I'm depressed.

[Redcrown]

I'm "non commercial". Just do it for fun. In addition to the normal stuff, I shoot a few annual events, post them on a Smugmug account. Last weekend was my favorite event, an Asian festival. Lots of beautiful people in colorful costumes, willing to pose.

Spent 10 hours shooting, then about 25 hours editing a batch of 120 keepers. I'm certainly not the best, but I'm pretty good. Pay a lot of attention to detail. Lots of local adjustment brushing, lots of cloning and healing. Calibrated system, custom profiles, high end equipment, years of experience. Pretty, pretty pictures.

This year I finally implemented Google Analytics on my Smugmug account. Now I've got stats. That's why I'm depressed. In just 4 days, about 350 people have visited the site, making over 4,000 hits on the images. They are being led to my Smugmug site by Facebook. That's the good news.

The bad news is that Google says 70% of those people used a smart phone. Another 10% used a tablet, leaving only 20% using a "desktop". I think Google counts laptops as desktops.

And a pattern is obvious. The smartphone users come in, look at only 2 to 5 images and leave. The tablet and desktop users hang around more, browsing through dozens of images. A few browse the entire gallery.

Is this our future and is the future already here? Is all our hard work to be wasted on a 4" phone display? Why all those debates about noise reduction, sharpening, color management, etc., if our work is largely consumed in a way that makes no difference?

[fdisilvestro]

Well, that sounds quite the current trend, where most internet use is through mobile devices. That's why even google is changing the search results to favor mobile-friendly web sites.

Is this our future and is the future already here? Is all our hard work to be wasted on a 4" phone display? Why all those debates about noise reduction, sharpening, color management, etc., if our work is largely consumed in a way that makes no difference?

That depends on what your expectations are and the purpose of your work. It may make no difference on a smartphone screen but it will make a lot of difference in a 4K display. Maybe the challenge is to produce such an awesome work so that when someone looks at it on their smartphone, they fell the need to revisit it on a large display.

[Jimbo57]

I'm certainly not the best, but I'm pretty good. Pay a lot of attention to detail. Lots of local adjustment brushing, lots of cloning and healing. Calibrated system, custom profiles, high end equipment, years of experience. Pretty, pretty pictures.

Well you certainly have a "guid conceit" of yourself.

But what leads you to expect that anyone else should have the slightest interest in viewing your photographs? Especially on a "service" like smugmug?

Try printing a few of them and submitting them to a number of international salons. If they are good enough to be selected for exhibition, they will then be seen by folk who have a real interest in skilled and progressive photography.

[Mark D Segal]

I think Redcrown's "depression" is a natural reaction to a changing world, but the antidote of course is to adjust his expectations to the new reality. There are billions of photos out there, and even hundreds of thousands if not more of very good ones. So how do you get attention? You need to be a real stand-out, so being a first-rate photographer with something useful and unusual to say and having your own very good website over which to say it may be a start, but only a start, because there are scads of those too. Does getting satisfaction from your photography depend on how others think of your work, or about how you think of what you are doing? Do you need approval from others to feel accomplished with what you are doing, or can you derive inner satisfaction meeting your own standards of accomplishment?

Turning to the technical side of your "depression" - yes - technology has successfully challenged the predominance of the paper photograph, but it's also making photographs and photography accessible to hundreds of millions more people than would otherwise be the case. So this particular revolution is a very democratic one, and on those grounds alone to be welcomed. Being an "old-timer", I like to believe that a "real photograph" is what you see on paper, and it's harder to make good ones of those than to prepare them for the internet - no question about that, for known technical reasons. At the same time, I also recognize that a photograph is a photograph no matter the medium by which it is conveyed, and if I seriously wanted more people to see what I produce, I need to use the medium they use. It's here to not only stay, but get bigger and bigger. That doesn't spell the end of printing and all the care and knowledge needed to make a good print, because the paper medium is also here to stay - but at the margin it will just be very less dynamic, with increasing "market share" going to tablets and smartphones. This is an inevitable evolution and nothing to be depressed about. So relax, smell the roses and make fine photographs - in whatever the medium.

[bernie west]

Is this our future and is the future already here? Is all our hard work to be wasted on a 4" phone display? Why all those debates about noise reduction, sharpening, color management, etc., if our work is largely consumed in a way that makes no difference?

I've been wondering that a lot lately too.  I've been meaning to get around to getting a decent monitor and colour calibration system, but I'm wondering why bother?  Most of my stuff is shown online, and if anyone purchases anything, they will be browsing with a non-calibrated screen so there is no expectation that the print can even turn out like they saw it on their screen.  I'm saving the money.  Although, my current screen is so crap, I really should get one that doesn't have uneven lighting and a slightly blurry bit running down the centre of the screen... 

