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

[guangong]

To synthesize Eli griggs’ remarks into one word: composition. With poor composition what could be the making of an excellent picture becomes a boring dud; with good composition a rusty nail can be compelling. The greatest invention of Western painting is the frame. Trace paintings by a master, such as Rembrandt, and discover how their elements link up with the frame.

 

[fdonadio]

but that something is super boring

I guess the question that fits here as an answer to your original question, since it seems to be a matter of opinion, is: “SAYS WHO?”

In the last months, I have been advertising stuff I don’t use anymore on our local evilBay equivalent. Some stuff I just thought: who the heck is going to want to buy this darn thing?”

They are among the first things I sold.

So, think again: is that boring, period? Or is it just boring to you?

 

[fdonadio]

Too ambiguous. Woman, please.

I think spijker is male, and the punctuation needs some work. So your statement should have read, "Too ambiguous, man. Please!"

I’ve heard (or read) somewhere that the naked female body can be attractive to both men and woman, whereas the naked male body is less attractive to woman and mostly unattractive to men.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

English isn't my first language and I haven't understood at all what you mean, care to elaborate?

I have seen totally boring photos taken with Leica, Hasselblad, MF, LF where people liked not the content, but rendering.
Naked ladies always gets maximum views among any other photos. No matter if it is crap shot, as long as tits are present, it can't be boring.

Good photography been on the edge of the fault is Winogrand thing. And so is been gifted. He used Leica with cheap Canon lenses. His photos are with content, not with bokeh. Even tits photos are not just about tits.

 

[Cloudy]

I’ve heard (or read) somewhere that the naked female body can be attractive to both men and woman, whereas the naked male body is less attractive to woman and mostly unattractive to men.

I don't think that's true, where did you read it?

I have seen totally boring photos taken with Leica, Hasselblad, MF, LF where people liked not the content, but rendering.
Naked ladies always gets maximum views among any other photos. No matter if it is crap shot, as long as tits are present, it can't be boring.

Good photography been on the edge of the fault is Winogrand thing. And so is been gifted. He used Leica with cheap Canon lenses. His photos are with content, not with bokeh. Even tits photos are not just about tits.

I disagree, I have seen many (actually too many, including on this forum) boring pictures of naked women

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I’ve heard (or read) somewhere that the naked female body can be attractive to both men and woman, whereas the naked male body is less attractive to woman and mostly unattractive to men.

Freud is alive. It is nature and statistics. Men likes men, but less than men likes woman. Woman likes woman. All are natural. Because it is nature given. Not forced by human. Civilized societies started to understand it on all kind of levels of social life. Which is humanity.

Photography wise, I like man photos more. Because as been heterosexual I'm not getting too disturbed as with woman photos.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think that's true, where did you read it?



I disagree, I have seen many (actually too many, including on this forum) boring pictures of naked women

I might be in rare exclusion. I was fascinated by naked woman at very earlier age. And still . How good is picture is not exist for this subject. All are good to me.

 

[focus_on_infinity]

View attachment 263412

Jan Groover did a whole series on her kitchen sink. http://janetbordeninc.com/artist/jan-groover/

I'm going to one-up her and do my sock drawer. But I'm going to have to get some better socks first.

 

[Cloudy]

I might be in rare exclusion. I was fascinated by naked woman at very earlier age. And still . How good is picture is not exist for this subject. All are good to me.

I do not understand this or your previous message about Freud. Your english and manner of writing are kinda weird, I don't get half of what you write

 

[KenS]

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 ..

I'm tempted to suggest that you turn the camera around 180 degrees as make an exposure that will often end up being MUCH more 'interesting' than your original 'subject of interest' composition..

but I won't

Ken

 

[Michael Firstlight]

View attachment 263412

Now put a box of rat poison in the frame sprinkling a bit onto the utensils and the boring will become instantly provocative and elicit strong emotions.
It underscores that it's ultimately the message that matters.

MFL

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Here's an image I made long ago...just a chair, right? But as someone previously said, an image can provoke more questions than answers. Who sat here? What were they like? What hardships did they experience? Yes, a simple image - yet a complex message. An image can be interesting because it is visually and technically pleasing, but there are countless images that are not technically good but amazingly interesting.

MFL

 

[eli griggs]

To synthesize Eli griggs’ remarks into one word: composition.

True enough, but too many folks have no clue about the composition of composition, and/or do no take the time to learn enough about the approaches, listed in my post to find it useful when they try conceive and put an subject in front of their lens, or seek avenues to approach and rethink what can be done.

Classic art helps, but even then, you need to be able to articulate, even if only to yourself, what and why the composition you're looking at, works.

Do get a good text book on Art and I recommend Gardner's, "Art Through the Ages", as it huge, and has many good examples of the different factors of composition in different culture, no just Greco-Roman Western Culture.

Smaller works can give you more specific details and examples of how to try them out for yourself.

Johannes Itten's work on colour and his colour circle, and his pairing and approaches to colour for painters will give you a starting place for photographs in colour.

Do learn the Golden Section, both 2-d and 3-d possibilities and use it.

Also get good drawing books, I recommend, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" just because it's the best book on letting that part of the brain "see" and compose.

Learn to use colour contrast filters with b&w films, and cooling and warming filters for colour films and the difference between uv and skylight filters.

And shoot the hell out of every thing.

