Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Petrus on November 07, 2015, 04:29:03 am
-
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.
-
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.
-
The quality of a photograph is not necessarily directly proportional to the effort involved in taking it.
Jeremy
-
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.
-
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
-
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"
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Unwrapping on Youtube: 200 million+ views.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unwrapping+kinder+surprise+eggs (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,
-
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)
-
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."
-
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.
-
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! ;)
-
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.
-
+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
-
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
-
…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.
-
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.
-
....Average Eiffel tower shot: 10000 likes
Cartier-Bresson decisive moment from Paris streets: 98 likes...
Seems about right, what's the problem?
-
What do you mean by 'good' or 'better'?
There are many possible ideas you might attach to these words. Pick one and most likely the answer to your question will reveal itself.
-
You are talking about preferences for genre. Landscape or unpopulated urbanscape, versus "street" or environmental portrait genres. Frankly, I don't think that one can conclude much comparing popular response to individual photos in different genres. I think that a comparison of viewer response photos within genres would be more revealing.
As for the bird photography comparison - nowadays, the ability to get decent ID shots ("bird on a stick" shots) of exotic species is a function of MONEY and not skill - because tour operators (usually former pro wildlife photographers who have lost the market to freebies from amateurs) have now done the work of identifying the habitat and good shooting locations for the client photographers. I am actually more impressed by good behavioral shots, life-cycle series, outstanding BIF shots of common species, or at least relatively local species, in which the photographer has done their own habitat scouting, blind setup, etc. My idea of a really good wildlife photographer is a local (Missouri) guy, worked as photographer for state conservation department for many years, and did a book project on his own time about sage grouse, prairie chicken family of birds in the USA: "Save the Last Dance" Noppadol Paothong. He seems to know every grouse biologist, pertinent conservation department ranger, and landowner with a lek (dancing / mating grounds) on his land in the USA. Plus, his book and site images are used for stirring up interest in saving the birds' habitat.
http://www.savethelastdancebook.com/
http://www.nopnatureimages.com/
-
The quality of a photograph is not necessarily directly proportional to the effort involved in taking it.
Certainly, but I was actually comparing the skills needed to get the shot.
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.
The quality of a photograph is not about the eye and reflexes needed to get the shot -- those are things about the photographer.
The quality of a photograph is about the photograph itself.
-
If nobody at all likes your picture, is it good?
This is a subject worth thinking through, which I find the vast majority of photographers have not.
If you haven't thought it through you haven't actually got a lot of moral scope for railing against unthinking unsophisticates.
-
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/05/no-one-cares-how-hard-you-worked.html
Good link. My point exactly.
Jeremy
-
If nobody at all likes your picture, is it good?
It does not make it good, that is for sure.
If NOBODY likes it, in most likelihood is not good (definition of good photograph certainly includes that somebody has to like it…)
If certain "photographically sophisticated" people think it is good, then it is. But in an elitist way. I admit that.
I do recognize the problem of defining good. But I do have some experience about this, after doing the stuff for a living for almost 40 years. And it seems to bother me.
-
Before you guys get too far into this discussion you probably ought to define what you mean by "good." At this point it sounds as if what you really mean is "popular." There's a difference.
-
Before you guys get too far into this discussion you probably ought to define what you mean by "good." At this point it sounds as if what you really mean is "popular." There's a difference.
Now that is elitism in a nutshell.
-
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)
I've never been to Paris. But if I go, I'd rather see the Eiffel Tower than some person jumping over a puddle. But that's true of most street shots. You have to shoot what you like and just accept the number of people who like the kind of photography you do. Let's face it. If you play the harp, and really well, there will still be a lot less people interested in listening than a so-so jazz quartet. That doesn't make jazz better, just different and more listened too.
If you really want your photos to be appreciated, frame and give them as gifts to friends and family. And then when you visit them, you get to see your photo hanging in someone's house. Then stand in front of it for a moment so they notice which will surely get them to give you another thank you for your kind thoughts. What could be better?
-
Alan,
If you really want your photos to be appreciated, frame and give them as gifts to friends and family. And then when you visit them, you get to see your photo hanging in someone's house. Then stand in front of it for a moment so they notice which will surely get them to give you another thank you for your kind thoughts. What could be better?
Unsolicited praise.
