I'm Very Confused

[Murray Bloom]

Something very interesting and confusing has happened since I opened my new website last week.

The site has 133 images on it, of which 18 are either people, representations of people (sculptures, mannequins), or abstractions that resemble people. Now, I'm not a people photographer. My subjects almost invariably come from the inanimate world, as that's where my interest lies. Frankly, I think I do my best work there, too.

So imagine my shock when I discovered that initially, and continuing on, far and away the most viewed images come from those 18 'people' shots. It's hard to believe, but at present, of the 16 most viewed images, 14 are from that small 'people' group; and they represent 32% of all photo views on the site, while comprising only 14% of the images. Put another way, there are are 115 pretty good pictures that, relatively speaking, are being more or less ignored. This amazes me!

Since Forum members are responsible for a healthy share of the numbers, I figured I'd go right to the source. Does anyone have a clue as to why this is happening?

 

[Battou]

After taking a quick look at your site I am going to say that when browsing the main page there "People" is one word where one knows what they are going to get before clicking. It's a bit of human tendancy of looking first at something knowing what to expect at it's clearest.

Don't get me wrong, the titles are descriptive to a point but they are not as narrow as the word people.

That is just my two cents anyways.

 

[King Mango]

Well I went straight to the trains. And I gave you your first stumble too. :thumbup:

 

[tirediron]

I suspect also because 'people' as a species are very difficult to photograph well. A photographer's 'people' shots tell (in my mind) a lot about his skills as a photographer in general.

 

[Alex_B]

I suspect also because 'people' as a species are very difficult to photograph well. A photographer's 'people' shots tell (in my mind) a lot about his skills as a photographer in general.

Well, this is true and not true.

- Architectural photography is very hard to do properly.

- So is landscape photography (yes, everyone does landscape snaps, but most of them do not really match the great masters)

- Abstract photography is also not easy, it tells a lot about the photographer to look at his abstracts.

- and so on ...

 

[Iron Flatline]

People will always be the most interesting subject. With no disrespect intended, inanimate things like objects, architecture or landscape will always be dead without a human connection... and that is usually another human.

It doesn't matter how technical a skill a good landscape shot might be... on average, a shot with people is more interesting to more people.

 

[Emerana]

Your people shots are really fantastic, thats why

 

[Emerana]

Actually all your work is fantastic, but there is something about people. Its just more interesting to me.

 

[notelliot]

similarly, but not really.. i've been getting a lot of emails from graphic designers wanting to overhaul my website. i agree that it's not really that professional, but i'm not sure what to think of it.

that said, most people like my shots of inanimate stuff more than my people stuff. just the way it goes. i see it as a need to improve my portraiture, it's not that dynamic.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

I think it's that thumbnail you chose - reminds me of Dorothea Lange

 

[mrodgers]

I'm here to burst the bubble.

I only clicked on "People" because of this thread. And after going to "People", from the thumbnails, "Nicole" was the only one that interested me. That's a very nice shot of "Nicole".

I immediately upon entering the site, when to "Cars and Trucks". I haven't viewed any of the photos as I'm on limited lunch time at work. But now I will be checking out the photos when I'm home later this evening.

Cars and Trucks, Railroad, Landscapes, and Building Elements would be the first ones that I clicked on. I may have made it to People, I'm not sure. I'm not that into people shots.