# if 90 percent of people don't like what you shoot or the way you shoot



## bribrius (Mar 1, 2015)

does that mean you are wrong?


----------



## jaomul (Mar 1, 2015)

You might be crap, or you might just be different, if you are happy who cares


----------



## Derrel (Mar 1, 2015)

That would depend on who those 90 percent are, I would think. Most people cannot tell the difference between fine art and kitsch, and common taste in many areas is quite unrefined. I would not worry about what people not exposed to photography think of artistic efforts. The common person likes "pretty pictures", with a high value on cliches like pictures of sunsets and sunrises, puppy dogs, kittens, field of flowers, and static scenics and landscapes with cruelly over-polarized cobalt-cornered sky tones. Kitschy, syrupy, over-saturated, eye-bleeding "eye candy" type pictures are what many people say they like. many people loathe black & white images of all eras, and immediately dismiss B&W.

Are those the kind of people you're talking about?


----------



## Buckster (Mar 1, 2015)

bribrius said:


> does that mean you are wrong?


No, it just means that the great majority of people (especially those not related to you in some way) aren't interested in, nor wowed by, snapshots that don't demonstrate a working knowledge of composition, subject matter, story telling, and other associated photographic and general visual art techniques that make people sit up and say things like, "whoa - cool - that's nice - I like it".

But as long as you like what you're doing, who cares if anyone else is pleased by it?  Masturbation is fun, and quite enough for some folks.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 1, 2015)

Are they paying me for my work?   If not, it doesn't matter.   I shoot for myself and my clients and not for the rest of the world.  The validation for my work is when someone pays me a lot of money to be the there on their most important day.

I'm sure Van Gough didn't ask random online strangers to validate his work.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Mar 1, 2015)

I don't care what anybody else thinks really, I just shoot what I like. My style isn't really too different from lots of other landscape photographers though. What's annoying to me is when that 10% who are doing their own thing, a less "accepted" way of shooting, come and tell me what I'm doing is wrong just because it isn't what they like


----------



## Overread (Mar 1, 2015)

Life is about learning who to listen to. 

You have to make your choice who is and who isn't important to listen to and thus make your way in the world. Make a wrong choice and your photography might suffer or at least not reach its full true potential.

I would say that when it comes to photography be open to trying new methods - try new ideas. You can always then choose to accept or disagree with them and because you can do them (and do them well) you make an informed choice.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 1, 2015)

I'd like to say/think that all that matters is if I like it or not but truth be, I really love it when my images are liked, a bit dismayed when they're not. If 90% of viewers do not like someone's work, I'd venture to say that the photographer is missing something...


----------



## pgriz (Mar 1, 2015)

Who likes it matters more than how many like it.  But if you're doing the photography only for yourself, who cares who else likes it?


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 1, 2015)

I think it depends on what you put out there in the public domain. If you only ever show what you consider your very best work, and it is ignored or pulled apart, then you either need to alter your approach to the art and bow to accepted convention, or continue to pursue your personal course and be true to your own convictions. What I would say is that you should try to be aware of convention and of the expectations of the day, then you can choose to follow or diverge as you please.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 1, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Most people cannot tell the difference between fine art and kitsch, and common taste in many areas is quite unrefined. I would not worry about what people not exposed to photography think of artistic efforts. The common person likes "pretty pictures", with a high value on cliches like pictures of sunsets and sunrises, puppy dogs, kittens, field of flowers, and static scenics and landscapes with cruelly over-polarized cobalt-cornered sky tones. Kitschy, syrupy, over-saturated, eye-bleeding "eye candy" type pictures are what many people say they like. many people loathe black & white images of all eras, and immediately dismiss B&W.


Derrel's right.

"Common people" with their unrefined love of sappy, kitschy, pretty pictures are *so* beneath us. 

In fact, the more people love (and buy) your photography, the more you obviously suck.


----------



## Overread (Mar 1, 2015)

pgriz said:


> But if you're doing the photography only for yourself, who cares who else likes it?



As a website where a primary focus is teaching of the craft to others this is a very dangerous comment to make; its also really rather wrong.

You see most of us are doing it because its for us. As a primarily amateur driven site most here are doing it because they love photography not because a client is paying them or their mother asked them to. 

Now it's easy when we are intermediate to say "who cares do it for yourself" without realising that its a dangerous bit of advice to give. You see a beginner or those of intermediate but lesser skill, might well produce very sub-standard work. Their potential is hardly tapped into; and yet if we tell them that if they are happy then all's good then we do them a disservice. 

Yes in theory we should all find our own inspiration to do better; but on the flipside we should not discourage people from seeking out those who are inspirational sources to them. There has to be a little push - might be from the person might be from those around them; otherwise we (as people) are very happy to do as we do and not challenge nor improve. 





So on those grounds I'd say yes - yes it does matter. It matters in so much as if someone tells you you're doing something wrong:
1) That you should be able to perform the corrections they suggest yourself - not just think you can but know you can and to a good level of quality. 

2) That we take steps to understand WHY our photos are disliked - WHY there is something wrong with them.

It's all about broadening your horizons and allowing yourself to experiment and develop new tools and skills. AFTER That point; then you are in a position to say "Yeah I know some people won't like it; but I've done it 50ways and this is the 1 way I like." It's not the best, its not the most right, its not even got to be the most popular - its the way you like.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> In fact, the more people love (and buy) your photography, the more you obviously suck.



If that's the case I want to be a horrible photographer


----------



## gsgary (Mar 1, 2015)

I shoot for myself and don't care what others think, but i'm having a bespoke suit made for my wedding and the tailor likes my film work so much he has commissioned me to shoot inside his shop in colour and b+w film


----------



## pgriz (Mar 1, 2015)

Overread said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > But if you're doing the photography only for yourself, who cares who else likes it?
> ...



Overread, I respect your disagreement with my statement, but there's a difference (at least in my mind) between the technical aspects and the aesthetic ones.  I should have qualified my statement with "once you know what you're doing, and you're doing it deliberately and with intent, with the result that this pleases your own tastes, then it doesn't matter much what others think".  Of course, the blissful happiness of ignorance is not what we are aspiring to.  On the other hand, I know lots of people who have no pretensions of being "photographers" and are perfectly happy with images that have trees sprouting out of people's heads, dutch tilts on every shot, centered subjects, and full-on direct flash.  Will they even understand me if I tell them their photos don't meet most photographic "standards"?  Most likely not, and they won't care.  It's a different situation when one WANTS to be a better photographer, and to those people, advice and critique are meaningful.  However, I am thinking that the "don't know-don't care" population is much larger than the group of people who want to improve their craft.  I don't think there are many of the former on this forum.


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 1, 2015)

Just went back and read the topic line with care.  It's a two-parter, it is.  Yup, a two-parter.

As far as people's reaction to the final print, that's one thing.  That has been discussed over and over again.  And will be, for as long as photographic processes exist.

But people's reaction to how it was arrived at -- the 'way' it was shot -- is something else again, no?