-
Now that is elitism in a nutshell.
No really. If you actually understand the language you realize that saying "good" differs from "popular" doesn't in any way indicate that popular can't -- at least sometimes -- be good. But if you don't understand the language then you probably can't see that the terms aren't mutually exclusive.
-
Rob, I guess unsolicited praise would be nice. But how do you get that? Let's face it. When I show one of my pictures here or post a link to them, my ego is in charge trying to get that pat on the back. But being appreicated for making someone else happy with a gift of a photo is even better. Isn't it? Plus, when I keep the picture, it dies when I do. But when I give it as a gift, it lives on after me making others happy.
-
No really. If you actually understand the language you realize that saying "good" differs from "popular" doesn't in any way indicate that popular can't -- at least sometimes -- be good. But if you don't understand the language then you probably can't see that the terms aren't mutually exclusive.
If things are popular, then by definition a large percentage of people do think whatever it is, is in fact good.
However some people do like to sneer at things that are popular, simply because they are popular and therefore must be inferior to real art/music etc
-
Maybe this is an example of what the OP is talking about - the winning photo being of immense banality:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-34724709
-
To a very large extend good and bad pictures are a very subjective and a personal opinion of the person viewing the image.
So maybe the question should be "why do other people like different pictures then I?"
-
To a very large extend good and bad pictures are a very subjective and a personal opinion of the person viewing the image.
I wouldn't even qualify that with "to a large extent'. We all have varying taste. Just because someone takes a photo I think is great, doesn't mean the next person will also regard it as being good.
So maybe the question should be "why do other people like different pictures then I?"
Because that are not me. ;)
-
Because that are not me. ;)
Agree Jeremy, exactly my point.
I try to shoot pictures I like, if others like them that's just a bonus but if they don't it's not going to spoil my enjoyment.
If you shoot for your profession it's different of course, but for an enthusiast amateur it's in my mind all that is needed
-
Rob, I guess unsolicited praise would be nice. But how do you get that? Let's face it. When I show one of my pictures here or post a link to them, my ego is in charge trying to get that pat on the back. But being appreicated for making someone else happy with a gift of a photo is even better. Isn't it? Plus, when I keep the picture, it dies when I do. But when I give it as a gift, it lives on after me making others happy.
You are assuming that they like the photo? Even though they say that they do it is possible they don't and don't want to hurt your feelings?
-
Agree Jeremy, exactly my point.
I try to shoot pictures I like, if others like them that's just a bonus but if they don't it's not going to spoil my enjoyment.
If you shoot for your profession it's different of course, but for an enthusiast amateur it's in my mind all that is needed
Agreed!
-
Alan,
When I show one of my pictures here or post a link to them, my ego is in charge trying to get that pat on the back.
Post pictures or provide a link to them not for what you wish to receive, but for what you wish to say.
...being appreicated for making someone else happy with a gift of a photo is even better. Isn't it?
Making someone happy is its own reward.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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].
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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
-
What relevance has skill?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes274021.htm) ) 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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.bergamotstation.com/) 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
-
I suspect that talk of commercial galleries is a bit of a red herring in relation to this thread (although an interesting topic in its own right) - certainly if you are thinking of the sort of galleries that are in the business of trying to sell photographs (or any other visual art).
But for serious amateur photographers, not concerned with wanting to sell their work, there are many thousands of exhbitions annually where work can be displayed and sometimes appraised. (There were over 30 in Scotland alone over a period of a few months last summer.)
What I do suggest is that if the OP and others like him are concerned to display their photography to a more knowledgable audience than the inhabitants of online photo-sites, then those exhibitions might be a better target for his creative talent. The only caveat is that, of course, the photographs must be good enough to be selected for exhibition - but that is what the OP alludes to in his thread title.
-
What I do suggest is that if the OP and others like him are concerned to display their photography to a more knowledgable audience than the inhabitants of online photo-sites, then those exhibitions might be a better target for his creative talent. The only caveat is that, of course, the photographs must be good enough to be selected for exhibition - but that is what the OP alludes to in his thread title.
Thanks for the suggestion, actually those photos have already been exhibited in a 3 week private exhibition at the city cultural center where I live (with twice the audience they normally get), and at Helsinki City center old central post office main hall after that for 4 weeks. No sales, and I was not trying to get any either, as they are not pretty fine-art kind of material. Also 12 page article in the leading quality magazine in Finland. So really I was just wondering why the tastes of the people populating the photo sites is so far from a professional viewpoint (37 years in the field). No more, no less.
