Take a second look at your Gallery

[raid]

I have increased the number of photos in my gallery to a point where I can get some feedback on the photos, simply by comparing the number of views for the photos. This number tells me how many RFF members decided to take a look at a photo.While it may not directly reflect the quality of the image, it can give me some idea about the image with respect to first perception by viewers with respect to:

1. is this image interesting or not
2. is this a good image or not

After letting the gallery alone for a while, I then went back today and sorted the images by the number of views. I was interested in the two extremes; the images getting most views and the images getting the least number of views.

The reasons for some of the images getting the least views can be given as:
1. The images are of poor quality
2. The scans are of poor quality
and maybe other factors that I cannot identify right now.

What can I learn from such low "rankings", if we may call it that way ?

I took a few of those images and I looked at them for some time. I asked myself the question: "why didn't the gallery visitors see it worthwhile taking a look at this image"?

I noted that some images were in color, so I changed them to B&W to look for the effect on gallery visitors. Almost always will a B&W converted low rank image get more views after the conversion.

What does this mean?

Do RFF members prefer B&W images over color images in general, or did the images actually become "better"somehow?


I believe that it is a good learning experience to go through our images in the gallery and take a second a third look at each image.


The number of views is just an indicator or a sensor of the situation surrounding an image.


Raid

 

[popstar]

Question Raid - Did you take into consideration how long a photo had been posted in the gallery to the number of views it has? A recently posted photo will likely have less views than an old classic. Just wondering if you factored that into your overall conclusions with regard to your photos and theory that number of views equals quality photo (or lack thereof).

Interesting observations regardless. Thanks for sharing.

 

[vodid]

Some images look interesting as small thumbnails, perhaps not so good at full size, but by then, it's been clicked on and that is what you are using as your yardstick. I also find myself clicking on images that I cannot identify or understand, just so I can see the larger version. Just some thoughts about using number of times viewed as a yardstick.

 

[OldNick]

Raid, I sorted my images as you suggested, and found that the time they have been in my gallery has a large bearing in the number of views. However, the image with the most views is significant for only two reasons: a) It is a very sharp image and b) It arouses one's curiosity. It is the image of aircraft nosewheel lights in my gallery.

Jim N.

 

[raid]

Question Raid - Did you take into consideration how long a photo had been posted in the gallery to the number of views it has? A recently posted photo will likely have less views than an old classic. Just wondering if you factored that into your overall conclusions with regard to your photos and theory that number of views equals quality photo (or lack thereof).

Interesting observations regardless. Thanks for sharing.

Steve: I take into account the lenght of time an image has been posted.I am fully aware that the number of views is just an indicator that someone has seen the image, but I take it [with a grain of salt] also as an indicator of the level of interest.

Raid

 

[raid]

Raid, I sorted my images as you suggested, and found that the time they have been in my gallery has a large bearing in the number of views. However, the image with the most views is significant for only two reasons: a) It is a very sharp image and b) It arouses one's curiosity. It is the image of aircraft nosewheel lights in my gallery.

Jim N.

Jim: Of course, the longer a good image has been posted, the more views you will encounter, but after some time, some imgaes will have low numbers and some high numbers. As you have pointed out an image ofyours that has been viewedmost is also in your view very sharp and curiosity arousing.

Raid

 

[egpj]

Raid, I sorted my images as you suggested, and found that the time they have been in my gallery has a large bearing in the number of views. However, the image with the most views is significant for only two reasons: a) It is a very sharp image and b) It arouses one's curiosity. It is the image of aircraft nosewheel lights in my gallery.

Jim N.

I for one liked almost all the images in your gallery. I'm real big on images of airplanes anyway. I have a special place in my heart for the old Lear's and you have the tail seection from one in your gallery. Like the King Air B200 as well (although all you have of that is the nose wheel taxi lights). Nice gallery.

 

[raid]

Some images look interesting as small thumbnails, perhaps not so good at full size, but by then, it's been clicked on and that is what you are using as your yardstick. I also find myself clicking on images that I cannot identify or understand, just so I can see the larger version. Just some thoughts about using number of times viewed as a yardstick.

vodid/harold: Your point is well taken, but when applying my "rule of thumb" [no pun intended here] to many images, the factor of a misleading thumbnail may have less significance. Today, I took a few color images with lowest numbers of views and I reposted them as B&W images. Just in a few hours, these images have acumulated more views than they had the past weeks/months.

Raid

 

[raid]

Has anyone else taken a look at his/her gallery this way?

Raid

 

[reagan]

I rather lean toward buying into the "Curious about the Thumbnail" slant... I mean, if the thumbnail shot doesn't attract attention, it won't be clicked on - period. And I realize that some clicks come because "...everyone else is looking at it, sooo..."

But still, no image is seen without first seeing and choosing the thumbnail. And this is unfortunate because thumbnails reflect a very small part of the photos' qualities. So the number of hits/no hits a photo has is largely due to the first-impression interesting/not-interesting thumbnail.
Qualities like detail, tone, color and composition can hardly be made out with the thumbnail. LOTS of great shots go unnoticed because the "leeedle shot" looked ho-hum.

Yes, B&W thumbnails seem to get more attention here, for some reason, even from me. I guess it's the love of the "old film look," but honestly whether a shot is B&W or color is about the only distinction one can make out from a thumbnail. Sure can't tell if it's an interesting shot or not until... you clicky-click on the thumbnail. And the click isn't an approval or disapproval, it's just a "click of curiosity."

just a thought...

 

[raid]

I compared photos [color to B&W converte] and the number of views are higher for the B&W shots. It could very well be true that thumbshots are the decisive factors here.

Raid

 

[jan normandale]

Raid, your observation regarding the propensity to 'view' BW shots here at RFF was similarly noticed by me early on at RFF. I think it's a factor in views and comments also.

Regarding looking at my comments. Since the gallery doesn't have a view/comment notification for the member gallery I seldom go back to check. I have gone through my gallery a few times and even commented in a thread here about removing shots from my gallery. This was an attempt at keeping about 200 or less shots in a gallery. I think I should be able to tell my story in no more than 200 images.

Feedback is probably best in RayPA's salons. There are a few active 'viewer/commentators' here at RFF so these salons are a great.

 

[mc_vancouver]

In your lead post you wrote:

...Do RFF members prefer B&W images over color images in general, or did the images actually become "better"somehow?

Raid

I'd have to say that I do choose to look at black and white images over colour images, and I can't really put my finger on why that is. I associate monochrome with rangefinders, that's one thing, and it is ridiculous, of course, an historical association with the famous photographers we all know and love (or not). But there's a deeper issue here for me, too. Colour has become so ubiquitous online and in all commercial images, that black and white is, by comparison, more interesting or attractive because it abstracts the subject to shadows, tone, line, the subject itself. Of course one can achieve this with judicious use of colour, too.

I have been restricting myself to black and white in my own work for some while now, but only in my rangefinder photography. When I had a larger format camera and an SLR, I shot colour transparency; when I borrow my wife's digital camera, I shoot colour. I think I also like "knowing" a film, and thinking more about the interplay of light rather than light + colour, that keeps me monochrome.

 

[OldNick]

I for one liked almost all the images in your gallery. I'm real big on images of airplanes anyway. I have a special place in my heart for the old Lear's and you have the tail seection from one in your gallery. Like the King Air B200 as well (although all you have of that is the nose wheel taxi lights). Nice gallery.

Glenn, thanks for looking and for the kind words.

Jim N.