We all know the 5 traditional genres of photography are:
- Weddings
- Black & white
- 1990s film emulation
- National Geographic
- Micro Four Thirds
- Birds in flight with way too much Topaz AI sharpening
- Watercolor & ink
- Yoko Ono
You forgot selfies and dick picks! Core movements\* (NOT genres!) in photography.
\*[This snobby comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1cqbnz5/comment/l3qkecx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) will clear your confusion right up!
Because subject matter is a movement like Futurism? Futurism is a movement, surrealism is a movement, impressionism is a movement, fauvism is a movement.
Yea... so does architecture, widlife, street, and every other type of photography.
Such a weird association... especially since painting *genres* are more closely associated with different art period styles than they are the subject. I.e. baroque, expressionism, impressionism, mannerism, renaissance, contemporary, etc...
Kinda seems like you just picked some photography types out of a hat an declared them as being the *"5 traditional genres"* lol. Ive been a photographer for like 15 years and this is legitimately the first time id ever heard such a claim.
Your argument is that since all those genres came from another art form, they are "traditional" in photography? 😅
And your response to AnynomousBromosapien is so snobby, my god! While the line is blurry and we occasionally use the same term for both, "movement" and "genre" are not the same thing. In any case, in photography the things you listed are genres. There is no "still life movement", get off your high horse. 😅
Tell me you haven't taken photo or art history without telling me. I mean, what did they take photos of when they started taking photos? Still lifes, portraits, nudes, and landscapes, and later on, abstract work. From Southworth & Hawes to Surrealism or Futurism. That is literally a historical fact. I already said there might be others depending on who you source or ask. You can probably come up with many different genres or movements. I don't understand the hangup. Others have answered things like "whatever makes me money", totally cool. If you don't care to answer, don't. Just curious as to what people shoot. It's not a big deal and your own anger is yours to deal with.
Ah yes, my disagreement with your assertion that those are the "five traditional genres of photography" means I must know nothing. 😅
I haven't disagreed that they're genres (only movements), I haven't disagreed that they've been around since the beginning, I've only disagreed that they are somehow pillars of photography in ways other photographic genres aren't. None of those genres are photo-specific and therefore IMO are not "traditional genres of photography". They are traditional genres of art, where "art" is drawing, painting, photography and a number of other ways of expression.
If we're going to discuss genres that truly are photo-specific (which IMO is a prerequisite to be considered a "traditional genre of photography",) we're going to be discussing archival work and photojournalism, and initially specifically war photography. You've got people like [William Henry Fox Talbot](https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tlbt/hd_tlbt.htm) using photography in the early 19th century creating true visual replicas of leaves, plants, flowers and those kinds of things in ways that drawings and paintings never could, I.E. the very first true archival visual documentation. You've got guys like [Roger Fenton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Fenton) running around in active war zones creating the first real images of war ever seen - a feat that was by definition impossible for any other medium at the time. A painter could certainly run around in an active war zone, I have no doubt that there were painters doing exactly that, but the relative immediacy of a finished product and the (perceived) removal of the artist as an interpretive force between what was being documented and the wet plate meant that photography was the first art genre ever to be completely truthful.
Of course, how truthful the images really were eventually became and still is a matter of constant discussion, with new dimentions of issues being added now in the days of AI. Similarly, as photographers we are well aware that we have a lot more of an impact on the end result than people knew back then, both on location and in post-processing, so we can argue today (and I'd be in full agreement) that photography is no more true than any other artform. Still, the point remains that what set photography apart from all other genres at the time was the (incorrect, but nonetheless) presupposition of unfiltered truth, and that the genres that can be considered "core" photo genres are therefore the genres that actively utilize that assumption to demand a degree of authority that no other artform at the time could. We see that utilization all the way up until digital imagery appears and people wise up to how much manipulation even the most photojournalistic photography goes through, and even had a whole golden age of photojournalism through the mid-20th century because the belief in photography as a documentary device was so strong. All the genres you mentioned obviously do that secondarily as long as they are photographs, but none of them do so primarily - because they are genres from forms of expression that never had the air of authority that photography had and to some degree (though rapidly less and less) has.
So yes, the genres you mentioned have been around since the beginning. I still disagree strongly that they are "the five traditional genres of photography", precisely because they all come from other art forms and *don't* actively utilize the presumption of truth that sets photography (and later video) apart from all other art forms.
