Avoiding the cliche photo

<p>One of my pet peeves is the competent photographer who produces a cliche image. We all go to places or work on subjects that have been photographed thousands of times before us -- yet we produce another image that is not distinguishable from all the others. One of the great challenges is to bring our own vision to the much photographed subjects. However, when we see such an image we are in awe. While it seems legitimate to ask how can there be a fresh and pleasing viewpoint of a much photographed subject. However in the last month I have seen two images of the Eiffel Tower that may be the finest photographs I have ever seen of that classic landmark.<br>

Much of this effort has to do with developing our own style. Many of us can look at an image and know without further inquiry who the photographer is. It is that signature style that separates the inspired from the merely competent. <br>

What do you do in your pre-shoot planning, if anything, to avoid falling into the cliche trap?</p>

<p>E.J., it might help if you can provide a definition of "cliche image," or, even better, an example of such an image and then an example of one dealing with the same subject that doesn't qualify as cliche.</p>

<p>While I understand where you are coming from, very often the cliche shot <em>is</em> the most aesthetically pleasing and the one where the photographer has struggled to find a new view is contrived, unsuccessful or, more to the point, does not tell the viewer what they are looking at, so fails (assuming the intention was to take a recognizable shot of the famous object). To be honest for most tourist sites it is not really possible to take a completely new picture. My feeling is that if the cliche shot does annoy you, and I sympathize, then just don't feel you have to take a picture of the subject at all. There is no need to feel obliged to take a shot of the Eiffel Tower, for example. Talking of Paris - the whole of the city is really one giant cliche anyway. It's a cross we have to bear.</p>

<p>Why? Tripod holes are meant to be reused.</p>

<p>I think one way to avoid photo clichés is not to think about photographing this or that place or this or that thing. Think about something like photographing jazz, or anxiety, or an idea like freedom or destiny, or the light. What if it's not, first and foremost, just a photograph <em>of</em> that thing in front of you. Make the subject other than or more than the obvious subject.</p>

<p>Cliche subjects change with time -- a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge during the El Nino of 2015-2016 is different than a shot of the GG Bridge from the drought summer of 2015. </p>

<p>Circumstances change but the angles, focal lengths, well-worn tripod holes (lol!), and POV don't.</p>

 

<p>Michael -- think post card for the scenic photo, or a catalogue for a fashion shot. I actually do avoid taking a shot that others have taken thousands of time. It simply says I was here too. About two years ago I went to the Grand Canyon -- a place I have visited over a dozen times. I spent two months preparing for two days of shooting -- looking at sun and moon levels and locations from various access points. I thought a great deal about the more intimate views that I loved about the canyon -- the wildlife and vegetation -- especially the ravens. Sometimes stepping 50 feet to the side of where all the other shots are taken from provides a new perspective. One of the capabilities of digital photography is working in extremely low light conditions that was not possible even a couple of years ago. I thought of what some of my favorite photographers, like Elliott Porter, might bring to the process. I was very fortunate about 45 years ago to get to know Ansel Adams and spend time with him at his home and mine. Ansel understood that photographs are made between the ears long before the camera is taken into the field -- it was a lesson well worth learning.</p>

I view cliché more as an approach or thought process used in making photographs, rather than the particu;ar subject

matter or scene ultimately captured.

<p>I think the bottom line is one has to be true to one’s vision. Some people are perfectly happy taking a “pretty” picture, and that is their goal. They do workshops just to learn how to do what you are calling a cliché. For these people, making a “post card” or calendar type image is their ultimate goal. Other people see things differently, and tend to photograph things from a more personal standpoint. For me, it’s a matter of being aware of what stimulates me visually, personally, in my own way, and photographing that. Its usually different from the typical cliché, but sometimes it is a “pretty” image. I don’t mind as long as that is what stimulated me to pick up the camera. I don’t specifically try to avoid the cliché, but instead just try to be open and aware of when I am stimulated by the visual world.</p>

