Your photos are boring.

AnCatDubh

Have heard lots of references to Chase Jarvis but haven't followed or even googled the name. Stumbled across his blog tonight from a link elsewhere, and found the following;

Read em and weep.

Maybe Seth has a point. My favourite photographers on here don't produce boring. They produce something new with every image they share. They innovate and appear to consistently go a little further than most.

I'd be interested to see what you guys think. Is this perhaps the difference between the average and the great? Discuss if you please.

Covey

ACD, you're becoming the master of the statement and .... lets discuss.

Too tired to make a meaningful contribution, but marketing gurus .... yuk :rolleyes:

No, you don't, can't " innovate, create, differentiate" all the time ... but there are other ways to do it ... that don't take the marketing gurus (generally flawed) approach.

No doubt I will be back :P:pac::pac:

dakar

He's right, they are, and then they're not for a while, and then they are again, and then not so bad for a while. And that's only me looking at my own photos. Not what I think of anyone else's or anyone else who has to suffer through mine.

The muse comes, the muse goes, I get hooked on iphone photos, super wide angles, overly contrasty B&W's, lensbaby shots, wafer thin DOF botanicals, fauxalroids. Each new fascination follows a fairly predictable arc. They're new, they're exciting (to me anyway), they're overplayed, they're boring. I put down the camera for a couple of weeks and it starts all over again.

I'm glad I don't have to make a living from this game.

I'm also glad that there is a recurring cycle of boom and bust, because the alternative would be, well, ...... boring;)

Covey

dakar wrote: »

wafer thin DOF botanicals, fauxalroids.

It mightn't be kosher, but could you not self medicate for the likes of that?

dakar

Covey wrote: »

It mightn't be kosher, but could you not self medicate for the likes of that?

Hmm the cure might be worse than the disease......... :P

Chorcai

I know its late in all but where the **** is "[click the 'continue reading' link below]" I can't see ?

dakar

Chorcai wrote: »

I know its late in all but where the **** is "[click the 'continue reading' link below]" I can't see ?

Just ignore that bit! I think ACD linked to the post in it's complete state (which somehow left the 'click to continue' bit in place)

Chorcai

dakar wrote: »

Just ignore that bit! I think ACD linked to the post in it's complete state (which somehow left the 'click to continue' bit in place)

I thought th'tinternets was broken !

sineadw

Oh I dunno. I think we hit a stage where we're just naval gazing and it's not about the photo anymore. I have a habit of getting into something hugely for a while and then moving on to the next fad of mine. TBH though I couldn't really care less what other people think any more. If I bore other people then so what. As long as I'm not boring myself I'm happy.That's the joy of not doing this for a living

Hugh_C

sineadw wrote: »

If I bore other people then so what. As long as I'm not boring myself I'm happy.That's the joy of not doing this for a living

But you're studying this to make a living? Huh?

Covey

Hugh_C wrote: »

But you're studying this to make a living? Huh?

g!

sineadw

Not necessarily. Multimedia stuff is where I plan to earn, freelance. That's where I've always earned. The masterplan is to teach. And I'm planning to do a masters so I have two years left where I'm officially a student. The best thing about being a student is you get to do what you want to do

Borderfox

Sometimes the reality is to turn out what the customer wants and within this brief you can try new ideas or evole previous ones to something new. I tend to push myself all the time and try something new whenever I can. Whether this is regarded as boring is not up to me but other people

As my sig says "living the dream" this is not a lie, every day working at this is pure enjoyment

ThOnda

Boring? Pictures could express your (at least mine) personality. It is more likely what is your aim in what you do (not mine picture linked here).

sineadw

ThOnda wrote: »

Boring? Pictures could express your (at least mine) personality. It is more likely what is your aim in what you do (not mine picture linked here).

humberklog

sineadw wrote: »

Oh I dunno. I think we hit a stage where we're just naval gazing and it's not about the photo anymore.

Oh Shinners there's naval gazing and then there's swans and Samuel Becket bridges, give me a nicely fluff filled belly buttons any day...just no flipping Becket bridges.

Thanks ACD, I don't often read stuff on the computer but did that...and agreed. That last competition (the one with the blue thingy) kinda showed up a lot of what the guy has to say.