[Iluvmycam]

They estimate in 2016 there will be 2 billion cell phone cams out there. Yes sometimes it can be depressing in many areas, not just cell phone pix. Maybe make dedicated portfolios as well as a 'best of' portfolio. Few of us have time to looks at tons of pix.  

You should never invest more of yourself and your $ in a project than you can afford to lose if nothing comes of it.  I’ve worked on projects for almost a year full time, investing nearly $15,000 of my own money in it…and I failed to even give it away for free. The projects were landmark and had outstanding content. If you've seen my work you know I don't sign my name to garbage. But that is how it can be with art.

Don’t take any of it personally, you just keep moving on to the next project. Expectations are pre-planned resentments. This is why I tell you to 'work blind' and not build up expectations.

When I shot this I spend 5 days shooting the book . (Actually 4-1/2 days as I got rained out for half a day.)

(nsfw)

http://dewallenrld.tumblr.com/

My total trip was 9 days and it cost about $3400. I lost 2 days travel, 5 days shooting for De Wallen and 2 days shooting for 180. (Another artists' book I was doing.) I spread the my investment risk over 2 book projects. With all the competition nowadays you must get the most bang for your buck with your work unless you got deep pockets.  De Wallen cost another $3500 to get the prototypes and the initial artists' book printed. (Plus 2-1/2 months of PP and book layout.) So just to get a few books for the project was almost $7000.

I read on A.D. Coleman's blog that Mary Ellen Mark spent upwards of 10 years on her Falkland Road project. Spending that amount of time and money on an international project is not a luxury I can't afford or even imagine...without hitting the lotto.

I had asked an institution that had some of my work in their permanent collection to donate for $200-$300 to the De Wallen project for travel food or to stay an extra day shooting. I told them they could have their pick of the output either way, but would appreciate a little help...they declined. That was the first and last time I asked for some $ help. If I can't afford to do a project self-funded I wont. I don't want to go around begging people for $...I hate it.

With the way the photo market is today there is always a chance on never being able to do much with your project no matter how much time and $ you throw at it.
 
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/the-reality-of-being-an-artist/

[BJL]

In just 4 days, about 350 people have visited the site, making over 4,000 hits on the images. They are being led to my Smugmug site by Facebook. That's the good news.

The bad news is that Google says 70% of those people used a smart phone. Another 10% used a tablet, leaving only 20% using a "desktop". I think Google counts laptops as desktops.

With online viewing (as with photography itself) I see mobile devices as mostly adding to the activity, no displacing the older forms.  From your stats, your got about 70 visits from ""desktops" (20% of 350),and since those visitors stayed for longer more, I would estimate a lot more that 20% of those 4000 views were on desktops, so well over 1000.  That is probably a lot more views than you would have got by displaying prints!

Think of the mobile views as a bonus or "bait"; maybe some visitors will like your stuff enough bookmark your site and take a longer, bigger look when they get home.

[pcgpcg]

Now I've got stats. That's why I'm depressed. In just 4 days, about 350 people have visited the site, making over 4,000 hits on the images. They are being led to my Smugmug site by Facebook.

Depressed? I would be overjoyed to get 350 visitors in 4 days! I'm curious, how are you getting visitors from Facebook? I'm on FB and have found it extremely difficult to get people to click on a link that goes to my photo site. They will like a photo I post and make comments, but can't seem to figure out how to, or don't care to, navigate to my website.
The closest I've come to being depressed was when I realized that 99% of the hits that Google Analytics shows were referred by robots and not real viewers. 

[Mark D Segal]

What makes you think robots are not "real viewers"? Robots create and destroy value on the money markets every day. Robots can vacuum your floors - now if you can program the robots to buy your photos over the internet, you've got it made!  :-) :-)

[Redcrown]

Thanks for all the feedback. Some clarification...

Emphasis on being a "non commercial" photographer. I don't sell anything. Don't need the money, not trying to reach wide audiences. Just an old retired guy having fun. My satisfaction probably comes 90% from self, but I realize I need an occasional "atta boy" or "thank you".

When I cover special events I'd like the people I photograph to receive the images. This Asian Festival, for example, is mostly youth (5 to 25) whose proud parents have dressed them up in clutural garb and taught them their heritage through dances. The parents are snapping away with cell phones and P&S cameras, paying no attention to cluttered backgrounds, harsh sunlight, etc. I'm shooting for me, but also for those parents. So I try to get the images to them. I feel good when my Smugmug pages start getting hits from India, China, Thailand, Viet Nam. That means proud mama sent the link to relatives back in the old country. That's how I get paid.

For "pcgpcg", I don't have a Facebook account, but the festival organization does. They put an item on their Facebook page and that leads people to my Smugmug gallery. I think everybody who participates in the festival are friends of that Facebook page.

