The shops in London that sell cheap tacky tourist souvenirs have loads of prints of b&w photos with just red buses, red post boxes and red phone boxes. They go beyond cliche, more of an "ubercliche".
I would add two more cliches: flowers and framing. It is impossible to totally avoid cliches but as you said, you can make them your own and do them in an original way. I recently went to a watercolors show. Flowers can be a cliche in any medium but I saw several watercolor paintings that did flowers in a unique way.
Peter - a very thought provoking video , so it really worked for me.I realise that I actually quite like cliches - relictions ,tourist shots ,rule of thirds etc and frankly it is difficult to avoid them ,but the saving grace for me was the concept of developing your own style and using it to try to make a difference to the shot and having the confidence to try a varied approach. It may still have some aspect of being a cliche but it can have a more unique perspective .Many thanks for this video whcih really made me think !!
Good morning, Peter. You left off HDR. I remember the 'rage' when that first came out and everyone was doing it to every image. Deliberately limiting yourself with less gear is a great way to learn and improve your photography. It's something that I have been doing a lot of lately, one body-one lens, and the results are notable. Great video, as always. Thank you!
Only time I actually shoot hdr, is when using my phone. Because there I just let ai do my snap. But with the camera itself, I very rarely use hdr. But I wish I learned it on moon shots tough.
Good reminders. I have no issue with any of the cliches you listed, but it is good to keep them in mind when out shooting. How can I make this a bit different, or does it matter in any particular instance. The only two that I do are really the rule of thirds and the touristy stuff. And since I don't get to travel much anymore, there is very little tourist content in my photos. I will say that the obsession with bokeh, or toneh, I find quite tiresome. When I first started shooting an SLR - way back in the dark ages of the early 1970s - I never heard the term. Depth of field, yes, along with exposure, focus, and ASA (ISO.) Intentionally blurring backgrounds to oblivion and talking about bokeh balls is a bore. Most people do not need a f0.95 lens. Sorry. Old man diatribe over. I will say that I own too many lenses. I shoot MFT and use mostly just two lenses: 12-35mm f2.8 and 20mm f1.7 for all of my photography/videography. They cover pretty much all of my needs. Anyway, my two cents.
I think I first saw the word bokeh about 15-20 years ago in a magazine article devoted to the topic. The article basically explained the idea based on the assumption that nobody had even heard the word before, although I think it explained that it was already well known in Japan.
Gear obsession, I am guilty as well. OM-1, 12-100mm f/4 and 20mm f/1.4 fantastically cover 95% of my needs and keep my bag small. Pen mini with 17mm, 25mm and 45mm f/1.8 are so great to just throw into my daypack if I want it even smaller. I still would not like to sell any of my other great lenses and cameras though. Still use them at times and probably I have become a collector…
Good points here from all. Chris, I have seen the same article about Bokeh. Being a collector is totally fine. I have a few vintage Olympus cameras just to have them. GAS on the other hand is in most cases not good. If one really needs or want to have a lot of lenses that is totally ok. I prefer less gear for my everyday photography. The type of professional work I do a variety of lenses is a must.
Thanks Peter. My design tutor in 1986 said to the class, It might have been done before but it is your way of doing it that important. He meant you could get a different result. Also, if we avoid all the cliches we are cutting out a lot of our views of the world. I think it is sad when a cliche is obviously beautiful as a subject but people dismiss it. They miss out the enjoyment that beautiful images can give us. They fail to see any beauty in it. However, I agree strongly with your advice about evolving as a photographer, by attempting to create images with cliches that make them different using some of the approaches you mentioned.
I liked when you advised photographers to take their memory pictures without worrying about clichés. If you think your image needs a certain look, just because others came to the same conclusion is not a reason to avoid it, it just means that great minds think alike. With few exceptions, clichés became clichés because they were and are a good techniques, else it would not have become a go-to technique, as long as you do it deliberately and not out of laziness.