That's more than enough to help you find your 'voice' in the photographic medium and there's plenty more out there awaiting your pleasure and edification.

Always remember, any skill or knowledge you accumulate in any area, goes into your personal 'tool box's and can be applied in as many areas or mediums you try your arm at.

Cheers

 

[JBrunner]

Most people don't see things anymore after they think they know about them, and the mind steps in to complete the image. Over time that information becomes garbled and incomplete. Show them what they no longer see.

 

[radiant]

Movement, line, sensuous curves, colour harmony, colour discord, arrangements, such as stacking, piling, juxtapositioning, distance, nearness, selective focusing, filters, grain or lack of grain, framing, printing choices, coolness, heat, low key lighting, high key lighting, sharpness, softness, obscured view, etc.

None of these make any photograph automatically interesting. All listed things are part of technique.

I believe most of photographers max out to that level; we know and maybe master all the techniques but that's it. The best ones continue beyond this and start to create art.

.. and I know this and still shoot uninteresting shots time after time. Sigh.

 

[Kino]

I typically find the quality of my photography reflects my enthusiasm about the subject, situation, light or all of the above.

 

[Cloudy]

Peeps are probably going to hate me for this, but I keep thinking that, with many interesting subjects in the world, it's a bit counterintuitive to shoot boring stuff trying to make it more visually interesting/appealing. Of all the examples in this thread there isn't one picture that I don't find boring (for no fault of the photographers, mind you, it's just that the subjects are boring).
It's probably my limit, but I don't even find Weston's famous picture of a pepper all that interesting.
I suppose I don't agree with style over substance which is what usually happens when trying to make something boring more interesting.

 

[radiant]

It's probably my limit, but I don't even find Weston's famous picture of a pepper all that interesting.

As I've seen one of the original prints in person, I don't find it interesting in otherwise that it is The Westo's Pepper. Technically it is perfect. Awesome printing quality. It has nice tones and shapes. But what feelings does it raise other than "wow this is The Pepper"? None.

 

[eddie]

Here's an image I made long ago...just a chair, right? But as someone previously said, an image can provoke more questions than answers. Who sat here? What were they like? What hardships did they experience? Yes, a simple image - yet a complex message. An image can be interesting because it is visually and technically pleasing, but there are countless images that are not technically good but amazingly interesting.

This is one of those images which, on first glance, can seem mundane. However, as I look at it, it allows me to create my own narrative. A dozen writers could pen short stories based on it, and they'd all be wildly different. I like that in a photograph.

 

[juan]

I can’t recall a still life I’ve found interesting. Weston’s peppers in person are fascinating technically, if the museum has enough light on them, but the subject matter, not so much.

 

[removed account4]

I guess the question that fits here as an answer to your original question, since it seems to be a matter of opinion, is: “SAYS WHO?”

So, think again: is that boring, period? Or is it just boring to you?

I think you are right. things that might seem boring to me might be novel to someone who has never seen it.

 

[logan2z]

I think the approach described by the thread title is the root of the problem. I believe you need to find the subject matter interesting in order to make an interesting photograph of it. Attempting to make an interesting photograph of something you find boring is the wrong approach, IMHO.

 

[logan2z]

It looks like fire hydrants have become a common theme in this thread. Here's my entry:

I had to stand on a busy street in San Francisco to shoot this. Apparently I found the scene/subject matter worthy of almost getting run over I'm sure others will just see a bunch of boring, everyday objects but it's a photo I enjoy looking at, for some reason.

 

[eli griggs]

None of these make any photograph automatically interesting. All listed things are part of technique.

I believe most of photographers max out to that level; we know and maybe master all the techniques but that's it. The best ones continue beyond this and start to create art.

.. and I know this and still shoot uninteresting shots time after time. Sigh.

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, these are all techniques, AKA, approaches, to making art, including photography, but it is also is up to the photographer to decide which approaches he will take, when making a photograph.

Adams knew this, as did other good photographers, and was able, as are other photographers/snap shooters, to "pre-Visulize" the image even before breaking out the camera.

Just as some 'fail to see and hear the grasshopper at their feet, so to must the photographer, be aware of his/her surroundings, including the light and ways a photograph can be made.

You can no just learn techniques and say you know it all, you must be able to "See" and that is why I recommended "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain".

Consider the double meaning of the title, and study with the text, on how to "See" or "Draw" upon your own mind, the art that is all around you.

After all, if you can no do that, you may well only make photographic art, that does no stir up thought or feeling, in the viewer, which you do no See for yourself.

Then there is the fact, that of all the artists of all sorts but focusing on The Graphic Arts, the vast majority, will make both bad and good art, that never incites others to admire anything but the "techniques" used.

Face it, Really Good Art, is a rare thing among the ocean of effort others make in these fields, just as people with Really Good 'Taste' are also rarely encountered in the living of most peoples lives.

You can study and try to learn different Approaches, and how to see, hope you see a blinding light of realization like in the movie "Phenomenon" , or simply learn to draw on your own natural abilities, knowing, if you already do no know how to approach a photograph, the possibility exist that you never will; so become the best technical photographer you can and let others make up their own minds what they see or do no, in your work, and be silent as to your own lack of insights.


There is more, endless discussion on these topics, but I suggest you simply work on your own 'kung fu' when it comes to your art/[photography and be happy with the things that do result that make you happy.

Everything else is just a Challenge.

Cheers