

meaning & intent.

Meaning and intent are sometimes purposefully slippery, or even unknown. In a way, this can be the opposite of but also similar to cliché, obfuscating slipperiness as opposed to the transparency of cliché, but both often obvious.

"Meaning and intent are sometimes purposefully slippery, or even unkown"

Unfortunately unoriginal obfuscating & snarky replies Are a cliche around here.