Most BORING photography genres for you?...

[j.kivekas]

Boring, challenging, difficult, easy ... it's measured always with a subjective scale. It's down to the person, thus, objectively everything is as challenging and easy and difficult. Lacking to understand this is disrespect towards others. Benchmarks are set by human capabilities, abilities and those does not vary by average from genre to genre.

[chris_waller]

I don't know what it's called but it's when a really dreary picture is accompanied by several thousand words of intellectualising in an attempt to justify it.

[gloria_hopkins]

I think once you pigeon-hole yourself into a set of desires and non-deires, *you* become boring.

 

How dreadfully aweful it must be to be ai predictable. Ugh.

 

The uninspired is so dreadfully uninspiring. May as well go and dig a hole for yourselves .....

[bosshogg]

I think it is amazing how people take this stuff so personally. What is boring to one is not to another. That's what makes the world go round to be trite. Most of us grow from one thing to another over time. Not always for the better, but almost always change. Many of us start out photographically doing the most trite and mundane things. That's how we learn. Later we look back and see what we hope is growth. So today I may think a red rose picture is just gorgeous. Tomorrow, after seeing my ten millionth one, I may think it boring. So what? It doesn't mean you are necessarily creatively or spiritually dead. We move on. The one thing I will say, however, is that people have no reason to get upset when they get low ratings for originality. First, they should not take too much stock in ratings to begin with. But secondly, if you really think about it, only about 1 percent of the stuff on PN is original. Ducks, dog, nudes, birds, cats, mountains, etc., etc.,.....Have all been done over and over and over again. That is not to say that there are not some truly beautiful pieces out there. It is to say that we rate on two things, and one can rate high on one thing and, at the same time, rate low on the other.

[ace_fury]

Mug shots of me.

[root]

What's boring are record shots (unless you want to be a photojournalist and are able to be at the right time and place, and can show us something somewhere that is not only outside our personal experience, but outside our photographic viewing experience.)

 

If it isn't about what's happening at a given time and place, then you're left with being anywhere, anytime, and using your powers of observation to show the world a new way of looking at something or a part of something. The problem for me as a photographer who is interested in showing work outside my own four walls is that too often the same people who don't see the value in close examination of the world around them are also unable or unwilling to look at a photograph more closely than they would as if it was a record shot.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/deconstruction.shtml

 

Try the exercise he suggests.

[joename]

The Anne Geddes emulators. Man I hate those.

[john falkenstine]

I think the real issue is boring photography generated by boring photographers, regardless of category/genre.

[mrstubbs]

Passport Photos. Taking photos you know ninety five percent of your customers will hate. Following instructions you can't change. Having people know you took them.

Then again! It's good money!

I take it all back!

Forget I said it.

I wasn't here.

[john falkenstine]

Or as Chris noted and one step further. Photographic netsites that discuss photography but don't show any photographs :)

[scott_eaton]

- Naked woman laying on a rock outdoors, or in an awkward place with her butt/back to the camera. At least pay your model enough so she can buy a lady bic.

 

- Altern-Rock photos as per what Meryl was complaining about.

 

- Mall-class Glamour shots of otherwise unattractive people where the subject looks like she got stuck in the 'auto primper' kiosk on the Jetsons for several hours.

 

- Ballon races. Always wanted to start shooting bottle rockets off at one of those to see if I could get kicked out.

 

- 95% of all B&W photography. Used to be my favorite. Now it's my least favorite medium, especially because it's populated by the lowest order photographic cretins because they lack the brain cells to shoot color.

 

- Model photography, with the rare expections of Eolo Perfido.

 

- Landscape work that tries to hard to impress something about the dyes used in color film hence producing a scene nothing like reality, or fake tonal gradients in B&W brought about by aggresive dodge/burning thanks to the Ansel Adams cult.

[k5083]

I agree with Alexandre's original 2nd place nomination for the Cars and Vehicles section. And I agree despite that fact that, counter to Mark B's suggestion, I do most of my photography in that area (of airplanes, specifically) and understand it very well. But I agree also about weddings, nudes, and other topics that have been brought up here. Has anyone mentioned birds on branches yet?

 

So what makes a genre boring? I think it's the strength and rigidity of the aesthetic conventions in the genre. That's what enables you to predict what the picture will look like, before you've seen it, just by hearing what genre it's in. Wedding: Young couple, gently backlit, formal wear, gardeny stuff in background, happy but forced smiles. Break the rules and you've made a BAD WEDDING PICTURE.

 

With cars and vehicles the ultimate goal is a snapshot. The picture is just supposed to be a window on the subject. No distortion, thanks, and please keep the background free of distracting clutter (especially human beings going about their silly affairs). The front wheels of the car should be slightly turned. The airplane propeller should be blurry. Do not crop out any part of the vehicle. Read most of the critiques of the cars/vehicles pictures on this site and you'll see that it's people trying to ENFORCE THESE CONVENTIONS. The critiques are even more boring than the photos, and they are trying to make the photos more boring.

