Locations worked to excess?
My wife, who is not a photographer but knows photography extremely well, said to me the other day while looking at photographs on-line:
"Not another picture of Bodie? As there not been enough film shot there yet? Do we really need more pictures of BODIE?
Huuuuummmmm.... Bodie.... I would think that, indeed, the place has been "worked" to excess by too many photographers now. While on this topic, here are a few more locations I feel have been overly photographed and, perhaps, don't warrant any more attention from artists with cameras?
What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Add to the list????
"That" church in New Mexico (St Francis)
California sand dunes
Certainly agree......anything with "El Capitan", any slot canyon, canyon de Chelley, Valley of the Gods, Multnomah falls in Oregon, Horse shoe bend in Page AZ, Grand Tetons as seen from the now 10 feet deep tripod holes Adams left.
Originally Posted by Daniel Grenier
In addition I think some projects have been done to death. Poor people, homeless people, prostitutes, bikers (no offense Mike I still like your book), anything with the Weston name on it (BTW Photoeye has one more book out, Tina Modotti and Weston), Railroad cars, ghost towns in Nevada and NM. Drug addicts, corpses, anything that shows latin american beggars.
Dont' forget LONG exposure times of streams flowing over rocks.
Looks cool the first 300 times you see it...
More seriously, it's not the subjects that are worn out - it's the people photographing them. We'll see a thousand retreaded images of them until someone comes along and shows us the old thing/place in a new way, and we'll realise how stupid we were not to have seen it like that before. Then that will be copied a thousand times....
Very true Ian, then again you guys in Europe are not inmmune to this. How about pics from that castle that sits on a water inlet, sometimes you see it with water, sometimes you dont. Or Stonehenge, god, I feel like screaming when I see one more pic of Stonehenge. Or how about shots of the gondolas in Venice, you know the one, they show only the bow of the gondola sitting on dock or passing through a bridge.
Originally Posted by 127
Our cousins from Australia are not inmmune either, the Sydney Opera house...that big rock taken with velvia and a polarizer.
Or churches and interiors of churches (oops!).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It seems you folks have put a lot of thought into what you don't want to see. What DO you want to see? While you are limiting your world views maybe you should ditch entire subjects too.
Fruit, flowers, trees, rocks, old buildings, new buildings, buildings in various states of decay, old things new things (because nothing is really new is it), children, people of all ages might as well be forgotten, street scenes with and without scenes, clouds, North america, south america, central america, all of africa, north west east and south asia, austraila New zealand, animal vegetable and mineral.....
Ah hell why don't you throw away your cameras now. This is a tired argument. I personally have never seen a photograph of Bodie.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
It takes a lot of courage to look freshly at whatever interests you and photograph it with conviction. Since I simply can't (and won't) get to photograph the icons, I have to wrestle with what's closest to home and believe in the picture as such without regard to the subject's acceptance as worthy of presenting. After all, flowers, tools, grass, birds, bees, animals, TREES!, beaches, waterfalls and etc. etc. have also been done to death. But it's still nice to see a well made photograph with the emotion of conviction behind it...no matter what it's of.
LOL...Actually Daniel did qualify when it is done differently...
Originally Posted by Francesco
Just because every location, style, and method has been done to death, is no excuse for not trying to do it differently or better. A.A. didn't shun Yosemite because it had already been done many times, nor did he feel in any way inhibited about returning many more times to retake views.
So, should we?
(LOL) Well in that case I shall plod along and sneak into a few more!
Originally Posted by Jorge
For me it has never been an issue of whether the site or place or thing itself is inherently boring. Nothing is boring and all things are boring, it all depends on how you see it, i.e. your vision. If technique gets in the way of vision then chances are the result will be like the rest. However if technique liberates vision then I believe no matter the subject the print will bear that photographer's signature and it will stand out.