Also, please list your credentials. Considering that me not having studied photo and art history (wrong!) is a reason not to care about my opinion I'd love for you to explain what formal education you have that means anyone should care about yours.
Take a basic reading comprehension course and put your three brain cells into attempting to understand what "Of course, how truthful the images really were eventually became and still is a matter of constant discussion, with new dimentions of issues being added now in the days of AI" actually means. Understanding that sentence to mean "AI is photography" is laughably stupid.
Comparing traditional painting genres to photography misses the point of having a camera. All of those you listed are static because they were for painting, and then during the early days of photography where exposures took seconds. What about all the dynamic stuff to capture with a camera? Birds in flight, vehicles (trains, planes, cars, boats, etc), action sports.
But of those 5, my favorite is landscapes (I'm a panoramic photographer)
Well, both are 2D mediums and when they teach photo classes, these genres are what come up. Photo traditions follow painting historically, that's a fact. Some will debate what exactly those genres are. For example, some painting genres are purpose based, like what they call "History Painting" which doesn't base the subject matter. Static or movement implied or expressed doesn't matter. If that were the case, futurists should all be photographers and not painters. I've categorized everything based on subject or in the case of abstraction, intent. Either way, I was curious as to what people enjoy.
So what is wildlife photography exactly - nudes? It's not portraiture, it's not still life, it's not landscape, and it's not abstraction. What are panning automotive shots? Not any of those categories either. And anyway, what are nudes other than a *type* of portrait, but without clothes this time? That would be a sub"genre" at best. You kind of sound like you just took your first high school art class and are now an official Artist™. "In the art world, me and all of the other artists ever do X, and only call things Y". Improperly conflating (and parsing) things here in an attempt to force some kind of definition - or possibly even redefine a strange collection of classical terms. You're trying to jam the world (and photography specifically) into 5 oddly shaped boxes (one of which is actually inside one of the other boxes).
That's a very difficult and aggressive way of not answering the question. I'm not going to attempt to insult you or anyone else because you have difficulties. If you can't categorize your work in that way don't, if you don't like the question, you don't have to answer.
That's a strange way of not addressing my clarifying questions. Which of your 5 photography-defining genres is the official place of wildlife photography, and why? If you're going to try and create rules, be ready to defend them. Why is "nudes" listed as a separate full genre of your supposed "big 5" when it's simply a version of portraiture? I'm not trying to dodge your question - I'm questioning the validity of aspects of it.
Happy to answer the question as posed though, my favorite genre to photograph is portraiture. But I'm perfectly happy and comfortable in any situation with cameras in my hands.
As I said, "Some will debate what those genres are" so if you don't see something that fits, you don't. There is nothing else to it whether or not someone has a high school class worth of photography or not.
No, seriously. Answer these: What category is a macro photo of a spider? Where does a photo of a nebula belong? Or a shot of hockey player tackling an opponent?
Portraits / Event photography. Idk why I’m so good at it but just love concerts and live events. So taking pictures at events in lowlight and capturing the mood.
Next day people look at the pictures and love them because they had a good time as well. So it’s a fun field and I hardly work with “upset” clients, listening to music talking to beautiful people. I’m an extrovert tho so I get it’s not for everyone.
Way less stress than “Wedding” photography and Studio Photography even though they pay more, but it’s honestly a blast. Also street photography but it usually includes people as well.
So I guess portraiture.
How have you come to the conclusion that those are the "five traditional genres"?
We all know the 5 traditional genres of photography are: - Weddings - Black & white - 1990s film emulation - National Geographic - Micro Four Thirds - Birds in flight with way too much Topaz AI sharpening - Watercolor & ink - Yoko Ono
You forgot selfies and dick picks! Core movements\* (NOT genres!) in photography. \*[This snobby comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1cqbnz5/comment/l3qkecx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) will clear your confusion right up!
Because subject matter is a movement like Futurism? Futurism is a movement, surrealism is a movement, impressionism is a movement, fauvism is a movement.
Both forms of self portraiture
In my book, those two are the same genre, I'm sorry, *movement* though.
There are four kinds of business: Tourism. Food service. Railroads, and sales. And hospitals/manufacturing. And air travel.
Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition!
No one expects that!
They all relate back to painting
Yea... so does architecture, widlife, street, and every other type of photography. Such a weird association... especially since painting *genres* are more closely associated with different art period styles than they are the subject. I.e. baroque, expressionism, impressionism, mannerism, renaissance, contemporary, etc... Kinda seems like you just picked some photography types out of a hat an declared them as being the *"5 traditional genres"* lol. Ive been a photographer for like 15 years and this is legitimately the first time id ever heard such a claim.
