Why so many of the same or similar nature images?

[chris_varner1]

Ever notice how many nature images look the same or similar? Earlier

this week, I counted a total of 7 images of Delicate Arches by

randomly looking at fewer than 60 nature pics. This frequency of look

alikes is not just Delicate Arches, it is also true of slot canyons,

the 2 mittens, etc.. If the world is big, beautiful, and diverse,

why are we not seeing this diversity? Do photographers feel that if

several others have a particular image, then they must have it too?

Is it that a tried and true location along with a tried and true

composition has little risk? Is imagination truly rare? Or is it

that the more nature websites, the more we are seeing the same

frequency of images that editors have been seeing along?

[don_baccus]

Well, the editors not only see those images but they also run them! You see Delicate Arch in print all the time, and not always in new and inspiring ways.

 

I have images of Delicate Arch on my site. I've differentiated myself from the crowd with the help of my lab - they flipped one horizontally when they scanned it, and since I bulk load not only Photo CDs but the captions pulled out of the database that tracks my slide file, I didn't notice. I get e-mail every two-three months informing me of my error.

[bobatkins]

There are various "standard" shots because they are easy. They're taken from a parking lot (e.g. the view down Yosemite valley from the tunnel), or from the end of a hiking trail or from an overlook (Grand Canyon for example). Photo editors often don't seem to care too much that images are similar to what's already been published.

 

And yes, imagination is truely rare.

[brian yarvin]

These answers are interesting, but not completely satisfying. They imply that lanscape photos are made mainly to be chosen by editors.

 

I believe that even among those who derrive their entire living from selling landscape photos, there are other motivations besides sales.

 

I often wonder if there are competitive issues involved here - photographers thinking "I can do this shot better than the last twenty guys!" or "If that other guy can publish this image, I can too!"

 

For me, this is one of the big questions of landscape photography, not only do a huge percentage of the images look very similar, the people who make them talk endlessly about how individual, unique, and creative they are.

 

In almost every other area of photography, one sees constant change and evolution, but with landscapes, it the same thing all over again, and all too often.

 

Brian

[drc]

A few reasons i suspect, yes the world is big and diverse Chris, but if a photographer is selling this stuff for a living, he or she is going to shoot the overshot stuff because it pays to have these photos in your files (clients will try and give you the work cause they like you) even though its been done a zillion times by your competition. Secondly, we all want to try and maybe do a better version (being the competive little devils that we are) just to see if we can improve on it. And thirdly, how often do you get out to a national park say, and find that what attracts you the most are the landscapes that you see everywhere else that everyone else has shot, simply because that is the best an area has to offer? Just my two cents worth :-)

[john_macpherson]

Chris - as others have said, often the easiest way is to copy. A pro

friend of mine who does lots of postcards/calendars (often fairly

imaginative, and technically superb work) returned to a favourite spot

and shortly after was joined by another photographer (with pro kit)

and a handful of my friend's cards. Not recognising the photographer

as the author of the works he was holding, and asked what he was

doing, there followed an "interesting " conversation as he explained

how this was the easiest way to do landscape photography for profit. I

wont repeat my friend's response.

<P>

For a selection of really imaginative nature work look at the BBC

Wildlife/British Gas Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition.

There is no shortage of superb and original work there, and from pros

and amateurs alike.

<P>

Imagination is rare, and couple that with the time one needs to spend

"in the field" - the pre-dawn starts, the insects and discomfort and

you have your explanation why so little truly awesome work is

produced, and so much copying takes place.

<P

[dan_smith]

One reason is that in some natural areas one can only stand & shoot from certain angles. Delicate arch is one of those locations. Another is that compositions work for many people in similar ways. Your taking delicate arch & then screwing with it in a computer to make a 'different' image says a lot. Why didn't you get that 'different' angle while you were there?

The limitations of lens & film as well as where one can stand or set up a tripod will always be with us. Lens & film choice help give more options, but with natural subjects, especially the ones you mention, there are only so many angles you can shoot from. It isn't like tabletop photography. If you want to shoot the mittens in Monument Valley, and you want a higher angle you will have to shoot from the parking area where you can get the angle. Or get a balloon or helicopter & then get arrested by the Navajo Police & probably lose your film. Access is a part of the available angles from which to photograph here. Go to the North & South & photograph the mittens & you find one or the other blocked from view. You find the totem that thrusts into the sky blending into the red rock behind it.

Sometimes you see the 'same old stuff' simply becauese for the image to work it is shot from 'the same old place'.