 

Anybody who has taken a really good photograph of a car/vehicle can expect it not to be appreciated by other car/vehicle photographers. He must go looking for validation from photographers who are interested in photography and expression rather than cars. Such a person will ultimately desert the car/vehicle category and post his pictures in Fine Art, where anything goes. Leaving cars/vehicles a ghetto for those who love the prison of the genre's conventions.

 

I'm picking on cars/vehicles because that's the genre I know, but it seems to apply equally to the other genres people find most boring. Of course, any genre is nothing more than a set of conventions, so maybe the only interesting pictures are the ones that don't fit in a genre...

[darrell_m]

<p>Now I was always told that there's no such thing as boredom. there's only lack

of curiosity.</p>

<p>However....trolls, pets, cars, sharp focused full tonal range high contrast

nudes, and my real winner sunsets. Does anyone really need to raise a camera

towards a setting sun ever again? I think not.</p>

<p>Flowers? Who said flowers? Flowers are metaphors. If <b></b> <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4356971">THIS

ONE</a></b> or <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4357230">THIS

ONE</a></b> are boring leave a comment. </p>

[snakecharmer]

TROLLS?! Like garden gnomes?

I wouldn't call any genre innately boring, with the possible exception of Cars and Vehicles. I've seen good photos in all the genres (as well as lots and lots of really bad ones). I am still trying to figure out what exactly "Fine Art" means, but that's a subject for another conversation. Also, I love black and whites and generally prefer them to color, but at the same time have to admit that it is easier to make a b and w photo look good and that b and ws are subject to a lot of conventions. As far as photos of random objects go, I'm okay with that because often it takes the photographer to another level as a result. I have seen photos of fruit that were both original and wonderfully executed.

The really interesting thing to me is that we are bored by many types of photography, yet we return to a photography website when we are bored. Such a conundrum.

There are some "genres" that repulse me, though: photos of some guy's hot (in his opinion only) girlfriend doing the softcore porn thing with way too much make-up and dated clothing and hairstyle; photos of family members with uninteresting lighting and uninteresting expressions; snapshots where people are posing with their arms around each other; photos of babies or small children not really doing anything or being very expressive; the obligatory bug-crawling-out-of-flower macro shot; all of these really make me cringe.

[leorossi]

Not a genre in particular. What I find boring is realizing that time and effort has been put into an image that doesn't make me see its subject in a new perspective.

[rellimkm]

Anything I have shot more than a month ago.

[wabi-sabi]

All my work, hahaha. Although somedays I am amazed, most days I want to shoot myself out of a Canon (pun intended) for how much I suck. But with wedding photos, they dont bother me. I just never look at them. I like your post though, there are the few professionals that swoop down and get angry and you get some interesting feedback...

[wabi-sabi]

P.S. Look at my Sky shots, they're freakin clouds!! thats boring, but i cant help take those photos, its the little kid in me looking for shapes... :)

[kevinconnery]

Cars and Vehicles<p>

Landscapes<p>

 

Mark B Bartosik wrote "<i>If something is boring for one usually one has no knowledge or understanding of it.</i>", yet that's not entirely it. One can find something utterly boring, even with a vast knowledge of it.<p>

I'm fascinated by people: faces more than anything else, but people as a whole are far more interesting to me <i>in general</i> than most other genre.<p>

So I don't spend time in galleries where landscapes are emphasised, or macro shots of flowers, or insects, or....and I do spend time looking at people, both in real life and in photographs. In PNet terms, portraits, fashion, children, wedding and social, and nudes.<p>

Not surprisingly, that's also what I tend to photograph most.

[bill_thorlin]

Most everybody finds something boring. Me personally I find people who find lots of things boring very boring.

 

My grandsons have taught me a lesson over the last couple of years - we go for a walk down the lane and the rapid fire of "what's that" & "why does it do that" etc. etc. etc. and that boring old lane is suddenly not boring again and the camera has a useful purpose. They are the best therapy for an old and jaundiced eye.

[wesley_chang]

Wedding photos done in the street with a beautiful landscape background, including the flowers, family pets, & children, with a nude bridesmaid standing in front of the wedding car and all of it slightly blurred and out of focus except for the insect on the bride's nose which is very sharply focused.

 

I think that about covers it.

[brendon]

When I first read this I was a little irked that people were picking on wedding photos. Weddings are where a huge number of photographers actually make a living, and they do get to document some pretty intense emotions among people dressed up to look good. And lots of "rules" and expectation about what shots are needed--perfect category in which to bend and break the rules to artistic effect.

 

But it's really been fascinating to read what people can't stand, with occasional explanations. And Humor! Thanks Alexandre for getting us to chat about this and to listen to one another.