The: get camera, make web-site, take pics formula is killling the game. That equation and newspaper editiors that have taken a high jinx night course in photostuff and thinks a sharp image rules all has strangled the life out of the art.

La chapelle, swan snappers, sharpists, pixel sweepers, clean liners and hoovermatics do appear to dominate the amature game.

sineadw

Now I want to know what a hoovermatic is...

DaireQuinlan

sineadw wrote: »

Now I want to know what a hoovermatic is...

Probably some app for the iPhone
.
.
.
Meow

humberklog

sineadw wrote: »

Now I want to know what a hoovermatic is...

:pac: Oh it was late.

I think I meant people that think that taking every blemish from an image is a positive thing.

Holy sweet f. that's what makes a photo.

melekalikimaka

humberklog wrote: »

La chapelle, swan snappers, sharpists, pixel sweepers, clean liners and hoovermatics do appear to dominate the amature game.

you honestly find lacapelle 'boring'? have you flicked through his books before?

humberklog

melekalikimaka wrote: »

you honestly find lacapelle 'boring'? have you flicked through his books before?

yes and yes.

I just don't like his stuff nor find it interesting.

magicbastarder

i find it baffling how so many people like his stuff.

melekalikimaka

i can understand a dislike... but really in the same category as swan photos??? and crap plugins and filters?

magicbastarder

comparing swan photos and lachapelle is not a fair comparison - the former tend to be the work of people getting to grips with their cameras and photography in general, so you'd look at the former and think 'fair enough, they're just learning', and (if you're me) you'd look at the latter and think 'garish and tacky'.

Fenster

Wow. It is like this entire three was created to put into words what I internalize every day. Woo.

Covey

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i can understand a dislike... but really in the same category as swan photos??? and crap plugins and filters?

I think HK was in a good mood when he posted that. No comparison really ... the swans win every time.:pac::pac:

Fenster

magicbastarder wrote: »

comparing swan photos and lachapelle is not a fair comparison - the former tend to be the work of people getting to grips with their cameras and photography in general, so you'd look at the former and think 'fair enough, they're just learning', and (if you're me) you'd look at the latter and think 'garish and tacky'.

But both are shtie! Not too far apart.

melekalikimaka

Fenster wrote: »

But both are shtie! Not too far apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seeLRubEX2g

yes not too far apart at all, i have never ACTUALLY photographed a swan but i'm fairly sure you would not apply a similar process to a david lachapelle shoot or would the images share any traits after. I think i may be slightly bias tho as he was what drew me to photography in the first place

stick-dan

This whole thread makes ones self very paranoid as to whether their photography is boring or not.

humberklog

Oooh yeah Covey's right there, I wasn't comparing Lechapel to swan pics but flinging him out on one side. Swans would indeed be on a different end of the Bad/No Influence spectrum.

DaireQuinlan

stick-dan wrote: »

This whole thread makes ones self very paranoid as to whether their photography is boring or not.

I've actually HAD my shots called boring. I think the actual phrase was "banal fail", thanks Fenster . Like most people above though I shoot mostly for myself luckily, so I can afford to contemptuously dismiss any criticism with the knowledge that obviously the critic is at fault, not my shots. OTOH getting bored with your OWN stuff is probably a good thing. Otherwise you'll just keep on pumping out the same crap over and over again. I went through a swirly bokeh helios-44 flowery phase. Recently shot a few more similar ones and just went 'meh'. Naturally I intend to upload them to flickr anyway. Other people seem to love them for whatever reason, and I'm always one to prostitute myself for cheap vindication

stick-dan

But what is variety then in order to escape from a boring continuation of producing reams and reams of the same stuff. Lately I've just gotten back from a busy spell and picked up the camera again and i've decided to move away from wildlife and look into the botanical side of nature. Is a shift from shooting animals and moving onto a wood/forest an adequate enough change. Is it your subject being alternated that suffices a change or would it be a change of technique, lately i'm experimenting with perspective, which i never did before. What exactly satifies the criteria of change in order to prevent your shots from becoming boring.Am i boring... this thread confuses me.

