What is it, about ...

droj

droj

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,069
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
What is it, about piers, jetties, castles, waterfalls and many other things, that draws many a photographer to more or less replicate a shot that's been taken many times before?

It can get boring. Even worse perhaps are birds caught or made stationary with every feather visible in detail, as if you could immobilise nature - this is surely a form of objectification? Should photography be about cliché, or something deeper?

Street photography is a minefield - a hundred photos are random pointings of the camera, and maybe another ten have meaning. What are we all aiming for?
 
It's about whatever you want it to be about, simple as that...

Who care's if somebody has taken something before, does that mean I can't take a picture of it?

nihil sub sole novum
 
Belive or not you can enjoy photography because you have a passion/interest in it,it matter not that the same thing might have been photographer a 1000 before :)
 
I will agree that on occasion I have tried to replicate shots I've seen elsewhere, perhaps one of the clichéd tropes the OP alludes to.

And on those occasions the photo taking process becomes more a feat of engineering, using tools and techniques to construct a *thing* rather than creating something with any artistic meaning.

However; I derive equal enjoyment from both and lay no claims to any higher purpose to my amateurish shots.

I'll concede however that the progress in my ability comes quickest when I try something new and original.

Though as rob posts above, new and original is hard to find.
 
It's what ever you, or your 'client", want it to be.

I'm aiming to (and not necessarily in this order):
#1 record family events for memories, including vacations (we don't have castles in our country).
#2 record "events" for "clients". In my case this may be motor racing and classical music concerts.
#3 show people some of my world, including somethings they may have never seen before.
#4 just to enjoy enjoy myself including both technical challenges and esthetic challenges (and this will include bird photography).

I do not "create" images, using photography, however I may well be influenced by images etc that I have seen when photographing the world around me. I do not conciously try to replicate images I have seen.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what you photograph (or do generally). Whatever you do, someone else will find boring or consider it worthless.

Better to do exactly what you want to do and if others like it, great. If not, there's nothing you can do about it so don't worry.


Steve.
 
Sorry it may be my suspicious mind but this post smacks of boredom problem or it is an attempt to increase post counts?
 
simonblue said:
Belive or not you can enjoy photography because you have a passion/interest in it,it matter not that the same thing might have been photographer a 1000 before :)
Click to expand...

Does that imply that the taking of the image is more important than the image?
 
Steve Smith said:
It doesn't matter what you photograph (or do generally). Whatever you do, someone else will find boring or consider it worthless.
Better to do exactly what you want to do and if others like it, great. If not, there's nothing you can do about it so don't worry.
Steve.
Click to expand...
Quite so Steve, but that doesn't preclude dialogue.
 
Surely the whole point of photography as a hobby (not so much if you're a pro) is for each of us to get out of it what we will. To me, this means photographing what I want to photograph in my own way, whether or not the results draw any kind of acclaim from others. There's nothing "deep" about it to me. It's a creative hobby. Fun, absorbing, but not my whole life .... I know I'm not great at it, but I try and I enjoy trying. If I ever get to the point of obsessing about it and trying to give it some deeper meaning, then I'll give up.

Sadly, there are limited number of castles, waterfalls and the like to be photographed, and millions of photographers, so if this means there's yet another cliched shot of Bamburgh at sunset, then so be it. Even if the basic composition of a shot has been done many times over, each version of it is unique in its own way and has value to the person who took it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Does that imply that the taking of the image is more important than the image?
Click to expand...
It's clear that it is for some people, just as for others it's the ownership of the equipment that counts the most.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Does that imply that the taking of the image is more important than the image?
Click to expand...
For an awful lot of photographers, that is entirely the case. The mastery of technique can be an end in itself, which is something often overlooked by people who feel they've 'moved on' from that.

Personally I draw the line at gear collectors who can recite the specs of all their gear and all the gear on their wish list, but have very little to say about 'photography', however they're perfectly entitled to pursue that as a hobby too. Even though I personally find it nuts, it's not something I can look down on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
droj said:
It's clear that it is for some people, just as for others it's the ownership of the equipment that counts the most.
Click to expand...
Or what he said, much more succinctly.
 
