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

[Jimbo57]

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.

[Petrus]

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.

[GrahamBy]

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.

[Petrus]

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.

[GrahamBy]

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 

[Petrus]

They ARE reportage/documentary, not "fine art". So the judging should happen on photographic merit, not what is "hangable".

[GrahamBy]

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...

[SanderKikkert]

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 

[Otto Phocus]

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.

[amolitor]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[stamper]

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?

[pegelli]

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.

[stamper]

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.

[landscapephoto]

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 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.

[landscapephoto]

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, 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.

[Isaac]

They ARE reportage/documentary, not "fine art".

Unfortunately the text which they would illustrate seems to be missing.

[Petrus]

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.

[Isaac]

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.