Don't like that...

PaulieC

We all have our favourite personal styles and favourite photographers and what-not, but is there a style or genre of photography that you either don't like or don't have an opinion either way?

My own apathy-inducing genre is gig photography. I don't have anything agaisnt it per se, just doesn't do anything for me in any way, which is unusual for me coz about the only thing(hobbywise;)) I like more than photography is music.

magicbastarder

glamour/fashion photography.

Thirdfox

Modern art photography (just like modern art paintings etc.) - I don't need to be an expert to be able to comment on a canvas of blue as being not worthy of huge praise and sums of money.

Not too keen on gig photography either - I like music for the music, not the still images afterwards (not to be putting down the people here who do take great gig photos).

Hrududu

I don't like photography of people down on their luck. I can't really put my finger on why I dont like them. But every time I see stuff like that I get an irrational dislike of the photographer. Like he woke up that day and thought "Today I'll go find some people at their lowest ebb and take some pictures of them so people can ooh and ahh over them. Black and white I think."

PaulieC

Thirdfox wrote: »

(not to be putting down the people here who do take great gig photos).

Absolutely not, I didn't intend to insult anyone. Gig photogrpahy looks quite difficult to me and some people on here produce great images, they just don't do anyhting for me...

Dades

Other peoples kids!

Thirdfox

Hrududu wrote: »

I don't like photography of people down on their luck. I can't really put my finger on why I dont like them. But every time I see stuff like that I get an irrational dislike of the photographer. Like he woke up that day and thought "Today I'll go find some people at their lowest ebb and take some pictures of them so people can ooh and ahh over them. Black and white I think."

But it can be more of a reportage/photo-journalistic function... war-torn countries inevitably have pictures of suffering and misery. Photographers have a duty to report to interested (and uninterested) parties what is going on.

Making a profit from selling prints of these people on the other hand is something I'd frown on too (unless the people were getting a good share of the profits).

trooney

Dades wrote: »

Other peoples kids!

Other peoples photos... bwah haw haw haw...

No, seriously, its all good.

rymus

Dades wrote: »

Other peoples kids!

Careful now...

Hrududu

But it can be more of a reportage/photo-journalistic function... war-torn countries inevitably have pictures of suffering and misery. Photographers have a duty to report to interested (and uninterested) parties what is going on.

I dont mean war photography really. I mean when people go down to the boardwalk and take pictures of the junkies and then stick them up on Flickr. If you know what I mean. The ones you are talking about I really don't have a problem with. I don't know why I do with the other type.

ThOnda

Dades: Other peoples kids! - Class! :-D

Well, I don't like photographs without intention, idea, or photographs taken only to shock - a lot of blood, broken bones or just parts of female body, but no feelings behind the camera.

oshead

cambo_gueno wrote: »

Absolutely not, I didn't intend to insult anyone. Gig photogrpahy looks quite difficult to me and some people on here produce great images, they just don't do anyhting for me...

I agree.... Gig photography does nothing for the still image. I've never seen a gig photo and been able to tell what location or song they were singing. Whats the purpose of the photo if all it portrays is the the singer was singing some song, somewhere with some colored lights from a really akward angle.

beans

Whats the purpose of the photo if all it portrays is the the singer was singing some song, somewhere

Good gig photography should be able to do more than this, I agree.

The kind of super-saturated, high-contrast generic landscape stuff that's so prevelant on photo.net and others bores me something fierce; over-exposure to it, and it's lack of subtlety combined I think. That mirrors most of what I've been doing over the past fortnight - to learn to do what I like, first I need to learn how to get to what I dont like, or something... it's all a learning curve

But I don't really dislike any one genre or style aside from this.

Fenster

Modern art, tone-mapped HDR, faux infrared, and indirectly people who wander around with a few grand of kit on their shoulder and refuse to use any mode but full auto because it's "too complex."

Caryatnid

magicbastarder wrote: »

glamour/fashion photography.

+1

Eirebear

Fenster wrote: »

Modern art, tone-mapped HDR, faux infrared, and indirectly people who wander around with a few grand of kit on their shoulder and refuse to use any mode but full auto because it's "too complex."

Pretty much what he said....i really dislike most HDR stuff ive seen.

bradnailer

Hrududu wrote: »

I don't like photography of people down on their luck. I can't really put my finger on why I dont like them. But every time I see stuff like that I get an irrational dislike of the photographer. Like he woke up that day and thought "Today I'll go find some people at their lowest ebb and take some pictures of them so people can ooh and ahh over them. Black and white I think."

My thoughts exactly, they bother me.

Fajitas!

Sports...

Mr. Bones

Macro nature photography, especially close ups of flowers. Not that i don't appreciate a good flower, but most of these type seem kinda dull to me. There's so many more interesting topics to look at when trying out macro photography.

Not wild about gig photography either..

Thirdfox

Dades wrote: »

Other peoples kids!

We're all someone's children

I think there a big line between taking someone's photo because they looked interesting and...the other sort of "photography" :mad:

Ruu_Old

The family cat/dog/monkeya nother animal, though I am guilty of it myself.