[scott bacon]

One of the reasons I enjoy landscape photography so much lies in the challenge of capturing the emotions felt when I am standing in a beautiful spot. I often laugh at myself saying, "I wonder how many millions of others have taken a picture from this very spot?!" But... if you have ever been to Delicate Arch when the sun has just sunk below the horizon, I hope you still remember the emotions you felt - wonder, awe, contentment? Many places on earth are simply magical. Take a look at Denali from Wonder Lake, Lake Louise, The Maroon Bells, Havasupai Canyon, etc, etc. Some places always seem to inspire, no matter how many times you see them. And since these places inspire many 'salable' photos, you see them over and over again. This is not to say that every photograph of such a place reproduces the magic and emotion. But personally, I find that when one of my images conveys even some of this emotion, if I feel and think that it is a good photograph. Often, others tend to concur with me. Capturing the magic and the emotion of a place, and the challenges that presents, is one of reasons I make photographs of sometimes commonly seen landscapes. It satisfies me on a personal level. And I can truly say that since I don't make my living as a photographer. And I have never once submitted work to an editor.

[fredrick_sears]

There's a downside or unmentioned fact in many of the above posts and

that's the professional uses of images as commondity. A professional

photographer who doesn't have the Maroon Bells in thier portfolio

stock file misses out on sales.

 

Art is nice, sales are nice and our culture has some very definite

opions about which is better or saleable which is to the determent of

photography as a whole.

 

In short I think we as photographers should think more about some of

the criticism (old) and oberservations leveled at our practices by

critics like Susan Sontag (On Photography) and John Berger (About

Loo

[lawrence_abeyta]

You can ask yourself this question about many great things in life, and the answer is the same for each subject, not just photography. Why do symphonies play great masterpieces from the master composers, which have obviously been played and recorded thousands of times? Because they are great works, and they want to personally experience playing them. Why do mountain climbers climb great mountains that have been climbed buy hundreds of others? Because the mountain is great, and they want to feel the rush of reaching the top. I could go purchase a great photo of bears from Katmai National Park, but I won't, because I personally want to go and take it myself. By the way, the audience never tires of hearing Beethoven�s 9th.

[lester_laforce]

Perhaps if a photographer makes an image that is easy to copy it is the fault of the photographer and not the copier. IOW, YES the copier is being un-ethical -- Sure, take that and a dime and the photographer can buy a cup of coffee (sorry, need a $1). For example, is there anyone who can "copy" Arthur Morris????. Can anyone �copy� Galen Rowell??? -- how many knock-offs have you seen of �Rainbow over Potala Lhasa�???? How many tears should we shed when one hack copies another?????

[paul_ashton]

Television is to blame. It forces people to lose their imagination.

[john_wall1]

No one has come up yet with one obvious (and not-meant-in-a-rude-way) answer: who cares?! I don't even remember all the look-alike stuff (or fluff). What do I remember in recent landscape photography? How about Jim Brandenburg's one-shot-a-day piece that ran in National Geographic (among other places)? Great idea wonderfully executed. I'm biased because my main focus in recent years (and not just photographically speaking) has been on getting to know one or two places really well. To me this gets back to the question of the "parade" of beautiful, solo, disconnected nature photos vs. storytelling. There's a place for both, eh? The marketplace (with its tyrannies) on one hand and our own imaginations on the other.

[george_hartzell]

Here's one that I haven't heard yet:

<p>

For the same reason that musicians play scales, practice.

<p>

I frequently look at other folks images, and try to figure out just

how they made them. What was the angle? What time of day/year?

Etc, etc.... A great example (which has frustrated me a couple of

times now) is a Tom Till image of a tree in Wall Street, Bryce Canyon.

<p>

And yes, I also think that it's important to push myself to see

new compositions.

[roger___3]

Chris, I might offer some rather general thoughts. It has been my observation that through the ages people have considered the design of great works of art to have a common thread to what the human eye considers beautiful. These images are truely the great exhibits of our landscape, and commonly impressive. So why not take a lot of pictures of them?

 

I personally am one who goes to the effort to get off the beaten track. Part of this is for the intrinsic value in itself, and as a degression, I hope to capture some of what I see and feel on film. And I haven't been in position to have to sell anything, so I have that luxury. But to match the impressiveness of the Delicate Arch or Maroon Bells, or the like, is a greater challenge for sure. The benefit has been to sharpen my eye to what the landscape has to offer, maybe in a more microcosmic way. Is the path or the end more important. Maybe if your next meal is dependent on it, your outlook changes.

 

With a bit of skepticisism, and a touch of reality, our natural heritage is disappearing. If you've ever been to Maroon Bells, you might notice that that majestic view in the foreground has a parking lot and bus tours behind the scene. Not exactly unspoiled wilderness. I believe this is the challenge (if not responsibility) of the landscape phototgrapher. To give others an appreciation of what is there, what should be there, and what we hope to save.

