Misty trees and other photographic clichés…

​Who’d have thought something as beautiful and innocuous as trees, surrounded by mist, could be such a contentious subject? For those of you blissfully unaware of the latest storm to hit the photographic world on twitter, it seems that misty trees have become the latest cliché! Various opinions have been expressed during the last week - some of them with due consideration, some with tongue firmly in cheek, and some more politely than others…

Now I will confess I do understand the viewpoint of some of those suggesting that, perhaps, our timelines had become a little over cluttered with pictures of misty, even foggy trees. In this day and age when it seems everyone has a camera and everyone is keen to share their latest photos, it is easy to become a little weary of yet another photograph popping up for us to admire, like, tweet, share.

So, have misty trees become the latest photographic cliché and, if so, then what sort of misty trees are we talking about? I’d guess the above image from Strid Woods this Autumn might fit the bill - elegant beech trees with a hint of sunlight filtering through as the early morning mist burns off. However, I may have messed up - there are no crepuscular rays! Surely they are a vital ingredient for the ultimate misty tree cliché? I have to confess that it is an image I lack in my portfolio, regretfully - I have yet to encounter what I have felt to be a photogenic woodland composition when those wonderful rays have been present. However compelling the conditions may be, if the composition is not there, I’d rather just enjoy it and leave the camera in the bag. In defence of the misty tree bashers, I do think this may be part of their complaint - that too many photographs have been shared that have lacked that vital component of a truly good composition - subjective as that assessment may be.

The above image from our local woods must also come close to being a cliché, surely? Layer after layer of beech trees, shrouded in fog! I’m going to argue for this one. though. and say it’s far too scruffy to be a cliché! Then, imagine if we take that a step further and include not only plenty of scruff, but exclude beech trees?

Cliché or no cliché? According to the Oxford Dictionary, a cliché is ‘a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought’. The same sentiment might apply to a subject, an idea, a work of art, and so on… So, I have to ask, are misty trees per se a cliché, just beech trees in mist (with or without rays) or is it the way in which some people photograph said trees? Where does the boundary lie I wonder? I certainly don’t have the answer. Does it even matter? If you enjoy photographing clichés, once you’ve worked out just what they are, then why shouldn’t you? Photography should be fun so you might as well do what you enjoy! There’s always the mute button for those who’d rather not see! Yes misty trees have become a little popular of late, but it makes a change from sunsets doesn’t it?

What could be more of a cliché than this? Probably one of the most photographed trees in the Yorkshire Dales, complete with limestone pavement and an absolutely glorious sunset. I’ve never seen it looking more lovely up there - a special few moments to enjoy and one I didn’t hesitate to photograph. The composition is not exactly as I’d have chosen, as we were with a workshop group at the time, so this one was grabbed rather quickly. But, you get my point…

Perhaps the above image is a slightly more original depiction of another bit of rather popular Yorkshire limestone pavement? Although my reasons for making this image as an abstract, rather than a classic landscape, was all to do with the conditions at the time. There’s room for both I’d like to think.

I fear nothing is sacred now. I could probably argue the case for anything being a cliché if I really wanted to. Take water… blurry water, raging torrents, crashing waves, reflections - it’s all been done before surely? Don’t even get me started on ICM and multiple exposure… Who decides what’s hackneyed and what’s original? And what if it’s original but we simply don’t like it? It doesn’t move us, it’s gratuitous - different for difference’s sake…

That’s the danger of trying too hard to be different. You’ll end up being the same as everyone else! The subjects we choose to photograph, the conditions in which we make them, the techniques we use - all of these things are theoretically in danger of becoming clichés! So my advice would be not to worry, get out there with your camera (if you want to) and do what works for you. If you want to share it, share it - but don’t expect everyone to love it!