My favorite images that no one else likes

L

L David Tomei

Well-known
Local time
4:18 PM
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
363
I know I can't be alone here. All of us presumably have photos of which we are pleased and really like them for some reason, only to find that we are in the distinct minority. No matter how many people fail to find an image of much interest, or when they even find specific reasons why they don't like them, there are those images that remain among my favorites. I was thinking about putting together a gallery of favorite images that no one else likes, have been given little or no attention, or low scores. ...or am I alone on this one?
 
Oh yes, I have some photos that no one else likes or doesn't like as much. A lot of them. I always figured that others had something similar.
 
You´re not alone. I have several I am quite happy with, but they generate little or no interest. I think posting on internet galleries has something to do with it. Some pictures give nice icons, and some don´t, regardless of their inherent quality. If the icon doesn´t catch the viewer´s eye, the picture will go unnoticed.
 
I was referring to mine but misery loves company, you know. I thought something constructive could be achieved by looking at the other side of the question of what are our best photographs. There are a couple among those in my albums that I really like but they're duds. Oh well...

I guess I'm trying to figure out what I am trying to do when I make an image with a camera, and a philosophy forum seemed the best place to start. After all, I spent most of my career photographing cells through microscopes.
 
Last edited:
There have been people I liked for one reason or another that most didn't.

There are foods I like that most in the USA don't; kimchi and nuoc mam come to mind.

I have photos that don't attract much attention that I like a lot. Many times I have to admit, that is because of some emotional attachment I have to the photo, such as the first time I pushed Tri-X to 1600 in a dark market, or (to me) an anamorphic tree I stumbled across after spending a day in a museum of modern art.

There are people I dislike very much that others rave about, same with food and some of my photos.

Such is life. Sometimes I understand, other times I don't. I agree with you it happens, but I try not to stress over it. :p
 
What's interesting to me are the images that I don't much care for but that everyone else is passionate about!
 
This is the misunderstood artist syndrome, you feel people really don't get it or they lack the eye to really appreciate your work... Unfortunately this is not a good thing, when people don't get your photos it means the photos are not emotionally connecting. People respond to their emotions, they might think a photo is good but if it does not touch them emotionally they will not ponder over it much.
 
My photography is the product of artistic genius. The fact that my work will be forgotten long before I die a complete unknown is irrelevant!
 
@ Tony, this is an interesting topic. I’ve run a pool at Flickr for “neglected” photographs that are inherenly overlooked or underappreciated. It’s here

http://www.flickr.com/groups/neglected_photographs/

I see images added to the pool regularly from some exceptional photographers. Anyone here at RFF with a flickr account, feel free to contribute. Please read the criteria prior to posting. No pets, no parties with friends, no ‘travel shots of your hotel room or boat’ … you get the idea. There must be some merit but the image is overlooked. The pool is moderated to ensure the guidelines and the contributions match
 
Last edited:
GSNfan said:
This is the misunderstood artist syndrome, you feel people really don't get it or they lack the eye to really appreciate your work... Unfortunately this is not a good thing, when people don't get your photos it means the photos are not emotionally connecting. People respond to their emotions, they might think a photo is good but if it does not touch them emotionally they will not ponder over it much.
Click to expand...

Or it could be that people respond most to calendar photos, cliches, photos of objects they like (cars, women, babies, dogs, etc - whatever) and not to more difficult photos with stranger subject matter. Go to any museum which shows Photography and listen to people ... you'll find people there who don't get many images by the "masters." For Ex: Many people (even in the art community) did not understand William Eggleston's work in the early 70s. However, it has stood the test of time and many people love it now.

I think it's not always the misunderstood artist syndrome.
 
I'm not trying to please anyone but me. I'm not an artist, I like to take pictures. I'm certainly not trying to 'touch anyone emotionally', f@ck that. I like what I like, I couldn't care less if anyone misunderstands them.
 
Last edited:
jsrockit said:
Or it could be that people respond most to calendar photos, cliches, photos of objects they like (cars, women, babies, dogs, etc - whatever) and not to more difficult photos with stranger subject matter. Go to any museum which shows Photography and listen to people ... you'll find people there who don't get many images by the "masters." For Ex: Many people (even in the art community) did not understand William Eggleston's work in the early 70s. However, it has stood the test of time and many people love it now.

I think it's not always the misunderstood artist syndrome.
Click to expand...

Eggleston's work was considered art by director of MOMA then as to be worthy of an exhibit there, one can hardly say that made Eggleston a sole admirer of his own work.

A misunderstood artist is someone who's the the only 'true admirer' of his/her own work.
 
GSNfan said:
A misunderstood artist is someone who's the the only 'true admirer' of his/her own work.
Click to expand...

True, but you were kind of saying that about the OP and that's not what the OP is saying about his work. He's not saying he's the only one that appreciates his work, but that the images he likes most are not the ones others like most. My point is that this happens to most people, not only misunderstood artists.
 
There are some, though not many, real advantages to growing older with a camera in your hand... Excuse me, but what was the question again?
 
I would like to throw this suggestion out: When you critique your work or other's work, force yourself to not use the word "like." It is a general term that means something different for everyone. When I used to be forced to talk about my work in school, my instructor wouldn't allow me to say "I like the light in this one..." or simply "I like this subject." She would stop me mid-sentance, make me back up and be more specific.

In the context of the OPs comments, maybe something like "images that I am attached to because of my memory or making them do not seem to attract the immediate attention of viewers on the internet" is less general? This sort of clarifies things.

To speak to the subject at hand, I would say that photography has such broad applications that it is better to judge a photograph on whether it is "successful" or not than if it is "liked." Art is neither successful or unsuccessful, primarily because it is acedemic and the reasons for it to be judged way way or the other can be completely indpendant of the work itself - ala Duchamp's toilet. Furthermore, even "success" can't be quantified in sales when it comes to art. That's merely a measure of commerical success within art - or perhaps the skill of photgrapher at marketing, or bullsh*tting :)

To say "I don't care what people think of my work" is simply to opt out of the discussion.

If a photojournalist gets a story on the cover of the local paper, the images are successful by defination - they fulfilled their purpose. If a portrait shooter completes a commission and the customer is happy - success. In this way I think it becomes easier to quantify why some images appeal to one group of viewers and not another. It really becomes irrelevant if people "like" or "get" your work if you are "just shooting for you."
 
jan normandale said:
@ Tony, this is an interesting topic. I’ve run a pool at Flickr for “neglected” photographs that are inherenly overlooked or underappreciated. It’s here

http://www.flickr.com/groups/neglected_photographs/

I see images added to the pool regularly from some exceptional photographers. Anyone here at RFF with a flickr account, feel free to contribute. Please read the criteria prior to posting. No pets, no parties with friends, no ‘travel shots of your hotel room or boat’ … you get the idea. There must be some merit but the image is overlooked. The pool is moderated to ensure the guidelines and the contributions match
Click to expand...

I have a flickr account and just joined the group. Its a great idea, groups like these are the type where you can find some really nice work... I'll add an image or 2....
 
Last edited:
Eggleston is the classic example of the misunderstood artist. It only took 1 person of importance that was the director of the MOMA at the time to say this is important work and this artist should be taken seriously. There was outrage many critics thought the work was crap. It took a very long time for people to "get" the work...these days there are way more images than ever before people want "get" it right away otherwise next....it sucks because a lot of good art takes time to make and equal if not more time to "get".....
 
It's also a matter of finding your audience.
I post images on a variety of photo sites. I'm always amused by the images that get no reaction on one site, yet draw tons of reaction on another.
Available light, documentary, street photos, abstract images with lots of out-of-focus area tend to play quite well here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom