I just noticed a really interesting photo/topic over on 500px yesterday. The photo there, made it up to #1 on the site yesterday. My initial thought was WOW! Looks kinda like an illustration but still cool. Then I clicked on it and still thought it was cool, but could see some obvious Photoshop work. No sweat, I’m cool with that. Then I did what nobody should do – I started looking at some of the comments. A few people were upset that there was clear photo manipulation going on here, which by itself is no new argument. I even posted it to my Facebook page yesterday, and because I wrote the post poorly, all of the comments went straight to editing ethics and post processing. And many people were tired of that argument. I agree. It is a tired argument, and I didn’t mean for it to go in that direction so I wanted to re-post this today. In fact, I don’t even want to go there. Obviously, me having some experience in Photoshop and Lightroom, you know what side of the fence I land on. And if you’ve made your way here to my site, the chances are you fall on that side of the fence too so that argument is pointless. We know photographers use Photoshop, and we know they sometimes use Photoshop to dramatically change their images. I’m okay with that. My real question/thought of the day is a little different. See, the people commenting also mentioned that the editing is, well, not-so-great. I have a bit of Photoshop experience and I could definitely see some areas for improvement. But what’s all that mean? Surely the general public would pick up on some of these editing inconsistencies and not like the photo. Well, the photo made it to the #1 spot on 500px’s Popular section. Now, 500px is widely known for having some of the best of the best images, and therefore you’d think the quality of the people favorite-ing and commenting on images is fairly high. Well, just about everyone loved it with the exception of a few people. They weren’t mad because he used Photoshop (which by the way, he even keyworded his photo with “Photoshop” so he wasn’t hiding it). They were more upset that it would make it so high in the ranking with (what they considered) obvious flaws in the post-processing of the image. Me? I’m happy for him. Regardless, the small thumbnail of the image stopped me enough to click on it and look at it more – and apparently it did that for a lot of people.
The Family/Friend Test
I often think about showing off my photography in terms of what would my non-photographer family and friends think. When it comes to this photo, my guess is that if I showed this to a group of them and then showed them my portfolio, they’d pick this photo over any of my portfolio photos. What’s that tell ya? Maybe I just need to get new friends huh? 😉 Or maybe, we sometimes let our technical side get the best of us. I know I’ve been guilty of having the makings of a good photo, but not really taking it further because the light was bad, the sky was bad, maybe it wasn’t sharp enough, etc…
Here’s an example. I took a trip to Paris a few years ago. The weather sucked. It was cold and rainy and I just wasn’t feeling “it” while trying to shoot there. Let alone that it was so cold I didn’t even want to be outside, so it was really hard to be creative. When I came back and looked at my photos, I realized if I wanted to post and print photos from the trip, some big-time-Photoshop work was going to be involved. So I processed the hell out of them. HDR, tonal contrast effects, fake skies, you name it. These photos now live on the walls in my home. I also have many pristine landscapes hanging on my walls – photos that didn’t take a lot of post-processing and are pretty close to being right out of the camera. But those paris photos are hands-down flat out the favorites of anyone that walks in to my house. Interesting huh? I’m not even proud of them. I almost cringe every time some one stops and says how wonderful they are, because I know they sure didn’t start out that way 🙂
Anyway, no real question here other than me just wondering if our technical side gets in the way sometimes. Again, this is not a Photoshop-ethics debate. We already know it’s okay to use Photoshop, so I’m not worried about that. In the case of the photo above, so what if maybe the sky wasn’t selected/replaced perfectly and doesn’t match up with the rest of the photo. He created a photo that people like. If this were a client or he was entering it in to a photo contest, then things may be different. But the rest of the world doesn’t have as critical an eye as we the photographer may have. They don’t know (or care) that I HDR’d the living daylights out of my Paris photos and the skies are fake, etc… They just like the photos.
So the next time some one walks in my house and comments on how much they love my Paris photos, I’ll just smile and say thanks 🙂
BTW… I post a lot of stuff over on my public Facebook page so if you want to Like the page,here’s the link. Thanks! Have a good one!
