how do you make boring stuff look, like ... interesting ?

[macfred]

That's a fundamental Minor White lesson.

Not so bad ... - isn't it ?

 

[StepheKoontz]

no HDR ? its the same as velvia.. but not 36$ a roll ( film+processing)...

Huh? Velvia has a VERY narrow dynamic range, it's quite the opposite of HDR.

https://emulsive.org/articles/effectively-shooting-fuji-velvia-50-and-other-slide-films

 

[removed account4]

Huh? Velvia has a VERY narrow dynamic range, it's quite the opposite of HDR.

https://emulsive.org/articles/effectively-shooting-fuji-velvia-50-and-other-slide-films

i don't mean any offense by what i am about to say, shooting velvia is fun and shooting film-free is fun too,
but the differences between the 2 aren't much, in my family tree they are like "kissin' cousins"
hrd images look exactly like veliva ( to me ) is what i am getting at. people who use hrd use a program that stack a bunch of exposures to compensate for the narrow dynamic range that digital sensors have very much like
how pre-exposing slide film helps chrome shooters compensate for their film's narrow range.
IDK, to me it is the same duck quacking / the same pig with lipstick on it .. and thats ok

have fun!

 

[jtk]

The HDR comparison to Velvia has a lot of validity.

Velvia is inherently tonally exaggerated...it's loved for its inaccuracy.

Commercial photographers rarely got away with Kodachrome because Ektachrome , when properly processed, can be more accurate...even though it's rarely as beautiful. Accuracy is not crucial to National Geographic editorial material, but always is to color advertising illlustration.

 

[Born2Late]

Add a nice looking nude person.

My thought exactly!

 

[Prest_400]

i mean we all have seen photographs or mundane streetscapes or scenes from "whenever" and even though
they are of a scene that probably was as interesting as watching paint dry, now, 5, 19 or 80 years later, they are interesting.
is that the point ? hope that in 80 years someone will find our boring photographs and be enthralled? or ... do we make them interesting now ..

I'm taking some liberty in bringing some not too serious observation.

Going around some more casual networks (reddit) where a lot of the newer and younger demographic of film shooters bring some interesting observation. Such scenes with the Pastel Palette of Kodak Portra are highly regarded, then adding a Girl (as others noted) steps up the accolades. Gas stations on cinestill are a thing as well. PE's note about some films such as Kodachrome (or Veliva) making garbage dumpsters beautiful could apply too.

On a more serious note, I'm interested in the core of this discussion. Sometimes I struggle with the very same issue, and miss by taking or not taking that "boring" shot which may be a good one afterwards.

 

[Pieter12]

I generally don't like giving specific advice, but light, angle & composition would be the first things to consider to make a more interesting photo of a "boring" subject.

 

[removed account4]

On a more serious note, I'm interested in the core of this discussion. Sometimes I struggle with the very same issue, and miss by taking or not taking that "boring" shot which may be a good one afterwards.

for a handful of years now, i ALWAYS make the exposure whether i think it is boring or not sometimes 6 months or 16 years later i look at the image and the lightbulb goes off and i realize why i took it not to say its not boring even when time intervenes. exposures are inexpensive generally speaking, its time that's an expense
and the river of time that never repeats itself. can list a lot of times were i shrugged my shoulders and said it was too boring to photograph ( person place or thing ) or i'd return hoping it wouldn't be as boring LOL, and the next time i returned EVERYTHING had changed, the physical-subject, the light..

 

[Wallendo]

This is an issue I deal with often. I own way too many cameras and lenses, and frequently need to test them. I usually don't have time to go for a photo walk so I shoot objects around my yard and have to find ways to make simple lawn furniture look interesting. What seems to help is to realize that the photograph is not of the boring object, but of the boring object and how it interacts with the sun and the rest of the universe. I try to achieve this by using unusual angles and including foreground and background items, unusual angles, and shadows. These still aren't works of art by any stretch of the imagination, but occasionally I get an interesting image.

 

[BobD]

Adding a pretty lady in a bikini often helps.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sometimes it is called as gift in visual art.
Lith, colloid, bromoil are great substitute for it. Even film instead of digital does the wonder.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Adding a pretty lady in a bikini often helps.