[chris_varner1]

Yes editors publish them. If their files contain the same percentage of each look-alike image as my random selection--10% Delicate Arch--they would have few choices. But with so many look alikes, price would be the only factor determining which one I published. As an editor, I would love this! As a viewer, I didn't open the June issue of "Outdoor Photographer" until November because of Delicate Arch being on the cover. I had judged the book by its cover. To my surprise, however, that issue is the one that has "View to a Kill," by Karl Ammann (BBC images)in it. Now I know why I hadn't seen these images in Outdoor Photographer when someone mentioned a while back that his image had been published in this magazine.

[gary_irving]

A couple of antidotes to this problem of seeing the same old images(Yosemite,Monument Valley,etc)is to write your favorite magazine(s)and tell them your feelings. I dropped Outdoor Photography for the same reasons. Really nothing new happens in the magazine!Instead I subscribe to View Camera and Camera Arts Magazine which are much more serious in presentation and more diverse in subject matter than all the "fanzines".In addition you should,If you are serious about fine landscape photography,start your own home library of landscape photography books.There are many out there that provide visual journeys far from the maddening crowds of the National Parks and other tourist traps.

 

It is one thing to find beauty in the spectacular.It is quite another thing to find photographers who discover visual treasure in the ordinary and the mundane.Go to the bookstores and pass over the same old stuff and search out photograhers you've never heard of who photographed places you.ve never seen(like strange places,backyards,forgotten highways,etc..).

[marshall_black]

I wonder how many of the photographers shooting these 'stock images' can't wait to see the results, and show them to others. Not many would be my guess.

 

However, anyone who took a shot like the 'Oak leaf frozen in ice' by Stephen G Maka in the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition would surely be dying to show it to someone.

 

Clearly there is a value to the 'stock images', not least because editors can't seem to get enough of them. But there is a much greater personal value to being able to show a shot of something transient and never before seen, a 'secret' image, that instils a sense of wonder in the viewer.

 

I mostly look for images in the latter category, and get a buzz when I find one, but admit to taking 'stock images'. It's a shame more editors don't find space for the secrets.

[larry_korhank]

Imagination and "conditions" are infrequent lovers, especially for amateurs married to work-a-day life.

[james_lofton]

Sometimes it can be as simple as, "it's a great shot".

Back in the mid 60's I was working in Alaska for the BLM. There was this one place on the road between Glennallen and Anchorage, where a butte seemed to sit in the middle of the highway. I loved looking at that spot as I drove down the road. One day the lighting was just so and I stopped and to the "special" shot. At the time I took it I didn't know anything about it except that _I_ like the shot.

Sence then, I have seen dozens of that same shot. It is the famous shot of the Lions head on the Richardson highway.

 

James

[craig_gillette]

I was in Grand Canyon a couple of months back. Everybody was walking the same trail, looking at the same view. I was slightly off the beaten path. I was shooting shots I wanted. I shot a dead tree, wildflowers and cactus with purple fruit. (Yeah, I got some of the standard, too!) One lady was watching and following me. She eventually said she was fascinated that I was finding so many things interesting to see and photograph. Would they be keepers in a critical editing? Mostly no but I enjoyed being there and taking the shots I wanted. So when you get to someplace you always wanted to shoot, enjoy yourself, shoot what you want, enjoy yourself, don't worry about dupes of famous shots. They are favorites for a reason (classic views or documentation of a particular place, etc.) I enjoy what I'm doing, I'm not going to have a stroke competing with pro's who have more time, better equipment, etc. And in our collections, we will have the different and diverse.

[mdd99]

I'm an editor of a magazine that runs a fair number of "destination" stories on, among other places, geographic icons such as the Grand Canyon and Canyonlands in Utah. Chris and others are right on the money. Sad to say, but when we solicit images from professional photographers, we see not only similar compositions of the same sites but also often the same techniques. It gets boring, and my art director and I always, when they're available, choose the fresh perspectives over the mundane.

 

In casual conversation with these pros, they indicate they need to have certain shots in their arsenal. Understandable, but I also detect a tendency to take the easy way out, for efficiency's sake, rather than push themselves to new heights--it is a business with a bottom line, they say. (More bluntly put, I also think some pros are simply lazy, just as there are lazy editors and publishers and art directors.) In any case, editors frequently are caught between having to fill space with *something* or not filling the space at all. But I can assure you, when the true original images show up on our light table, we pounce. And we go so far as to run fewer photos when the originality isn't there.

 

But "efficiency" should not be an excuse for not coming up with a new way to photograph something. Indeed, are not some of the most successful photographers those who stretch the bounds of their profession? Otherwise, what's the point?

 

As to how this trend affects my own photography, I prefer the out-of-the-way locales where you have to strive to "see" something special. I shoot less and enjoy photography more.

 

Mike