I love teaching and photography... In that order. I feel that enjoying photography, and photo editing can get WAY too complicated. So my personal mission (and favorite thing to do), is to create education that simplifies the process of taking great photos, and how to edit them to get the results you’ve always wanted.
Normally I have a great dislike for photos with a heavy HDR look to them.
I like HDR, but as a tool to create natural looking images.
Yet sometimes photos with heavy HDR effects, for various and sometimes mysterious reasons related to beauty, really work well.
The photo above (Le Consulat) is one of those photos imo. It works.
Amen!
Maybe it is time to let go of some of those photographer mindsets and just look at some works as though it was a painting. I tend to put my mindset in to 2 categories, 1 obviously as a photographer, because it is my daily bread :). But on the other hand there is the wonderful world of exploring the possibilities any kind of software is offering. In the days of darkroom there was also a lot of comment on people who used to explore the boundaries Man Ray for instance. Maybe we just need to look at it with 2 perspectives and respect both ways. Just my 2 cents 😀
There is a class on Kelby 1 that shows you how to shoot in bad weather. The instructor is quite a character.
Great post Matt. Personally I’ve given up guessing what I think the public might like. I make pictures for myself as a form of enjoyment and as a means to re-live great experiences down the road.
It’s my own experience that marketing is very important on 500px and other sites. It’s a lot more important than the actual quality of a photo.
About two weeks ago I did some experiments on 500px.
I first published one of the best photos from a shoot in Venice Italy. It was quite successful but definitely most successful.
Then I published another one with typical Venice scene with gondolas in front of the San Marco’s square. For my opinion it wasn’t as good as the first one and my friends prefer the first one.
I first thought it’s the keywords that made it so successful, but later I noticed I was wrong. I then published a similar photo but a lot better for my opinion. I used the same keywords. I just published it at a bit different time of the day. It actually didn’t have much success at all.
From my opinion there are several factors that helps you to be successful or not. The quality of the product definitely isn’t the most important factor here. But the engagement with the community and social networking are definitely the most important factors here. Otherwise we wouldn’t see photos of some of the celebrity photographers always on top with lots of comments and likes even they are just a crap.
“The thing was I published the second photo just at the right time and some of the influential people noticed it and started sharing it all over the net. This is why it was so successful.”
This is 100% totally true. And 500px knows and admits it. It’s also the reason I gave up my account and don’t visit their site anymore.
Well it is true, but so what. The site gets more visitors at a certain time of day and how the site is organized when you post when the most people are looking you get seen. It’s a volume problem. Not many people make it to page 40 on Fresh so if you don’t hit Upcoming or Popular within so long of you posting you aren’t going to make it to the top. And there is nothing wrong with not making it to the top. If you consistently post good quality stuff there you will get noticed. Every so often I get notices from people liking a photo I posted there 6 moths ago. If you just want a people seeing you work post there.
If you are looking for a competition join a local camera club or join Photographic Society of America (PSA). They have tons of competitions for you to enter.
I had two photos reach popular status. One even made a small sale. I got tired of trying to time the postings. I live in the Pacific time zone which I think is the most disadvantaged for this.
I moved all my stuff over to Flickr after their redesign. I like the community feel there better. Nobody begging you to check their work out looking for votes, etc.
I am also a member of a local photo club and often submit both digital and printed copies of my photos. Thanks for replying. I’m glad 500px works for you.
I never said it worked for me. I just find 500px interesting. Out of the 3 or 4 pictures I’ve posted there 1 made the first page. It just happened to be the first one I uploaded. The good thing is there is room for all different types of photo sharing sites.
Actually when I post a picture I typically just post it to Facebook because all I really care about is what my friends and family think. I’m not looking to turn pro and need an audience.
I’m also in a local photo club. I’m only one blue ribbon away from the Kaleidoscope of Blues award which means I have won a blue ribbon in 10 of the 14 categories we have in our monthly competition. Getting comments from someone in person is a whole lot better than someone on the internet.