Heres a good example for you.

I took a trip into the Yorkshire Dales some months ago to photograph High Force Waterfall , after a heavy rainfall. The falls turned out to be so fierce and the spray so large i could hardly get close enough to get a clean shot and although i came away with a couple of keepers lef dissapointed.

On the way home i decided i wanted more as it was a waste of a trip otherwise and took deliberately a different route following the river. After a mile or two spotted a forest in the distance the river seemed to be running through. Trekked through a field full of mud sheep and cows and into the forest only to find the most amazing smaller waterfall, set up tripod and filters and shot some lovely shots some of which i have since sold. Spent a fab hour and walked away feeling really smug at the find.

As i left the forest took a slightly different route and just as i came out came across a large sign ..... ' Welcome to Low Force ' ... I had just inadvertently walked into a tourist spot and started taking photos without realizing !

The UK is not that large and it seems you can never be sure the photography you are taking has not been taken before !

low%20force%20falls%20yorkshire.jpg


Low Force Falls Yorkshire by www.andrew-davies.com
 
droj said:
What is it, about piers, jetties, castles, waterfalls and many other things, that draws many a photographer to more or less replicate a shot that's been taken many times before?

It can get boring. Even worse perhaps are birds caught or made stationary with every feather visible in detail, as if you could immobilise nature - this is surely a form of objectification? Should photography be about cliché, or something deeper?

Street photography is a minefield - a hundred photos are random pointings of the camera, and maybe another ten have meaning. What are we all aiming for?
Click to expand...


You have already shown you are pretty clueless in particular with regards to bird photography in another Thread. This post does nothing to change my mind.:rolleyes:
 
Ohh look. The ONLY thing in Clevedon :)



Yesterday afternoon. I popped down with the kids. Mainly to get out & about with them in between crap weather as when I have them I like us to make the most of our time & get out & about. I took the camera yes. I usually do but I mainly get shots of the kids for memories & photo albums but yesterday I came back with that. Again. To me, sometimes the thrill of photography is waiting for the sky, using filters to give you a shutter speed you want, choosing & using filters to get the image as close as pictured in camera, setting the right angle up etc A lot of things general public will look at an image & not even consider....

I say we're free to photograph what we want. As many times as we want :)
 
Ok... that just leaves you to get a buzz from Motorsport, aircraft, clouds, sky and buses.

Surely, it's about whatever you want it to be?
 
droj said:
It's clear that it is for some people, just as for others it's the ownership of the equipment that counts the most.
Click to expand...

Some people are collectors - is that wrong?
 
LeeRatters said:
Ohh look. The ONLY thing in Clevedon :)



Yesterday afternoon. I popped down with the kids. Mainly to get out & about with them in between crap weather as when I have them I like us to make the most of our time & get out & about. I took the camera yes. I usually do but I mainly get shots of the kids for memories & photo albums but yesterday I came back with that. Again. To me, sometimes the thrill of photography is waiting for the sky, using filters to give you a shutter speed you want, choosing & using filters to get the image as close as pictured in camera, setting the right angle up etc A lot of things general public will look at an image & not even consider....

I say we're free to photograph what we want. As many times as we want :)
Click to expand...

Lovely shot :)
 
droj said:
What is it, about piers, jetties, castles, waterfalls and many other things, that draws many a photographer to more or less replicate a shot that's been taken many times before?

It can get boring. Even worse perhaps are birds caught or made stationary with every feather visible in detail, as if you could immobilise nature - this is surely a form of objectification? Should photography be about cliché, or something deeper?

Street photography is a minefield - a hundred photos are random pointings of the camera, and maybe another ten have meaning. What are we all aiming for?
Click to expand...

