Are flower photos really that old and tired?

[casil403]

Lately I've noticed many people on this forum who seem to be almost apologetic for posting flower images they've taken on this forum. I've noticed comments such as "too common....so cliche.... just another flower....not original....etc...etc...etc...". I am wondering what the issue is with taking/submitting flower images? :confused:

I personally like the subject, I find it interesting and I know many others do also. I also think that no subject can ever be "done to death" and there is always an interesting way to photograph any subject no matter how many times it has been captured already...

I am curious though...is it simply a a "guy" thing, is it really that cliche a subject and I am just missing something or is it something else?
If anyone else has any comments/insight on this topic...I am interested in knowing... :)

[F8&Bthere]

Don't get me started...
Today's photography forums are a funny place... there's a curious range of people from newbies to pro wannabes, from gearheads (those who put their equipment list in their forum sig- too funny) to minimalists (only shoot film, or don't do post processing, etc), plus self appointed forum cops, techies, measurebators, pixel peepers, and ruler shooters. It's not hard at all to unintentionally start, or get caught up in, a flame war. There's also many nice people in every forum, but I still find myself overthinking things and worrying about how others will perceive every word and every photo.

With high quality gear more affordable to more folks and the instant gratification, accelerated learning curve, and tweak/tech appeal of digital added to the ability to learn, post, share and discuss it it all on line at a multitude of photo communities, photography is rapidly growing as a hobby. This means at times it seems like everyone and their dog's a photographer.

So while to many a photo-elitist, shots of flowers may be one of the typical things a photo-noob does, and it makes them yawn or even irritable, who cares? When there's so much out there, almost everything's cliche.

Let's see, the typical progression probably goes something like this: buy 1st digital camera, art-less family shots, bland flower shots, birds or other animals not close enough, long exposure on a waterfall, sad old person street photo, join a forum, slam Ken Rockwell once or twice and BAM! you're in the Photography Elite Level One.

[kat]

Hmm...seems to me the "overdone" subjects are some of the most beautiful. I would rather see a wonderful flower shot than a horrible anything else shot.

[Iguanasan]

... (those who put their equipment list in their forum sig- too funny) ...

Scurrying off to change my sig... :o

I might be wrong but I think there have been more photos in the last 5 years than in the 100 years before that when you consider the number of people with digital cameras, camera phones, web cams, etc., etc. Flowers are nice models as they don't complain about how long you are taking to get just the right shot and so there are a LOT of flower shots on the web. Plus, you really only need a decent shot to show off something that is already quite beautiful and impress your friends.

I haven't found my niche yet (or maybe I have and I don't realize it) and while I really enjoy taking shots of flowers, I keep pushing myself to shoot other more interesting things as I find the whole flower thing a bit easy now. (at least that's what I keep telling myself) Therefore, flowers, which start of as the first foray into artistic photography become a bit of an anchor that people keep trying to run away from.

At least that's my take on it. :twocents:

[Michaelaw]

I used to put my gear list in my sig but not for reasons of "Look what I got!" It was simply because I was always having to post replies as to what kind of gear I made a shot with. I eventually stopped because even though I listed my stuff, people would still ask :D

[F8&Bthere]

I used to put my gear list in my sig but not for reasons of "Look what I got!" It was simply because I was always having to post replies as to what kind of gear I made a shot with. I eventually stopped because even though I listed my stuff, people would still ask :D

Yeah, especially if you've spent any time in computer related troubleshooting forums- it's almost basic etiquette. Posters get kinda irritated when a question is asked without any mention of OS, hardware, etc. Nowadays with digital photography, people will often look for the metadata in posted photos, particularly if we are asking for troubleshooting advice or a critique. And having a little program like PhotoMe is pretty cool- let's you snoop around without having to ask questions- unless of course they've stripped out the data in post processing.

All I meant by the equipment list in sig chuckle is that we sometimes get more caught up in the gear than in the photos themselves. And I have to say to Casil that I'm thinking that part of it is definitely more of a "guy thing."

[Michaelaw]

Off topic but speaking of a guy thing...I think it's funny when guys carrying cameras do the urinal glance thing at your camera to see what you've got as they pass by on the street. :D Just a quick look.....:rolleyes:

[Marko]

I've been looking at pix for well over 20 years. Yikes.

My take on this is that just about everything has already been done...so should we stop taking photos? This type of thinking is ridiculous to me.

A great shot is a great shot. No matter the subject, no matter how many shots of similar subjects i see, a great shot is a great shot. Looking at them makes me happy. Period. :twocents:

[AcadieLibre]

I always say, shoot what you enjoy, not what others want.

[F8&Bthere]

Off topic but speaking of a guy thing...I think it's funny when guys carrying cameras do the urinal glance thing at your camera to see what you've got as they pass by on the street. :D Just a quick look.....:rolleyes:

LOL, and I'm as bad as anyone... for example, aesthetically I don't like the way small lenses look on most DSLR bodies (ever seen a Pentax K10/20D with grip and one of their "pancake" lenses? Reminds me of the George Castanza/cold swim/shrinkage episode of Seinfeld). And I even have this thing about non internal zoom lenses looking cheap when extended (even though most of mine are this way). Silly things. Needless to say I felt pretty manly recently at a local Rodeo with my newly acquired used 300mm/4... and I got some nice shots there, but it turned out for a big part of the show that took part closer to my section I was actually needing a smaller lens (and didn't bring one)!!

[casil403]

It really is interesting...I have to wonder...so many famous painters have painted the same images of the Rockies over and over again (how may times have we seen Mount Rundle by Vermillion Lakes or one of the Great Lakes in Northern Ontario) and many of the same images..I wonder if anyone ever said to them it was "just another Rocky Mountain" or it's "too cliche"?
Personally, and IMO I find those sort of comments a wee bit snooty froo-froo! :)

[Greg_Nuspel]

It's only the same old XXXXX if you try to copy exactly what was done before instead of trying to be creative.