Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

In Yakima I can see the top of one of the Cascade Mountain volcanoes, Mt Adams. I can see it even better when I drive south about ten miles. Volcanoes create their own weather and I can vouch for how the scene can change from hour to hour, let alone time of day or season.

My experience in Mt Rainier National Park is similar: it can change right before your eyes!

Amen!

-

These are Mount Adams; I added the moon to #2.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Or choose an entirely new perspective, or return when the light and conditions are much different. I really wanted a snap of the attached gravesite, drive by it many, many times over the years until the scene somewhat resembled what I had envisioned in my head. This scene was not exactly what I wanted, but close. Do not shy away from shooting what has been shot before. However, shoot it through your own eyes and vision.

KK

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

I concur. Approach every scene with open eyes and a positive outlook.

KK

fuzzypaddle Loc: Southern Illinois

Reminds me of where I grew up.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Have you considered there is a reason those marks are there, in stone, so to speak? It is because thousands, maybe millions, of people who have gone before have taken excellent photographs right there. That doesn’t mean there are not other good places to click your shutter but it is a good start. Also, often there are limited places to stand for an iconic photograph. Coming around the bend at Yosemite offers probably the best view of the valley. One can go there at different times, different weather and so on but those times are variations on the same theme.

People like iconic photos but want to take their own photo. I see no problem with that since I am the photographer, it’s my camera and my time. I am the only person I need to satisfy.

Dennis

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

All the responses?

pendennis

I've seen the moon rise over Hernandez, NM, from where Mr. Adams took his famous photo. He saw something I didn't, and thank goodness he did.

However, I've seen the same places that hundreds of thousands of folks have seen and photographed. They didn't see the scenes the way I did. I know I didn't see scenes the way they did. That's what makes art. No one sees the same scene the same way. Two minutes difference is huge when it comes to light.

Now, are there some shots here and other places I don't like? Absolutely. But unless I can add constructive criticism, or if the shooter doesn't ask my opinion, I don't give it.

RGG-Test-account

First answer: An attack (that many supported - wrongly).
Other answers: Justification for the lack of originality.

Great stuff.

Anyone really answering the core questions?

Let's address the 'repetition first'.
More often than not it is about trying to get a better capture. A photograph is only as good as the initial capture. You shoot crap, you get crap in the end so you go back and try again and again and again. Yet it does get boring for the viewer, doesn't it?
Repetition due to comfort. Here, we are getting somewhere. When a photographer gets into a comfort zone he or she find it really hard to get out of it. That is a part of the problem. The viewer once again will get bored.
Repetition due to specialization. The issue is different. A specialized photographer is a well trained technician capable of achieving near technical perfection, often at the expense of artistry. This by the way includes so called fine art photography who also create boredom.

Personally I have a tendency to learn something and move on. Why? I get bored.

The second one is about innovation. Here anything goes and quite frankly this new world is rather weird. Innovation is not in the picture taking anymore but in the publication. There are so many things that are similar it is hard to get to the gem. There lies the problem. We are overwhelmed by the crappy images offered and we miss the best.

The result? Repetition is boring. Searching for innovation leads to a dulling of the mind and we start to accept crap as 'good' - as a viewer -. This is in turn leads to the original question.

When something is new, innovation is really exploitation of a novelty. Innovators are the one who created the industry. When someone created the powder he did not predict that we would use to go to war or create industries around it or even firework. That someone was the innovator. All the others are just exploiting his discovery. This goes for everything, including the wheel by the way.


Now, this really not a call to be an 'inventor' or 'innovator' but to become more creative.

A huge mistake in my opinion because when it comes to creativity I have got news for you: Creativity opens the door to appreciation and THAT my friends is a can of worms I am not willing to open.

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

There isn't much creative skill in shooting exactly the same shot in the same location that others have done before. This is simply collecting pre-visualised images. The real skill in landscape photography is finding a new unique composition and a personal way to express what you seeing and feeling. This can be a very difficult for someone who is just starting out but it can be done.

anotherview Loc: California

Thanks.

pandoany115 Loc: Los Altos, CA

I know your feeling. While photographing in well known places frequented by photographers, I got a little bored and depressed at the thought that I am just one of millions of people who have photographed same subjects in the same spots.

Lately, I have come upon Gestalt photography. It made me look at subjects with different eyes and feel that a new prospective opened before me. You do not have to drive hours after hour only to get to beaten tracks. Subjects of interest might be found in your own house, backyard, neighboring streets or hiking trails.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I think we all appreciate those occasions when we see something different and/or new, I certainly do, but that doesn't mean one cannot return to a favorite composition hoping for better or different lighting or weather.

anotherview Loc: California

The "Hernandez" shot does little for me. I saw it once at an exhibit, plus I've seen its development history. AA did extensive manipulation of it in the dark room. The shot has, however, become very popular.

All the same, I appreciate AA's black-and-white photography. His artistry arises from seeing the potential of a photograph and then later in the darkroom bringing that view to fruition.

His wholehearted dedication to photography also inspires.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Ansel Adams did a number of pictures of Half Dome in Yosemite Park--all quite good (and different in some ways, the same in others). But when you talk about people in general (even photographers if you include amateurs), they take pictures as a personal or family diary--their pictures of Grand Canyon or the Empire State Building are really about them--not the place.

A bigger question is about style. All the greatest artists were creative and in a way innovative, yet we can instantly tell Bach from Beethoven, or Picasso from Matisse because they each had a recognizable style that speaks for itself, and pervades all their work, even if (as usual) it developed over the years. Bach was fired for being too innovative in church, but Mozart ridiculed Bach as being old-hat.

An even bigger question that goes back to the ancient Greeks is about the role of change versus the role of stability in the world. Heraclitus said reality is flux--change that never ends, like a river you cannot step in twice. Parmenides said all is One--only the unchanging (like numbers, geometry, logic, the stars or seasons--he thought) are truly real, and flux is merely fleeting illusion. People who overdo the place of change (a majority today, perhaps) and ignore the aspect of The Eternal (things that never change), are about as irritating as those who overdo the emphasis on keeping things the same when they ought to be changed. The wise can tell what changes from what doesn't--and what ought to change, from what shouldn't.

Is there any doubt at all whether the greatest photographs capture aspects of the world that are in constant flux (they come and go), yet also speak to something that never changes (such as balance, order, stability)? A seascape is a typical example--the waves and clouds, even the Sun are in flux, yet all these things are also (in the human perspective) always there. Most photographers apply the various styles they have learned wherever it seems right and good to apply them--we might use a bit of classical photojournalistic style in a picture (like Weegee or Capa), or perhaps try for the look of the Pictorialists, or the F-64 Club, or mix these things around in new ways. In one sense, there is nothing new under the Sun, but then again, everything comes and goes like a fleeting illusion--even the Sun.

10MPlayer Loc: California

Yes but going to a place like Yosemite and trying to duplicate or at least come close to duplicating those iconic images we all know is challenge enough. Taking the time to show up and wait for the right lighting, weather conditions etc. is nothing to brush off lightly. It takes some dedication to the art. And in the process you learn the skills of the great artists by trying to duplicate what they did.