<p>From my own perspective, in the film days I used to take more cliche shots and "record" shots than I do now. The proliferation of images means that you will never not be able, for example, to find out what the Duomo in Florence looks like, whereas in the past you had to find a book or a postcard. There is really not much point taking another shot of it, unless there is something that particularly takes your fancy. But ultimately, as Steve says, it all depends who you are. Certainly I suggest that young people take more cliche shots than old hands because it is all new to them. After you have seen your billionth shot of Grand Canyon (or, even worse, slot canyons), you almost never want to see another photo ever again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One of my pet peeves is the competent photographer who produces a cliche image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I don't see the point of being "peeved" about what other people are doing with their photography. It's their photos.</p>

<p>I just point and shoot. What comes out comes out.</p>

<p>I think there's also something to be said for people wanting their own photo of something. They may take a picture of the Grand Canyon even though they very well know there are much better pictures of the Grand Canyon in some photo books. But they will tie the snapshot they took of the Grand Canyon with their being there themselves and that's an important role photos can play in our lives. Generally speaking, the snapshots my grandparents took of my parents when they were little are much more precious to me than the professional studio shots that were taken of my parents as kids. Because I'm more connected to the hands-on picture taking of my grandparents than to some formal portrait photographer in a studio who wasn't part of the family. Photos help remind us of various connections, cliché or not. We want our own. (This is all somewhat separate, though with some important overlaps, from using photography to make art, in which case I'd stay far away from the Grand Canyon!)</p>

<p>Thinking of landscape images, often times cliche images may be avoided simply by not being lazy and hiking a short distance off-road. Sure, you can drive up to Oxbow Bend of the Snake River in Grand Teton National Park and plant your tripod where Ansel Adams had his. But, simply hiking along the river will open up many new compositional opportunities. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just point and shoot. What comes out comes out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah. Right. And if you believe this, I've got a bridge for you to buy.</p>

<p>By the way, Jeff, did you ever ask yourself why, if you don't see the point of being "peeved" about what others do with their photography, why you see a point in concerning yourself with what others are "peeved" about? Just as it's "their" photos, it's <em>their</em> peeve!</p>

Personal style, by definition something we each of us own, is ours to do as we choose. If we pre- plan to try hard to be "unique",fine, maybe even admirable. Maybe not so much so.

 

I shoot and seek enjoyment of the process as my main thing. Point and shoot for years and years and it becomes more than" point and shoot." That is a benefit to be devoutly wished for, true. Not a main thing for many of us. Being competent is not a bad thing. Being inspired is something, a gift perhaps, that happens just now and then, to those who are JUST competent.

 

That is kind of my feeling about this 'avoid the cliche' business, frankly. A non issue for me anyway. Less stress. More fun.

<p>There is an old saying "you never step into the same river twice". That about sums up how I feel about shooting often photographed places or things. There may be a million good pictures of the Grand Canyon but <em>I</em> never took one, <em>today</em>, at <em>this</em> hour, with <em>my</em> gear, with <em>these</em> clouds in <em>this</em> light. I don't mind shooting a "standard" shot of something because there is generally time to explore other angles and lighting and optics, too. Nothing says you have to shoot only one picture. If you want to beat cliches, get your basic shot in the can and then work the scene to find a fresh approach. Try not to rush around. Sometimes you get lucky. The light gets nifty, a rainbow forms, an eagle flies by, a purple mist settles in. Whatever happens, they will be <em>your</em> photos and serve as a document of <em>your</em> time there. The most important thing is to actually SHOW UP with serious photographic INTENT. That speaks to motivation and preparation. After that, let the river flow.</p>

<p>Sadly, I have never been to the Grand Canyon. But I am looking forward to going there to make photographs. Limitless possibilities, I suspect.</p>

<p>Avoiding cliches is overrated. You want to shoot a sunset over water that's hazy because of a long shutter and they pump up the saturation in the sky like every recent DSLR purchaser on 500px does? Go for it. Photo of a homeless guy standing under a billboard for jumbo mortgages? Nobody's business but your own. Most photographers will go decades without shooting anything that hasn't been done before, but I don't see why that's a problem.</p>

