main turn ons:
so-what or just plain ugly composition
over reliance on subject matter to "make" the shot
lack of concept/idea/thought
lack of mood
obvious and unintended technical incompetence with the camera
techniques used do not support the content/concept (including size of print)
photographer cannot speak or write well about the work
Anything I haven't seen before.
Pushing the envelope of taste or subject matter (Saw a man in China skinning a dog in an alley- wished I had a camera).
People working toward something unique. We all prostitute ourselves to make photos people want to buy, but that can not be the sole purpose. We all have to work through the cliche to get where we want or need to be.
Discussing equipment prowess -As though I should be impressed - WRONG! The equipment does not see the shot therefore it's MOOT.
Since I brought the term "social landscape", I do mean it in the New Topographics vein: using the tropes of landscape photography to look at the built/lived environment, which may or may not include people, depending on the subject.
Robert Adams, the Bechers, Shore, Thomas Struth, etc.
My favorite photographer, if I had to pick a favorite, is Lee Friedlander as well. But I certainly do not consider him to be one of the New Topographics. If anything, some of his more recent pictures (e.g. "America by Car") are more in that vein than the classic stuff I really love most, and for which he is most known.
New Topographic work definitely does explore somewhat similar issues as the social documentary work of Friedlander's prime, in a general sense. For example, they both use the artifacts of culture and society as tools to make their statements. But New Topographic work does it by way of different subject matter and approach than Friedlander and most other social documentarians used. The term New Topographic fairly specifically refers to the photographing of land, space, and structures, and how they inter-relate. This work also imparts much more objective information to the viewer. Friedlander's shooting does have it's seeming share of objectivity, but it is actually deadpan sarcastic commentary on the false idea of objectivity itself, especially in the world of photography. Friedlander's work is much more visually stylish, awkward, disorienting, "pointless," and humorous than most of the new topographic work. A lot of it is about perception itself, which I don't think the New Topographic work is. The New Topographic stuff is really about examination and the presenting of information. Social documentary in the style of Friedlander is really about the strangeness of looking at our world IMO. New Topographic work is about that which we see. Friedlander's work is about that which we perceive.
This may be a little off topic, but I really dislike visiting photo websites that have music on them. Especially, if there's no mute button...
Add Atget to the list of great photographers.
Worst turnoff - photographs where technique is everything. Jerry Uelsman and surrealism first come to mind. If you have nothing to say then it really doesn't matter how well the print is made. I do like surrealists like Magret but can't think of any good ones in photography other than Nagy.
Any subject I haven't seen before, or at least haven't seen presented in the same way
Things I have seen a thousand times
Effects for their own sake