Why has this photo attracted so many views?

I think this is a great shot, surreal with a visual force of gravity that draws one in—a clinical tunnel of bricks with beyond the white glowing light of futuristic science fiction movies.

Sometimes a photo is panned as being just of a brick wall or a fence post. But a photo is not just what the subject is, but how it is seen, and how this seeing interacts with the viewer of the photo.
 
I bet this photo would make a kick-butt kaleidoscope. :D

Go figure with flickr crowd, most awesome photographs (by others) in my favorite list has zero-comments. Goes to show my taste, I suppose.
 
Perhaps there’s a more practical explanation.
Is it possible that the photograph is being sighted as an example/reference for discussion among tradesmen?
 
The photograph has heavy or weighty converging lines (bricks) that lead the viewer to look at something that the photographer thought was very important. The viewer is intrigued to know what is at the end of the converging line of bricks.
 
I think a lot of valid aspects were mentioned above.

But, there's also the 'increasing momentum' of the number of views. The more a picture is clicked, the sooner Flickr features it again, since it wants to attract viewers. So, I predict the shot will have an ever increasing number of views.

There's a shot on RFF's gallery (B&W, tiled roofs, electricity pole with wires attached to it kinda-shot) that has had a ridiculous number of views as well. As a result, it gets shown in the overhead featured gallery shots more often, thus gets clicked more often, etc, etc.
 
I agree with most of what's been said above, but a couple more things:

Yes, radial compositions are compelling, but unlike some other composition strategies, it's just as compelling in a thumbnail. This one in particular is even stronger as a Flickr-style square thumbnail than as a rectangle.

People love 3D effect. Especially for things like wallpaper.

I'm not a regular Flickr user, but when I do go, half the time it's to scope out lenses I'm interested in. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and I'm sure shots looking down brick alleys are popular with lens shoppers.

Finally, I'm convinced people troll Flickr to poach images for goofy (and not so goofy) composites. This one would be an excellent candidate for a background--flat, even light, extreme depth with an empty foreground. One could paste just about anything in the foreground and make it look convincing, even something animated.
 
lens test, anyone?

lens test, anyone?

teo said:
Simple. The 90% of gearheads just shoot "walls of shame" to test their gear. You found the Holy Grail if distortion and sharpenss tester :D
Click to expand...

Amen, Brother, it's truly the Holy Grail of amateur lens testers. Awhile ago I followed a thread on another forum about lens tests as to whether they proved anything. After much debate, a poster nailed it when he pointed out that there were a few third party lens, notably from Vivitar and Tokina that have cult following for their remarkable images in spite of lack luster "technical reviews". The proof is in the pudding and a lens's pudding is a real world image that grabs the viewer by the seat of the pants and knocks their socks off. And I am guilty of "testing" my lenses on all manner of subjects instead of just going out and shoot a roll for fun.

As far as the picture goes, it is probably has something to do with the thumbnail, as mentioned by others. I often look at an image because its thumb nail makes me curious. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
As soon as I saw it, it reminded me of HCB's image of an alley in Manhattan (1947): link

(I wasn't sure if it was cool to imbed the image here or not)
 
convergence - it's very strong. and the various symmetries. it's pleasing to the "ordering" eye, i think. good case for how much our species seeks the pleasure of ordered space.

i've noticed the opposite which supports the preference for order and simplicity idea. pics that have multiple subjects, a wider than normal perspective, apparent disarray seem not to generate interest. i ask myself whether my eye goes first to the portrait or simple abstract study OR to the winogrand-like street scene. much more like to "grab" the portrait or abstract image.

Of course, mauro scacco's street pics grab my eye with a vengeance. his work tames complex scenes in such a pleasing way.
 
Last edited:
The brick paving is so well done and so unnecessary and so few lanes go down across and up with all bricks. It suggests the durable and skilled work of bustling 16thC Europe, vibrant and welcoming, but it is instead the New World, austere and empty. And most of what was said above.
 
mackigator said:
I wonder why they didn't just concrete the alleyway? Seems like a waste of brick.
Click to expand...
I think it adds some real character to what might be otherwise lackluster architecture (at least based on what little of the buildings I see in this picture). It's also the main element in the photograph to my eye, since it's not all that common.

One thing I reluctantly agree with is that the computer screen is less kind to less-dynamic pictures than this. It seems a photo has to punch you in the nose to get attention out here, especially if you first come across it as a thumbnail. Drives me a bit nuts at times, but that's how it is, which is entirely different from something in-print.


- Barrett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom