Why people can not tell a bad photo from a good one?

[Petrus]

A few days ago I uploaded my first batch of 15 photographs to the National Geographic "Yourshot" site. After the "likes" started to trickle in I noticed a worrisome trend: most liked photos were those anyone with a decent camera could have captured, namely a shot of a building in front of a mountain (neither of which do not go anywhere) and another of a field of prayer flags on the hillside (ditto). Meanwhile the shots which I am most proud of, compositions of people in fleeting moments when all the elements in the picture, movement and eye directions all fall in place are all but neglected. Those pictures all also tell a story and are not just a compositional practices. Those are much, much more difficult to get, requiring time and hunter's instincts of being in the right place the right time. Also feel for the moment, people skills, compassion etc etc just to be able to be in the middle of the action.

I surely understand that a landscape photography forum is the worst place for a rant like this, but there are more sensible people here than on most other forums. I have wondered about the same thing before: certain photographer has thousands of likes for a not so good, easy to get photograph of a golden religious statue, while rare photos from the same place documenting the real life of the devotees get practically not attention at all.

I am trying to keep this on general level and I am not complaining that I am not getting likes, but the distribution of those, from a documentary/news photographer's viewpoint, is amazingly out of whack.

[Justinr]

A few days ago I uploaded my first batch of 15 photographs to the National Geographic "Yourshot" site. After the "likes" started to trickle in I noticed a worrisome trend: most liked photos were those anyone with a decent camera could have captured, namely a shot of a building in front of a mountain (neither of which do not go anywhere) and another of a field of prayer flags on the hillside (ditto). Meanwhile the shots which I am most proud of, compositions of people in fleeting moments when all the elements in the picture, movement and eye directions all fall in place are all but neglected. Those pictures all also tell a story and are not just a compositional practices. Those are much, much more difficult to get, requiring time and hunter's instincts of being in the right place the right time. Also feel for the moment, people skills, compassion etc etc just to be able to be in the middle of the action.

I surely understand that a landscape photography forum is the worst place for a rant like this, but there are more sensible people here than on most other forums. I have wondered about the same thing before: certain photographer has thousands of likes for a not so good, easy to get photograph of a golden religious statue, while rare photos from the same place documenting the real life of the devotees get practically not attention at all.

I am trying to keep this on general level and I am not complaining that I am not getting likes, but the distribution of those, from a documentary/news photographer's viewpoint, is amazingly out of whack.

It is something that I have wondered about as well in the past when I have seen heaps of adoration piled upon mediocre shots. The obvious conclusion is that you/I/we are wrong in thinking what is or isn't a good shot, but I'm more of the idea that people are too lazy to bother assessing or even thinking too much about what they see. Then there is the herd mentality, people 'like' what is easy to understand as it won't mark them out from the crowd, a phenomenon that is rampant on Linkedin for instance.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The quality of a photograph is not necessarily directly proportional to the effort involved in taking it.

Jeremy

[Petrus]

The quality of a photograph is not necessarily directly proportional to the effort involved in taking it.

Jeremy

Certainly, but I was actually comparing the skills needed to get the shot.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A few days ago I uploaded my first batch of 15 photographs to the National Geographic "Yourshot" site. After the "likes" started to trickle in I noticed a worrisome trend: most liked photos were those anyone with a decent camera could have captured, namely a shot of a building in front of a mountain (neither of which do not go anywhere) and another of a field of prayer flags on the hillside (ditto). Meanwhile the shots which I am most proud of, compositions of people in fleeting moments when all the elements in the picture, movement and eye directions all fall in place are all but neglected. Those pictures all also tell a story and are not just a compositional practices. Those are much, much more difficult to get, requiring time and hunter's instincts of being in the right place the right time. Also feel for the moment, people skills, compassion etc etc just to be able to be in the middle of the action.

Hi,

So what does that tell you about the audience? Are they skilled reviewers/appraisers?

Among the most popular/'liked' images on the internet, are snapshots of cats ... What doe that tell us, if anything.

Perhaps only if people have to put in some real effort, like paying to acquire a copy, will better quality get more properly awarded.

Cheers,
Bart

[Chairman Bill]

I know of one person (on a photo site & I'm naming neither), who to be fair takes some nice photos, yet many are standard fare, but with his signature low key effect, slightly over saturated, with clumsy brushing in of reduced brightness in the sky, often with significant halos & other odd but obvious signs of sloppy retouching. People love his work.

There's a Yorkshire saying, "There's nowt so queer as folk"

[Rob C]

Certainly, but I was actually comparing the skills needed to get the shot.