Great writing,Totally agree!!
Matt, I can totally see why this image made it to #1: It has a beautiful sunset, and very bright colors, plus all the buildings perched on those rocks are just amazing…it has to be on Italy’s Mediterranean coast somewhere…So, even though the sunset can just be the circular paint adjustment in Lightroom, and clearly the water was smoothed out using the Motion Blur filter sideways…the “overall” image looks great to an untrained eye! If anything, this should serve as lesson as to who is lurking around 500px…Obviously if more pro’s were giving out votes, this would have never make it to the #1.
Now, I don’t ask anyone if they like my photos in my family or anywhere else because:
1. Half of them don’t care, and won’t ever say they liked them anyway
2. Some(hubby) would give me a false answer….I can sense when someone is really genuine when they say they like what I do, and when they are BS-ing me! I create images for myself, I’ve always created images for myself…if someone saw them and liked them and they sounded genuine to me, then I was very grateful, so to me, it is more important that someone is HONEST rather than give me a 1/2 a$$ “yes we like it” kind of answer!!!
Third: this is a great example of this post here:
http://acorner.net/blog/2014/5/what-is-art
….where I tried to show the difference between a “thought out shot”, and a “snap shot”, because more than once I saw “snap shots” called “ART” and that were liked to death, and what that does is sending the wrong message to the masses who are already uneducated with the technics!
This is why I usually say it is important for camera manufacturers to stop making it sound like their equipment can stand against a human brain, because the only thing they accomplish with that is create confusion as to what makes a good photo in today’s digital landscape!
Now here’s the deal: how many people who “loved this shot” actually bought it? because in the end an image is only as good as how many prints it sells!
People just glance and say they like it. They aren’t trained judges. Their opinion is just as valid.
I also totally disagree with your last statement. I have good images that have won awards in international competition that no one has bought, because I don’t sell them. Does that mean they aren’t good. No. It means I don’t want to take the time to market them to buyers.
Photo competitions are only right grab opportunities! They create a whole stock library for those who are smart business people and know how to take advantage of the fools. It is impossible to detect a legitimate competition there days, and to track what happens to the images after the competition is over.
Have you ever read their terms and conditions? You should, it is truly amazing how they entitle themselves to your work.
I have zero need to enter these competitions where someone else makes money off my work, but me. I also have zero need to stuff my HDDs with photos that will never be displayed anywhere. I shoot stuff that I can print, and sell, otherwise I see no reason to take my camera out of the bag. (Starting with my kids pics and ending with my flowers), they all have a purpose and are displayed somewhere/somehow.
Not the photo competitions I’m talking about. PSA and your local camera club don’t steal the rights to your images.
So you take pictures to sell. I don’t. I take pictures because it’s fun and enjoyable. That doesn’t make your pictures better than mine.
See now, I feel like I’m talking to a 2 year old:
“That doesn’t make your pictures better than mine.”
“Just because” I shoot to sell, or to PRINT, (which is perfectly normal in this industry), that doesn’t mean it is not fun and enjoyable for me to take photos too! If it wasn’t fun & enjoyable I wouldn’t own a camera.
What do “your” photos be better than mine have to do with this conversation?
Not knowing something doesn’t need to turn into a playground war. You have no idea where your photos are once you submit them somewhere unless you’re sitting next to the person who deals with the image load to see if they are really being deleted after the competition. However, that’s your call; I simply stated my opinion, and what I don’t do and why.