A video of public safety.. Please add to your list the moon especially and also the small flowers, the wings of the birds and the ears of the squirrels... Thank you! 😊
This reminds me of a Scott Kelby video where he disparaged photographers for making images of "low hanging fruit", meaning pictures of cats, or nature. He was basically dissing everybody who wasn't making images with professional models with complicated lighting setups. Images made any other way were to easily obtained and therefore of no value. I think we photograph different things at different stages and I would never discourage a beginning photographer from photographing sunsets or cats. Give him/her something they can be successful at and the passion will follow and they will start using that passion to make great photographs.
Peter, you mention so many good points the raisons to get out of the cliché. I love street photos, I mention many times to people, in street photography the picture you take now, today, it is For ever, it will be forever, it won’t be repeat ever, that picture will be the futur of the past, (example are the dress of people’s, building, cars in the streets, building architecture’s, etc…) vs the nice bucolic country scenes there will be there in hundred years in the future , only few more or less trees! Thanks for your « Bang on » Peter. (Text correction made May, 17 )
I learned a lot when I put away my "superzoom" digital camera (24-700mm equivalent) and went on several trips with just my iPhone 7. As you said, Peter, I saw the photos that were possible with just the one field of view (about 28mm equivalent). I really began to understand wide angle composition. I photographed an entire trip to Ireland that way, and I even avoided tourist cliches for the most part. Good talk!
I think everyone who starts into photography needs to go through them all so they get the experience, from there they can then can expand and be creative with the old "cliche" photos to make something new or give a different take on them. Imitation, inspiration, creation the 3 steps i try to follow
Peter, I agree with all you said . I am retired and have reduced my gear to one body and two primes , one which is glued to the body and the other for when I want to do portraits. The other lens is the kit zoom that I just keep in the box - it’s a shame , but my prime lenses cover all my needs and are faster apertures and sharper lenses . My alternative lens is on my phone and takes care of the wide angles . On vacations , I always shot for me and captured more of the mood with people doing interesting things that complimented the scene in which they were set against famous landmarks . I still photograph in digital as I did in film . Back then I was so careful to get the light right that once I had I only had to look at the back of my hand to know when to change aperture . Even now , I get great monochrome images that outshine the colour ones, but most people (not all) prefer seeing the world in colour . It’s swings and roundabouts . Sometimes the shot really works best in colour or BW , other times it’s 50/50. I think your video will help a lot of people to let go of the rules and just reconnect with taking pictures to discover the joy that drew them in to taking up photography . Finally , there is no such thing as a poor image , only those that fail to tell a story and capture our imaginations . Sure , technically produced photos look great , but are often boring . Something a little imperfect can be so arresting it becomes a keeper . Thanks , Peter .
For one scary moment I thought you meant you had literally glued a lens to your camera body 😃. I agree absolutely about technically perfect photos which are often more than perfect because they look almost artificial. A major culprit is I think auto HDR which gives an entirely incorrect impression of light. Instagram is full of photos of London, my home town, which don't feel anything like London because of the "Mediterranean" looking light. Photos are often also way sharper than the scene looks in real life, again making them look artificial.
Good points about the light and sharpness. I think you have a great point here. Why make the image look like it was made somewhere else? It is about the style and it might not fit to the photograph.
Peter I photograph for myself and I have photographed a few things over the years that stand out . The Space Shuttle Columbia in flight with chase planes . The Sistine Chapel with 1500 film as you can no longer photograph it. The Milky Way , Fall Foliage in New England, Angels Landing in Zion National Park , Brice Canyon Utah and the top of Half Dome in Yosemite. I photographed this for myself and I cherish the
I think the current bokeh obsession is just a fad. If people are fretting about whether the blurred parts of a photo look nice or not then they have failed because the idea is to draw attention to the main subject. Maybe it's no more than clever marketing to get people to buy expensive very fast lenses!
I often shoot wide open with fast lenses, not because I want the Bokeh but because I like to shoot moving subjects without flash and only little available light! Of course a creamy Bokeh helps a lot to get pleasing results in such situations as well. It also helps a lot that I shoot m43 only, I often get more shallow DoF than I really want or need, even with that sensor size. Obsessing with gear is another cliché, LOL.
