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

[Otto Phocus]

Perhaps the cogent question is not "Why people can not tell a bad photo from a good one?"; but "why do photographers sometimes fail to recognize their own mediocrity?"

It is a poor artist that blames the public for not recognizing the artist's obvious awesomeness. 

Art, by its very nature is subjective.  The artist has his or her own opinion about the work; the viewer has his or her own opinion about the work.  Sometimes the two opinions do not agree. Which opinion is the correct one?  They both are.

[Petrus]

Perhaps the cogent question is not "Why people can not tell a bad photo from a good one?"; but "why do photographers sometimes fail to recognize their own mediocrity?"

It is a poor artist that blames the public for not recognizing the artist's obvious awesomeness. 

I am a humble mediocre photographer. My point really was that when somebody recognizes a flash of greatness in my work, they pick the wrong shots… Why?

I have gotten some decent answers already.

[Otto Phocus]

I am a humble mediocre photographer. My point really was that when somebody recognizes a flash of greatness in my work, they pick the wrong shots… Why?

I have gotten some decent answers already.

"they pick the wrong shots..."

Well, this brings up another question:  Why does a viewer of your photograph need to agree with your opinion of the photograph?

They did not pick the "wrong" shot; they picked a different shot. 

[Petrus]

I actually know the answer: Nice (landscape type) shots are easy and fast to spot and like, but more complicated compositions where also the apparent movements and sight lines are part of the composition (and there is not exaggerated saturation…) require some time and a good eye both to capture and to appreciate.

People who populate the photo display sites and deliver likes left and right are not usually the busy professionals, connoisseurs or art critics who would spot the "right" ones.

[amolitor]

We all have our own reasons to shoot. The important thing is not to try to force other people to adopt our reasons, it is to have clear in our minds what our reasons are.

If you don't have a clear, conscious, grasp of why you shoot, then you have no goal, no direction, and you're likely to suffer frustration eventually.

[hjulenissen]

Do you take images to please the general public? If so, then it seems that you need to learn the handicraft of pleasing the public?

Do you take images to please yourself? Then why do you care what anyone else thinks?

Do you take images to get "pats on the back" from fellow photographers? Then tell us a story of how you had to fight polar bears, swim through mosquito-infested waters and only had enough battery for that single defining shot of something in front of a big rocky thing with a nice sunset.

-h

[jjj]

The only thing to add to that good list is

Do you take photos for clients? If so learn the handicraft of giving clients what they want? [not always the same as the public].

[landscapephoto]

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.

Maybe you have posted these photography to the wrong places? For example, if you post photographs to a travel forum, the users will only care about the pictures which show how the place they want to visit looks like. They won't care if the picture is well composed, was technically difficult to take, if you have an expensive camera, etc... Simple iPhone snapshots showing how the place looks like is what is needed, something like what google view delivers. Users of a travel forum will simply discard any photograph which does not meet these criteria, even if it would otherwise be a very good picture.

[Paulo Bizarro]

What is the average time that a viewer dedicates to looking at photos on the net? Say you go to NatGeo site and there are dozens of photos there. You probably only have limited time to dedicate to look at them, say 10 seconds or 15 seconds each? Even less?

It is only natural that the more eye-catching ones (pretty landscape, pretty scenery) get more attention, are more attractive, than a street shot. After all, we walk on the street everyday, so why should we give more attention to street shots, than pretty landscapes from places that provide some escape from stress full city life?

[Jimbo57]

People who populate the photo display sites and deliver likes left and right are not usually the busy professionals, connoisseurs or art critics who would spot the "right" ones..........

I'll try again.

.........and, could it be, that the people who display their photographs on those sites are a pretty good match for their audience? If you do honestly believe that your photographs have any artistic merit, then why do you post them on "photo display sites" (your words) rather than exhibiting them where they will be viewed and critiqued by an audience you think are worthy of your efforts?

[Petrus]

I'll try again.

 If you do honestly believe that your photographs have any artistic merit, then why do you post them on "photo display sites" (your words) rather than exhibiting them where they will be viewed and critiqued by an audience you think are worthy of your efforts?

Not artistic, but good documentary/street/slightly "artsy" stuff anyway. But fortunately I am not taking this all that seriously, just wondered aloud why easily taken snap gets more likes than an honestly better photograph. Thanks all. Discussion may go on on general level.

[jjj]

just wondered aloud why easily taken snap gets more likes than an honestly better photograph.

The ease of taking has no relevance to how an image is perceived by others. Photographers often tend to place more value on photos that were harder work to capture than then may in fact deserve. I think it was Garry Winogrand who deliberately did not develop his images until a considerable while taking them. The idea being that he would forget details of the shoot, in order to not allow the process of capturing the shots colour his choices.

[Jimbo57]

The ease of taking has no relevance to how an image is perceived by others. Photographers often tend to place more value on photos that were harder work to capture than then may in fact deserve.

I would agree.

But, in this day and age, one possibly has to add the time taken and level of difficulty of the post-exposure processing as well. Time and difficulty frequently bear little correlation to artistic merit. Indeed, many of my most successful exhibition images might be dismissed as "inspired grab shots".

[Some Guy]

Everyone is a photographer these days thanks to cell photography - or "screen grabs."  What skill?  Sub a free app for any skill and make it a masterpiece.