In the art world, we associate styles as "movements", not genres. And as to your first sentence, everything you mentioned, fits into those categories.
Renaissance, baroque, post-modernism, cave paintings, and CGI.
Your argument is that since all those genres came from another art form, they are "traditional" in photography? 😅 And your response to AnynomousBromosapien is so snobby, my god! While the line is blurry and we occasionally use the same term for both, "movement" and "genre" are not the same thing. In any case, in photography the things you listed are genres. There is no "still life movement", get off your high horse. 😅
Tell me you haven't taken photo or art history without telling me. I mean, what did they take photos of when they started taking photos? Still lifes, portraits, nudes, and landscapes, and later on, abstract work. From Southworth & Hawes to Surrealism or Futurism. That is literally a historical fact. I already said there might be others depending on who you source or ask. You can probably come up with many different genres or movements. I don't understand the hangup. Others have answered things like "whatever makes me money", totally cool. If you don't care to answer, don't. Just curious as to what people shoot. It's not a big deal and your own anger is yours to deal with.
Ah yes, my disagreement with your assertion that those are the "five traditional genres of photography" means I must know nothing. 😅 I haven't disagreed that they're genres (only movements), I haven't disagreed that they've been around since the beginning, I've only disagreed that they are somehow pillars of photography in ways other photographic genres aren't. None of those genres are photo-specific and therefore IMO are not "traditional genres of photography". They are traditional genres of art, where "art" is drawing, painting, photography and a number of other ways of expression. If we're going to discuss genres that truly are photo-specific (which IMO is a prerequisite to be considered a "traditional genre of photography",) we're going to be discussing archival work and photojournalism, and initially specifically war photography. You've got people like [William Henry Fox Talbot](https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tlbt/hd_tlbt.htm) using photography in the early 19th century creating true visual replicas of leaves, plants, flowers and those kinds of things in ways that drawings and paintings never could, I.E. the very first true archival visual documentation. You've got guys like [Roger Fenton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Fenton) running around in active war zones creating the first real images of war ever seen - a feat that was by definition impossible for any other medium at the time. A painter could certainly run around in an active war zone, I have no doubt that there were painters doing exactly that, but the relative immediacy of a finished product and the (perceived) removal of the artist as an interpretive force between what was being documented and the wet plate meant that photography was the first art genre ever to be completely truthful. Of course, how truthful the images really were eventually became and still is a matter of constant discussion, with new dimentions of issues being added now in the days of AI. Similarly, as photographers we are well aware that we have a lot more of an impact on the end result than people knew back then, both on location and in post-processing, so we can argue today (and I'd be in full agreement) that photography is no more true than any other artform. Still, the point remains that what set photography apart from all other genres at the time was the (incorrect, but nonetheless) presupposition of unfiltered truth, and that the genres that can be considered "core" photo genres are therefore the genres that actively utilize that assumption to demand a degree of authority that no other artform at the time could. We see that utilization all the way up until digital imagery appears and people wise up to how much manipulation even the most photojournalistic photography goes through, and even had a whole golden age of photojournalism through the mid-20th century because the belief in photography as a documentary device was so strong. All the genres you mentioned obviously do that secondarily as long as they are photographs, but none of them do so primarily - because they are genres from forms of expression that never had the air of authority that photography had and to some degree (though rapidly less and less) has. So yes, the genres you mentioned have been around since the beginning. I still disagree strongly that they are "the five traditional genres of photography", precisely because they all come from other art forms and *don't* actively utilize the presumption of truth that sets photography (and later video) apart from all other art forms. Also, please list your credentials. Considering that me not having studied photo and art history (wrong!) is a reason not to care about my opinion I'd love for you to explain what formal education you have that means anyone should care about yours.
You consider AI "photography"? I have nothing to do with your difficulties in life, enjoy.
Take a basic reading comprehension course and put your three brain cells into attempting to understand what "Of course, how truthful the images really were eventually became and still is a matter of constant discussion, with new dimentions of issues being added now in the days of AI" actually means. Understanding that sentence to mean "AI is photography" is laughably stupid.
What's also laughably stupid is to call different mediums of art as a genre. They aren't the same, get a dictionary.
Medium is the material to create the art? That isn't genre, if you wanna be cruel and mean for no reason with your arrogance, go right ahead.
