Do you understand why it’s good?

[SciAggie]

Are you ever surprised that you have a photo you really like and no one else seems to care? Do you also find that there are images others rave about and you just can’t see what makes it great? The Eggelston “Why is it????” thread got me thinking; how many of you feel like you understand why a particular image is well received? I guess my question also is how do you evaluate your own work in an attempt to improve upon it?

[DNG]

I, as others, love the praise, but, in the end, it is "you" who has to love your work.
I look at other photographers work, But, I tend to dimiss a lot that has no composition or bad framing. I give it a chance to talk me, but, if it doesn't talk back in some way, I move on. Sometimes it is just "Art" (nice placement of it's elements) with no real message, sometimes it is a moving experience.

[back alley]

the whole thing is a mystery to me.

in general...a sharp and simple photo seems to have the most impact...or one that is dark and moody and not so sharp.

i tend to like (and make) 'busy' images with lots going on in them...they seem the least popular of my images.

[SciAggie]

DNG, back alley - you both make me feel better if for no ther reason than the confusion. I agree with DNG that we need to love our own work; following is an example. I took this picture as a candid of one of my students - sort of a character portrait. She is a very shy and introverted individual that can make really interesting drawings. I thought the way the image focuses on the art and leaves her obscured conveys that well - I like the image. It is interesting to me that others can take it or leave it. Maybe it's my emotional tie that makes it meaningful?

[taskoni]

I look the light and composition. The focus is the least important thing for me, may be that's why I have so many OOF shots. I also like tend to over expose my b&w images, it is a matter of taste I suppose. As a Director I am rather critical to my own photos, especially because I am not skilled photographer. Looks like with the time my photos getting better though.

[daveleo]

if you are producing images to be liked by the largest number of people, then you are "market driven" and there is a good chance that you personally will not like what you end up producing ("artistically").

if you make images to express yourself or your vision of things, then get used to the fact that the other 6.8Billion people on the planet may see things differently than you do and most will think your stuff is . . . not wonderful.

many many artists considered "great, timeless, classic" today were totally unappreciated in their lifetimes. . . . this does not mean that someday you will be famous . . . it means that someday, someone will probably like some of your images.

in the meantime, i would say that you should stop worrying about it and if people don't appreciate what you are doing, so what ? . . if you don't need to generate money from your work, the really big question is do YOU like what you are creating?


apologies for running off at the mouth, but (back to your photo) . . . that is a photo that needs some time to stare at until a little voice says "something here is special to the photographer" . . . these days of the internet, we pop through photos and give them 2 seconds to "grab us" . . . this photo needs a viewer who will spend the time to look at it and make some interpretation of what they are looking at. . . honestly, i responded to your remarks, not to your photo (which shows you how superficially i looked at it ! )

[SciAggie]

No apologies necessary Dave. My question is about how others approach their growth as a photographer. I really don't "worry" about what others think of my pictures, mainly because I do it for my own pleasure. I do however find it to be an interesting exercise to try and understand what others "see" in an image. Very often I can recognize the compositional element or mood or color or whatever that makes an image interesting. There are also times that I look at a famous or popular image and just fail to find anything about it that is exciting. When others here find themselves in a similar situation I wonder if they try to view the image as others see it just as an exercise in seeing the world differently. I have found that viewing the work of others here is making a diffrence in the way I look for images.

[L David Tomei]

When I was doing technical and scientific photography, I was always striving to improve and please editors & publishers & colleagues. I don't do that kind of photography any more which leaves me with no objective criteria for improvement, I suppose. I make images, now, and I really would not know how to measure my improvement, if any. Certainly, I wouldn't define my improvement by the responses to my photography. I had to please editors and publishers for scientific and tech images, but no more.

I do not mean to say I don't care what people think about my photography, but my survival as a photographer isn't dependent on that response any longer.

[Roger Hicks]

Nothing wrong with 'market driven' if you're being paid.

But even if you are, you still need to shoot for yourself, at least some of the time.

And, having said both, yes, there are some of my pics that editors have run bigger than I expected, for no reason I can see, and others they've dropped, again, for no reason I can see. Likewise, I sometimes get 'fan mail' about some pics I don't think are too remarkable, and snipes at my whole style of photography. I just try not to worry about it too much.

EDIT: Tony Pio put it beautifully.

Cheers,

R.

[Archlich]

When I run into a piece of art I look at concept and execution. Both can be attained through practice, and when you get both "right" ( of which the standard depends) you have a good picture. Not truly extraordinary, just "good", for above all there is passion and that little drop of genius which break the rule, and rules are made to be broken.

[DNG]

With the explanation, the photograph make perfect sense. And I like it regardless, it does convey your intent.

Originally Posted by SciAggie

DNG, back alley - you both make me feel better if for no ther reason than the confusion. I agree with DNG that we need to love our own work; following is an example. I took this picture as a candid of one of my students - sort of a character portrait. She is a very shy and introverted individual that can make really interesting drawings. I thought the way the image focuses on the art and leaves her obscured conveys that well - I like the image. It is interesting to me that others can take it or leave it. Maybe it's my emotional tie that makes it meaningful?

[jsrockit]

Yes, I do understand why people who get credit get credit... I'm a huge fan of photography. That said, there are so many styles, that one can't possibly like even all of the good work in the world much less the bad work.