-
I think any discussion of "knowledgable audiences" just comes back to the same thing: there are many forms of knowledge. One person might have a detailed knowledge of the history and theory of painting from the beginning of the 19th century, another might have diligently followed the evolution of what I'll call academic art photography, and a third might be superb technician with extensive experience in landscape photography.
I suspect each of these three hypothetical persons may have very different reponses to a given photograph, and would give different, probably contradictory appraisals of its worth. Yet it wouldn't be resonable to attribute the discord to ignorance. It's possible that a poll of people who saw the photos exhibited at a cultural centre would contradict all three of the "expert" opinions, and be different again to a poll taken of those who saw the same photos exhibited in a commercial gallery or a different city.
If you want to improve your work, I'd suggest you pay attention to those whose own work you admire, even if it is very different to your own. If you want to sell, you would want to know the opinion of the people who are prone to buying... and that's the theory of marketing, a whole other world.
-
If you want to sell, you would want to know the opinion of the people who are prone to buying... and that's the theory of marketing, a whole other world.
If that is directed to me, not a general "you", no, I am not really interested in pursuing sales. Or more precisely, trying to produce pictures with sales in mind. Have been getting a steady salary for 37 years already from press photography, that is ok with me.
Anyway, here are the pictures (or so far 15 of them are at the NG site) which were at the exhibition "Forgotten Country, Defiant People: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums/72157649654008539
The ones that were getting most likes at the NG site were the temple (next to last) and field of prayer flags (around the middle). My personal favorites are the sheep shearing, nuns at sunset, jumping shamans and kids with drums.
-
The flag shot seems to me to me the most interesting from a purely graphical point of view, the temple as a landscape shot. The others I'd describe as reportage... which is not meant as a value judgement. If I was going to put one on a wall of my house, it would be the flag shot... take that as self-disclosure, not appraisal :)
-
They ARE reportage/documentary, not "fine art". So the judging should happen on photographic merit, not what is "hangable".
-
So the judging should happen on photographic merit, not what is "hangable".
This is a stuck record. What is "merit"? For you, it seems to be about the accomplishment of capturing that image. For me, it's about my enjoyment in looking at it. Hangability is my metric for that.
This may be why Winogrand (I think) suggested putting the film away for a year before proofing it, in order to separate the self-appraisal of the image from the memory of the emotions of taking it...
-
They ARE reportage/documentary, not "fine art". So the judging should happen on photographic merit, not what is "hangable".
Perhaps the image with the flags shouldn't have been included in the set then ? It seems of minimal documentary/reportage value compared to the other images.
Then again, I very much enjoyed looking at it as well, added it to my favorites on flickr, guess I'm with the ignorant lot now as well ::)
-
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.
I suspect there is a lot of truth in this. It is a good business model. Evidently, there are people who will pay a gallery to display their work.
At least this photographer can, rightfully, claim that their work has been displayed in xx number of galleries.
-
The reason the tastes of people who populate photo sites is so divergent from the tastes of everyone else is that the former spend a great deal of time inside a bubble.
People who hang out on the internet and, I suppose, in photo clubs, teach one another specific ideas. Social pressures nudge all pictures toward a single common groupthinked taste.
Ideas are reinforced, sometimes brutally, whether or not they are good ideas. There is very little room for divergence from the common taste in one of these social settings.
Eventually, that common taste drifts to something generic and uninteresting. Every picture is simply an exercise in avoiding the 'mistakes' the group has arbitrarily decided are anathema.
This hasn't got anything to do with whether the common people like the pictures. When the common people demonstrate that they don't, the group simply declares them ignorant, and treats this as further evidence of the group's excellent taste.
-
The reason the tastes of people who populate photo sites is so divergent from the tastes of everyone else is that the former spend a great deal of time inside a bubble.
People who hang out on the internet and, I suppose, in photo clubs, teach one another specific ideas. Social pressures nudge all pictures toward a single common groupthinked taste.
Ideas are reinforced, sometimes brutally, whether or not they are good ideas. There is very little room for divergence from the common taste in one of these social settings.