I listen to a woman with a gallery showing lament that in one week of her show, with maybe 1,000 signatures in her book, only one framed print was sold for $200.  She ended up paying more to the gallery than she made.  She need at least $2K to break even, so she lost big time for her framing and rental.

It's a very tough market these days.

SG

[amolitor]

What relevance has skill?

[Otto Phocus]

I listen to a woman with a gallery showing lament that in one week of her show, with maybe 1,000 signatures in her book, only one framed print was sold for $200.  She ended up paying more to the gallery than she made.  She need at least $2K to break even, so she lost big time for her framing and rental.

Ouch that is a tough lesson to learn.  I wonder if there is any type of market research she could have done prior to see if it would be reasonable for her to get her nut.

I wonder how much encouragement she got from the gallery sales person?  The gallery is smart to get their money upfront.

[jjj]

Everyone is a photographer these days thanks to cell photography - or "screen grabs."  What skill?  Sub a free app for any skill and make it a masterpiece.

I listen to a woman with a gallery showing lament that in one week of her show, with maybe 1,000 signatures in her book, only one framed print was sold for $200.  She ended up paying more to the gallery than she made.  She need at least $2K to break even, so she lost big time for her framing and rental.

It's a very tough market these days.

Does the bit in bold not apply to the woman in question? I'm guessing that far more people did not sign the book than did sign, so one sale for a few thousand visitors. So is her work overpriced or simply not good enough?
Also the gallery charging her a big chunk of change for showing as opposed to the usual taking a cut of sales, reminds me of vanity publishing which existed for those not good enough for someone else to publish and sell the work.

[Some Guy]

Ouch that is a tough lesson to learn.  I wonder if there is any type of market research she could have done prior to see if it would be reasonable for her to get her nut.

I wonder how much encouragement she got from the gallery sales person?  The gallery is smart to get their money upfront.

Trust me, she learned - albeit the hard way.

Fwiw, the gallery was in Monterey Bay, CA.  Problem for the area, from what I heard while at Kim Weston's birthday party held in some outdoor amphitheater, was that the area, including Santa Cruz, and Carmel, CA, used to have 130 galleries.  Far less now than the old artist's boom.

Most galleries there now seem to be self-promotions of their own work (self-owned) as it costs too much to rent a place to show your own.  That or they take their cut upfront which can lead to a big loss.  Tough business to sit around all day in and pray for a sale if all you can reap is $200 in a week where you need $2K at minimal.

We've had a lot of photographer's shops close up too.  Rent is expensive for what the median annual salary photographer's are getting.  The stats ( Average annual photographer's salaries ) look like the median is only $30K per year.  No doubt it is dropping too with the new generation.  Where I live you cannot work out of your home either due to the HOA rules (No home studios!) and zoning.  Plus, some pro's will get you in some commercial zoning issue if you even try and they find out about it.  Get's messy, and don't even get me started with the silly overpriced permit fees either where some state/federal parks want a $500/day fee if some ranger sees a tripod out and claims your are doing commercial work.

Also, since the loss of really well-paying magazines to the "Pay-us-to-be-published rags" or even websites it isn't pretty.  I heard from one model that even modeling agencies care beginning to charge their models/talent/actors face time on their website of maybe $40 per month, along with a setup fee of $500.  Doubt if they ever recover that since agencies used to make money off their talent rather than charge them.

Heck.  One could sit around a play in "Google Images" and download and alter an image to their liking for free.  If they could care less how it looks on their phone, I doubt if they'll care if they can print a crummy photo off it or just leave it as a screensaver on whatever device.  Screw paying someone (i.e. Much like the music side.).

SG

[amolitor]

Galleries and so on are pretty much over, except at the high end. I think they may have always been a dubious enterprise, it's just that the suckers have changed. Walkins are no longer as willing to be sold some high-priced "art", they can buy it on the internet for a lot less. Casting about for new suckers, the gallerists have noticed that the only people left in the room are the artists.

[Some Guy]

Galleries and so on are pretty much over, except at the high end. I think they may have always been a dubious enterprise, it's just that the suckers have changed. Walkins are no longer as willing to be sold some high-priced "art", they can buy it on the internet for a lot less. Casting about for new suckers, the gallerists have noticed that the only people left in the room are the artists.

I don't think they are over quite yet.

I recently bought some Japanese inkjet papers from Hiromi Papers who I learned is located in some converted industrial park hosting something like 30+ galleries in Santa Monica, CA.  Bergamot Station  In the Visit section of their website, it looks like 7 are rental galleries and the others have something of their own to sell?  I'm not familiar with their names.

Evidently, LA is also planning some new Metrolink train station that ends there too for the ultimate "Art Gallery Shopping experience."  Who they cater to I don't know, but I gather they are on the high end of galleries in there too.  Could be a lot more than just photos and paintings in there too.  If it's all starving artists passing around the same $35 in print trading (Shades of Ansel Adam's Group f/64 club with Weston and Cunningham and their $35.), I wouldn't expect such a huge gallery operation in one area, but Carmel did that for a while and still has the artsy feel - but just smaller.

Even going with the rental thing, no doubt self-promotion can get very expensive in there.  How long someone has to remain there with a show to get any notice could be very costly.  Only one making money now is likely the gallery owner - and the starving artist starves a little more.

SG