I find myself coming down on the side of 'it's none of their business' on the 'how I shot it' question.  I want my work to be judged qua work, independent of whether it was taken with a Canon or Nikon, film or digital, PhotoShop(r)-ed or dodged and burned, etc.  I'm happy to discuss details with anyone who asks, but not in the context of exposing the information to a judgment call.  The methodology and equipment I choose are selected on the basis of the hoped-for final print.  Any major change would, in all probability, change the result -- but I already made the decision(s).


----------



## bribrius (Mar 1, 2015)

Overread said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > But if you're doing the photography only for yourself, who cares who else likes it?
> ...


where or when is the after? In all seriousness. I could do this my entire life and not know everything about photography. where is that line? Figure i have read some books, took a course years back, looked through art of previous eras. Taken a chit load of photos. Getting into studio/flash photography now. Still lack on post process but have somewhat a understanding. Dark room skills are limited to non existent (if i set one up i could spend a decade just learning that), watched i don't even know how many videos. Painted before this, if it is worth anything. This seems to be a endeavor where it really just never ends. So where is that after?


----------



## Overread (Mar 1, 2015)

There is no line. There never was a line - the concept that learning is purely a linear path with a start a middle and an end is a folly. 

It's not even a straight pathway. 

We learn things - we will put them into practice - learn new things - put new things into practice - forget some of the old things - remember them - relearn them - mix it up.

The process is, in reality, never ending because you will never know nor recall everything. That said most of us reach a point at which we are learning less and using more. Where we have learned up to our saturation point and beyond which we make much smaller gains if any. Indeed we might even go backwards for a time. This saturation point is also not fixed - might be you're more than happy with a level of skill for many years and then suddenly or over time your saturation point rises and you again seek out to learn more.


----------



## petrochemist (Mar 1, 2015)

One thing to consider is what the other 10% think. If most of them love it, you're doing rather well even if in a niche field. If the 10% are indifferent you're not impressing anyone.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 1, 2015)

So long as you are in the persuit of truth, you're never doing anything wrong.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 1, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Who likes it matters more than how many like it.  But if you're doing the photography only for yourself, who cares who else likes it?


i actually don't. I was speaking more of generality in conversation. As it seems a lot seem to adhere to others standards which i wasn't so sure is a good or bad thing. I adhere to others standards, but only to a very limited extent on certain things. As time goes on i will go even more to the non adherence side. I can see the 500 px and 1x in the sig line dissapearing soon, as well as the accounts. I dumped facebook for the most part a long time ago. Post in just for fun for the most part on here..I still ask a lot of technical questions. Far as my actual work it is pretty much off limits now and hardly ever does anything serious get posted anywhere. What does i don't care if they like it or not.  That will become more infrequent that anything gets posted. I actually plan a total withdrawal other than occasional technical questions. And i have started looking at articles and other sources for many of them so i don't have the relations of individual people. I can just read it, look it up, and shut it down or off. It was good to get out there, out in the photography community for a while to see what else i didn't know (quite a bit) and get some sort of understanding of where i am. You can't live in a bubble either. You end up ignorant or your skills and knowledge can suffer.

 You have nothing to compare your work too and little to learn from without some directions on where to go. Now i am going back the other direction. Pretty much to recluse other than chit chat or occasional technical.  so i guess i really don't care what they think unless it is something in particular i want to know. The biggest leap for me has been 1x actually. But you don't need to be a member to view the work i don't think. So i don't really need to have the account. The similar tutorials you can find other places for free. And after looking through hundreds and hundreds of photos on there, they are looking somewhat similar at this point. Just made me realized i need to get a little more involved in portraiture and post processing.  I will probably still be asking a lot of questions about that on here or elsewhere.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 1, 2015)

This question essentially belies a deeper confusion the hypothetical photographer has, which is "what am I trying to do with my photography?"  If the photographer knows his own personal answer to that question, the question in the OP is a non-sequitur.  If you know what you're trying to do, you will have a very clear idea about whose opinion matters about which things.

I think it's folly to give a definitive answer to the OP's question either way, without clearly understanding what the photographer is setting out to achieve.  Ignoring opinions you should be taking into account is a recipe for irrelevancy (if your goal is at all tied to relevance), while trying to please everybody is a recipe for having no vision of your own.

If I'm a stock photographer, then there are certain types of opinions that I absolutely need to stick to, same for a professional sports reporter.  Even if you're only shooting for yourself, understanding others' points of view can be helpful in achieving your own personal goals.  

As far as how to identify whose opinion you should care about, simply ask yourself what you're trying to achieve with your photography, and find somebody who you believe has made more progress on that front than you, and listen to them and what they think about your work.


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 1, 2015)

bribrius said:


> does that mean you are wrong?



Nope!  Just means you aren't going to be selling many pictures.


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 1, 2015)

bribrius said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Who likes it matters more than how many like it.  But if you're doing the photography only for yourself, who cares who else likes it?
> ...




Only have to ask yourself one question:  Who did the past great trail-breaking photographers compare there pictures to?   Opinions are fine for technical aspects when learning, that is necessary.  But opinions when you have mastered the techniques has little or no value.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 1, 2015)

Generally speaking, Yes it does. Do you think 90% of the people don't know crap?   Unless you're only doing some insane, extreme, cutting-edge, way-out-of-the-box, photography ... 90% negatory is not acceptable. 90% negatory is acceptable if last week you were at 95% negatory ... and if next month you're at 85% negatory.  

Now, let's dismiss that 90% ... what do you think of your photography? Forget your 90% ... forget your 10% ... forget your 100%. Look at the greats in photography. How does your photography compare to them? That is your goal. Look at others on this site, the better photogs that shoots similar genre as yourself ... how do you compare to them? 

This is your starting point, comparing your images to the greats and the better ... then work to attain their level of quality.  I always shoot for what I deem to be exceptional ... if others agree, then that is even better. 

Gary


----------



## Bebulamar (Mar 1, 2015)

If you want to sell your work than it's really matter as your market has shrunk by 90% but if you do it for yourself you need to see if your works are good or not. Others opinion don't matter.


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 1, 2015)

I think that if you can actually measure that 90% then your doing fine. 
How do you measure, i.e.: Sell one picture for every for every ten people that take a look? Ten of your 100 images were selected by the curator for an exhibition? Those numbers seem reasonable to me. Now if only one of your ten images on FB received a like it was probably because that was the only one with a cat.


----------



## 407370 (Mar 1, 2015)

So 10% of my pictures will only be seen by me. The rest are shared by various methods but I know (as Derrel points out) the ones that people are going to like so I share a few of those just to boost my ego. The experimental stuff I mostly post on here as I will get good constructive feedback.
The best ego boost is a surprise when the TPF faithful like one of my experiments (like my pic of the gold mosque wall) but that is a rarity and more enjoyable because it is rare. The rest of my pics dont get noticed much and I am fine with that.


----------



## runnah (Mar 1, 2015)

I guess it depends on how much validation you want.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 1, 2015)

If you're feeling down by those rejections, ask your mother what she thinks.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 1, 2015)

407370 said:


> So 10% of my pictures will only be seen by me. The rest are shared by various methods but I know (as Derrel points out) the ones that people are going to like so I share a few of those just to boost my ego. The experimental stuff I mostly post on here as I will get good constructive feedback.
> The best ego boost is a surprise when the TPF faithful like one of my experiments (like my pic of the gold mosque wall) but that is a rarity and more enjoyable because it is rare. The rest of my pics dont get noticed much and I am fine with that.