Thank God for good eyesight. I never saw a very clear Robin Hood in a blurred forest. I see it all, at once, in good focus. Unless an object is really far away, yet ships don't blur on the Atlantic. The ocean itself doesn't blur. Yes, I swim upstream; only dead fish go with the flow.
I can also think of a couple of landscape cliches I've noticed over the last couple of years. Photos of water always having slow shutter speeds so it looks like mist instead of water. That's in seascapes, waterfalls and any moving water. The other one is having the whole image in focus from the tiny flower in the foreground to the mountains or whatever in the background. So no use of selective focus to draw your eye to the most important part of the scene that you actually wanted to take the photo of.
Good points. Depth of Filed is a tricky thing. It seems that nowadays there are only two ways. Very narrow depth of filed or everything is sharp. There is nothing between. That is a pity, becouse part of the whole thing is the selective focus you mentioned.
I like this video! As my note on travel photography -- photos of the Colosseum, although cool, didn't bring back memories for me as much as incidental pictures of the bar and shops where we stayed -- everyday stuff, impromptu street photography. Seeing those photos, the Colosseum and so much more (sounds, smells, feelings) come back to me, as I experienced it at the time.
When I photograph my head is not cluttered with "intellectual" consideration, no one is interested in my photos except when I make a portrait where the person appears handsomer than in reality. I don't care what other people think of my photos. “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.” ― Groucho Marx
Everything is a cliché from the past and others before you and me. But yes, other angles breaks the cliché. Exactly like the photography rules. Break them 😊 For example sunsets or halos. I shoot them in high F number 😊 You actually forgot the biggest cliché. The focus on humans in street photography. That's something we need to break and learn.
Humans in street photography is an interesting point. I see humans on street like trees in a forest. Well almost the same thing, but not quite. Humans are a big part of the street scene. There is also a genre of street photography with out people. I have photographed what I call traces of humans. You made a very good point.
I would add a couple of other cliches, and I am sure that others will add more. "Dramatic skies," the pursuit of which has spawned an entire industry of ersatz sky replacement schemes, and cotton candy water renderings, which rob waterfalls, oceans, and lakes of their natural texture and movement.
Very long and very short shutter speeds of water both look ridiculous to me. Water looking like mist, as you said, but also water frozen at 1/1000, 1/2000 or whatever. The optimum to give a natural impression obviously varies with how fast the water is moving but typically 30, 60 or 125 is the sort of range you should be aiming at.
I reckon clichés are great for practising & honing your skills, but not if you're actually trying to make it anywhere as a photographer (unless it's weddings or live bands/performances)...
Most landscapes are full of cliches ... the worst is reflections in a lake. This works because of "iteration", it's the visual equivalent of repeating a refrain in a musical composition, it makes the listener/viewer think that the element in the composition is somehow right or fitting because it is repeated. Familiarity is a big part of the appeal. Then there is the ugly cliche of moving water taken at a slow shutter speed to make it look smooth and silky. Somehow this is regarded as "artistic". Infact smearing and softening anything is regarded as "artistic" when in fact its the strength of the visual idea that makes the art, not special effects. And don't frget the overdramatic skies ... this is used pretty much indiscriminately to make any landcape look more dramatic, it doesn't might how inappropriate it is to the scene (which may not even BE dranatic!) , its slapped in anyway using enhancements in proceesing. Its the visual equivalent of using MSG in food to enhance the flavour, no matter what the dish. Landscape cliches stem from the same basic flaw, the photographer has no connection to the landscpae they are photographing, no actual feeling about it so instead of captruing something about that landscape in particualr, or better still, the emotional significance of that landscape for them, they just present it in the same terms as they do every other landscape, using the same elements, namely with oversatruated colors, overly dramatic skies, smeared water streams and trite reflections. There are very few photogrpahers who can communicate the elemental power of nature or the symbolic aspect of natural objects. As for sunsets .... if only the sun woud set forever on these images! People WANT to reproduce cliches because they know how such work will be recieved, it's already been accepted so there's no risk in redoing it. And if someone has never seen the cliche before then they might actually think you are original. But being truly original is risky because you never know how your work will be received, it may be rejected. So. it's not just that people lack talent, they actually don't want to be original. Mediocre is safe.
