Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Real people V Photographers


ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
12 Jul 2012 9:26PM
I shove quite a lot of shots on facebook these days - mainly for free the marketing potential - and have been posting the ones that seem popular on there to the EPZ gallery.

Interestingly, there doesn't really seem to be a correlation between the 2...

In fact, it's often the polar opposite.... shots that get lots of likes on FaceAche bomb on here, and vice versa

So the discussion point...


Why do "real people" and "photographers" see photos differently?

What factors come into play?

Do photographers suffer from image fatigue - craving something they've never seen before?

Who would you prefer your work to appeal to - real people or photographers? (and don't say both, or neither - you'd just want to please yourself - binary answer, tog/not-tog Wink )

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

12 Jul 2012 9:45PM
Hi Ade,

I don't do facebook, so my answer must be "tog"Smile

Tim
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
12 Jul 2012 9:47PM
and to the other 3 "more interesting" points Wink....
glennk68 4 10
12 Jul 2012 9:55PM
I have found the same thing, I think the shots that work on facebook do so because they appeal to the people in them or they were at that particular event. These are the people I want to appeal to anyway as they are the people that ultimately will pay for shots when I get to that level.

Sure its rewarding to see a giant image you have taken hanging on a wall, but for me I'd rather see them in magazine print form all around the world.

Pure bred dog breeders can become known as 'breeding snobs' and think a similar term may apply to a lot photography enthusiast.
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
12 Jul 2012 10:11PM
The classic case was a calendar I made for Xmas presents in about 2007...

All the shots were really popular with togs, dark brooding skies, lots of colour and contrast... all great foregrounds, you know the kinda thing...

My mate's mum said "they're all a bit dark and miserable aren't they.....? "

she doens't mince her words lol

But she's a real person.... not a tog
12 Jul 2012 10:13PM
Very deep and meaningful Ade, you been drinking again??........mines a pint of what your on!



Why do "real people" and "photographers" see photos differently?[b]

real people see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear (especially applies to wives!.......) {JOKE!}. As photographers,i think we look for the imperfections that have snuck up on us in the past, and / or, look for potential future pitfalls.

Does that perfect image ever come along?..........yes it does, followed by some orrible sod that will piss on your bonfire and shoot it down!

[b]What factors come into play?[b]

Subject and Style, and as photography is so subjective as well as personal, i think you will never acheive the equilibrium that you seek.

[b]Do photographers suffer from image fatigue - craving something they've never seen before?[b]

Yes definitely - and absolutely to the 2 questions above. Capturing or producing the image that anyone has never seen before probably would explain the ongoing desire.

[b]Who would you prefer your work to appeal to - real people or photographers?


ME. my images are to please me, or they wont even see the light of day. The only exception to this rule is the 'Paying Customer' who then takes priority over me, and my views very suddenly, become very unimportant.

hope this helps to fill that deep meaningful hole. :O)

I'll just have another for the road!!

Jack
12 Jul 2012 10:15PM
ahh ok, the bold bit hasnt worked as intended......never mind too much to drink!!

cheers ade! bottoms up and all that!
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
12 Jul 2012 10:20PM
hic....

got the last question wrong though Wink
petebfrance 2 1.3k United Kingdom
12 Jul 2012 10:31PM
An interesting subject. As a 'not a real photographer' I see the difference here on Epz so often - what 'you guys' like and what we the uneducated (and I think it is a question of 'education' in 'what is good and what isn't' in photography) like sometimes differs quite a lot.

I also belong to an art group, which of course does include some photographers. A nice example was that we were sharing photos of Autumn. There were lots of nice shots of Autumn colours, trees of course. But trees, whole trees, different trees and so on with dead leaves on the ground. Our real photographer contributed a photo of a single leaf - well, er - I'm sure 'you guys' would appreciate it, and although I did too I have to admit that I preferred the nice pictures of trees with (colourful) dead leaves on the ground. A very different 'paradigm,' perhaps?

Another parallel is the art stuff. Artists recognise 'styles' - gosh, there's a bit of Picasso, Art Deco (my personal favourite) etc. in this picture. However, looking at it from a layman's point of view (I started painting 'late in life') it looks just a bit odd. Sometimes it will appeal, sometimes it's just, 'well these arty types are a bit bonkers, aren't they?' Think Thomas Kinkade and how popular.......

