Stock photos are a different thing altogether. A photographer or stock agency is trying to foresee what a potential client might want or need to illustrate a specific idea or situation and small variations could mean a sale rather than just a single shot. It's the nature of the business and does not pretend to be art.
I'm not giving up. I do like portraits. Even some that may seem initially uninspired, but sometimes with some time and effort I can find the beauty or interest the photographer intended. What I can't quite fathom is when a photographer publishes (on their website, or as a book or promotional piece) a usually large series of very similar portraits as a project. I have seen such work from respected, well-known photographers, too. Mostly editorial and commercial photographers who have lost touch with what might be a meaningful project. And more from those who would like to consider themselves beyond the commercial realm, as artists. Once again, does the photographer confuse repetition with art or creativity? Is the fact that the subjects all come from the same community (small town, homeless, rodeo cowboys, etc.) or that they were shot on film or with a view camera make this meaningful work?