Nice, constructive conclusion: it’s okay to imitate clichés, just move on and grow. Sadly, the growth of social media, like Instagram, has promoted a culture of clichė. One clichė I am tired of, yet promoted by many landscape photographers, is an ultra wide shot with the majestic mountain in the back and flowers in the front (or some variation of this): it was fun the first half dozen times…
Thanks for the fantastic video, Peter. Spot on! I love the direction you are taking with your channel now a lot. Sometimes I have the impression that photography in general has become a cliché by itself… like everything has been photographed over and over again in all imaginable ways already. But then I see people using it to create real art and tell stories never told that way before. That is what I strive for as well. But as long as I am not able to pull this off yet, I am content with just having fun shooting and creating images that I like of memories that matter to me personally. At least sometimes…
Glad to hear. Yes, I am trying to make a lot more content like this in the future. You are absolutely right that photography itself is a cliche. I think it is because of the vast amount of photographs been taken in the last 10-20 years. As you said there is also more interesting content being created than ever before. Unfortunately it is harder to find.
Thank you Petter. A video that makes you think is a video well worth watching. With every day I realise how little I know and how much I have still to learn. I am 65 and have been photographing since the age of about 6 or 7. The wonderful thing about photography is that it is a constant learning curve and that the learning curve is always satisfying. I look forward to more thought provoking videos.
Thanks! Almost 60 years of photography. Impressive! I like attitude, yes there is always something to learn. When someone thinks there is nothing to learn > decay starts.
To a certain point I agree with you, but looking into some photography books I can not avoid seeing some very cliché shots made by highly acclaimed photographers... I believe that clichés became clichés because of the fact that sometimes they are just fabulous pictures. Shot by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Joel Meyerowitz, Bruce Gilden to name a few. Clichés can not be avoided I guess because they draw photographers in.... Your personal portfolio will always contain clichés to the certain degree, creating and developing your own style is something completely different and has more to do with perseverance, skills, the will to embrace, adapt or change et cetera.
It is never WHAT you are photographing, but HOW you do it. I search always to take my pictures with at least one moment, which is new - at least for me.... and also in a sunset.
I never really understod the concept of bokeh, and all hype about it. Sure i can be fun, and yes for macro it comes with the technic. Good advices here, and we have alll done all those that you mention here.
Right! AI generated images are like an amplified version of this cliché these days… even much worse than in the earlier years of photoshop I would say! 😅
All these rules need to be a part of your narrative and then it’s okay to use them. You need to improve your own photographic stile. A wide picture is a part of National Graphics story telling using three pictures, wide, normal and close up. I have allot of gear but I limit myself to one camera and one lens and use it for a long time.
An interesting silhouette with some great shadows about is not easy. It might actually be something to add to one's list. Doing works like Rupert Vandervell, to me, seems like a great challenge for some street art. The key here however, is doing it to perfection. Not doing just boring silhouettes, is the goal, though the rest might be good practice, until perfection. In regard to reflections, I do see on the Internet people shooting every window in town and puddle on the street, as though it meant something. If a reflection has the pairing of something to add humor, or even beauty is a unique way -- special interest, then yes, a great shot. And of course, those rainy day downtown shots which look natural, is nice. Does it add something of significance, might be the rule, instead of just trying to do what was scene in a RU-vid. This is like adding a railing, or the circle in a fence into a scene, is it adding to the shot, or just being a distraction. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. Fun, relaxing and rewarding, one can enjoy the day with photography --- what more do we need? Take care, Loren
Some great advice…and enjoyed the point about how much of photography is doing what ‘you’ like. That said, your point about thinking differently…I think that’s more like creating art…which can be wonderful at times.
There is only one cliche, i really hate.... to make water free of movements. It is boring.... and it kills the power of water, which is the power of live!
Massive areas of Bokeh are IMHO the biggest cliche. Picking out a face in crisp focus against a modest area of bokeh can be fabulous, but buying an expensive fast lens with phenomenal IQ is a laughable waste when most of the photo is out of focus.