Least you are honest. If the gold mosque wall is the one i am thinking of i did like that.  (down the side of the wall which led to a alley or something right)


----------



## mmaria (Mar 2, 2015)

When I do something that 90% of people like, I know I failed.


----------



## Rick50 (Mar 2, 2015)

A lot of opinions here. I think I agree with Gary on this one. I also think you set your own standards of whats good or not. If you set low standards then so be it. But I prefer setting higher standards and use peoples comments as a learning tool. So if 90% don't like it I want to know why...


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2015)

Change it to 91% because I hate your stuff.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> Change it to 91% because I hate your stuff.


i will add you to the list.................................................LMAO.

Actually shocked this thread it still even going. Suppose it gives everyone something to do....

edit: i actually looked through your 500px the other day. You have some nice work on there. I seemed a little more interested in the less liked items though. Apparently my taste is "off". A couple of the things i liked i was the only one that had.  The processed landscapes are great, i just see so many of them it is kind of "meh".  Nice work. Just "meh". Looks like you are going strictly to try to sell some.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 2, 2015)

I've found that 90% of people on this website hate my stuff, and 90% of people on another website seem to like my stuff.

I just conclude that 90% of people on TPF are morons, and 10% of the other website are idiots.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 2, 2015)

unpopular said:


> I've found that 90% of people on this website hate my stuff, and 90% of people on another website seem to like my stuff.
> 
> I just conclude that 90% of people on TPF are morons, and 10% of the other website are idiots.


i have bigger concerns in life. Like where the hell are the 12v batteries for the transmitter for my flashes.......................   If i could find them right now i would be a happy camper hell with who likes my stuff....  haha.   well. unless they want to give me like 500 for a print. Then i might start to care.  Maybe... doubtful. But maybe....

in all seriousness. I didn't think this thread would even go this far. I equivocate too if someone said they didn't like my car...  
"did you buy it and pay for it?"               
 "well no".    
 "Go fruck yourself then. " LOL


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 2, 2015)

12v battery? This is why you buy a Canon and Yongnuo stuff.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

Kim Kardashian. Justin Bieber. McDonalds. All fairly popular, all with HUGE numbers of people who just LOVE their stuff. According to one poster here, with popularity comes automatic certification of quality. More popular = better. More popular = higher artistic value. More popular= automatically higher aesthetic value.

Seriously? Fox News has been Number One in television news for 13 years in a row now. 2014 Cable News Ratings Year-End Fox News CNN MSNBC Mediaite   On a nightly basis, FOX News has nearly TRIPLE the viewership of its nearest competitor. So, apparently, we have a member here who thinks because it has the greatest popularity, FOX News is...the best! Simple, isn't it!

Seriously? If you want to see what the level of popular taste among non-photographers is, look no farther than Facebook. Browse around Facebook and just look at what kind of photography people praise as being ,"great! Awesome! Amazing!" There is tons of very bad photography that garners rave reviews on Facebook. So, apparently, the more people who click the "Like" icon on chit photos, the better those chit photos become. Because, you know, the more people like stuff, the BETTER it really is.


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2015)

I like to remind myself of this every day.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 2, 2015)

minicoop1985 said:


> 12v battery? This is why you buy a Canon and Yongnuo stuff.


yeah. 12v . 23a.   I put in the enelopes and then noticed the transmitter wasn't lighting up.  This battery thing with this stuff is as bad as dealing with the kids toys... little irked...


----------



## unpopular (Mar 2, 2015)

do you have a model number on it? the amp-hour should not matter, that will determine how long the battery lasts at load. The issue is voltage and physical shape and size.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Seriously? Fox News has been Number One in television news for 13 years in a row now. 2014 Cable News Ratings Year-End Fox News CNN MSNBC Mediaite   On a nightly basis, FOX News has nearly TRIPLE the viewership of its nearest competitor. So, apparently, we have a member here who thinks because it has the greatest popularity, FOX News is...the best! Simple, isn't it!



But really, who can stay awake for the News Hour?


----------



## soufiej (Mar 2, 2015)

bribrius said:


> *if 90 percent of people don't like what you shoot or the way you shoot*
> does that mean you are wrong?




It depends upon why you have to ask.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 2, 2015)

soufiej said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > *if 90 percent of people don't like what you shoot or the way you shoot*
> ...


i am really just wondering if anyone noticed some of the stuff i post is from a point and shoot or a free cell phone. i pity anyone that could order anything on 500px (hasn't happened yet) a couple things on there are 4 or 5 mp cell or point and shoot pics. 1x had a list for a while of  "low quality file, unavailable for sale" lmao. I start throwing film on there too it will really mix it up.  Like a dice roll.  At the slim chance anyone ever even thinks of buying something i post on line (slim i know)  DON'T.  Do yourself a favor. Really.  Don't.  Total crap shoot.  I am not even sure they are listed for sale anyway. But just don't! There are very few things i post that even i would print from a quality standpoint, like FEW and far between. Because i know how i take some of these.  knowing what they are. fungus lenses....yard sale camera, free cellphone with a straighttalk month card,  really. Just dont...  lmao 
I don't even print the vast majority and they are my photos. If someone did i would feel guilty. Thanks god everyone hates my work i am relieved that risk is lower.


----------



## rlemert (Mar 2, 2015)

The only thing it means when 90% of the people don't like what you're doing is that you might want to go back and re-evaluate it. There's a reason they don't like your work; you need to figure out what that reason is. If you decide that it's something reasonable than treat this as a learning opportunity. Just keep in mind that just because "everybody" believes something doesn't make it true.


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

unpopular said:


> So long as you are in the persuit of truth, you're never doing anything wrong.


But what really is the truth ?
Art should pursue perfection. But what is perfection ?
Art should talk to the soul of the viewer. ...? In this light maybe that's the reality: "art is for everybody, just not for everyone."
Van Gogh was disliked by 90% (or 91%) in his own time, Now is questioned only by few. What changed ? Our indoctrination.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

timor said:
			
		

> Van Gogh was disliked by 90% (or 91%) in his own time, Now is questioned only by few. What changed ? Our indoctrination.



What changed? Time! TIME is what changed!

In the world of decorator art, kitsch is king. The familiar is king. What is safe, and sweet, and sentimental is king. In Van Gogh's time, what came to be known as the Impressionist movement was rejected by the salon establishment that determined what paintings would be accepted for display. In the tradition of representational, idealized painting that had been the standard since the renaissance era, "fine art" was mostly all about the classical way of showing things...staid, well-studied, representational paintings, with fine lines, careful brush strokes, and a sameness that had been codified over about three hundred years' time.

The bold, emotional, "messy" brush strokes, the lack of careful ,measured,  traditional painting that Van Gogh, and other painters were working in went against the long-held ideals of what fine art painting was* supposed to be. *The impressionists like Manet and Monet, were reviled and ridiculed in their own era. And yet now, a little over one hundred years after they lived, the same impressionist paintings are popular as wall art; what was once considered radical, and outrageous, now decorates the sewing rooms of grandmotherly women and is sold as being soothing, pleasing, non-offending decorator art. The time of Van Gogh was a time of great transformation in fine art painting. Hundreds of years' worth of top-down control was about to come crashing down.