The interesting thing to me is that there is common ground in magazine / advertising photos. Why?

oh, and I didn't answer the questions. Sorry Sad
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
12 Jul 2012 11:57PM
interesting - so the ability to intellectualise is one thing that separates us. I guess the normal people follow they "like what they see" philosophy, whereas togs can break things down further...

reference points too - yeah, I guess we can all recognise Dragen processing when we see one

but that's peripheral in many respects to "why" non togs and togs see things differently...

The "fatigue" point is one major factor - most togs see lots of pictures, day in, day out... so unless they see something "different", they may well be bored/underwhelmed by it. Maybe to the extent that perfectly decent images are just overlooked because they don't have the required "novelty factor".

Is novelty more important than the image, to togs?
janeez e2
6 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
13 Jul 2012 1:09AM
Very interesting point Ade.

Firstly I want my images to be liked by real people as some of them will be buying them and the rest will like them because it pleases and appeals to them.
Secondly but not so importantly I want my images to be liked by photographers. and I do think you have hit the nail on the head when you say image fatigue. We see so many images day in, day out that it can be difficult to see the beauty in a very simple image when we have all become mesmerised by the over dramatised HDRs and stylised, comic style portraits.

I do wonder what the next fashionable genre will be. Wink
monstersnowman 9 1.7k 1 England
13 Jul 2012 4:47AM
I took what I thought was one of my most sympathetically representative, moving and subtle portraits of a child. I carefully positioned his gaze, feet, arms etc in positions that were signifiers of character and mood etc and carefully considered his character and his own background. I controlled the light and spent a lot if time and was very proud of what I thought was one of my best ever portraits. I then showed the image to the child's mother with no mention of price. She glanced for a second then handed it back to me with little regard or appreciation and said "he looks a bit miserable". I felt this was a perfect representation, and shortly after his low spirit and fragility was perhaps somewhat legitimised when he was fiund to have childhood leukaemia. Maybe as she was your ordinary parasoll fodder she just wanted a cloud backdrop and a cheesy smile. It just shows the gaping chasm between what I may see as good and joe public.
losbarbados 5 236 United Kingdom
13 Jul 2012 7:43AM
I have a feeling that on facebook people are looking at what is "right" in a picture, where as here people are looking at what is "wrong"

When you post a picture here, you are asking for people to look at it technically, if you didn't want that then you would get yourself into one of those click cliques that attention seekers need to thrive.

As for who do you aim to please, I'm my own biggest critic, and if I'm happy with a picture it's good enough. I don't much care for other peoples opinions as to whether something is nice or not, however when I post a picture here I value the advice that is available to make a picture better. But then I don't rely on photography to make a living so if you don't "like" the picture then it doesn't really matter too much.

I know I have missed the point of the question, but I think the subject isn't just black and white - you can't discount the please them self photographers because there are a lot of us out there. MOTP just want shiny, an HDR image would go down great. Photographers want technical, everything needs to be in the right place for a picture to work. Us hobby photographers, we just want someone occasionally to say they like our work.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
13 Jul 2012 9:07AM

Quote:I'm sure 'you guys' would appreciate it, and although I did too I have to admit that I preferred the nice pictures of trees with (colourful) dead leaves on the ground.

I remember reading a wine article by Oz Clarke describing a tasting session where a group of them had before them a sumptuous bottle of red wine and they pontificated at length about the subtlety, the nose, and all those other qualities a good bottle can bring. Once it was finished and they had calmed down one of the group, wihtout embarassment or irony, called out 'how about a bottle of Aussie Shiraz'?
His point being that what we like to concentrate on and what we like to do in everyday life can be very, very different but equally enjoyable. So I don't htink the question is 'pleasing photographers or public' but more along the lines of which aesthetic do you want to please/fulfill?'.


Quote:I then showed the image to the child's mother with no mention of price. She glanced for a second then handed it back to me with little regard or appreciation and said "he looks a bit miserable".

I've lost count of the number of times I have read threads where a wedding photographer has chosen his set of excellent images for the album only to hvae the customer ask why it does not include the blurry picture of Auntie Alice who they have not seen for 20 years.
Yes, photographers can get up their own backsides at times.
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
13 Jul 2012 9:59AM
politician syndrome....

can't answer a yes/no question Wink

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.