But that's essentially the same thing as Jeremy pointed out: a photograph isn't about technical difficulty, which is the photographer's problem in making the shot, it's about the impact and value of the result, not how it was achieved.

Rob

[Rob C]

I know of one person (on a photo site & I'm naming neither), who to be fair takes some nice photos, yet many are standard fare, but with his signature low key effect, slightly over saturated, with clumsy brushing in of reduced brightness in the sky, often with significant halos & other odd but obvious signs of sloppy retouching. People love his work.

There's a Yorkshire saying, "There's nowt so queer as folk"

Think Vincent Van Gogh.

Rob C

[Jimbo57]

The real numpties are not the idiots who click the "Like" button on stupid websites. The real numpties are those who attach any significance to the "Like" count.

[tom b]

Unwrapping on Youtube: 200 million+ views.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unwrapping+kinder+surprise+eggs

"Hey guys, today Im opening several Easter Surprise Eggs as well as Kinder Surprise from different Movies Cartoons…".

What is good or bad depends on your audience!

Cheers,

[Petrus]

But that's essentially the same thing as Jeremy pointed out: a photograph isn't abut technical difficulty, which is the photographer's problem in making the shot, it's about the impact and value of the result, not how it was achieved.

Rob

But but but: I was not talking about the TECHNICAL difficulty at all ( I use AF & AE), but the eye and reflexes needed to get a meaningful shot from a fast moving situation.

Average Eiffel tower shot: 10000 likes
Cartier-Bresson decisive moment from Paris streets: 98 likes

(made up example)

[Petrus]

I know you are not talking about technical difficulty but here is a link to a piece by Paul Graham for MOMA, New York, about how the art world judges art photographers: http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html

Paul

Thanks for the link, good piece reflecting my sentiments.

"to help [the greater art world, and] the public itself understand the nature of the creative act when you dance with life itself - when you form the meaningless world into photographs, then form those photographs into a meaningful world."

[Robert Roaldi]

You might be over-thinking this. In general I like music, I like some operatic arias but I won't sit through a 4 hour long opera. I appreciate the difficulty is staging one, I appreciate the talents of the singers, and I wish them all well, but I'm not interested enough to attend one.

People are probably reacting emotionally to the scenes you present. Maybe fewer people appreciate the photos that you rate the highest.

There are probably all manner of photographs out there that require skill and planning to execute and that may bore you.

[stamper]

In my camera club days I entered a maximum of four prints/digital slides into every competition. Often my "best" one was the least appreciated and my fourth "best" was the one best liked. You can't second guess someone's tastes. The club chairman showed me some results of competitions. An image that scored 19 or 20 out of 20 by most members attracted 9 or 10 by a minority and vice versa. Just be glad that somebody likes your images!

[DeanChriss]

My wife has always said that in general people most like pictures of places and things they have personally seen. Based on years of watching people look at pictures this seems to be absolutely true.

Decent photographs of common birds get more attention than better photographs of more exotic species. People who have been to a certain national park will pay attention to mediocre photographs of popular vistas in that park while ignoring much better photographs of remote locations where they have never been. IMO they are responding to something they find familiar.

There is another much smaller group that will gravitate to the best photographs. Informal chats seem to indicate that many of them are interested in art, and a number are amateur or professional painters or have art degrees. IMO they are responding to the artistic merits of the piece, and care less about the particular subject matter.

[ErikKaffehr]

+1

…but, there is more to it… On the web you just see a small image for a short time. Many images need a certain size and a certain amount of time to be involved with. In 800x600 it may be just boring but filling the screen it may be great. Presentation and circumstances may be far more important than the image.

Erik

The quality of a photograph is not necessarily directly proportional to the effort involved in taking it.

Jeremy

[Dale Villeponteaux]

The quality of a photograph is not necessarily directly proportional to the effort involved in taking it.

Jeremy

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/05/no-one-cares-how-hard-you-worked.html

[jjj]

…but, there is more to it… On the web you just see a small image for a short time. Many images need a certain size and a certain amount of time to be involved with. In 800x600 it may be just boring but filling the screen it may be great. Presentation and circumstances may be far more important than the image.

Yup.
Size and presentation matter a lot. I recently mentioned this on another post - I never like to make a final judgement on a work of art until I've seen it in the flesh or as the artist wanted it seen
By judgement - that's whether I like it or not. What other people may think is up to them.

[jjj]

I know you are not talking about technical difficulty but here is a link to a piece by Paul Graham for MOMA, New York, about how the art world judges art photographers: http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html

Good piece.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

....Average Eiffel tower shot: 10000 likes
Cartier-Bresson decisive moment from Paris streets: 98 likes...

Seems about right, what's the problem?