I just had a flashback of all the Peter Gowland ads from the 70's in all the major photography magazines - not to mention my dad's secret Playboy stash (which I only looked at for the model posing and lighting techniques)

 

[guangong]

Adding a pretty lady in a bikini often helps.

Without bikini will add even more interest!

My friend, the late Phil Pavia, stated that all sculpture is a study of light and shadow. Sound familiar?

 

[jim10219]

A photograph isn't made interesting by the subject, but by the photographer. Anything can be interesting, but not a lot actually is. A good photographer is more sensitive to things and can more readily see the interesting aspects of a scene that most people would miss. Some scenes are just interesting in their own right. Like the Grand Canyon. It's hard to take a bad photo of the Grand Canyon, because it's just such a spectacular scene. It's hard, but not impossible. Other things, like a street lamp, need a more subtle eye to make them seem interesting. A good photographer might notice an interplay of light and shadow that is interesting. They might see a geometric form or rhythmic repetition that others miss. They might see a harmonious balance of color and texture or find a human interest story behind the banal objects that's worth exploring.

 

[DWThomas]

Lighting, composition, angle of view/perspective are always useful tools, of course you may not have much control over lighting, depending on the subject. ("Come back in the afternoon ...") I also like zeroing in on details -- a door knob, a small section of wrought iron railing on a gigantic stone structure, an odd patch of rust or peeling paint on a huge blank wall, a dated builder's plate on a bridge. Bringing out textures (as in an example upthread) is another worthy technique. Going really abstract and playing with some lines and shadows and ignoring what the subject actually is can be another approach. I tend to wander around and eventually something triggers my attention -- some days I walk many miles ...

 

[markjwyatt]

[QUOTE="DWThomas, post: 2243757, member: 13374"... -- some days I walk many miles ... [/QUOTE]

If Joan Baez or Bob Dylan n(or Peter, Paul and Mary, or Douglas Adams) were on this thread, they might ask

How many miles must a photographer walk
Before he creates an interesting photo of something boring

(I think the answer is 42)

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As for me, I try to change my perception and take chances. I try not to have any expectations on the shot. Making stuff less boring is not a technical problem. It's a philosophical problem.

 

[logan2z]

It was the light that attracted me to this, not necessarily the subject matter. And yes, I was alone in there at the time

 

[Sirius Glass]

It was the light that attracted me to this, not necessarily the subject matter. And yes, I was alone in there at the time

Thanks for showing where you hang out.

 

[Pieter12]

It was the light that attracted me to this, not necessarily the subject matter. And yes, I was alone in there at the time

[

Been there, done that. Now, at my age, too often.

 

[logan2z]

Thanks for showing where you hang out.

At least nobody can accuse me of not carrying my camera with me wherever I, um, go.

 

[logan2z]

Hey, if our names were Shore or Eggleston our toilet pics would be worth a small fortune.

Picture by Stephen Shore.

 

[wiltw]

its an age old question i think.
person has camera,
person makes a photograph of something .. but
that something is super boring, i mean a telephone pole, a water plug, a used car lot, street scene a >fill in the blank<

but how do we photograph it to make it well, not so boring? or is the mundane, boring-ness so mundane that it overcomes
the boring-epitude, and makes it interesting ?

i mean we all have seen photographs or mundane streetscapes or scenes from "whenever" and even though
they are of a scene that probably was as interesting as watching paint dry, now, 5, 19 or 80 years later, they are interesting.
is that the point ? hope that in 80 years someone will find our boring photographs and be enthralled? or ... do we make them interesting now ..

Emphasize one or more of the ELEMENTS in a good shot...

Lines
Shapes
Color
Texture
Rhythm
Pattern​

Add drama to a shot with use of exaggerated Contrast, change of inherent brightness, or make use of Tonal Difference/Similarities or...

 

[Maris]

One could always fall back onto the old camera-club mantra "If you can't make it good make it red."

 

[removed account4]

One could always fall back onto the old camera-club mantra "If you can't make it good make it red."

hi maris
i've done read images but only when i wanted them to look like martian landscapes