What fine art "is", and what it was "supposed to be" had stood quite static and unchanged from the renaissance until the last part of the 1800's, when new, different, radical ways of doing fine art were developed. The salons and their stultifying influence over what fine art painting was supposed to be had kept painting pretty much in line, with the same old chit, over and over. After such a long, oppressive tradition in which everything was either representational or allegorical, and experimental art was squashed, it's little wonder that the late 19th and early 20th century spawned multiple types of all-new ways to do art, in record time.

It is true...in his own time, Van Gogh's work was NOT popular, because he did not paint in a style that resembled the work that had been done since the renaissance. His work was not all about showing fine details, and elevating noble men and women  by gloriously painting them in beautiful ways. His subjects were worldly, and not "classical". People wanted old-fashioned painting, and Van Gogh gave them something verrrrrry different than "_what they were familiar with_". He was equivalent to The Beatles in his field; despised by the old-school people, who called them long-hairs, The Beatles were the icon of a revolution in music.

The basic premise for popularity in artworks is this: Most people don't know anything about "art", but they like what they know. Most people like ONLY that which they are very familiar with. And what most people know is safe, popular, and accepted by the masses who like safe, culturally-approved art. Van Gogh violated the basic premises of being popular and of being widely accepted: he did not paint the right subject matter, and he did not apply the paint to the canvas in the "right" ways.


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> What changed? Time! TIME is what changed!


 Time is always changing. What's important is what changed in time. And the big change was event of photography. Can you believe it ? Until Daguerre art was essentially a record of us, photography took over that function, art drifted into being food for our souls, record of our feelings rather than life. Thus photography stands in very precarious place, fulfilling dual role of sharp, focused record and suggestion.


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2015)

Some reasons why people follow the popular trends:

1. Its easier. Turning on the top 10 pop list is easier than scouring the internet to find a group. 
2. Fitting in. Lots of people are concerned with being "normal" and fitting in. Sure you could listen to death metal from far off meatball oriented country but then what would you talk about at the water cooler?
3. Just don't care. To some people, food is food, music is music. Olive garden is classic Italian and Katy Perry is musical genius. 

p.s. I like death metal and Katy Peryy, but hate Olive garden.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...

Here's a fun exercise: if you have a Facebook account, select a sub-par sunset photo you have made. Make sure it has really pretty clouds. Crank the saturation and vibrance really,really high. Then add some clarity, like 50 points' worth of it, or until it starts to halo up like a bastid. Sharpen the crap out of it. Then, post it to Facebook. See what happens.

I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I have done this a few times.

This ties in with the often-discussed threads here on TPF, regarding just how valuable Facebook praise is to people who are serious about their photography. People who are not actively interested in photography as a craft, as an art, or as profession are often very unsophisticated and will often praise work that is very marginal in terms of qualities or attributes.

Cute cell phone snaps of puppies can gain more Facebook "likes" than serious works. Sunsets often peg the like counts.


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...



How sexist, she is more than a pair of breasts...magnificent, supple, wonderful breasts...what were we talking about?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

runnah said:
			
		

> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Katy Perry *is more* than just her chestal region....she also wears a lot of panty-flashing short skirts on-stage...Umm...yeah...and her lip sync skills are positively amazing.

Well, you know, back to the OP...I think bri tries very hard to express his own vision in his photos. I see a LOT of his pics...I totally get that he really does try to express himself with his camera, and his work is often on the edge, and does not cross over into that "popularity contest" area where people will "Ooooh!" and "Ahhh!" over his work. Bri is working on his own personal photography journey--he has written a lot about his feelings, his ideas, his rationale behind a lot of images he has posted here. He's not a great technician, but he is getting better. His work is NOT going to appeal to the crowd of people who like bright, shiny, cheerful images. He is NOT going to fit in on 500px...he's way too much a maverick to fit in with that crowd. Why would he want to?


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I like Katy Perry, but only for the t**s...
> ...


Didn't you noticed ? The whole "propaganda" is turning our attention to sex. Sex sells. In this function sex is fogging other aspects of life, less happy aspects.


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This certainly an issue of great importance thus requires more research. So if you can send me any of these photos containing shots of her bosoms and undergarments I would appreciate it. High res if possible.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 2, 2015)

Facebook likes is great for marketing.  It creates a sense of approval and validation, not only for yourself but for possible future clients who are looking over your work.  Your work appears more valuable.  For some people, no amount of Facebook likes can help them.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Kim Kardashian. Justin Bieber. McDonalds. All fairly popular, all with HUGE numbers of people who just LOVE their stuff. According to one poster here, with popularity comes automatic certification of quality. More popular = better. More popular = higher artistic value. More popular= automatically higher aesthetic value.


Would LOVE to see you use actual quotes from that poster to support your claims.  Can you do it, or are you making up this mythical "poster", as usual?



Derrel said:


> Seriously? Fox News has been Number One in television news for 13 years in a row now. 2014 Cable News Ratings Year-End Fox News CNN MSNBC Mediaite   On a nightly basis, FOX News has nearly TRIPLE the viewership of its nearest competitor. So, apparently, we have a member here who thinks because it has the greatest popularity, FOX News is...the best! Simple, isn't it!


Again, let's see the actual quotes from this poster you claim exists.



Derrel said:


> Seriously? If you want to see what the level of popular taste among non-photographers is, look no farther than Facebook. Browse around Facebook and just look at what kind of photography people praise as being ,"great! Awesome! Amazing!" There is tons of very bad photography that garners rave reviews on Facebook.


What a surprise!  Let's see if we can figure out how that can possibly be...  

1. On FB, people are mostly connected to friends and family.

2. As photographers, we know that friends and family "ooh" and "ahh" over every shot we show them.
2. a. They don't know any better.
2. b. They think they'd hurt our feelings if they said they didn't actually like it.

3. It totally follows then that if you post one of your photos on FB, you'll get a lot of "Likes" and "Shares" from your friends and family.

4. As THEIR friends and family BEYOND yours see those "Likes" and "Shares", they'll do the same, and for the same reasons.
4. a. The bigger the circles of friends and families, the more apt it is to spread in that manner.

5. Since there's no "Dislike" button on FB, we only get one side of the "polling data", so while we see the 5,000 "likes", for all we know there are 500,000 unknown "disllikes".  But hey, be sure to focus all your attention on that skewed and one-sided "poll" number made from "likes" to make your skewed point.

Yeah, this ain't exactly rocket science.

By the way, whether a photo is good, great or crap is subjective to each viewer, even you.  Just because you'd hang something on your wall doesn't mean anyone else would, and vice-versa.  That's real life, whether you like it or not.

A thing is not necessarily "bad" just because a lot of people like it, even if you don't.



Derrel said:


> So, apparently, the more people who click the "Like" icon on chit photos, the better those chit photos become. Because, you know, the more people like stuff, the BETTER it really is.


