Is there any kind of photography that you don't "care for"?

TheHoff wrote in post #9460147
I find a lot of areas of photography repetitive. If someone has made the same shot before me, I'm probably not going to make it as well. That is why I'm drawn to street photography (traditional candids in the sense of Cartier-Bresson or Robert Frank); rarely is there ever the same photo made twice.

Street photography has never interested me, unless there's an architecturally interesting building on the street. Taking pictures of people is fraught with too many potential problems.

And club photography... Maybe it's because of my age and the fact that I outgrew the club scene decades ago, but I find pictures of drunks doing stupid things for the camera incredibly boring...

SkipD wrote in post #9460347
I'll never photograph another wedding. At my age, the 6:00 AM to 11:30 PM days that I used to spend photographing weddings (a long time ago) are way too long.

See my signature. (Too many bridezillas and ungrateful families...)

irishman wrote in post #9460831
No---that would almost be understandable. While taking photo's of Christmas decorations and street performers in Tempe, AZ, with the AZ POTN group, a little sawed-off hippie told us we didn't have permission to take pictures. When I replied that it was public property, he said, "Yeah, and I'm Public". I gave him credit for his witty retort and moved on without incident, but he was pissed. On the way home from purchasing a 50 1.4, I was testing the focus while stopped at a light when I heard someone scream, "HEY- WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!" In the general direction of where I was testing focus, a homeless vagrant was sleeping on a bus stop bench. He jumped up and ran through three lanes of traffic straight to my car. I rolled up my window just in time for him to start beating on it and fortunately the light turned and I left without incident. Moral of the story: Some people are REAL paranoid about cameras. I would rather take photos of someone paying me to do so.

Bruce Gilden has to be the penultimate invasive street photographer. I'm surprised someone hasn't taken his camera from him and done an anatomically incorrect and potentially painful thing with it...

Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I've never once been physically harassed or intimidated and only once have I been asked to delete someone's image. And I also like to shoot "Gilden" style with an OCF in my left hand.

TheHoff wrote in post #9461713
"Street photography" is not synonymous with "photography of the homeless". Personally, I rarely take pictures of the homeless and it is not often the subject of any of the masters that I referenced earlier. For examples:

http://www.magnumphoto​s.com …st&l1=0&XXAPXX=​SubPanel10

http://www.flickr.com/​groups/onthestreet/poo​l/

True; for that matter, it doesn't even need people in it.

LOL, I think you're doing it wrong! I mean, perfect, street photos without scars, blood and verbal abuse is just boring.

TheHoff wrote in post #9461713
"Street photography" is not synonymous with "photography of the homeless". Personally, I rarely take pictures of the homeless and it is not often the subject of any of the masters that I referenced earlier. For examples:

http://www.magnumphoto​s.com …st&l1=0&XXAPXX=​SubPanel10

http://www.flickr.com/​groups/onthestreet/poo​l/

Point taken, Hoff. I guess it's just that a lot of the "street photography" I've seen involves those elements, or at least the "grittier" side of city living.

I looked at the links you posted. Again, much respect for the talent and efforts of those photographers, it's just not my cup of tea. I don't expect that everybody (or anybody, for that matter) will agree with my opinion, and I mean no disrespect to you or anybody else who does that kind of photography.

I guess I should actually clarify that it isn't "street photography" in general I'm not fond of - it's large/dense urban settings, which is just a personal thing for me. I do enjoy shooting (and viewing) images of rural/small-town living, "old west" type towns, ghost towns, etc....just not into the "big city" thing.

Sam wrote in post #9461135
Check out this guy's stuff. I agree about not liking airplane shots in general. My step dad was in the Navy and we went to TONS of air shows all over the place growing up so I have seen my share of planes. That said, Jay takes some cool shots.

https://photography-on-the.net …rch.php?searchi​d=15129085

bad link. ya i'd love to check out some air shows, jets and military type aircraft are rad.

reddyroc007 wrote in post #9462340
bad link. ya i'd love to check out some air shows, jets and military type aircraft are rad.

FlyingPhotog
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.p​hp?u=102839

I love macro, but insects do nothing for me. Neither do birds, except eagles and other cool birds of prey.

I understand other people not liking flowers as I didn't either for a long time, then I started liking them for no apparent reason.

Well... i do like pictures of varies level. But if something is not really capturing my attention, then i don't really "care" for it. Generally, Maternity pictures are among the top of my list to have the most "don't care" pictures, second is probably macro because if something is not exaggerate enough, it doesn't look good and many macro pictures are not my cup of tea (but some of them are REALLY AMAZING though.)

