Nobody cares about your photography

[Wallendo]

I think one reason there are so many different viewpoints concerning the video and that the speaker uses terms that have vague meanings.
"Work that matters" : What exactly is work? Is it an completed image (an artwork) or the result of labor? Is it individual pieces or the sum of many photographs. Even more vague is the word "matters". "Matters" to whom, in what way. Even the title that no one cares about you photography has been interpreted in many different ways.

My interpretation of the message can be summarized as "no one cares about your photography unless you make them care."

 

[Hatchetman]

He's just trying to motivate you to take your work seriously and self evaluate what you are doing. The guy has a passion for photography.

 

[blockend]

Agreed.....I can remember the days of "slide shows" with my parents and their friends. A fun evening with friends and family , a drink and a few eatables, looking at someone's latest set of holiday pictures and enjoying sharing the events and adventures which they'd had. Perhaps also seeing something of places which you might never expect to visit yourself.
OK, most of the pictures wouldn't have won any prizes, but the whole evening was a lot more real fun than tedious analysis of some pretentious and over-priced prints in a snooty art gallery.

A good slide show was fun, but most suffered from an editing problem. Five different views of the same waterfall and a glass of wine and I'd be snoozing.

 

[calebarchie]

Yawn...

 

[spacer]

I'm one with the idea that nobody cares about my photos. While they do pretty well at Pixoto, I get very little feedback from postings on Flickr and Facebook. Being told this by a total stranger doesn't really faze me, but it is nice when someone *does* notice.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I did watch the entire video the first time and again just now. Nowhere do I see how he agrees with my conclusion of "Some people do like and care about others' work. Not every shot needs to be intended for art galleries."

Instead, he states: "Work that matters is important and that's what every photographer should be striving for." Also, he agrees with "no more easy shots" and adds "you should be pushing yourself."

I completely disagree with this. For most, photography is a pleasant hobby and a person should do whatever brings them the most enjoyment out of it - whether it's happy snaps of a vacation, or an intense study of the Zone System in an attempt to emulate Ansel Adams.

At the end he states again: "you need to make pictures that matter." Again I disagree: I make photos to satisfy myself; if others like them (and some have), great. I get to choose how much effort I put into the hobby.

I did notice the cameras on the shelf in the background. I won't criticize him for that, as I've got a metric tonne of them on shelves as well. What was amusing was that he had them lit by spotlights.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Forbes is only partially right. Nobody cares about your digital photography for there are no consumables. But most assuredly Kodak, Ilford, Foma, ... all care about you analog work.

I wonder if he would have said this to Atget. His work was not appreciated in his lifetime. People like Forbes annoy me most of what they say is for attention and nothing else. Look elsewhere for gems of wisdom.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

He speaks for seven and a half minutes without saying anything interesting, constructive, creative or intelligent. That's seven and a half minutes you won't get back.

 

[Alan Klein]

If you want people to notice and like your work, and you, blow up some of your best, frame them and give them as gifts to friends and families. Even better if it was a great shot of someone in their family. They might even hang them on their walls. Then whenever you visit, you'll see your work being appreciated by others. They might even mention it each time you're there. In other words, as long as you're stuck on ego centricity, "Look what I did," no one will care. But use your photography to make others happy, and you'll become famous. At least to them.

Now doesn't that feel good?

 

[blockend]

I'm one with the idea that nobody cares about my photos. While they do pretty well at Pixoto, I get very little feedback from postings on Flickr and Facebook. Being told this by a total stranger doesn't really faze me, but it is nice when someone *does* notice.

What most on-line photography lacks is context and editing. The quick thrill of posting outweighs critical judgement. I'm currently in the process of putting work going back to the mid-1970s in a series of books, and the photographs I picked out at the time and have thought my "best" is not the stuff I like now, and is out of context with how I see my photography in retrospect.

Most people who have been regular photographers for long enough will have some interesting work, but getting it to hang together is a tough job that requires self criticism, lots of time and people whose judgement you trust.

 

[David Brown]

He's just trying to motivate you to take your work ... The guy has a passion for photography.

Forbes is only partially right.