Gee...  What an odd conclusion to make.  I can't say I understand how you arrive at such a thing, but good luck with it.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 2, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > 1. On FB, people are mostly connected to friends and family.
> ...


The highlighted part. This was mentioned previously in the thread as well i believe. I actually think this is a myth. At least me personally, my mother (as was mentioned in the thread) and siblings for example are some of my largest critics. We didn't have that encouragement type of upbringing. More of the "suck it up and get off your azz" type of upbringing. You know, conservative strict etc. etc.  More of the type of here is the bar and if you reach that it still isn't good enough try harder. I gave my mother a waterfall photo and i think she used it for a coaster for her coffee cup. My aunt told me one of my graveyard shots was too depressing looking and sucked last month. so..... probably not. Really just not the oooh and ahh kind of family.. There isn't anyone related to me that sugar coats anything. LOL.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

The best-selling "paintings" of all time are of... Dogs Playing Poker.
Dogs Playing Poker - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dogs Playing Poker gives us a good insight into how well-educated people are about quality images and art.  Based on what one member here has said, simply because these paintings have been bought in world-record numbers, the Dogs Playing Poker paintings must therefore be *some of the very best paintings ever done*! Proclaiming artistic worth, value, and significance based on popularity contests is a fool's errand. And we have one very dedicated errand-runner in this forum, trying over and over to make popularity a crucial criteria by which we judge artistic merit and value.

Bribrius, I would not worry if your work isn't quite up to that Dogs Playing Poker level of sophistication. Next time I'm in town, you and I need to get together and head to the local museum to take in the Dogs Playing Poker Paint By Numbers Exhibition. I've heard it's simply to die for! It has derivative works done by paint-by-numbers practitioners from all over the world! Early reviews on social media are super-good! Kim Kardashian said, "This muzeum got the best pictures I've ever seen." Kanye West Tweeted, " Poker by Numbas+So good I thought Beyonce did em all."


----------



## Buckster (Mar 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Dogs Playing Poker gives us a good insight into how well-educated people are about quality images and art.  Based on what one member here has said, simply because these paintings have been bought in world-record numbers, the Dogs Playing Poker paintings must therefore be *some of the very best paintings ever done*!


Use ACTUAL quotes in context from that member to support your claims and accusations of that member.



Derrel said:


> Proclaiming artistic worth, value, and significance based on popularity contests is a fool's errand. And we have one very dedicated errand-runner in this forum, trying over and over to make popularity a crucial criteria by which we judge artistic merit and value.


Use ACTUAL quotes in context from that member to support your claims and accusations of that member.


----------



## Boxhawk (Mar 2, 2015)

I don't think you could get 90% of people to agree that the earth was round, let alone on your photos.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 2, 2015)

Boxhawk said:


> I don't think you could get 90% of people to agree that the earth was round, let alone on your photos.



The earth is round????????


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> Boxhawk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you could get 90% of people to agree that the earth was round, let alone on your photos.
> ...


Yeah, but not digitally perfectly.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 2, 2015)

When I'm shooting, nobody ever complains how I'm shooting, because arguing with a guy with a gun in his hand is generally considered not a good idea.


Oh, THAT kind of shooting. Sorry.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 2, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Use ACTUAL quotes in context from that member to support your claims and accusations of that member.



Used ACTUAL quotes in context from that member to support my claims and accusations of this member.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

How many people are there in the USA? It's a little north of 300 million, right? So, if I had say, 10% of the people of the USA that liked my books/songs/photographs/clothing line/whatever, I'd have lemme see...a piddly 30 million fans/buyers/followers/customers. Huh...that would be pretty rough to take. Especially considering that some very successful companies exit with a mere pittance of their respective industries. Like, the car maker BMW...the last I heard, BMW had less than 1.5% of the world's car market, and yet...doing okay!


----------



## jake337 (Mar 2, 2015)

Meh.....


----------



## Christabel (Mar 2, 2015)

I think all have different thinking mentality. for example sunset photo and sunrise photo are sometime same. So somebody says it's a sunrise and somebody says it's sunrise. check this image.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 3, 2015)

I'm wary of people who say they don't care at all what others think while posting their images all over the Internet.

Most egos don't thrive solely off their own uninfluenced perceptions of themselves.

The ones that do might possibly be narcissists.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 3, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm wary of people who say they don't care at all what others think while posting their images all over the Internet.



"You can’t sell what you can’t show."   Some people post their images not to get the instant validation from social networks but more or less long term brand building.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 3, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wary of people who say they don't care at all what others think while posting their images all over the Internet.
> ...



Yes, but I can't imagine they would do it if they didn't think they were going to be validated in the first place.

Behind the facade of the optimistic, perpetually enthusiastic business-person is still a human being who wants recognition for what they've put into their work, especially when they see that work as a part of themselves.

Marketing is more effective if the people you're marketing to give a positive response.


----------



## timor (Mar 3, 2015)

Now discussion drifted into marketing problems. Is there any connection with original post ?


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 3, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Yes, but I can't imagine they would do it if they didn't think they were going to be validated in the first place.
> 
> Behind the facade of the optimistic, perpetually enthusiastic business-person is still a human being who wants recognition for what they've put into their work, especially when they see that work as a part of themselves.
> 
> Marketing only works if the people you're marketing to give a positive response.



Social networking validation plays a part of the business marketing strategy.  The ultimate validation is the business revenue at the end of the year.  It means nothing if you get thousand of likes every time you post something but your business struggles.  People that buy likes on Facebook are perfect examples.  Then you have  hobbyists that want nothing more than peer recognition and nothing to do with running a business.  When your survival depends on your business revenue, it's a whole different mentality than when you're doing it for the love of photography.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 3, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but I can't imagine they would do it if they didn't think they were going to be validated in the first place.
> ...



What I'm saying is that I don't trust the statement that people who post their images on the Internet don't want or expect some kind of appreciation. Getting a new client is still having your work appreciated.

The stuff that makes people tick is complex, but our egos can't exist in a vacuum. A compliment is a compliment, and regardless of where one compliment is in relation to another on the "hierarchy of compliments," (a like versus a new client) that doesn't change the fact that it's still a compliment.

Basically, it feels good to get "likes," just like it feels good to make money. Whichever one is more important to the individual doesn't matter, because they both feed the same ego. The photographer who cares about their bottom line more than peer recognition stills feels good when people who aren't clients show admiration for their photography.

If they don't then I will just have to assume they're

a.) an iHuman created by Apple to test out whether their artificial humans are ready to assimilate into the populace

b.) A higher being who has evolved beyond our base needs for acceptance and community. We must dissect them at once.

c.) Peter Lik who is apparently a gift from God. All glory be to Saint Lik's dubious business practices.


----------



## ronitbajaj (Mar 3, 2015)

I like to shoot myself and i don't care what people think about me.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 3, 2015)

ronitbajaj said:


> I like to shoot myself and i don't care what people think about me.



Well, suicide is painless after all...


----------



## kathyt (Mar 3, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> Are they paying me for my work?   If not, it doesn't matter.   I shoot for myself and my clients and not for the rest of the world.  The validation for my work is when someone pays me a lot of money to be the there on their most important day.
> 
> I'm sure Van Gough didn't ask random online strangers to validate his work.


