Up To 50% Off Regatta Clothing + An Extra 10% Discount With Code: MSSEXTRA10

Why do photos of women get more "clicks"?


kingseany 17 84
3 Apr 2004 8:49AM
Is it me or do portrait shots of women posted on this site get more clicks (ok, hearts), regardless of whether the image is actually that great or not?
digicammad 17 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
3 Apr 2004 9:03AM
I think it depends on what kind of photo it is Sean. I've noticed that pretty much any photo of a pretty girl gets clicks and often plenty of complements, even though it may not be very good. I think it may be the page 3 syndrome.

Ian
kingseany 17 84
3 Apr 2004 9:07AM
So are people just saying "I like this pretty girl", rather than "I like this photo??"....come on people, own up.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
3 Apr 2004 9:18AM
Pretty and preferably semi naked, will always get clicks, regardless of quality in many cases. But then the same goes (not the nakedness, obviously) for puppies, children, sunsets...the list goes on.
Timecatcher 17 120 Canada
3 Apr 2004 9:27AM
I guess that if a picture evoks any kind of emotion (smile,laughter,shivers,excitement and so on) then the authour succeeded and that's why women,puppies, children, sunset etc.. get more clicks. That dosen't mean thay are award winner but people click them just because of that instant feeling it's giving them...Well that's my explanation, hope it's a good one
Pat
peterkent 18 117
3 Apr 2004 9:45AM
I have recently posted three pictures of women: a naked one, a head and shoulders one and one of legs and feet. The naked one has five clicks to date, the head and shoulders has 14 clicks and the feet have 17 clicks and an Editor's choice. What does this say?
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
3 Apr 2004 10:19AM
But Peter, in this case, the head and shoulders is clearly a far superior shot to the naked one, and would appeal to the portrait clan, the editors choice shows imagination and being an Ec would generate extra clicks.
Carabosse 18 41.5k 270 England
3 Apr 2004 12:02PM
To answer Kinseany's question more directly: it's because there is a predominance of males amongst the membership of ePz.

It is indeed the Page 3 syndrome. Let's not kid ourselves!! Wink
kingseany 17 84
3 Apr 2004 12:56PM
If you are indeed right Mr C, then it means the whole point of hearts are pointless. Some more meaningful system of a photographs merits should be developed.
Carabosse 18 41.5k 270 England
3 Apr 2004 1:25PM
No just ignore the hearts on pics of females if it bothers you! Or divide by two or something! Lol!! :o)
digicammad 17 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
3 Apr 2004 1:33PM
Agree with Carabosse, as long as you understand the type of picture you are viewing you can get a true picture of what the hearts mean. Pretty girls, babies and cute dogs - divide by 2. Action shots - multiply by 2.

A heart is, after all, only an indication that the photograph has stirred positive emotions in someone.

Ian
LAF 18 1.7k
3 Apr 2004 2:40PM
Page 3 syndrome? Probably. I do occasionally find that my line between "Christ that's a good photo" and "Christ she's atractive" do get, shall we say, blury. I am guilty. But then again if you show me a half decent shot of an interesting reptile or amphibian I'll probably comment and will click if I like it, regardless that I may look straight over subjects that may be technically much better but don't grab me. Perhaps we need 2 systems of clicks, one for talent in production, and another for final aesthetic of image?
3 Apr 2004 3:56PM
Female butting in here! I would follow the theory of Page 3 syndrome with the one major exception of Gosia. I consider the quality of her portfolio so stunning that a lot of her hearts are coming from both male and females whereas other, shall we say, lesser pics, may be clicked only by you lot!
miracleman 17 121
3 Apr 2004 5:20PM
Like LAF says, it's not always clear-cut whether people like a picture because of its technical & artistic merrit or because it shows an attractive model. Plenty of pictures have both of these in their favour, but i agree that pics of cute subjects (be they women or animals or whatever) seem to get a disproportionate amount of praise, and yes i may well have been guilty of that sometimes myself.
It is easy for any semi-competent photographer to take an aesthetically pleasing picture of a beautiful woman, & plenty of such pictures have found their way onto the covers of photography magazines, even when they have had negligible artistic or technical merrit. You could argue that choosing pleasing subject matter is a skill in itself, but photographing pretty women does seem like a lazy way (albeit one with obvious attractions) of getting people to like your work.
Carabosse 18 41.5k 270 England
3 Apr 2004 6:08PM
Some subjects are so photogenic they are bound to appeal to a large number of members.

Doesn't matter whether it's a cute person or a cute dog !

:o)

Actually the same applies to some photogenic landscapes. This is where comments as well as clicks are useful. It will be great when Will adds the proposed one-step 'click and comment' button.

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.