Calina

Okay.

I am tired. And I have not read the link in the OP (I'm tired).

People's photographs may be boring. But if your photographs are boring to you there are a couple of problems

1) stuck in a comfort zone
2) probably tired.

I've been down this road several times in the last year. It's a case of "oh there's another floor with a really shallow DOF, there's another kitesurfer, French for preference because well, they all are, blah blah, there's another this.

Now I don't much like what I've seen of David thingie - not to my taste. Garish is a useful word to describe any contact i've had with him. But ultimately, you control the photographs you take; if you're bored, then it's still up to you to bash through the limits of your zone. This - for me - has occasionally meant playing with icecubes, bits of string, model grand pianos and anything that takes an unusual effort.

it may not generate great photos for you but it does - in my experience - make you reconsider how you look at the stories you photograph.

right now, however I'm ploughing through 300 RAW files and I am bored. Sad irony. The max number of RAW files I can process in one go without going slightly crazy is about 10.

possibly not a good evening for me to comment on this then.

DaireQuinlan

Calina wrote: »

I'm ploughing through 300 RAW files and I am bored. Sad irony. The max number of RAW files I can process in one go without going slightly crazy is about 10.

possibly not a good evening for me to comment on this then.

probably not, by my reckoning you're 30x(slightly crazy). And by anyones account that adds up to a whole pile of crazy ...

dazftw

I don't think anyone has mentioned Chase Jarvis does a lot of commercial work. Iv'e always found his work more appealing to other commercial work. He does add something different to the game. Go watch his youtube vid's

If were talking about regular Joe's like us then I don't know. I think we can all be very samey and have very cliché photos.That doesn't make them boring. Ive said it before it takes awhile before someone finds there style and develops it. When we all start were all taking the same kinda photographs.

FoxT

For me it is about consistency. I don't attempt art or flickr-style uber-shallow DOF or whatnot. My goal is to get to the point where, if I am in a situation where I want to take a photo, I will know exactly what to do to get the best possible result. I reckon I've about 10 years to go at my current rate of progress...:)

superflyninja

i make photos that i like. but i also want others to like them. so i think its about finding a middle ground cos ideally id love to actually get good enough to earn money from this. but to do that I gotta appeal to a broader range of people....

K_user

I don’t know who Seth is (where Jarvis's quote came from) and I don’t care to be honest. Chances are he has never picked up a camera. Its often those that don’t understand how hard it is to do something, that don’t appreciate the results. Even the most “average” amateur part-time enthusiast can produce lovely photographs.

For most of us, both pros and amateurs, this is a hobby. It is something that we have spent time, energy and money on. We constantly develop our eye, our skills, our knowledge base, even our equipment. We all have different areas that we specialize in or enjoy. On this site alone, never mind the 100,000 others on the net, we have people who enjoy street, landscape, portraits, IR, macro and city photography - to name a few.

To say that the millions of photographers, world wide, who log onto sites daily that they and their hobby is boring…well long walk, short pier, is what comes to mind.

Most Pro’s survive on taking whats requested of them, not whats different or exciting. Most enthusiasts don’t have the time or money to journey to the exotic destinations of their dreams. We photograph what is around us and if that isn’t good enough…

superflyninja

K_user wrote: »

We photograph what is around us and if that isn’t good enough…

but it is HOW we photograph what is around us that matters.

K_user

superflyninja wrote: »

but it is HOW we photograph what is around us that matters.

As covered in the rest of my post...

If John is very good at Macro, but average at Landscapes, does this mean that he should give up on photography altogether? Or should he just stick to macro?

No.

Photography is a hobby, something that an awful lot of us get great enjoyment out of. So who really cares if someone that most of us have never heard of, this seth lad, doesn't approve...

superflyninja

K_user wrote: »

As covered in the rest of my post...

If John is very good at Macro, but average at Landscapes, does this mean that he should give up on photography altogether? Or should he just stick to macro?

No.

Photography is a hobby, something that an awful lot of us get great enjoyment out of. So who really cares if someone that most of us have never heard of, this seth lad, doesn't approve...

