What makes him so good?

[photoboy2005]

Well, all I can say is his stuff is in focus

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

It's hard to miss focus at infinity

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

inb4 a Nikon D7000 owner chimes in.

D7000 have focusing problems?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

I was being cute, making fun of myself. I call my camera "Shaky"

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[photoboy2005]

I was being cute, making fun of myself. I call my camera "Shaky"

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You know, they make these things called tripods. They are really handy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[elementgs]

I'm not trying to tick anyone off here but isn't this the audience that you would want to impress most? It seems to me that they should be the target market and are more likely to purchase your/his stuff.

This, right here, is what I'm accepting as the truth. It's why I posted his work in the first place.

I've been kicking this question around for a while now. Do we really need to impress each other, and follow the "rules", or do we simply need to produce art and make an audience that we favor happy?

He's got the editor tag on 500px and has a huge following. I don't know what else more I would want. That's it. I want to know that my photography is making a difference somewhere, to someone.

I'm just confused at all of this because I've spent the past 4 years working towards producing photos with the end goal of making the shots absolutely flawless only to see this **** appear on all the #1 lists. I mean, look at the views he has for his work on 500px.... 40,000 views.

I personally *don't* like his work. I'm not saying it's bad, I just don't like it.

I see it as quick and sloppy. Most of them look like they are scanned photos taken with a polaroid camera. To me, there is no appeal at all. The way I see it is I have 35,000 reject photos that look better than most of his work at the same locations and yet he's the one winning the awards...

It's so confusing to me how someone goes from where I am, to where he is. How did he amass such a huge following?

So frustrating and confusing.

 

[Derrel]

WHY (in the Hell!?!?) is Selena Gomez a signed recording artist? WHY was Demi Lovato even allowed on the same stage as Alanis Morisette at the AMA's? WHY is Dancing With The Stars ending a 21-year run? WHY is Kraft Individually Wrapped Singles the number-one selling cheese "product" in the USA, by unit sales? WHY was McDonald's the #1 fast food restaurant for so many years? WHY was Coca~Cola the most-valuable world-wide brand for so, so many years?

 

[jcdeboever]

Why do the Lions continue to sell out every game when they never have won anything in my lifetime?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[tecboy]

Olivia Bee is making a lot of money, but I don't like her photographs.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I'm not trying to tick anyone off here but isn't this the audience that you would want to impress most? It seems to me that they should be the target market and are more likely to purchase your/his stuff.

This, right here, is what I'm accepting as the truth. It's why I posted his work in the first place.

I've been kicking this question around for a while now. Do we really need to impress each other, and follow the "rules", or do we simply need to produce art and make an audience that we favor happy?

He's got the editor tag on 500px and has a huge following. I don't know what else more I would want. That's it. I want to know that my photography is making a difference somewhere, to someone.

I'm just confused at all of this because I've spent the past 4 years working towards producing photos with the end goal of making the shots absolutely flawless only to see this **** appear on all the #1 lists. I mean, look at the views he has for his work on 500px.... 40,000 views.

I personally *don't* like his work. I'm not saying it's bad, I just don't like it.

I see it as quick and sloppy. Most of them look like they are scanned photos taken with a polaroid camera. To me, there is no appeal at all. The way I see it is I have 35,000 reject photos that look better than most of his work at the same locations and yet he's the one winning the awards...

It's so confusing to me how someone goes from where I am, to where he is. How did he amass such a huge following?

So frustrating and confusing.

What's more important to you, producing work you're happy with, or trying to make images that will inspire random strangers to click a button on a website?
If what you want is a "huge following" be ready to dedicate some serious time to social media. It's not about the quality of your work, it's about your level of engagement. You need to be willing to put in the time to follow, like and comment on other people as if you were getting paid to do it. It's a lot of work, just to be "popular" online. I routinely encounter guys who use "bots" to troll websites liking and following just about everyone. Just in the hopes that those people will come to their site and like/follow their work.

I know of a couple of world class commercial shooters whose work is amazing. Guys getting paid serious money to create ad images for high end luxury companies. Meanwhile they were unable to get any traction whatsoever in social media. Why? Because they didn't have the time to dedicate to it. They were too busy making real money with their images. Where do you want to commit your time?

 

[PixelRabbit]

I have put a lot of thought into time investment and payoff when it comes to sites like 500px. What it comes down to on any of those sites is consistent work in a style that is pleasing and relentless, effective, self promotion in the right places (what flies on 500px is not necessarily the same as what flies on 1x or Viewbug or....). You can't put up a picture here and there and expect the masses to come to you, it just simply won't happen, you need a large group of followers that will like/fav your image right to the top of the list without relying on anyone new to get you there. This is no easy feat, you have to be active and like other people's stuff for a long time, trade likes, promote your work elsewhere, engage your audience and build that base of followers, it is not so much about the work you present as it is about how you sell yourself and what amount of work you want to put into it.
Ultimately it all depends on your goals, if your goal is to sell your work those sites aren't really your audience, they are full of other photographers for the most part, as Ron said, they aren't going to buy your stuff. I participated on a few sites, 500px included for quite a while until I realized how much time I was spending with little to no payoff other than a whole bunch of likes. It is a big time investment so be sure what you get out of it is worth what you have to put in.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I paid for my new car with likes I got on 500px

 

[Scatterbrained]

I paid for my new car with likes I got on 500px

Was it a Likkity Split convertible?

 

[tecboy]

Looks like he is pro-photographer. Bryan Daugherty | Portland Lifestyle & Commercial Photographer

 

[Scatterbrained]

Looks like he is pro-photographer. Bryan Daugherty | Portland Lifestyle & Commercial Photographer

The question is, was he a pro first who got big on social media, or did he get big on social media and the companies followed (paying social media stars for product placement is quite common these days)?

 

[tecboy]

Looks like he is pro-photographer. Bryan Daugherty | Portland Lifestyle & Commercial Photographer

The question is, was he a pro first who got big on social media, or did he get big on social media and the companies followed (paying social media stars for product placement is quite common these days)?

I don't get your point.

It is like comparing canon/Nikon vs. Sony/Pentax. You think photographs are not that great, but only attract certain amount of viewers to appreciate. For example, Olivia Bee's photos looks like a bunch of cell phone pictures, however, her photos must have appealed many teenagers. When you get certain crowd to like your photos, nobody cares how good you are. Beside, my photography teacher uses Sony, and she stood by it.

 

[Peeb]

Philosophical question: would you rather have wildly popular but technically flawed photos that you don't love, OR technically brilliant photos that true artists love but the general public doesn't 'get'.

Me? I'd love both.

Or either.