For your information: There are a lot of crappy images that sell because their owners took the steps to get them in front of the paying masses; just walk into your closest UPS store and see for yourself. & that is just a tiny example. And yes, in photography “selling photos” is a very important part of this industry, because that is usually the purpose/end result, and it has been for a very long time. Wedding photos are sold, product photos are sold, fine art photography is sold, people sell photos at fair’s and Sunday Farmer’s Market, & so on. If you shoot for your hard drive that fine, that’s your choice, however most people who photograph want their works sold. Most people want a return on the investment of owning camera equipment. Take a look at FineArtAmerica.com Everyone who posts there wants to sell. Most are NOT professionals, but more so botanic garden visitors. Some are better than others. It would be VERY interesting to see their statistics as to what “really” sells so we “know” what type of imagery is in demand on that site! (Just for curiosity)
This is what they list as “best sellers”:
http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/all/all?sort=bestsellers
…notice not many “photos” but rather graphics, and illustrations! …………but………we have no way of knowing for sure without a sales report in our hands! On the flip side, I rather do the opposite of what the masses do, and direct my work where “I” want to see it hanging. & no, that doesn’t make “my photos better than yours”!
Most of those who post on 500px “WANT” to be seen by art buyers, just like Flickr, but if you don’t keyword properly your images will never be seen by others anyway.
One misconception plaguing us is that “now I have a camera, and all of the sudden I am going to make money with it, and quit my day job”! The other one is that “the camera does it all including the advertising/marketing part of being a photographer”. The third misconception is the one created by the “likes”…people who are not educated in art, and who don’t have an art background of any sort will “like” “everything” regardless of the artistic “value” of said imagery being “liked”. Unless you shoot products on a white/black background, there is an artistic value to be had. Photography is an art form. (& even on a white/black background you can achieve amazing artistry; just look at Swiss watches ads!) Look at Matt’s photos…you don’t see technical errors in them, and you can’t tell (unless he tells you) that something was altered. THAT is why his photos are worthy of prints, and not to sit buried on some hard drive. He knows his photos are good without needing someone telling him they’re good because he puts a LOT of thought into his images. Where the “thoughts” go doesn’t matter so long as the final image is outstanding. This 500px blunder should serve as example that it is not necessarily that our technical side is getting the best of our photography, but more so that the technical side needs to be addressed “before” posting something online and expecting thousands of “likes”! This was embarrassing for 500px actually considering that they want to be known for the best quality imagery out there! Obviously if so many “likes” are given to a bad photo, something is wrong with how imagery is being perceived these days, and “quality” stopped being sought after!
I also think we need to establish where we stand here; I come from an Artistic background, I value the “artistic impression” a photo leaves behind; I don’t “look” for technical mishaps, but if I see a photo poorly executed technically I will not click the “like button” no matter how colorful it is; however that, has become a habit, like brushing your teeth, for a lot of people who have no clue what they’re liking because they don’t have art education or photographic “know/how” behind them to distinguish good photos from the bad ones. “Saturation” sells; the untrained masses like bright colors! Most don’t stop to asses technicalities. WHICH is WHY our jobs as photographers, either amateurs or pro’s, is to create outstanding/flawless imagery so the masses are educated INDIRECTLY into what good imagery is really about. Having a passive attitude about this will only lower the overall quality of imagery being perpetuated, and it is sort of embarrassing considering the kind of equipment we benefit from these days!
I don’t find 500px’s attractive at all. Their terms and conditions of posting are just as predatory as Facebook’s and the rest of social media. Originally, I was under the impression that at least 500px was more for pro’s at least, and advanced amateurs, but obviously that’s not the case. Now that we know what made it to #1 I trust it even less. I am not using it, and I don’t visit it often either, because I usually have an idea of what I want to shoot on my own, and don’t look at other people for inspiration…I usually look at other’s works with Admiration. More on that here: http://acorner.net/blog/2014/5/inspiration-is-everywhere
Now, the other problem I noticed becoming more and more of a nuisance is photographers looking to be “liked” by other photographers! & when they’re not they turn into a bunch of 2 year olds! Why? Other photographers are not your clients/audience! Why do you want to be liked by other photographers? How many people completely unrelated to photography go to 500px to buy photos to make calendars for themselves? Why post on 500px? What is the reason for posting on 500px? and I am asking because IF one wants to be a photographer, (amateur or pro), In my option they should be busy learning about photography, all aspects not just how to pay for a camera at the store, and be out shooting, learn to post process their works, and find ways to sell/print their works depending on the genre they’re in!? Have their own site to direct visitors too etc., and basically be really busy shooting than starring at other people’s photos and waste time on websites than be out and about creating their own works. What I see is people buying a camera, shooting whatever and their mother, place no value on educating themselves, no thought onto what they’re photographing, why they’re photographing, and then post crap and expect many, many likes!? That is a ridiculous approach to being a photographer.
