No one likes my flash photography

[AggieBecky]

I'm noticing a trend..... When I post natural light pictures of my girls on FB, I get tons of likes and comments. But when I post pictures I've taken with my speedlight setup, my pictures get absolutely ignored. In my eyes, they are spot on with my natural light pictures..... just everyday pics of my girls. In her PJs, just hanging out. But if this had been done with natural light, I know I would have gotten many more likes/comments. So, some one tell me why no one likes my flash photography? Thanks!

 

[snerd]

Because they (the viewers) have no class? The first one is gorgeous! I should be so good as to get flash shots like that!

 

[Msteelio91]

First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence. Second, people tend to prefer softer light on skin.

 

[Light Guru]

The lighting in these photos just does not match the subject.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Cool story bro

 

[TWright33]

First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence.

This is great advice.

I have to teach myself to ignore FB if a picture isn't popular on there.

99% of the people on my friends list couldn't tell the difference between their a-hole and an aperture.

 

[Scatterbrained]

First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence.

...................................

99% of the people on my friends list couldn't tell the difference between their a-hole and an aperture.

Technically your @$$hole is an aperture.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I'm noticing a trend..... When I post natural light pictures of my girls on FB, I get tons of likes and comments. But when I post pictures I've taken with my speedlight setup, my pictures get absolutely ignored. In my eyes, they are spot on with my natural light pictures..... just everyday pics of my girls. In her PJs, just hanging out. But if this had been done with natural light, I know I would have gotten many more likes/comments. So, some one tell me why no one likes my flash photography? Thanks!

View attachment 75860

View attachment 75861

I'd have to agree with Light Guru here, the lighting isn't complimentary to the subject.

 

[bribrius]

harsh narrow light, black backdrop. Little girl.

don't really work for me.

 

[TWright33]

First I'd say facebook is a terrible gauge of photographic competence.

...................................

99% of the people on my friends list couldn't tell the difference between their a-hole and an aperture.

Technically your @$$hole is an aperture.

:blushing:

That technically just blew my mind. Never thought about my a-hole in such a way.

 

[pixmedic]

first, consider two things.
1) where do you usually shoot in natural light, and where do you shoot with a flash?
2) what sort of people on facebook are doing the "critiquing"? what level of photography experience do they have?

is your FB list filled with people that have kids of their own and could relate more to pictures of kids in parks or doing "kid" stuff?
do they have any idea whatsoever about "flash" photography? Do they even know when flash is being used?
I know people that get 50 "likes" from terrible cell phone shots just because it is a photo of their kid doing something cute. or their pet. actual picture quality, focus, or lighting is irrelevant to most FB people.

 

[TWright33]

harsh narrow light, black backdrop. Little girl.

don't really work for me.

Soft light, white sheet, big girl?

Saturday night, 7:00 pm.

Be there.

 

[Derrel]

I'm noticing a trend..... When I post natural light pictures of my girls on FB, I get tons of likes and comments. But when I post pictures I've taken with my speedlight setup, my pictures get absolutely ignored. In my eyes, they are spot on with my natural light pictures..... just everyday pics of my girls. In her PJs, just hanging out. But if this had been done with natural light, I know I would have gotten many more likes/comments. So, some one tell me why no one likes my flash photography? Thanks!

View attachment 75860

View attachment 75861

A fascinating observation you've made. I am not sure about your friends and their ages or backgrounds, but to me, my own personal theory goes like this: The above two shots have a very "theatrical" and "1950's Popular Photography" type of style and look to them. That type of dark-background, crisp lighting effect was VERY popular for 20+ years in the early to mid part of the 20th Century, soooo you're offering Marx Brothers movies, and I Love Lucy, and Milton Berle to an audience that expects Adam Sandler movies, The Big Bang Theory, and Jimmy Fallon.

Over the last 10 years, the web, Facebook, Instagram, and so on have, as a whole, all managed to create a new, fairly homogeneous culture of lighting that favors soft-light, low-ratio, softbox/octabox monotony. Your photos are using an older, classic type of flash lighting that is very different from what many people today tend to identify as "good lighting". The pervasiveness of nearly identical softbox/octabox/umbrella how-to videos, and the prevalence of available light only picture-taking has changed what many people will give a "Like" to these days.

 

[KmH]

In summary - One light doesn't cut it these days, which is why pro photographers do portrait shots with 5 or more lights - main, fill, hair, accent (kicker), rim, background.

 

[snerd]

I do agree about the Instagram-look that is so popular today. Man, I just hate hate hate it!! But it seems to be the standard for so many in the online world.