Slow burn

[Dave Semmens]

I was just reading a thread about how some images have immediate impact and others are slow burners, they take several return viewings to fully appreciate what is on offer (and for you to realise you like them)

This got me thinking about how often I return to view specific images - I normally don't!

We have many thousands of images going up daily on Flickr, 500px, here and various other sites. We also have the means to capture 1000s of very similar images and upload them in (almost) the blink of an eye.

Does this mean that now a photo HAS to have that instant grab factor (so you will "like" it) or do slow burners still have a place?

Dave.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The trouble with photo-sharing sites is the temptation to post stuff which fits the accepted tropes of those sites in order to get 'liked' or favourited or to make 'explore' (whatever that is ), as nobody like to have their pictures ignored. This leads to a homogeneity images, so they don't stand revisiting.

I return to photos (mostly in books) on a regular basis, and have been doing for over thirty years. Good pictures always stand revisiting.

 

[Quicksnapper]

That's a very good question, because, like you, I rarely return to other peoples images after a first viewing. The very few images which are my all time faves are in an album on my iPad and I set it to scroll through them from time to time, but, obviously, these are just my own stuff, not other peoples. Mostly, I'll keep my stuff for a while, come back to it few times and decide over time whether a particular image has any worth, so in that respect, some of them are slow burners.

To me, though, this begs a bigger question. Which is ... If all we do with our pics once captured is look at them briefly once, then why bother in the first place? Or, at least, why bother saving them for posterity? If they're not worth a second look, then what worth are they?

I ought to add before retreating behind the nearest parapet for safety, I love the process of capturing images and occasionally create ones which are of merit (to me at least) which is justification enough for taking them in the first place and for continuing to pursue photographic perfection. However, I'm getting more and more into the habit of sending the unworthy (ie, most of my efforts!) into digital oblivion after a reasonable number of reviews, rather than having them clog up my hard drive forever.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Does this mean that now a photo HAS to have that instant grab factor (so you will "like" it) or do slow burners still have a place?

Dave.

Why are people obsessed with others "liking" their images?

You've answered your own question. The "slow burners" you refer to are making you think.. they're usually the good images. The "Wow" images are just quick fixes for eye candy junkies.. ten a penny on Flickr.

 

[Dave Semmens]

Why are people obsessed with others "liking" their images?

If 95% of people didn't care about others "liking" what they have created then Facebook would not be the biggest thing on the planet.

Even though I don't often revisit photos I think I can spot the best ones (in my eyes) - they are the photos I show to my wife as I browse. If she takes more than a passing interest then the photo must have something about it.

We probably all have "slow burners" on our own flickr or 500px accounts. I know I have a few photos marked as private that I haven't quite decided on yet. They have something about them and I have to keep taking a look to decide if I should post it or delete it. I would say that over 90% of the photos I take never even make it onto Flickr and a lot less make it to a "public" status.

Dave.

 

[Pookeyhead]

If 95% of people didn't care about others "liking" what they have created then Facebook would not be the biggest thing on the planet.

The reason I put "liking" in quotes is because I'm referring to the Facebook/Flickr thing. We all want people to admire our work, but these days that is measured by "likes" on websites, and as we all know, people will click like on anything, sometimes whether they like it or not. On Flickr, people click like just so you'll go and click "like" back. No matter how terrible images are, the will always get "likes". It becomes meaningless. Much better to post it somewhere with no "like" mechanism and actually get people to talk about it.

Ever wondered what happened before the ability to "like" something became to prevalent? How did people know if their work was good or not? What about pre-internet? I think we're too reliant on "likes" as a means of judging whether work is valid or not. It's too easy... take an image... post an image.. wait for the "likes" and then get the affirmation craved for... job done... I'm a photographer.

 

[Dave Semmens]

I agree with everything you are saying. I see photos with what I would class as basic mistakes (and I have only been trying to take photos for around 6 weeks) with lots of likes and other better examples ignored.

To get the likes it would appear that you have to "play the game". If that makes people happy then all strength to them. I am not knocking it if it works for them.

I do wonder how many gems get overlooked with all the "liked" photos clogging up the streams though.