So to answer Matt’s question: no, it is not that the technical side is getting the best of us, is that so much technically challenged crap is being perpetuated, that it is hard to overlook it. To expect that everyone who sees a photo is clueless about photography is also insane! The reason Joe McNally is a great photographer is because he is out shooting! He educated himself already, and now he is free to create amazing works. He is not going to bite his mails in front of the computer screen looking on 500px and thinking how he can replicate that look! So, if you’re going to post something technically challenged, expect that at some point a pro will point it out. Photography is a “visual art”, you can’t hide it, and some of us pro’s care too much about it to let pure crap slide down the “likes” buttons!
Have a great day!
XO!
My new motto (not resolution) for 2014 was/is “Sell what the public likes, not what I like”. So far, I haven’t exactly figured out what the public likes. At least not enough for them to buy anything (sold 1 so far this year). I have one image that made it up to 10th or something like that on 500Px. I was impressed lol It’s not easy to even be noticed there. It fell as quickly as it rose and every now and then it still gets a like or follow or whatever it’s called. If someone makes it to #1 on 500Px I say more power to them (and what did they do to get there).
The technical details definitely get the best of me most times. Staying “true to the image” is over rated. I have a friend, that used to be the Professor of Photography at the University of Northern Arizona, and he says “an over saturated image of the Southwest will outsell a normal version every time” and I think he is right. Onward through the fog…
You’re so right! And let me know if you figure out what sells 🙂
🙂 I had a conversation with a lady during a gallery exhibit a few months ago. We were discussing my plain black frames. She thought that I needed nicer frames. I explained that the image was what was for sale and the frame was just it’s container. She told me that she bought a “picture” once just because it had a pretty frame and that the frame was as important as what was in it. I don’t know how to make a confused icon… It might be a while before I figure things out.
That all depends on the audience you are selling to.If you are selling prints on the Las Vegas Strip you better have Vegas pictures and desert landscaping pictures. Those same pictures won’t sell if you are selling them in Tampa.
To sell, you have to do a lot of homework, and test various areas…to sell, you have to choose one area of photography, and purchase statistics. They cost money, but they do give you insight into what actually sells.
To sell, you have to advertise, no advertising, no sales, this is no different than if you wanted to sell burgers.
People buy cameras, rely on their capabilities, they don’t even learn how to use these cameras, then post online and expect that their images are God gift to humanity! That is a horrible approach, and those who refuse to take the appropriate from educating themselves into photography, to educating themselves into what it is to be a business owner, or a successful sales person will fail. Having good photos means nothing unless you know how and where to advertise them to make sales. Remember: “everyone is not your client”, you have to target the clients you want to have and one email will not do, one Facebook post will not do, there is a LOT of verbiage used to make a sale, and it has to be used properly. Thee is really no skipping the learning curve, and the practice, and perseverance if this is really what you want to do.
I’ve been in 5 gallery shows in the last year, including 2 galleries for Photofest (page 132 in the 2014 Biennial catalog). It’s a lot of work and expense. There were plenty of people complimenting the images but only one writing a check. I’ve got a line on another gallery. Hopefully that will pan out.
I don’t sell in the internet. I tried that years ago and it was a dismal failure even before the stock agencies started giving away images.
I’m in it for the long haul. The worst that could happen is i could end up owning a lot of expensive images. Thankfully I like the photographer.
Great bit of writing, Matt — we are always our harshest critics. (Well, until we submit for a juried show or the like.)
Great post Matt! I think I sometimes go too far the other way! I think I often miss great shots because I don’t see the potential that a little editing could bring out.
Well said. I quite often see the technical flaws in my own photos, but it’s usually after I have made them public.