(Disclaimer: perhaps since he's a local guy this might be a bit of a profit is without honor in his own hometown.)

Forbes' motivation for most of the content of his blog, web series, videos, etc. is to create content. This is how he makes his living. Much of his stuff is (to me) generic and shallow. YMMV Other people think he's a genius.

 

[PeterB]

art should disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I did notice the cameras on the shelf in the background. I won't criticize him for that, as I've got a metric tonne of them on shelves as well. What was amusing was that he had them lit by spotlights.

And that he so obviously chose to include such in the background of the video. I found that curious.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If it's "work that matters" in the sense of some obvious social cause or political correctness, or due to it being specifically appealing to some current art trend or fad, or shock for shock's sake, or for the sake of exploiting the novelty of some new technology, or simply decor to hang above the sofa, you can scratch it off the list of my things to do. Life is too short to simply follow the rest of the lemmings.

 

[Hatchetman]

Forbes' weekly video gets about 10,000 views. He is a big proponent of film photography. I'm sure a lot of people have tried film because of him. Thank you Ted Forbes!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Forbes' weekly video gets about 10,000 views. He is a big proponent of film photography. I'm sure a lot of people have tried film because of him. Thank you Ted Forbes!

Interesting.....never heard of him before this and I'm very active on the internet.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Forbes' weekly video gets about 10,000 views. He is a big proponent of film photography. I'm sure a lot of people have tried film because of him. Thank you Ted Forbes!

Even though I was a bit harsh, I'm sure he's a cool guy we'd all like to chat with and he's doing good things.

 

[John Koehrer]

I don't care about him or his stick figure family on the window!

 

[RattyMouse]

I think nobody cares about my photography and so I don't show them to nobody and not posting on the social media.

That is really really sad.

 

[tomfrh]

What most on-line photography lacks is context and editing.

Definitely! Whether photos of a single event, or a long period like you mentioned.

Several of us take (digital) photos of our kayak races. Some people just dump all their images online immediately. We're talking maybe a thousand or so shots with no editing/culling. I cull mine down to about 50-80 so it tells the story and captures the key participants. Mine always get more views simply because I've edited a little.

I had this debate with a wedding photographer recently. He told me he gives people over a thousand photos, and anything less than 1,000 is ripping people off!

How annoyed would you be if you paid thousands and you get given over 1000 photos!

 

[TheRook]

Definitely! Whether photos of a single event, or a long period like you mentioned.

Several of us take (digital) photos of our kayak races. Some people just dump all their images online immediately. We're talking maybe a thousand or so shots with no editing/culling. I cull mine down to about 50-80 so it tells the story and captures the key participants. Mine always get more views simply because I've edited a little.

I had this debate with a wedding photographer recently. He told me he gives people over a thousand photos, and anything less than 1,000 is ripping people off!

How annoyed would you be if you paid thousands and you get given over 1000 photos!

Even 50-80 photos may be a bit much for a kayak race. Especially nowadays, as very few people have the interest or patience to look at such an extensive series for a single event all the way through. Narrow it down to about 10 of the most compelling images, and your series will have more impact as a whole.

 

[removed account4]

this is the problem with modern wedding photographers too !
15,000 photographs to be distilled to 30 views !
i've been able to edit 300 down to between 20 and 30 ... its always "fun"

 

[Gerald C Koch]

My mom always liked my work.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Forbes seems to think that the world of art can be filled up. This is like the Patent Office closing because everything had already been invented. As the saying goes "He is as full of s**t as a Christmas goose."

 

[Dali]

Definitely! Whether photos of a single event, or a long period like you mentioned.

Several of us take (digital) photos of our kayak races. Some people just dump all their images online immediately. We're talking maybe a thousand or so shots with no editing/culling. I cull mine down to about 50-80 so it tells the story and captures the key participants. Mine always get more views simply because I've edited a little.

I had this debate with a wedding photographer recently. He told me he gives people over a thousand photos, and anything less than 1,000 is ripping people off!

How annoyed would you be if you paid thousands and you get given over 1000 photos!

1000 pictures for a wedding, really???