Dear Peter. Everything we do now has been done before. Maybe in a slightly different way with different tools of course, but it's been done before. What I mean by this is that we copy everything from the past. Think Adams, West, or Saul Leiter. These men invented photography and especially the way of shooting for us. So I think there are many more clichés than the 7 you list now. Few photos are really original and special, everything has already been done by our predecessors in the field of photography. Look at the old masters and their paintings. There are very few painters who make this work in this day and age. Why? Because people will always say that looks like the work of so-and-so. This is how I view clichés. About the selective color, I totally agree with you it is awful. I only work in B&W. Kind regards from the Netherlands, Antoine.
Yes Adams was quite unique, but even he was greatly influenced by Carleton Watkins. Some of their images look quite similar. That does not take anything away from Adams. He evolved from Watkins.
@@ForsgardPeter And that is what I mean. We always have an influencer that affects our work. Thank you for the reaction, Peter I really appreciate this, my friend.
Cliche's are not a problem unless you happen to be stuck on them. You should learn something new every time you take pictures. But here's another cliche...as you get older, you forget what you've learned int he past and end up relearning it all...over and over. Haha. I don't mind someone photographing cliche's. It's like a right of passage. As long as your path is onward and upward, snap away at the cliche's. But then look at your pictures and ask yourself...how can I be better and where do I go from here now that I've done all the cliche's? We all have style. Our own. I'm not saying it's interesting to others. If the artist in you doesn't appeal to the general public...then consider yourself typical. The public is very whimsical. You're hot for a day, then you're not. Ask yourself whether you photo's are interesting. If you find them so, success. If you want to make a living at photography, then you do what the client wants. You do what you think the public wants. Artistic expression is self indulgent...and properly so. Besides...where else are you getting your artistry? If you are walking in Ansel Adams footprints trying to recreate his pictures, well...that's a game of self deception.
Hmm, it's not so much that we should ignore or avoid these things you're calling clichés, but rather that we should give thought to how we might use these classic images to make them into something that's really special. It is our personal interpretation of an image that is important - even something as allegedly clichéd as sunset reflected in a window with partial colour! Just be sure to put your own artistic stamp on it.
EVERYTHING.... falls into this. Everything has been photographed TO DEATH. So, does that mean we may as well throw away all of our cameras? Well, no, in does not. Just continue to take pictures that interest you and catches your eye. I am not a pro, I don't sell my photos, very few see my photos... so it just does not matter. At least not to me. Basically, just how you finished your video.
Who cares about a photo cliche? If you're happy and your audience is happy that's all that counts. I've never taken a single photograph thinking I want to impress Peter, Robin or anyone else online. BTW, has anyone ever said anything bad about your photography? Probably not. So your likes are worthless.
I agree that if you are happy with your cliches > totally ok. This was about getting better and maybe developing a style. My photographs has been trashed many times over the years. Some just for the sake if bashing, but a lot that had really good contractive criticism. It is always good to get points from others. That is the way we learn.
@Peter Forsgård I didn't mean you, specifically. I should have said one, instead. I find that people who are nonphotographers tend to say they like photos even when they don't. I know my style and work doesn't appeal to all but you wouldn't know it by feedback I recieve. And social media likes are meaningless. While I encourage people to try different things, I dislike the idea of labeling cliches. Perhaps people like those cliches, or like shooting them. I don't think we should disparage one's efforts or style any more than disparage their choice of gear.
I think people have become obsessed with some aspects of photography like it is with life. the first one is camera specs, the notion of the new A destroys the new B or blow it out of the water. Yes and yet we see the quality of photography not improving. WE see the same in golf, equipment is loaded with more "technology" cost 5X more yet the average golfer and even pro's benefit little from this. Reason the photographer or the golfer needs to upgrade their skills. Often see on a lens review 3-4 min discussion on Bokeh. Onion rings etc, where the problem really is a very poor picture. And same for the rest. I always enjoy walking into a bird hide or getting on a safari truck with small equipment, the almost disgusting look from the big lens shooters, how do you dare bring this pee shooter to this battle of the Big Grey Heron or the Diving King Fisher. or worse case, the sleeping lion. You need fast subject detection eye detection 2focus capabilities for sleeping lions.