Eventually, that common taste drifts to something generic and uninteresting. Every picture is simply an exercise in avoiding the 'mistakes' the group has arbitrarily decided are anathema.
This hasn't got anything to do with whether the common people like the pictures. When the common people demonstrate that they don't, the group simply declares them ignorant, and treats this as further evidence of the group's excellent taste.
Andrew: Excellent description of the photo club I belong too. I live in a retirement community and belong to the photo club there as well as visit other near by retirement communities with their clubs. They all seem to be hung up on certain technical requirements. These are definitely good to know and use and for the many basic amateurs shooting there, could be a great place to start. The problem is they get stuck there and often can't see beyond the basics.
The clubs all tend to hire the same crop of judges. So the photographers learn to shoot to the tastes of the judges. Most everyone says that any manner of cloning or post processing is acceptable - they all love the idea of post processing and seem to feel that it is the answer to all errors in photo taking.
Maybe I'm being harsh. The better photos usually get selected. But the problem is the process tends to slant one's taste to the contest and the social norms rather than encouraging developing your own vision.
-
Count me among the unwashed (online) masses then, as the only one that I favorited on Flickr and wouldn't mind hanging on my wall is the field of flags one. And that is the only one that has some photographic merit. And the sunset cityscape perhaps. The rest? Yes, reportage. Which is of zero interest for me. I can see you were there, and you had a wide-angle lens with you.
The only one that indicates there was a photographer behind the camera is the flags one. The rest could have easily be taken with one of those (Sony?) automated smile-triggering, burst-shooting machines. Or a low-flying drone.
-
Andrew: Excellent description of the photo club I belong too. I live in a retirement community and belong to the photo club there as well as visit other near by retirement communities with their clubs. They all seem to be hung up on certain technical requirements. These are definitely good to know and use and for the many basic amateurs shooting there, could be a great place to start. The problem is they get stuck there and often can't see beyond the basics.
The clubs all tend to hire the same crop of judges. So the photographers learn to shoot to the tastes of the judges. Most everyone says that any manner of cloning or post processing is acceptable - they all love the idea of post processing and seem to feel that it is the answer to all errors in photo taking.
Maybe I'm being harsh. The better photos usually get selected. But the problem is the process tends to slant one's taste to the contest and the social norms rather than encouraging developing your own vision.
Not a good idea imo. If a judge has seen a lot of a certain subject then showing him an example of it means it has to be outstanding because.....he has seen a lot of it?
-
Anyway, here are the pictures (or so far 15 of them are at the NG site) which were at the exhibition "Forgotten Country, Defiant People: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/albums/72157649654008539
The ones that were getting most likes at the NG site were the temple (next to last) and field of prayer flags (around the middle). My personal favorites are the sheep shearing, nuns at sunset, jumping shamans and kids with drums.
Thanks for providing a link to the pictures, I think that makes the discussion a lot more interesting.
Well, I also think you asked the wrong question in your original post. I don't think there's any "bad" photo's in there, just two kinds with a very distinctive difference. One is a set of reportage shots people where I like the moments and expressions you have caught. The other kind is more landscape (in a broad sense) with the temple, houses, field of flags etc.
Since you were there and probably created a connection with the people those pictures will probably resonate more with you then with an unbiased observer like me. The landscapes are much different and more universal, so I'm not surprised they are more liked by others.
Anyway, thanks for sharing the pictures, I enjoyed them all and in the end (since you're not trying to create sales) the only criteria should be that you like them, all others that like them is just a bonus.
-
Thanks for providing a link to the pictures, I think that makes the discussion a lot more interesting.
Well, I also think you asked the wrong question in your original post. I don't think there's any "bad" photo's in there, just two kinds with a very distinctive difference. One is a set of reportage shots people where I like the moments and expressions you have caught. The other kind is more landscape (in a broad sense) with the temple, houses, field of flags etc.
Since you were there and probably created a connection with the people those pictures will probably resonate more with you then with an unbiased observer like me. The landscapes are much different and more universal, so I'm not surprised they are more liked by others.
Anyway, thanks for sharing the pictures, I enjoyed them all and in the end (since you're not trying to create sales) the only criteria should be that you like them, all others that like them is just a bonus.
Agreed.
-
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.
