There's no accounting for taste...

[TNcasual]

I think that it is wonderful the variety of images that are taken and shared. I see this both on this forum and on Flickr (where I store and browse on occasion.)

I see images that I would have never thought of taking myself, but others do so and get great results. That makes me realize that my taste in what I like and why I shoot may very well be unique. And that's okay!

Sometimes, I am surprised what others seem to like. I will see images, here or on Flickr, that I may not really like. But others will respond glowingly. I even have some images that puzzle me.

Take this one:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I like this image, but I don't think that it is anything outstanding. I didn't include it as the best for the month it was taken. But on Flickr it has risen as one of my most "Popular."

Then I have this image:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I really love this image. I list it as one of my favorites. But it has never got much response.

But that is okay. Everyone is different, everyone has their own unique eye.

It makes the forum, and photography so much fun!

 

[Hypilein]

I've had similar experiences loading up pictures to 500px. Some of my favourites barely got noticed, while others that I thought were quite good but not my absolute favourites received a lot more attention.

Agree that this is always quite interesting.

 

[siftu]

There is no rhyme or reason to what becomes popular. I found in the end you just have to take pictures to please yourself and forget about the popularity of the photo. No one is going to like a picture of my kids the way I do over say a good landscape which has wider appeal.

 

[TNcasual]

Of course, I shoot for myself. It is just so darn interesting to see what everyone else is shooting, and how they compare/contrast.

 

[yendikeno]

There is no rhyme or reason to what becomes popular. I found in the end you just have to take pictures to please yourself and forget about the popularity of the photo. No one is going to like a picture of my kids the way I do over say a good landscape which has wider appeal.

^^ This

 

[PakkyT]

The problem with Flickr these days is that people now use the "favorite" button more as a "I was here" or "like" button than actually saying your photo is one of their favorites.

I don't favorite many shots on Flickr because when I do I am treating these as my actual all time favorites that occasionally I will pull up again to look at them again. First off because I really did (at the time) loved them, but also curious if over time the images hold up as a favorite to me. But on the flip side I will post a series of shots to a Flickr group that is heavily used and people will come along and favorite every single one of them. Again, not because they actually like the photos but sort of "I was here, now go look at my stuff". I think it sort of cheapens the whole "favorite" thing. Years ago I was thrilled if anyone favorites one of my shots as people seemed more selective then. Now, getting fav'd usually has nothing to do with your actual photo.

 

[dixeyk]

I always find it interesting what images get reactions on 500px. Sometimes its really a shock to me that images I think came out really well get no reaction and ones I am rather ambivalent about become really popular.

 

[gnarlydog australia]

The problem with Flickr these days is that people now use the "favorite" button more as a "I was here" or "like" button than actually saying your photo is one of their favorites.

I think you have thank FarceBook for that
I can predict which image of mine will be popular but those are not my favorite images or the ones I am proud of.
If I was after "favorites" score I could include my images in hundred of groups, as some do, but why? am I so desperate for validation from total strangers?

Ultimately I can work out the artistic taste in a person from what they regard as they favorites.
The "simple" taste in some of them is easy to understand but I often have trouble working out what captures the attention of more complex personalities and discerning artistic taste.
For me an image that really speaks is one that has a story that is told without words; those are images that stay with me.
Then there are other ones that simply have artistic appeal and are pleasant to watch but often don't stir an emotion in me. Those are just eye candy

 

[Aushiker]

If I was after "favorites" score I could include my images in hundred of groups, as some do, but why? am I so desperate for validation from total strangers?

As one who enjoys posting in groups and interacting in them and hence favouriting others photos as much to encourage and as well as record my pleasure with the photo, your comment is nothing like my experience nor what I observe of others photography. From what I have seen, particular in popular groups (explore related groups being the exception) such as bird and flower groups is that I see great photos (at least to me) without any favourites at all or only a very few.

Groups however in my limited experience allow me to connect with like minded photographers (e.g., ship spotters) so my ship photos may still get a reasonable response more for the content rather than any artistic merit. This also applies to my decision to favourite or not.

I know personally, that my most popular photos are popular because of the reactions of my followers, long before they get to a group and groups very rarely seem to add much in the way of the favourites ranking.

What I do find curious is often a photo will be popular at say 500px but not on Flickr nor here or vice versa.

Also of course I never understand, like the OP why some of my photos which I don't think are great get "love" and what I think is a great one gets ignored.

 

[Aushiker]

Take this one:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I like this image, but I don't think that it is anything outstanding. I didn't include it as the best for the month it was taken. But on Flickr it has risen as one of my most "Popular."

Then I have this image:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I really love this image. I list it as one of my favorites. But it has never got much response.