The bottom line is that if you are not a beginner, you need to trust what you are doing and keep on keeping on.

Also keep in mind that most people are fans of the photo cliche and that is what they expect to see from a great photographer. Photography is like a language... sometimes the more difficult work doesn't make sense unless you know certain visual elements and what to look for.

[d_ross]

I am a full time artist using photography as my medium, I can say quiet honestly that over 50% of the time I am completely surprised and sometime amazed at what of mine people choose to buy! I understand why I make every picture I make and I understand why I like certain pieces of mine more than others. But when people look at our photographs they see and interpret things much like we did when we took them and chose from the infinite numbers of ways we could have also made them. So to answer your question, For me it's good because somebody, anybody, likes it!

[Keith]

Sort of!

I'm lucky in that I do a little paid work for an educational arts college and everything I submit to them is perused by their curator ... I use film and digital for this work. I'm generally satisfied with anything I present to them but occasionally I get feedback that surprises me. A recent gallery opening I photographed left me feeling like I hadn't really captured what they were looking for and I personally was a little disappointed in what I subsequently gave them ... however when I recently bumped into the curator she commented positively on my last job and said she though it was very good! ???

The judgement of a professional means a lot to me and it's my yardstick for how I'm travelling photographically.

[shimokita]

The process of giving and recieving feedback on a body of work does help to understand what others are seeing and feeling. It helps if you understand the person you are recieving the feedback from, at least their history of feedback. One useful aspect is that you might explore certain areas that otherwise you might have ignored.

I think feedback is helpfull when seen from a larger perspective /over time / various peer/ non-peer groups and does help you come to an understanding of what you are doing. I have doubt that you can understand your own work in a vacuum - and what would be the purpose.

Casey

[Neare]

I was asked by a couple of friends to take a 1 hour drive today so they (and I) could go take photos of the city line (the same sort of photos they took last weekend), because to them those are great pictures. To me, that is extremely boring photography.

At the same time we have to consider a few facts:

1. These people are not photographers nor have any interest in the art world.
2. Their only exposure to photography are those generic magazines "Improve your digital photography technique: 100 photoshop secrets!" that are filled with stock landscape and still life images.
3. This is the majority of people toting DSLR's nowadays.

This is 1 crowd and to sell images and cameras to them you need to market with the right photos. Every time I see a m4/3'rds advert, the photos are your typical bokeh pets and flowers.

The crowd matters really just like the quality of work does, it's a 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' sort of vibe.
For example, if someone came to RFF and started filling threads up with HDR work I bet many members would be vomiting in their mouths. But I'm also sure that there is an HDR forum out there who would hail that same person.

[Pablito]

Cant read you post, SciAggie. Please don't use a white font color. Those of use who use the white background can't read white on white.

[Haigh]

I just have to feel the image I have created ( not a good term really ) is OK for me, after that people can think what they think about it. Egotistical? Maybe.

[SciAggie]

Originally Posted by Pablito

Cant read you post, SciAggie. Please don't use a white font color. Those of use who use the white background can't read white on white.

Sorry about that. I have had trouble with the site logging me out while I am typing a post - so I typed it in word and pasted. I noticed in an earlier thread that others have had this issue also.

[d_ross]

Originally Posted by shimokita

The process of giving and recieving feedback on a body of work does help to understand what others are seeing and feeling. It helps if you understand the person you are recieving the feedback from, at least their history of feedback. One useful aspect is that you might explore certain areas that otherwise you might have ignored.

I think feedback is helpfull when seen from a larger perspective /over time / various peer/ non-peer groups and does help you come to an understanding of what you are doing. I have doubt that you can understand your own work in a vacuum - and what would be the purpose.

Casey

Right on the head Casey. For example, at first glance one might think Egglestons work is banal and uninteresting, but when you study the man, the time, and his reasoning then the greater understanding acquired helps us to see more in his work, and thereby his greatness becomes apparent. The same applies when considering anyone's work. But at the end of the day in many if not most cases I believe that people respond positively to a picture because it arouses some emotional response within them, so to fully understand that you'd need to fully understand human behavior, and good luck with that one

[_larky]

I am finding, more and more, I have no idea what the majority like - it makes me feel very out of touch, lonely to a degree. I'm trying to be much more critical of my photography now, for every 100 shots I keep 1 for example. But then people see my discards, and they much prefer them to my chosen shot.

So I go back to square one. If there were a group in London where we could give constructive, friendly feedback, I'd love to attend. MAybe we could hook up something on IRC?

[Sparrow]

Aesthetics follows a few fairly simple guidelines that the vast majority of the population perceive in the same way. They can be learned and understood if one is prepared to make the effort, and sometimes they can even be applied to photography.

Oh, and people who claim "rules are made to be broken" I suspect can't be bothered to learn them

[Haigh]

As one of the posts said, it is a mystery. The image has to mean something to me (and that really can't be verbalised) and after that other peoples reaction is up to them of course.

[Vilk]

Do you understand why it's good?

Yes.

[L David Tomei]

Personally, I have gone back to "square one" so many times that I decided to just stay there. At a certain point in life it is no longer important to understand why people like a particular image... unless, of course, my living depends upon it.