An interesting observation

Different expectations I think.
But just because people don't comment doesn't mean that they ignore.
I don't always spend a lot of time in the galleries. And when I do, I don't usually comment a lot.

 

At least somebody likes them. A lot of Photrio users have probably not enabled vanilla, chocolate and strawberry but just vanilla. Personally I've enabled all three. I don't spend a lot of time looking at the galleries and I think most Photrio users also don't spend much time there.

 

Is this real prints versus online images? Or are there other fundamentals like composition, palette, etc.?

 

hi eric

i think painters are drawn to different things than photographers.
IDK
its like margarite hanging up La Trahison des images in a lanscape gallery ...
some landscapers might get it, others might scratch their heads and pass it by.

 

My old Flickr account hit an Explore rate of 1 in 3. I could see no reason for it, and I'm prepared to bet if I uploaded the same pictures again, there would not be a repeat. They were not bad pictures, some were good if I say so myself, but they were not always my best. Comments and likes did not translate to my non-Explore photographs, so if people liked they didn't like enough to keep looking. I'd say that experience is typical.

Except for people fascinated by a particular subject, or those who love a photographer's work, I don't think the majority care much either way. That doesn't bother me, but it does encourage me to photograph exactly what I want without a thought to general appreciation or critical appraisal. The internet is a poor way of exposing photography. It turns a tangible medium into a virtual one, lacks any of the progression or narrative of a gallery show or a book, and promotes undemanding in-your-face work at the expense other virtues. There's no point griping about these things, but it isn't a viewing medium I hold any faith in as an arbiter of photographic quality.

 

For me that one I liked are seldom commented and others I don't really like drew some comments. Nevertheless, I will be happy if I can select an option to disable comments so the focus stays in making negatives and printing them.

 

Wonder if the ones that the painters cared for were more pictorial/abstract-like and the ones the folks here liked were f/64 types.

:Niranjan.

 

I look at the gallery daily, but rarely click on images for a larger view. Most of them are just uninteresting to me. I almost never comment even if I like the image.

 

OP, that is how it goes. And it is the same with most of the photo and art world. Museums did not accept Ansel Adams into their collections until very late in the game when his print quality declined due to his eyesight. Museums are very slow adopters. And they are supposed to be experts with expert eye...but none of the people in the know at the museums are photogs are artists themselves.

All the 'fine art photography' promoted by Aperture and like venues that are basically glorified, sharp snapshots, while they disregard other genres almost completely.

For example, candid street work is frowned upon a lot nowadays. The PC crowd demands you 'ask permission' before shooting as to not offend anyone. The kids coming up don't know how to shoot museum quality candids. All they use is dummied down gear that won't work well in tough light. Maybe they will snap a few with a telephoto from across the street. But hi-grade, in your face, museum quality candid work is very rare nowadays.

Take these photos from Amsterdam's Red Light District, from my book De Wallen. (Both Candid)





You know how hard it is to shoot decent candid photos, in terrible light and in a place where photography is outlawed? But candid work is not valued much nowadays, especially if it is from an old guy. You learn to just move on to the next project and don't worry about fame or notoriety. Really, you MUST, if freezing time is in your blood. You know NO other way TO live.

What is popular nowadays?

Photos / art from young people, women, trans, gays, people of color...and most of them with very little talent. As a curator myself, I just go by the photo. Much of what I collect is found photography from anonymous sources. So I have no idea what the persons age, gender, sexual orientation or color is.

 

Back in 2006 I had a lot of my photos online of the California coast. It was like Photobucket, I think. Anyway, I never copyrighted anything and I allowed anyone full access to the photos. Several photos in particular had a lot of downloads every week, but no one ever gave comments.

 

Good advice for every photographer. But do continue to work on new projects not just random photographs.

 

Eric Can you show examples of each type? I'm curious to see what their thinking is.

 

"Friends in the painting world" sounds like there is a much higher percentage of people in that world who have studied (formally or informally) art and its history and who consider themselves to be artists, than the world of people on a photography forum. So different viewpoints.

Photographers tend to be more subject-orientated (exceptions abound, of course!) They find a subject and compose around it. Painters seem to create a composition and fit the subject into it. Again, exceptions abound, but it would give each a different way at looking at a photograph. As it would someone who both paints and photographs. I like the work of Holly Roberts.

But it is very difficult to get excited by thumbnails and it is not the fault of the image.

 

[QUOTE=" (snip) I make my photographs for me and no one else. If I like them that's all that matters to me. However my interesting observation is that the ones that are generally ignored by Photrio members are the very ones my friends in the painting world rave over.[ end Quote]

Eric, you are not 'alone' in your 'thinking'...
I've been 'working under the dark-cloth for somewhere around 60 years (30-odd as years as a "Biological Photographer" (ie Technical/Scientific) for Agriculture Canada. After my forced 'early retirement' with the acceptance of 'do-it for yourself' using 'digital' camera' imaging, I was challenged by my well educated daughter to get my BFA at the local university as a means of 'staying out of the rocking chair and away from day-time television'.... and graduated at 74 years of age. Fortunately, being a senior citizen, the Provincial Govt. 'covered' the costs (other than books & materials). I was NOT one of students who made the effort to 'find out what the Prof 'liked' but did for "ME" . I got the impression that 'meaning' and 'context' were often 'favoured' over 'subject', 'composition', 'exposure', DOF etc. I believe I have been the only student to 'present' all my photographic images using the 'Archaic' photographic print processes.

Ken

 

A painter viewing a scene can imagine it without certain elements, can change the composition to what he envisions, can lighten, darken, tint, apply different colors or tones to all parts of the picture.
A photograph printed is a finished product.

 

A few days back I clicked through to the image, Troll Falls (I think?). Only one struck me as being considered in its composition, but there was absolutely no accompanying information about the image: the qualities that you, Eric Rose, found that made the falls suitable as a photograph. Nothing to say about the walk to the falls? What about the film? The exposure?? Was it cropped, printed, framed? No details at all. What other thoughts occurred to you there to obtain and hold the viewer's interest? As it was, and as happens so many times with other pics by others, nothing was there to provide interest.

Painters see the world in an entirely different way to photographers, but the two skills using visual reference and interpretation are often complementary in their application to the end product: a photograph can quite often form the foundation of a full scale watercolour or oil painting.

 

But Eric, there is often a lot of very informative background information on an image, or images-plural, in a gallery. There are several very accomplished B&W photographers here who publish information in their description leaflets. I do the same because people want to know "what is it about?".

Actually one of the images did work for me, but the other did not. There is provision in the fields to provide information about the photograph along the lines I outlined in my response. Some people may read these, others may not. The opportunity to "fill us iin" is there, and should be made good use of. That applies to so many others too.

 

Are artistic friends of OP watching same photos also over forum gallery engine?
If yes:
Your photos appears more appealing for artistic people.
If not:
I guess, images are presented in not on-line form. If it is present as prints it could be already more interesting for them.
My artistic friend is often asking me to show my recent prints and we go through them with comments.