<p>Sometimes the cliché shot is the benchmark shot because it's about the best that can be gotten of the subject. It's also the fact that a famous shot automatically becomes the template in everyone's mind, and everything else looks second rate by comparison. Whether it actually objectively is, or not is another matter.<br>

It's like a famous song that is redone by a countless singers. People always say, "I like the original best." You like the original best because you've adopted it as the template. I mean there have been a lot of James Bonds, but lets be honest there's only one, and that's Sean Connery right? ;)</p>

<p>We don't shoot clichés. We shoot photos, and other folks who weren't there add the "cliché" tag later. I had some recent experience with this. My wife and I have some prints on the walls at our favorite local restaurant in Cottonwood, AZ (Annie's, if you're in the neighborhood). Two of the 20 prints were shots red rock formations in the Sedona area. A couple of days after we hung them, the owner asked us to replace the red rock shots with something else. It seems that our resident neighbors are tired of looking at red rocks all the time and didn't want to look at them while eating, too. So, we cheerfully replaced them with a couple of shots from Cades Cove in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. If we had hung these in a restaurant in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, they would have gotten the same reaction there that the red rocks shots did here. And, everybody at Annie's is now happy...</p>

<p> </p>

The operative word might be competent. I think I know what you are saying so this might be a little off point. I am still

trying to learn to take photos and I use certain cliche subjects or redundant subjects to gauge what works for me or to

compare different film, equipment, lighting and processing. Of course you are talking about those who display them. I am

not motivated to show them per se and I doubt anyone has much to gain or cares to view them. I take them so I can tell

myself I took them. Also, many of the one I post are not for the subject but to show the results of some new piece that I

tried. There was another member who used to show the same subject as an example of how a particular camera.

 

One other thing and this is advice I give myself so please take it in the proper spirit. If I do not like a particular photo then it was not meant for me and I do not have to view it

<blockquote>

<p>What do you do in your pre-shoot planning, if anything, to avoid falling into the cliche trap?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never actually premeditated avoiding a 'trap' that I didn't know existed. Sure, I see the thousands of cookie-cutter shots of familiar landmarks taken over the years, but I've never taken offence to them. In fact, without them who would want to look at or buy mine? So, I guess my answer is nothing as far as planning is concerned, short of maybe deciding which lenses to pack or lighting for the particular location/task at hand. Perhaps that is what separates we photographers from the snapshot crowd? We actually see things in different terms before we snap. Which is probably why we are here and they are not. </p><div></div>

<p>Fred: I don't think there is anything wrong with taking snapshots. We all do of Aunt Fanny, or mom next to the car next to the Grand Canyon. But, the we really work on making a photograph even a single image can take months -- not the 1/100th second the shutter is open. Way back in the day I got to spend about a month in Yosemite with Ansel Adams. We went out every day with Ansel and the wonderful groupies who would show up. Ansel might have an idea of a location he wanted to go to. This is a place where Ansel and Virginia had their summer home. Ansel knew Yosemite like few other. In the month he finally set up the camera one day (actually his assistant did that). But he never took the photograph because the conditions he had in his vision never materialized. Making a photograph, as opposed to taking a snapshot, takes a lot of creative effort, sometimes over years. </p>

<p>While I can get the peeve, I think it's all a matter of time, possibility and (personal) experience, and a bit of right place/right time.<br>

I live in a quite touristy area, and can see daily people making the exact same photo. For sure a fair number of them will be competent photographers, and stastically a number will be excellent. And yet, they all seem to choose the same angle, same position, same approach.<br>

And I've got the very same photo. Multiple times too. Yes, it's a cliché shot, and yes, after years of living here I should now better. But then you pass by, in the right light, and well, it's just the right photo. It may not be original, creative, or different, but it's how I perceived it at that moment, how I felt it. And I wanted my photo of that moment.<br>

A second thing is that avoiding the cliché shots becomes a lot easier once you know a place or a subject matter really well. It takes time. Tourist shots are very often very cliché, because you get to see the famous places in too little time to make a real good study of what would make the better, more original, more creative photos. Getting the best of things does take time, experience and knowing what you're about to do. And sometimes one of those ingredients isn't there, and the level of originality will suffer.</p>