For me, there's no "type" of photography that I don't care for, only images that make me want to poke my eyes out and force the photographer to sell their gear and take up knitting instead.

For example, subjects dead-centre, poorly lit, out of focus, too far from the lens....
Or when there's a castle/house/car/anima​l/whatever in the frame somewhere, which may or may not be the focus of attention, but it's too small/dark/blown/overc​rowded by the background/just plain dull/etc to be of any interest.

I guess that's why I don't like massive DoF shots - unless they're exceptional - especially taken with a dSLR, as I think to myself, why didn't the 'tog just buy a P&S and stay away from POTN, thus saving us the misery of seeing their non-photograph?

Oh and don't get me started on Facebook or Flickr or Photobucket! I sometimes think those should have a "crap-photo filter" before the upload button to rid them of OOF pics from parties where everyone seems to try to look stupid.

*rant over*
Boy! what a great thread!!!

I don't care for macro shots of flowers and bugs, regular shots of flowers, over processed skin in G&N, and over processed HDR pics.

There's a lot more out there to shoot macro than bugs and flowers. It seems almost every site or thread I go to about macro is 90%+ of these two things. If the macro shot isn't of the whole body of the bee (or whatever other insect), then I may like it. Especially if it is a close up of a spiders eye and shows hairs growing above it or something. Something that seems like it was shot with a microscope, I might like.

For regular flower shots, these have to be the most boring picture to me - especially rose pictures. The only way I'd want to see a flower is if it was on a model that is in the G&N section and I probably wouldn't even notice it

Over processed skin in G&N shots really bugs me. And by over processed, I mean where the skin doesn't even look close to being natural. It's fine to remove the imperfections, but when the skin is almost "freakishly soft" and almost putty looking that is not something I like.

I came across a local photographer's website one time that was linked off of a cool portrait. The 1000+ other pictures on his site were over processed HDRs of street scenes. They all looked exactly the same. It was rather boring. Nothing wrong with HDRs, except when they are excessive.

skygod44 wrote in post #9464877
I guess that's why I don't like massive DoF shots - unless they're exceptional - especially taken with a dSLR, as I think to myself, why didn't the 'tog just buy a P&S and stay away from POTN, thus saving us the misery of seeing their non-photograph?

Haha I don't care for those as well. Viewing a shot of a dog taken with a 85mm lens at f/1.8 and only his eye or nose in focus just doesn't look right. Then people ask "is my lens soft?". I spend too much time in those lens archive threads, I know alot of those pics are just people showing off their lens not serious photography, but still!

Street photography bores me a bit. I find the majority of it incredibly pretentious. Half the time it's just some woman walking down the street in the rain holding an umbrella, and the photographer is acting like it's the first in-focus picture of a Yeti.

If it's not that, it's some picture of yet another homeless guy.

DStanic wrote in post #9465805
Haha I don't care for those as well. Viewing a shot of a dog taken with a 85mm lens at f/1.8 and only his eye or nose in focus just doesn't look right. Then people ask "is my lens soft?"

Hah, you described one of my favourite photos.

fly my pretties wrote in post #9465950
Street photography bores me a bit. I find the majority of it incredibly pretentious. Half the time it's just some woman walking down the street in the rain holding an umbrella, and the photographer is acting like it's the first in-focus picture of a Yeti.

If it's not that, it's some picture of yet another homeless guy.

There certainly is a lot of bad street photography being done, I will agree with you on that.

Karl Johnston wrote in post #9460126
I often worry that I won't make a cool enough dad one day so the thought of having kids now terrifies me.

Two kids later and I still feel the same way. Every day...

SkipD wrote in post #9460347
I'll never photograph another wedding.

I don't have the eye for wedding photography so I've always refused to do it. Besides, I don't want to be the one that screws up the happiest day of their lives - they'll do that themselves after the honeymoon is over.

skygod44 wrote in post #9464877
For me, there's no "type" of photography that I don't care for, only images that make me want to poke my eyes out and force the photographer to sell their gear and take up knitting instead.

I cringe at certain styles, and I cringe at poor technique. But I believe there is an audience for every type of photography, whether or not I like or appreciate it myself. After all, art is subjective. Highly subjective. Even the crappiest of snapshots will often end up in someone's scrapbook or cedar chest - a treasured memory of some happy moment from days gone by.