For what it is worth I think the first one is far more appealing than the second one

 

[NCV]

I have posted a lot on the weekly photo thread at DPR and I am often surprised too that pictures I like go almost uncommented and other sets that for me are just run of the mill get lots of enthusiasm.

I also see good work from others that gets little response and other stuff that I do not like get lots of positive replies.

Then there are other pictures that I like and get a good response. Then I know I have perhaps a winner like this one.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The River Po near Dosolo, Mantua, Italy. GX1 +100-300

 

[jamespetts]

Have you looked at the "sources"? Certain pictures get lots of views because the keywords make them turn up in popular searches.

This photograph of mine:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Plants by James Petts, on Flickr

has had far more views on Flickr recently than other, much more interesting pictures despite being not particularly interesting (as demonstrated by the absence of any favourites) because it shows up in a search for "plant" or "plants", whereas most pictures that actually are of plants, I suspect, do not use this keyword, but rather use the more specific name of a particular plant.

Incidentally, I also prefer the majesty of the first photograph in the original post: it is quite beautiful, with the mist in the trees, the delicate layers and the gentle curve of the landscape downwards. The second picture is less to my taste.

 

[Harvey Melvin Richards]

I rarely post photos on DPR, I find they look like crap there unless you are willing to click and re-click to see them. I also hate how everything is replied and re-quoted time and time again.

I recently PP'd a photo for a thread here. I had overlooked the photo because I didn't like the perspective. It's been one of my most liked on Flickr.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

M1020880-1 by -Harvey Richards-


One thing I don't understand on Flickr (actually one of many things) is when you make a photo public, when does the public see it? I have public photos that have 0 views. It probably doesn't help that I do use the mostly useless Flickr app.

 

[StefanKruse]

Sometimes I think my own perception of my own images is 'tainted' by stuff that other people don't care about e.g. Technical issues, exposure, noise, shooting conditions etc. I know that I don't care about those when I evaluate other people's work, then I only care whether the picture speaks to me, but my own pictures come with a lot of bagage and I sometime struggle to see them just as pictures that speak to me... I am working on that.

 

[Steven]

I find that people, including non-photographer people, do respond to artistic photos that tug at the heartstrings. It was surprising to me at first. I guess there's a bit of an artist inside each one of us.

 

[Aushiker]

One thing I don't understand on Flickr (actually one of many things) is when you make a photo public, when does the public see it? I have public photos that have 0 views. It probably doesn't help that I do use the mostly useless Flickr app.

This may be completely wrong or outdated but my understanding is that Flickr limits the number of photos you upload in one single batch that will be shown in your follows activity feed. So if you uploaded more than five photos when you uploaded the photo with zero views, it may have not made your follows activity feed.

I know that I sometimes do not see some of your photos that appear here but don't make my "people" feed where you should show up.

 

[MexicoMik]

A photo is no different than a painting or a sculpture...it either appeals to someone or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with technical or "artistic" intent by the "artist." IOW, when I see a painting/photo, if it "grabs" me than I would say "I like it." If it doesn't grab me, than it goes essentially unnoticed. Naturally, what grabs ME, may go unnoticed by someone else. I will say that nowadays, most pics don't "grab" me at all simply because it's all been done. IOW, to use a recent example, we were in Africa for 3 weeks and I shot a ton of pics (almost literally, over 2000). BUT, none of them are anything that hasn't been photographed/seen countless times over the last 100 years. Sure, they are meaningful TO ME because I was there taking the pic. But, for example, are any of my pics of a cheetah doing what a cheetah does any "better" than the other countless pics we have all seen of cheetahs doing what cheetahs do? Same question re landscapes/sunsets, etc. The answer, of course, is no. National Geographic does (has done) it better.

Obviously, pics we have taken "involve" us personally in memories of a particular trip/situation/event. But that has nothing to do with a photo that "grabs." For example again, on our Africa trip, our favorite photos include pics of the safari vehicle stuck when it slid of the road into a ditch. Certainly nothing "grabby" about the pics, but they generate more "fun" in looking back on the trip than all the animal shots, "artsy" or otherwise.

 

[QualityBuiltIn]

There really is no accounting for taste in any artistic field.

Here's the 5 most expensive (a proxy for 'greatest?) photos ever. None of which I'd want on my wall.
The 5 Most Expensive Photos Ever Sold: Scam or Smart Marketing?

Personally I can't get over the popularity of Sam Smith - to listen to him actually hurts my head.

I like both of your images.

Cheers

 

[jyc860923]

don't we all experience that all the time? although I find the first photo more appealing, it is the second photo that makes you more of a different photographer, makes you progress so much so one day people will see the beauty in it through your work, not just anybody else's

 

[DHart]

The value of art is, indeed, entirely in the view of the individual.