I agree. By the way, your wedding portfolio is stellar.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 3, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> ronitbajaj said:
> 
> 
> > I like to shoot myself and i don't care what people think about me.
> ...


... And it brings on many changes ...


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 3, 2015)

kathyt said:


> By the way, your wedding portfolio is stellar.



That my friend is validation right there! LOL

Thanks!


----------



## Forkie (Mar 3, 2015)

I'm a bit late to this thread and have only read up to page 2, but I'm just going to chime in here and say that I actually _would_ care if 90% of people didn't like my photos.  I'd care a lot.  In fact, I'd be mortified.

I could pretend that I just shoot for myself, or that everyone else misunderstands my art, or that they're simply uneducated, but the reality is that I have chosen an expressive art form and if no one else likes it, it's kind of missing the point.

I'm not talking about personal taste.  One person's sports photo is another person's fantasy composite or one person's portrait is another person's macro, but if 90% of people do not like my photo then there is something wrong with it.  Whether that be compositionally, technically or the subject matter itself, something needs to be addressed.

I love getting compliments about my work and would probably give up if 90% of people said they didn't like my shots through sheer self loathing!


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 3, 2015)

'Like' seems to be an incomplete term for this.
When viewing pictures of bunnies and hillsides and sunsets, within certain bounds, viewers are pretty catholic in their tastes but I like to shoot in a niche both that most/many people don't care for and about which people seem to have have definite likes/dislikes stylistically. It is non-digested art, or attempts to be, usually requiring something from the viewer and, because of that, is often not accepted.  
So a 'like' reaction might be that people understand and see what I see, that people understand what I am trying to 'say', that people appreciate it for what it is but only 'like' it in a way that doesn't connote getting pleasure from it. 
Or, people might not get what I am saying, either because of their short vision or mine, or I haven't succeeded at capturing and showing what I want to or they might not like what I am saying or they might just not want to work at understanding something.
So when someone dislikes, that doesn't give me much information.
Could be me, could be them.

I prefer to think it is always them.


----------



## timor (Mar 3, 2015)

well said Lew, well said. With average time for evaluation being something in order of three seconds:


The_Traveler said:


> I prefer to think it is always them.


this seems to be right approach.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 5, 2015)

Forkie said:


> I'm a bit late to this thread and have only read up to page 2, but I'm just going to chime in here and say that I actually _would_ care if 90% of people didn't like my photos.  I'd care a lot.  In fact, I'd be mortified.
> 
> I could pretend that I just shoot for myself, or that everyone else misunderstands my art, or that they're simply uneducated, but the reality is that I have chosen an expressive art form and if no one else likes it, it's kind of missing the point.
> 
> ...





The_Traveler said:


> 'Like' seems to be an incomplete term for this.
> When viewing pictures of bunnies and hillsides and sunsets, within certain bounds, viewers are pretty catholic in their tastes but I like to shoot in a niche both that most/many people don't care for and about which people seem to have have definite likes/dislikes stylistically. It is non-digested art, or attempts to be, usually requiring something from the viewer and, because of that, is often not accepted.
> So a 'like' reaction might be that people understand and see what I see, that people understand what I am trying to 'say', that people appreciate it for what it is but only 'like' it in a way that doesn't connote getting pleasure from it.
> Or, people might not get what I am saying, either because of their short vision or mine, or I haven't succeeded at capturing and showing what I want to or they might not like what I am saying or they might just not want to work at understanding something.
> ...



I agree with you both and completely understand where you are coming from. The one thing I have to say is that the 90% figure is fairly ambiguous as well.

90% of what? the entire earth? That's a lot of people. If I could get 10% of the world population to like my work enough to buy it for $10 a print I'd be rich and validated beyond my wildest dreams.

So that brings up the topic.. We really aren't talking about people in general here are we? We're talking about the intended audience. Everyone has an intended audience and it usually isn't the entire world population, it's a certain group or type of people that the work is geared towards and therefore that group of people are the only people who's opinions you should really care about.

If 90% of the world hated my work but 75% of my intended audience thought it was the best work they'd ever seen, as an artist I'd be very satisfied.


----------



## AlanKlein (Mar 5, 2015)

90% of the world's people, at least,  don't read photo forums, post to them, care about them.    We should all feel rejected!


----------



## bigal1000 (Mar 5, 2015)

Who cares.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 5, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit late to this thread and have only read up to page 2, but I'm just going to chime in here and say that I actually _would_ care if 90% of people didn't like my photos.  I'd care a lot.  In fact, I'd be mortified.
> ...



I took it to mean 90% of the people who view my photos.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

Forkie said:


> W.Y.Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


i dunno. Seems i am missing a diffuser around here somewhere. (i keep losing chit)....


anyway...

After much deliberation, thinking of the time and money i have invested in photography (and there are many, many, many here with much more time and money invested than I) i have come to this profound conclusion....


Unless they are writing you a check (that clears) or handing you cash enough to make your concern for their thoughts worth while. Unless they are flipping the bill. Then does it really matter what they think?????? Talk is cheap.  someone can like or hate my stuff all day long. Unless it pertains to at least enough cash to get your attention then who really does care what they think???

Isn't that the reality of it?  The vast majority of us will never become great artists. Commercial photography comes down to who pays the bills. Much more cut and dry. For the art side, well... unless they can fork out some cash to give you the basis of concern the commercial photographer has, then what is the concern with even worrying about it?


kind of like
"i hate your work"
"were you going to pay me a thousand dollars?"
"no!. why would you even ask that?"
"To decide if it mattered that you hate my work."

The commercial photographers have it made in this. Real simple then, you get paid for shooting the product/event/portraits or you don't. Cuts right to the chase.  The art side... well.... Even if people like your photo it doesn't mean they will pay the money for a print. How many people actually buy photos?


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Unless they are writing you a check (that clears) or handing you cash enough to make your concern for their thoughts worth while. Unless they are flipping the bill. Then does it really matter what they think??????


Your comments indicate that you are at least thinking about selling your photographs.

I could be mistaken, but my understanding of professional artists is that they attempt to make their offerings desirable by more than one person, probably by more than 10% of potential customers, and maybe by nearly everyone who looks, and the limiting factor is "who has the price of admission?"

So let's say you hold a show.  100 people come to see your stuff.  What is the harm if 99% of the people LIKE your stuff, but only 10% actually have the money to purchase it?  How do you process the fact that you sold 10% of your work?  Are the other 90% just full of beans and they don't know good stuff when they see it?

Are you going to continue to flip off the 90% who didn't buy your stuff?  Are you going to make more of the same stuff that actually sold, in the hopes of selling it next week?  What are you going to do with the 90% of your stuff that didn't sell?  Is it now garbage going to the landfill?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

Designer said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Unless they are writing you a check (that clears) or handing you cash enough to make your concern for their thoughts worth while. Unless they are flipping the bill. Then does it really matter what they think??????
> ...