I suspect there is a lot of truth in this. It is a good business model. Evidently, there are people who will pay a gallery to display their work.
At least this photographer can, rightfully, claim that their work has been displayed in xx number of galleries.
Vanity galleries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_gallery) are nothing new under the sun, but they are a poor business model. I would certainly avoid anyone to use them: if you list one on your resume, no decent art venue will ever consider your work.
-
The reason the tastes of people who populate photo sites is so divergent from the tastes of everyone else is that the former spend a great deal of time inside a bubble.
People who hang out on the internet and, I suppose, in photo clubs, teach one another specific ideas. Social pressures nudge all pictures toward a single common groupthinked taste.
Ideas are reinforced, sometimes brutally, whether or not they are good ideas. There is very little room for divergence from the common taste in one of these social settings.
Eventually, that common taste drifts to something generic and uninteresting. Every picture is simply an exercise in avoiding the 'mistakes' the group has arbitrarily decided are anathema.
This hasn't got anything to do with whether the common people like the pictures. When the common people demonstrate that they don't, the group simply declares them ignorant, and treats this as further evidence of the group's excellent taste.
That is a very nice description, but you should not limit it to photo sites from the Internet. It works in exactly the same way for art venues as well: Stuckism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckism), for example, was created in reaction to the same phenomenon concerning post-modernism art and Charles Saatchi. You'll find this everywhere, it is a consequence of human herd mentality, their propensity to follow a guru and the sad fact that when the guru gets older, he or she has difficulties learning new tricks. He or she also has financial incentives not to learn new tricks and to keep the situation as it is, of course.
If you can, try to go to vernissages and art conferences, you may actually appreciate the Internet more afterwards. They are noticeably worse.
-
They ARE reportage/documentary, not "fine art".
Unfortunately the text which they would illustrate seems to be missing.
-
Unfortunately the text which they would illustrate seems to be missing.
The album I gave the link to was actually the press pictures for the exhibition, no captions.
Full sets are here, with captions in English, total of almost 200 frames in albums 3 to 6: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/sets
Repkong Shaman festival, Larung Gar buddhist institute, Yarchen Gar buddhist institute, general captures from Amdo & Kham provinces of Tibet.
There are some photographically so-so frames (or maybe even worse than the average auto-snap-drone images if some people are to believed) which are included for their documentary value. Extremely few westerners have ever visited some of those places.
-
fwiw I can immediately go through the photos without the captions being visible; and if I do click on a photo, the captions are partly on, partly off the bottom of my screen; and these are captions, not a full article telling the stories that the photos illustrate.
Reportage for a photo essay, but there's no essay.
-
The reason the tastes of people who populate photo sites is so divergent from the tastes of everyone else is that the former spend a great deal of time inside a bubble.
Or maybe they simply go and look at the kind of images they like.
Besides that's a bit of a nonsense statement.
"The reason the tastes of people who visit museums is so divergent from the tastes of everyone else is that the former spend a great deal of time inside a bubble."
Substitute the bits in bold for rock concerts, theatre, art house cinemas, eat at MacDonalds and so on....
People who hang out on the internet and, I suppose, in photo clubs, teach one another specific ideas. Social pressures nudge all pictures toward a single common groupthinked taste.
Ideas are reinforced, sometimes brutally, whether or not they are good ideas. There is very little room for divergence from the common taste in one of these social settings.
Not necessarily. You can get hugely divergent ideas even in small groups. All depends on the people involved anyway
Eventually, that common taste drifts to something generic and uninteresting. Every picture is simply an exercise in avoiding the 'mistakes' the group has arbitrarily decided are anathema.
This hasn't got anything to do with whether the common people like the pictures. When the common people demonstrate that they don't, the group simply declares them ignorant, and treats this as further evidence of the group's excellent taste.
Most people are not originators, so what? Most people follow fashions, they don't create them.
Anyone who thinks their taste is superior to others is a fool. A pompous one at that. Plenty of them amongst the 'common people' too, snobbery exists everywhere.
A chap I know wrote a song about the opposite of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ainyK6fXku0) a while back.
-
Now the text which goes with the pictures is provided on the front page of LuLa, for a few days at least. With the photographs.
https://luminous-landscape.com/forgotten-land-defiant-people-tibet/
Thank you for you patience.
-
Captions help a lot in understanding the pictures.