Whats been done to death?

R

RobbieW

Guest
Hi

One of the other forums I use, has recently had a posting on about what style has been done to death and therefore should be dropped. I believe that just because we have all seen things a few times that we shouldn't moan at others for doing it, maybe its the photogarphers first time of trying it or maybe they just enjoy it.

The types of things being mentioned were:-

1. American beauty style nude shots with rose petals keeping the ladies modesty.
2. Selective colouring, the face in black and white except for the eye

As its a bank holiday, I thought it would be interesting to see other peoples thoughts on whats been done to death. Any comments welcome?

Rob
 
I must admit I hate the american beauty style shots, I think they are really tacky. But that's just my view.

The eye thing I still like as it can be done from all sorts of angles and have different takes on it.
 
so a waterfall in HDR with a long exposure wouldn't go down too well here!
 
RobbieW said:
so a waterfall in HDR with a long exposure wouldn't go down too well here!
Click to expand...

Especially if there was a naked woman covered in rose petals in the foreground!
 
HDR - agree, 'done to death'. Still not gonna give up 'till I get it right though! ;)
One niggle I have, and I know this will get me SLAPPED!! Self portraits 'with camera' (and commonly used as avatars).
I can't talk, have no imagination as far as avatars go, I know....

3,2,1...... :exit:
 
Selective saturation as a whole imo.
 
davekiddle said:
Silky waterfalls....
Click to expand...

Seconded. I'm tempted to even say long exposures in landscape photography in general. I picked up a copy of the Landscape Photographer of the Year book a week or two ago and nearly every photo involving water was in long exposure. Don't get me wrong, it can be used to fantastic effect, but I do get the feeling it's overdone or used when it adds nothing to the picture. Sometimes I just want to see water with some crispness to it.
 
IanC_UK and his bloody kingfishers.....:bang:

Not that i`m jealous or nuffink.
 
The Matt said:
Seconded. I'm tempted to even say long exposures in landscape photography in general. I picked up a copy of the Landscape Photographer of the Year book a week or two ago and nearly every photo involving water was in long exposure. Don't get me wrong, it can be used to fantastic effect, but I do get the feeling it's overdone or used when it adds nothing to the picture. Sometimes I just want to see water with some crispness to it.
Click to expand...

Surely it adds movement to the scene rather than all being completely frozen?

I'm unsure on HDR - some look incredible if carried out properly which I love to see. Many (myself included) don't seem to have the skill to pull one off which repeated time after time gets boring hence why I don't even bother any more.
 
:thinking:

agree everything has already been done " well nearly everything"

but then its peoples own take on things...

a pic of a rose.. seen one seen them all..:shrug:

no not imho.. evryone takes what they consider to be there best shot then try to improve on them..

white b/g shots done to death i agree .

i do them all the time " still not right imho" so again i will keep doing them to death..

all shots have been done a thousand times but this means nothing imo

done to death .. people arguing:shrug:

lets just take what we want and have fun even if its been done to death...



:wave:

md:D
 
:LOL:.............(y)
 
Everything is always going to be new to someone at some point :p

I think the warholizer on flickr has been done to death :D
 
Ive been meaning to have a good tinker with the Dragan effect. Not got round to doing it yet though.

Dave Hill?
 
Marcel said:
Ive been meaning to have a good tinker with the Dragan effect. Not got round to doing it yet though.

Dave Hill?
Click to expand...

Yeah, google him.

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

He is another exponent of 'over egging the pudding' with great effect and superb use of dodge and burn. However, highly subjective. I love it but my friend who has shot for press for 30 years hates it.
 
apkent said:
Surely it adds movement to the scene rather than all being completely frozen?
Click to expand...
Sometimes, but I find that sometimes it does the complete opposite. It can smooth off all the edges off a rough sea and leave the scene looking a bit drab. Like I said, sometimes that works really well, but I just feel it's not always the best way to go. It's just a matter of taste though.

Slapo said:
Everything has been repeated so much that you're likely to find someone who'll point anything that comes to your mind as something that's 'been done to death'.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
Diego Garcia said:
Yeah, google him.

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

He is another exponent of 'over egging the pudding' with great effect and superb use of dodge and burn. However, highly subjective. I love it but my friend who has shot for press for 30 years hates it.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes now I remember. I had a look at his website last year, and was quite impressed.

I can see where it has its place, but can see why some people might not like it. Each to their own eh :D

I think some of those shots are ace (some are a little *too* cartoony for my liking)
 
a lot of things are done to death, doesn't really mean you shouldn't try them, one style that bores me senseless is macro insect shots.

agree about selective colouring as a whole, HDR not so much as it can create some interesting work but doing it for the sake of it gets old.
Milky waterfalls again are again something a lot of us like to try but it is absolutely done to death!
 
Picking up a magazine and finding yet another sunrise/sunset beach shot of that bloody Bamburgh Castle.
 
Portraits. In general. There's an awful lot of portraits out there. Man, i wish people would photograph the ground more often ;)
 
Alot of stuff has been done to death, but if I like an effect then I will take it and not care what everyone else thinks. It's my hobby and the only person I am trying to please is myself so who cares if no-one else likes it, they don't have to look at it (unless I blow it up very very big so they can't avoid it :naughty: )

I hate the american beauty thing with rose petals but if the person that takes the shot likes it that's up to them, I like the misty water effect but some people hate that.

Lets just have fun with whatever effects makes us happy :)
 
woadrage said:
Sand dunes and dead trees in bleedin' Namibia.

And penguins.
Click to expand...

:LOL: I went on a school trip to France quite a few years ago and came back with 5 rolls of film all of sand dunes and made my parents sit through looking at each and every one of them! :LOL:

I have to say though I do get fed up of seeing pictures of Puffins. Though saying that i would still like to go out and take some shots of them myself :LOL:
 
Everyone drives. It's so boring. No one should drive anymore.

Oh, same with that breathing thing. Christ I wish everyone would just stop. ;)

You know, this has actually given me a good idea.

I'm going to take a long exposure of a waterfall, gets some light trails in, someone to pose with rose petals, give it some selective colouring, and then tone map the lot :D
 
nine0nine said:
one style that bores me senseless is macro insect shots.


Milky waterfalls again are again something a lot of us like to try but it is absolutely done to death!
Click to expand...

Insects are a challenge to somebody like me trying to get to grips with macro.


I prefer my water at about 1/25. Gives me a sporting chance of hand held without camera shake too.
 
There goes my selective colouring of what some might think of as rose petals... :bonk::bang::bonk::bang::wacky::LOL::LOL:

selectivecolours.jpg
 
I'm getting tired of the Roman Alphabet and everyone using the same words over and over again. i87btop9ijasd;oe03!

Insect macro shots were mentioned earlier, but perhaps these might be an exception...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top