Considered it. Part of me feels i should be part of the art association here, and should be showing. The other part of me dreads the "meet the artists" idea, contests, showings as i am generally pretty anti-social to start with. Other thing is, do i really want to change around my photography just to appease and make a couple thousand a year. The photos aren't exactly flying out the door. Most people buy paintings, if anything. The other thing is price. It costs me sixty bucks to take the kids to chinese the other night. I would be lucky to get much more than that for a photo after associated headache, framing, time etc. etc. is figured in. I ponder if it is even worth it. I Definately wouldn't trade what or how i shoot over it.
I have considered joining, and doing a show or at least showing pieces just because i am actually a big supporter of the arts in general.  Changing what or how i shoot for the price some of these photos are going for makes me feel kind of like a sleezeball though. why sell out? Lets say someone bought a photo off me for 175 dollars (unlikely around here). That isn't a lot of money for someone walking away with your photo never mind printing, framing, headache. It equivocates to me taking the kids to eat chinese a couple times. My electric bill was 150 bucks last month...
so unless it went to upper tier, with upper tier pricing. Really not sure if it is worth the consideration.  I have considered some involvement over the last year just as a general supporter of the arts though. Join the area associations, show a few things. Might not even put them up for sale.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > W.Y.Photo said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with money and whether people will pay for my photos, it has to do with artistic development.

I want to take photos that initiate a positive reaction in other people (a positive reaction could be anything from "Cool photo!" to "You've shown really good direction with your model and paid great attention to hair and makeup" or "How did you do that?!").  I want to host an exhibition of work and for people to come to it and to _see_ people liking my photos.

If I take a photo; I come up with an idea, plan it, shoot it and then edit it only to store it away on a harddrive somewhere so that I can occasionally look at it and say to myself "Good job, Ian", that, to me, is pointless.

Where's the reward? Where's the confirmation that what you're doing has meaning or merit?  How can anyone hope to develop their artistic ability without knowing what other people think of their artwork?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...


Can't help you there. You are finding your happiness or whatever it is through others.
i find the reward in looking back on my photos. Remember standing there, who might have been there with me, what i was looking at. I find it in my own photos. I look through them as part of me and part of my life and what i was doing or seeing at the time. Some i just like, because i have it how i wanted to make it. So i look at it and like it. Other people are a third party to the equation. They have their own visions, their own history, their own moments in time.  The primary is myself and my photography. I guess for the most part, that is all i need. Some tech info  or certain critique is helpful as that helps you accomplish what you want. It really isn't a like or dislike thing though. More of getting the tools to accomplish what you want. Same when i painted. It was really between me and the paints. I paint a boat i like i was pretty content. Didn't really need any accolades. 

It really sounds like a lot of you are getting your happiness, validation, whatever from others. I honestly can't really relate to that. I appreciate if someone does like something i do. But it really doesn't factor into the equation at all for me. I look through my photos and it really just has nothing to do with them.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 5, 2015)

If 90 % do not like your work and you do not care , you are either a genius or a fool.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

sashbar said:


> If 90 % do not like your work and you do not care , you are either a genius or a fool.


Or you have a high enough self esteem it doesn't concern you to much and you grew up in life in general.   Some of us grow up and become secure adults. Really. And we ask adult questions if we don't know something. We don't run around looking for approval, that is generally what children do. A artist needing approval. I don't even know what to make of that. Seems either they would follow their art or follow what everyone else likes. Seems it would be one or the other. While the both may meet or mesh in circumstances. And people may like your work. Concentrating on getting it likes i would think would be a deviant from your art itself. If you are primarily making it for others approval. Then really it is THEIR art. Seems kind of messed up if you ask me. As concentrating on getting it liked would poison your own artistic tendency. 
something to think about. To each their own. Don't really know.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > If 90 % do not like your work and you do not care , you are either a genius or a fool.
> ...


Then why did you even ask the question that started this thread in the first place?  Why bother to ask if you don't care anyway?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...


Makes for a interesting discussion doesn't it? People see things different. Each with their own view.  Everyone throws their hat in the ring. In the end maybe we all learn something, about something. Or at least have _something _to think on.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


And what have you learned from it?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


still thinking....so far it has helped me understand others better who might have different concerns and reasons for their photography.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 6, 2015)

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > If 90 % do not like your work and you do not care , you are either a genius or a fool.
> ...



I don't think the statement in bold is right. It's more like they fall on a spectrum that goes from caring too much on the left to not caring enough on the right.. Maybe those aren't the right ways to put it.. 
Maybe: "Concern for the opinion of others to the point that all work produced is exactly as the artist believes is agreeable the masses" on one side of the spectrum and "Lack of concern for the opinion of others to the point that the artist habitually disregards all opinions on his art and art in general besides his own" on the other. I think that both of these mentality's are a bit extreme but that there are artists who fit neatly into those extremes. I believe that a majority fall somewhere in the middle though.. Making work for themselves but regarding the opinions of others as a way to not only improve their work but also to make it portray there message to others in a cohesive manner.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 6, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> I don't think the statement in bold is right. It's more like they fall on a spectrum that goes from caring too much on the left to not caring enough on the right.. Maybe those aren't the right ways to put it..
> Maybe: "Concern for the opinion of others to the point that all work produced is exactly as the artist believes is agreeable the masses" on one side of the spectrum and "Lack of concern for the opinion of others to the point that the artist habitually disregards all opinions on his art and art in general besides his own" on the other. I think that both of these mentality's are a bit extreme but that there are artists who fit neatly into those extremes. I believe that a majority fall somewhere in the middle though.. Making work for themselves but regarding the opinions of others as a way to not only improve their work but also to make it portray there message to others in a cohesive manner.



I pretty much agree except that I think that the spectrum runs from _ "Concern for the opinion of others to the point that all work produced is exactly as the artist believes is agreeable the masses"_  to _"Rejection of  the opinion of others to the point that the artist purposefully produces work that no others will like and sees such work as proof that he/she is an original artist."
_
I think this sentence is pretty much right on the button_ "I believe that a majority fall somewhere in the middle though; making work for themselves but regarding the opinions of others as a way to not only improve their work but also to make it portray there message to others in a coherent (ed)  manner."_


----------



## Buckster (Mar 6, 2015)

The last couple of posts bring to mind something I've been thinking as I read through the posts in this thread, and it's that a few post in a way that makes it seem like they think it has to be one or the other; Either you're a total sellout to the masses, or you shun them entirely to pursue your own vision, and I don't think that's true at all.

I've known a lot of artists in my time, and been known to produce a bit of art myself, and it's been my experience that many do both.  They produce what the masses want, especially if they pay their bills by producing art, and it needs to sell, but also for other reasons that are more personal to them, if only to feed their own egos with acceptance.  But then they also pursue their own vision, often knowing that it won't be very salable to the masses or produce real income.

I don't personally see anything wrong with it.


----------



## runnah (Mar 6, 2015)

Buckster said:


> The last couple of posts bring to mind something I've been thinking as I read through the posts in this thread, and it's that a few post in a way that makes it seem like they think it has to be one or the other; Either you're a total sellout to the masses, or you shun them entirely to pursue your own vision, and I don't think that's true at all.
> 
> I've known a lot of artists in my time, and been known to produce a bit of art myself, and it's been my experience that many do both.  They produce what the masses want, especially if they pay their bills by producing art, and it needs to sell, but also for other reasons that are more personal to them, if only to feed their own egos with acceptance.  But then they also pursue their own vision, often knowing that it won't be very salable to the masses or produce real income.
> 
> I don't personally see anything wrong with it.