Well what else is there left to photograph that has not been photographed before? Maybe some undiscovered species of animal or plant life maybe. Something like the Loch Ness Monster, but there again that's already been photographed, or has it ?
 
jonbeeza said:
Well what else is there left to photograph that has not been photographed before? Maybe some undiscovered species of animal or plant life maybe. Something like the Loch Ness Monster, but there again that's already been photographed, or has it ?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking. I guess since nearly everything has been photographed I better stick to duck lip selfies in the bathroom morror
 
I was in the park the other day, and I was going to get a photo of a particular scene. There was already a person waiting for someone to finish taking a photo, and I did not fancy simply getting in line to take the same photo. So I simply took a photo of the person waiting behind the one in front, and I managed to get the scene in also. It would have been funny if somebody had been taking one of me.

So simply take a photo of things that have already been done many times over, but do it your own way.
 
At the end of the day its a completely personal choice of what who and where we photograph!!

Lets just enjoy this great hobby.;)
 
I think the issue is that as there are so many photos taken every year it's almost impossible to shoot something original, as I said to someone a few days ago when asked about locations round London for light trails there's dozens of fantastic locations but all have been done thousands of times, probably millions of times in the case of Westminster bridge looking to Houses of Parliament so if your going to do them and want them to stand out you've got to do them really well

So long as your taking pride in what you do and aim to do it well I really don't think it matters if its been done a million times before
 
jonbeeza said:
Well what else is there left to photograph that has not been photographed before? Maybe some undiscovered species of animal or plant life maybe. Something like the Loch Ness Monster, but there again that's already been photographed, or has it ?
Click to expand...

You're assuming that originality only comes from "capturing" something no one's "captured" before.. from the actual subject, and that in order to be original you have to find a subject never photographed. You can create an image of a subject depicted thousands of times, and still put an original take on it.. make people think something different about it. All you have to do is think about it enough.

Women have been photographed billions of times, but talented photographers still produce original images of women.


The "There's nothing new under the sun" (I'm not pretentious enough to write it in Latin Rob) argument is staggeringly lame I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
You're assuming that originality only comes from "capturing" something no one's "captured" before.. from the actual subject, and that in order to be original you have to find a subject never photographed. You can create an image of a subject depicted thousands of times, and still put an original take on it.. make people think something different about it. All you have to do is think about it enough.

Women have been photographed billions of times, but talented photographers still produce original images of women.
Click to expand...

Yes of course that's why I still get out and take photos, because they are mine and I took them. Reminds me of the London Red bus copyright issues, nobody else could take a photo of a Red London bus, on a bridge or something I think it was. Can't remember if it was on here or someplace else, will have to try and look for it now..
 
MWHCVT said:
I think the issue is that as there are so many photos taken every year it's almost impossible to shoot something original,
Click to expand...

[PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. Sorry.. but that's [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
Heres a good example for you.

I took a trip into the Yorkshire Dales some months ago to photograph High Force Waterfall , after a heavy rainfall. The falls turned out to be so fierce and the spray so large i could hardly get close enough to get a clean shot and although i came away with a couple of keepers lef dissapointed.

On the way home i decided i wanted more as it was a waste of a trip otherwise and took deliberately a different route following the river. After a mile or two spotted a forest in the distance the river seemed to be running through. Trekked through a field full of mud sheep and cows and into the forest only to find the most amazing smaller waterfall, set up tripod and filters and shot some lovely shots some of which i have since sold. Spent a fab hour and walked away feeling really smug at the find.

As i left the forest took a slightly different route and just as i came out came across a large sign ..... ' Welcome to Low Force ' ... I had just inadvertently walked into a tourist spot and started taking photos without realizing !

The UK is not that large and it seems you can never be sure the photography you are taking has not been taken before !

low%20force%20falls%20yorkshire.jpg


Low Force Falls Yorkshire by www.andrew-davies.com
Click to expand...
County Durham.
 
Pookeyhead said:
[PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. Sorry.. but that's [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
Click to expand...

It is your right. But the OP did say 'more or less replicate' inferring that people are taking shots of the same things. However its easy to take a shot of the same thing from the same place all be it at a different time and have a completely different result.