I spent years in a wet darkroom where it was all about the print, and I worshiped at the temple of Ansel Adams. For me, anything smaller than 8x10 is a thumbnail or a proof, worthy only for deciding whether to move on to the real thing. I don't think I'll ever accept a smartphone as anything more than a phone.

I'd like to think those smartphone browsers are using their 2 or 3 hits to decide to look at the real thing on a real monitor when they get home. But I have doubts. The numbers don't support it. I suspect the smartphone breeds apathy and short attention spans.

[Peter McLennan]

Redcrown, I share your work ethic.  Like you, I'm retired and don't need the money. I give away BFPs to people frequently and by far the most satisfaction I get is from seeing my work hanging on my friends' walls. 

That and books.  I've done a couple of Blurb books and they rate right up there on the satisfaction meter.

Keep at it.  The internet is a black hole for images. Fishing for compliments is a mugs game.  Fishing for thank-yous is way more fun.

[mezzoduomo]

....Just do it for fun.

So you do it for fun, and then get depressed over the public reaction, manner of reaction, or lack thereof? Maybe you're not doing it just for fun after all. Just a thought.

[smahn]

So you do it for fun, and then get depressed over the public reaction, manner of reaction, or lack thereof? Maybe you're not doing it just for fun after all. Just a thought.

Pretty sure he was talking more about their manner of viewing rather than their reaction. That the images don't get viewed in a manner that reveals the level of his craft.

It would be like getting a major exhibition but the doors never got opened and the public only saw them from across the street and through the windows.

[Isaac]

Is this our future and is the future already here? Is all our hard work to be wasted on a 4" phone display?

Be happy. Choose to believe that your photos are streamed from those 4" phone displays to 4K HDTV.

[Some Guy]

Somewhere I read most photos only get about 2-4 seconds of eye contact.  If they get more than 7-10 seconds, then that's a good one.

I know some print judge told me when they had to pour through 1,800 photos they merely get a glance of a second or two.  Better ones get moved to a different folder or screen in maybe 8 seconds worth of the judge's time.

Now days, a 'screen swipe' may be all of 2-3 seconds.  Wall art should be better than 10 seconds for me to ponder even hanging it up.

Then there is the "I like this one, but the other 99 people chose that one."  Good luck there, technicalities of art worthiness be damned.

SG

[Iluvmycam]

As a social documentary photographer my preferred method of operation was to ‘Meet on the street…shoot at the home.’ I would meet people that interested me on the street and then set out to photograph them at their homes. Many of my best images came from this way of shooting. I would never know what I would find at their home.

Back in the 70’s photography was esoteric…now a toddler can do it.  I still approach people to let me into their houses to document them, but I very, very seldom get any takers.  Nowadays everyone has a cell phone cam and a $60 inkjet printer from Wal-Mart. I’m effectively shut down. They are self-sufficient and don’t need me. The other day I approached a person with an offer to let me make a book about them. They pulled out their cell phone and showed me some pix. They said they had 25,000+ followers on Tumblr…why would they need me?

Well, in 2015 that is just how it is. I suspect as long as the electric is on, things wont change. But, even with no in-house access from prospects, I still have 2+ years of image files that I have never even looked at. That is the blessing of being able to do street photography…you never run out of subjects.

[Iluvmycam]

Well, you can't shoot it like this with a cell phone...as of yet.

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/selection-from-180-project-2/

If you want to beat the cell phones...shoot work that is beyond them.

[Otto Phocus]

I am a hobbyist. I shoot only for my own enjoyment.

I think a good cure for the OP's depression is to turn off the viewing stats. I am serious.

I feel that just as pixel-peeping can ruin someone's photography, obsessing on viewing stats can ruin someone's enjoyment of posting their photographs online.

Looking for affirmation or recognition from the Internets Tubes is another, in my opinion, unwise attitude. \

Shoot for yourself.  You are the only critic that is important.

[jannatul18]

I dont think its the future of Photography and you cant judge on which device is used to visit your gallery. Rather someone wants your service or your images then would definitely contact with you whether he is seeing it in smartphone or laptop. Its completely my own opinion.

[Otto Phocus]

Somewhere I read most photos only get about 2-4 seconds of eye contact.  If they get more than 7-10 seconds, then that's a good one.

That is  how I "judge" the quality of a photograph -- how long do I want to look at it. Most pictures I look at I like... for about, as you post, 4-5 seconds and then I move on.  But then there are the pictures that I want to look at for a minute or two.  And they are not necessarily the most technically correct photographs, but are the photographs that emotionally grab me.

I would not care if someone looked at my photographs on an old B/W tv set... I would be thrilled of someone wanted to look at one of my pictures for a minute or so.

Perhaps that should be a useful stat.  Not how many people view your photograph for but for how long do they look at it.  But I would imagine that would be difficult to collect.