Reminds me of some of the actor interviews I've heard. Some actors have the "one for them, one for me mentality", meaning they do one "hollywood" film so they can fund a personal film.

People forget that this is a business and businesses need to make money to survive.


----------



## Designer (Mar 6, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Makes for a interesting discussion doesn't it?



No, it is simply frustrating.  Most artists that I've ever heard of are driven to make art from something within themselves.  They realize that by selling art for money allows them the freedom to keep on making art.  They can only sell art that is desirable, and if that generates an unsavory taste in your mouth, so be it.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 6, 2015)

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > If 90 % do not like your work and you do not care , you are either a genius or a fool.
> ...



I disagree about someone seeking approval from their peers means they are lacking in self esteem.  It takes guts to put your work out there for display and criticism and I would put it to you that it is not, in fact, the praise that they don't need, but the criticism that they don't want to hear that is the reason for someone keeping their work to themselves.

You talk about "we" as if you and a select few are "grown-up" or "adult" enough to be happy to keep your photos to yourself and to hell with what anyone else thinks, whilst _I_ and _mine _haven't yet caught up and are still seeking a big red tick from the teacher.

Photography is an expressive art form.  If you want to express something, be it an emotion, an opinion, or an idea, expressing it to a brick wall is not really expressing it at all.  Having a body of work that you can show off, put on display or (less importantly) sell is where my joy comes from. 

Being approached by someone to shoot a photo for them, or better still _of _them, is the best compliment I can get.  And yes, compliments, praise and thanks are what drives me to get better and produce better photos.


----------



## sleist (Mar 6, 2015)

I have placed varying degrees of importance on the opinions of others at different times in my photography (and just about everything else for that matter).  I think there are times when it's valuable to the learning process. There are also times when it's nice to hear but largely irrelevant.  Sometimes when 90% of the people "like" your work it's just as ominous.

This thread made me think of this old blog post.  Might not be exactly the same thing, but I remember enjoying it when I read it.

This is Why Your Pictures Suck


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 6, 2015)

Sounds like you have 100% acceptance from people.
you just have to only show you work to those 10% of people  

but then everyone is different.  They themselves see different things from a photograph.  This of all the "snapshots" vs trying to be artistic.  

As long as you enjoy it and are learning from photography.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 7, 2015)

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...


i shoot a lot of "out there" stuff. Just tossed the last pic there on 500 px. Test dummy run. I hardly ever put much like that on there or anywhere. 90 percent will think it is a snap shot at the most. I think it only had one like so far. Perhaps i dont express correctly. Perhaps they are just stupid. I can't tell. I stopped caring. There was some thought and serious metaphors in place in that photo. They don't see it. I cant help them. I don't care. Call me what you will. But i refuse to bring myself down to moron category to "communicate".  Why i hardly ever even bother trying anymore. I will post the chit, and not anything for serious stuff to me that i shoot. I post chit it is usually good for up to a 90 percent like. Almost. Maybe i should go take photos of processed landscapes and kittens. Stuff i really want and like myself, might hit 40-60 percent at best. My favorites. Be lucky to hit 20 percent. Usually the less thought i put into it, the more i hate it, the more they like it. Oh, and i have to keep it simple right? Otherwise they wont "get it".


----------



## Designer (Mar 7, 2015)

As long as you're enjoying it.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 7, 2015)

Designer said:


> As long as you're enjoying it.


Just keeping it real...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 9, 2015)

As long as the 10% are paying my invoices, I don't care.


----------



## TheSnapperRooster (Mar 11, 2015)

Surely, Photography and the images that are produced and on occasions manipulated to create something other than that which was the first result is a very subjective matter.
Works of art that are created with a tool for applying the paint or colour medium;be-it  a brush or brushes or a spatula are one in the same as a camera and the tools to manipulate images.
Each piece of work - whether it is a painting,a photographic image or for that matter a sculpture is going to please some but not others.
Criticism is often directed in a totally inappropriate way and often without explanation.
Constructive criticism is one thing and need not come from "Experts" but vindictive criticism is another thing totally.
The world is full of experts and in my personal and professional (not photography related) experience a great many of them have been adequately summed-up by the simplistic explanation  :-

The word "expert" is formed from the conjunction of two roots which, phonetically,can be represented as "x" & "spurt" 
"X" is an unknown quantity or often a way of saying - Past.
"Spurt" is what occurs when water or a liquid is put under pressure and an exit is created by a weakness.
I have often heard it said the an "Expert" can be likened to a drip under pressure.  
I have certainly witnessed many an "Expert" reduced to a mere dribble when it comes to delivering the goods.


----------



## thereyougo! (Mar 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Kim Kardashian. Justin Bieber. McDonalds. All fairly popular, all with HUGE numbers of people who just LOVE their stuff. According to one poster here, with popularity comes automatic certification of quality. More popular = better. More popular = higher artistic value. More popular= automatically higher aesthetic value.
> 
> Seriously? Fox News has been Number One in television news for 13 years in a row now. 2014 Cable News Ratings Year-End Fox News CNN MSNBC Mediaite   On a nightly basis, FOX News has nearly TRIPLE the viewership of its nearest competitor. So, apparently, we have a member here who thinks because it has the greatest popularity, FOX News is...the best! Simple, isn't it!
> 
> Seriously? If you want to see what the level of popular taste among non-photographers is, look no farther than Facebook. Browse around Facebook and just look at what kind of photography people praise as being ,"great! Awesome! Amazing!" There is tons of very bad photography that garners rave reviews on Facebook. So, apparently, the more people who click the "Like" icon on chit photos, the better those chit photos become. Because, you know, the more people like stuff, the BETTER it really is.



The truth lies in the median somewhere.  Some people will go for the least well known or popular because it makes them feel like they are the best judges of all because it makes them somehow more discerning.  It's the same in many areas of the media and the arts.  

Some will say that Philip Glass is better than Puccini because too many people like Puccini, so their more discerning taste makes them special because they like the postmodern surrealist works of Philip Glass over the populist romantic work of Puccini.  

The objective truth is that one is neither better than the either.  I prefer Puccini.  That doesn't make me populist or somehow less discerning.  I just prefer Puccini operas to Glass ones.  Some do prefer post modern works by composers artists and photographers, and that's fine.  But their taste is not then by definition more discerning or better.  It's just different.  

Of course many photographers will go out and shoot what will sell.  Does that make them a sellout?  Depends whether they have turned their back on a less lucrative financially calling to do the most financially lucrative end by playing to the crowd.  An amateur can afford to be more choosy.  If you are having to feed a family by your work, then you will need to make compromises unless you are insanely fortunate.


----------



## thereyougo! (Mar 11, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> Boxhawk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you could get 90% of people to agree that the earth was round, let alone on your photos.
> ...



I thought it was just that the horizon was skewed!


----------