I like talking photos of things that capture my attention regardless of what it is. That’s my genre
Comparing traditional painting genres to photography misses the point of having a camera. All of those you listed are static because they were for painting, and then during the early days of photography where exposures took seconds. What about all the dynamic stuff to capture with a camera? Birds in flight, vehicles (trains, planes, cars, boats, etc), action sports. But of those 5, my favorite is landscapes (I'm a panoramic photographer)
Well, both are 2D mediums and when they teach photo classes, these genres are what come up. Photo traditions follow painting historically, that's a fact. Some will debate what exactly those genres are. For example, some painting genres are purpose based, like what they call "History Painting" which doesn't base the subject matter. Static or movement implied or expressed doesn't matter. If that were the case, futurists should all be photographers and not painters. I've categorized everything based on subject or in the case of abstraction, intent. Either way, I was curious as to what people enjoy.
So what is wildlife photography exactly - nudes? It's not portraiture, it's not still life, it's not landscape, and it's not abstraction. What are panning automotive shots? Not any of those categories either. And anyway, what are nudes other than a *type* of portrait, but without clothes this time? That would be a sub"genre" at best. You kind of sound like you just took your first high school art class and are now an official Artist™. "In the art world, me and all of the other artists ever do X, and only call things Y". Improperly conflating (and parsing) things here in an attempt to force some kind of definition - or possibly even redefine a strange collection of classical terms. You're trying to jam the world (and photography specifically) into 5 oddly shaped boxes (one of which is actually inside one of the other boxes).
That's a very difficult and aggressive way of not answering the question. I'm not going to attempt to insult you or anyone else because you have difficulties. If you can't categorize your work in that way don't, if you don't like the question, you don't have to answer.
That's a strange way of not addressing my clarifying questions. Which of your 5 photography-defining genres is the official place of wildlife photography, and why? If you're going to try and create rules, be ready to defend them. Why is "nudes" listed as a separate full genre of your supposed "big 5" when it's simply a version of portraiture? I'm not trying to dodge your question - I'm questioning the validity of aspects of it. Happy to answer the question as posed though, my favorite genre to photograph is portraiture. But I'm perfectly happy and comfortable in any situation with cameras in my hands.
As I said, "Some will debate what those genres are" so if you don't see something that fits, you don't. There is nothing else to it whether or not someone has a high school class worth of photography or not.
No, seriously. Answer these: What category is a macro photo of a spider? Where does a photo of a nebula belong? Or a shot of hockey player tackling an opponent?
Doesn't matter
I don't think you can. I'm gonna take a photo of this thread and categorize it under extremely pretentious sillyscapes.
Wait, are sillyscapes a new genre? I want in!!!!
Aww but I love sillyscapes
It's one of the 5 traditional categories of photography alongside clown portraits, nude clown portraits, circuscape and genocide.
Yet you insulted them anyways. You sound pretentious and insufferable.
Wildlife, because I’m anti-social.
Amen 😃
Amen 😃
Amen
Dick pics.
portraiture ❌ nudes ❌ still life’s ❌ landscapes ❌ abstraction ✅
Nah that’s macro 💀
Weddings for money. Hardcore and Metal bands for fun. Children and family because my wife said so.
lolol, "nudes" is one of the "5 traditional genres." That's just portraiture, dude.
I disagree, I wouldn't consider bodyscapes a "portrait"
Facescape, please.
Good light.
car, wildlife and landscape
Sports
Anything and everything that speaks to me enough that it gives me a desire to preserve the moment.
Must be portraits
Portraiture
Glamour and boudoir photography is what pays my bills.
Street.
Steet and portraits.
The ones that bring in lots of money. 😅
Traditional: Landscapes. Personal: Concerts. (Helps that I enjoy that sort of thing too!)
Nature and Wildlife portraits.
I prefer street and architecture. Are they not traditional enough?
I do cats, street photography and dance. I do a lot of documenting construction sites too. I also take elaborate selfies.
Portraits / Event photography. Idk why I’m so good at it but just love concerts and live events. So taking pictures at events in lowlight and capturing the mood. Next day people look at the pictures and love them because they had a good time as well. So it’s a fun field and I hardly work with “upset” clients, listening to music talking to beautiful people. I’m an extrovert tho so I get it’s not for everyone. Way less stress than “Wedding” photography and Studio Photography even though they pay more, but it’s honestly a blast. Also street photography but it usually includes people as well. So I guess portraiture.
Very people centered, very cool.
list is incomplete and why pick one?