I just think there are a lot of boring photos out there. A hellofalot of my own photos are boring. But thats fine they are steps on the way to becoming good.Ummmmm what Im saying is people shouldnt stop posting photos on sites etc and photography is a great hobby etc, its just a lot of the photos are in fact boring.

Cameraman

K_user wrote: »

I don’t know who Seth is (where Jarvis's quote came from) and I don’t care to be honest. Chances are he has never picked up a camera.

You may be right - Seth Godwin may never have picked up a camera. The quote comes from Chase Jarvis (who definitely does pick up cameras) - not Seth Godwin. Chase took some comments from Seth and reworked them for photographers - does that make it more valid for you ??

elven

I think people think of different things when you say 'innovate' and 'push things further'.

The common misconception is that to do something new, you have to shoot an exotic subject, in a crazy way. Everyone's stumbling over themselves to do more fancy strobist lighting and vintage processing. Maybe we're missing the thing that allows people to do something different from everyone else - ignoring the fashion, be authentic, shoot what you want, how you want to, not how the magazines say you should.

How many people point their camera at something that was important and interesting to them *before* they took up photography? I fail to do that, and take lots of pictures because they look ilke the pictures i think i should be taking. Still fighting to shrug it off. But I think that's where the key to authenticity is hiding.

humberklog

elven wrote: »

I think people think of different things when you say 'innovate' and 'push things further'.

The common misconception is that to do something new, you have to shoot an exotic subject, in a crazy way. Everyone's stumbling over themselves to do more fancy strobist lighting and vintage processing. Maybe we're missing the thing that allows people to do something different from everyone else - ignoring the fashion, be authentic, shoot what you want, how you want to, not how the magazines say you should.

How many people point their camera at something that was important and interesting to them *before* they took up photography? I fail to do that, and take lots of pictures because they look ilke the pictures i think i should be taking. Still fighting to shrug it off. But I think that's where the key to authenticity is hiding.

No, no and no. What you need is a good camera (perhaps a dslr) and a website. Either one can be first but as is often the case these days both acquired at the same time is the most popular. Then you need some modern shooting magazines...and that's it. The rest will fill itself in. Stuuf such as pictures will pop onto the camera and fill up the easily function and accessable website in no time.

It's the future, I've seen it.

You're too old school elven.

dakar

There's a difference of course between photography, the hobby and photography, the profession.

I think Borderfox is right when he says that just because it's work doesn't mean that the work needs to be boring. A good example is wedding photography. The best wedding photographers I've seen on here and elsewhere turn out good photographs which also happen to be good wedding photographs. Photographs that tell a story, that capture more than a line up of people who happened to be there.

I'm a vet. My cat spays are boring. I do them the same way every time. Technically, I'm bloody good at them. I consistently perform a procedure with good results. I take pride in my work and enjoy doing them well. I reckon they're the equivalent of the 'line-up' family photo shots at a wedding or the 'standard' photos that a client wants produced. The one's that need to be done right, but don't allow for creative thinking.

Sometimes I get to do stuff like this and this (NSFWusses!). I get to think creatively, solve problems, use my brain. This stuff is not boring. This is the stuff that makes my work interesting.

Routine stuff is routine. There will always be opportunities to go beyond the routine. Good photographers seek out those opportunities even in the midst of otherwise mundane assignments.

Effects

Sorry to go off topic but what was that procedure for/what does it do?

magicbastarder

broken jaw reconstruction?

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

broken jaw reconstruction?

Fitting adamantium teeth into the jawbones of a race of SUPER DOGS if you will, who have also been genetically bred for super intelligence and fecundity.

What could possibly go wrong ?

dakar

Yup it's a multiple mandibular fracture repair, a smashed jaw reconstruction.

Daire, I don't put photographs of my Überdog Dark Army of the Night on the internet

ThOnda

elven wrote: »

...How many people point their camera at something that was important and interesting to them *before* they took up photography? I fail to do that, and take lots of pictures ...

I have completely different opinion from your pictures. More like you taking pictures of things and object that were always on your mind, but you are just exploring, expressing or exhibiting them in a way that at some exact moment feels right to you.

elven

Thanks - maybe that's the ones that I'm getting right then...