Take on my favourites Dunstanburgh Castle , shot to death and from almost the same place on the shiny big rocks - yes i have never seen two identical photos and never tire of seeing other peoples results from the same place for me it makes it more interesting !

here is an example of 4 shots taken of Dunstanburgh Castle at different times from almost the same place
http://www.andrew-davies.com/photosnorthumberland.htm
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
here is an example of 4 shots taken of Dunstanburgh Castle at different times from almost the same place
Click to expand...

..and they're almost the same shot.

Andrew Davies Photography said:
droj - to prove the point can you show me two different photographers photos of the same scene which you feel are very similar ? I think you will find it harder to do than you imagine
Click to expand...

Easy...

http://i.imgur.com/uUBygd6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ObuAVXR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1S0HiaY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8uMZZXX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m43JmlU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m9QifgU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SICZxii.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CKdVrdJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5b7w3sg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FnxJA4n.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UcRQFKD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7OolaOJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1FYSFrQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PJVLQhE.jpg


I could literally keep going all day long with this.


No one's saying you can't or shouldn't take the same subject just because it' been shot before, but don't try to pretend it's original if you do.... because it's not. You've headed straight to the exact place everyone goes to, and as a result you'll show the castle exactly the same as everyone else is.

There's are more original takes on it to be found, but as you imagine, they're a lot harder to find.

http://i.imgur.com/7F2bLeY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XJahjlI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VyBD1px.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fgt0F2K.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cQq8E14.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XlE7wRI.jpg


It's not the subject that needs to be original (or have more originality rather) but how it's approached.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Does that imply that the taking of the image is more important than the image?
Click to expand...

It can be; "I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality - for yourself, not for others - what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can tell what it really means." Isn't that why artists make art, why anglers fish, why mountaineers climb?
 
Pookeyhead said:
..and they're almost the same shot.



Easy...

http://i.imgur.com/uUBygd6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ObuAVXR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1S0HiaY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8uMZZXX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m43JmlU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m9QifgU.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SICZxii.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CKdVrdJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5b7w3sg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FnxJA4n.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UcRQFKD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7OolaOJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1FYSFrQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/PJVLQhE.jpg


I could literally keep going all day long with this.


No one's saying you can't or shouldn't take the same subject just because it' been shot before, but don't try to pretend it's original if you do.... because it's not. You've headed straight to the exact place everyone goes to, and as a result you'll show the castle exactly the same as everyone else is.

There's are more original takes on it to be found, but as you imagine, they're a lot harder to find.

http://i.imgur.com/7F2bLeY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XJahjlI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VyBD1px.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fgt0F2K.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cQq8E14.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XlE7wRI.jpg


It's not the subject that needs to be original (or have more originality rather) but how it's approached.
Click to expand...

Your are talking rubbish now , you have just done an image search and come up with a bunch of shots which are from the same place and they are ALL different. If you cant see that then its your imagination that is lacking. You have very much proved the point.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
Your are talking rubbish now , you have just done an image search and come up with a bunch of shots which are from the same place
Click to expand...

Of course I have... how else would I find them?

Andrew Davies Photography said:
and they are ALL different. If you cant see that then its your imagination that is lacking. You have very much proved the point.
Click to expand...


All taken low down, from the same spot on the same beach, with the same rocks, with the same castle in the same place in the same framing. There are differences in time of day and processing.. changes in crop, that's all. They're the same shot.

Ed Sutton said:
It can be; "I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality - for yourself, not for others - what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can tell what it really means." Isn't that why artists make art, why anglers fish, why mountaineers climb?
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with this. Just don't pretend what you're producing is original (although there's nothing to preclude originality from that approach). IF this is the reason you are doing it, then someone saying it's the same as al the other shots should result in a shrug of indifference, not a veracious defence of it's originality. So clearly, for some, that's not the motivation. If it was, you wouldn't care less what people think.. the image would be incidental.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top