Surprise reactions to posts

[otherprof87 28]

I'm wondering how many others have been perplexed by the reaction or lack of reaction to photos posted here. Sometimes I post an image I'm really pleased with, and it gets no reaction at all, nada, zip, zilch. Not negative response; no response. Sometimes something I wanted to share because I thought it was a little interesting will draw strong reactions - positive and/or negative.

I got some valuable advice and perceptive comments about my style or technique. I frequently do treat subjects as if I were doing street photography even when it is not street photography., e.g. But almost no one responded to my question, above, which was not a request for anyone to look at one of my photos. Maybe almost no one else has been puzzled by the interest shown in some particular shots - not mine - and the lack of interest in others. If there were a "psychology of photography" section, I would have posted it there.
And so to bed . . . for me and the thread I think.

Because your screen name sounded familiar I went back and looked at your last dozen or so shots.

A lot of your pictures seem as if you don't have any really clear idea of what is the real center of interest, you just click away and that's it.

It seems that as long as you get the thing you're interested in in the frame, that'e enough. That's usually not enough.

Big Bus
Another Rainy Night in New York
You Call Those Rats? Why in New York . . .
You Call That Pizza? Why in New York . . .
Only the Stong Survive/99 Cent Store
Almost Hear it Purring/ Maserati Engine
Tulip/Abstract
Art and Craft

In general you post very small shots - and that makes it almost impossible to actually see detail. In situations where there isn't really much to say about the content, having a small picture means that technical comments aren't possible either.

Often what helps pictures succeed is some attention to detail and some willingness to correct 'mistakes' or aberrations.
You seem never to respond to any comment with a willingness to go further and perfect the image. Several times people have said that images are too small to make any real comment on and that message goes without response.
It seems like most of the time, just clicking and throwing a picture up is as far as you're willing to go.

For my sake, if it seems you feel like that, there's no reason for me to comment because it has no effect.

After getting a few comments about the files being too small, I started posting larger ones, which I thought was the appropriate response. I'm sorry you didn't notice the change. My intention was never to annoy you by posting files too small for your examination. A few times in the past I received the message that the file was too large to post. That's why I switched to small files. I guess I chose too small a size, but I wanted to be sure they would post.
When you commented that a street shot was tilted to no purpose, I thought about it, tried it the way you suggested, posted it that way and acknowledged in the post you were right. I don't see that as being unwilling to go further or improve an image. For me, the Maserati engine photo was about the exquisite complication of the whole. You didn't see it that way.
You Call Those Rats just showed an odd aspect of New York. I thought keeping the rat as just another feature of the street scene added humor. You Call That Pizza . . . was, I thought, a funny response to another poster's humorous response to the first rat post. I don't think the center of interest is hard to find.
I'm pretty sure there is no need for a thread devoted to "Otherprof" and I certainly never wanted to start one. If you have any thoughts about the general question I asked, I'd be interested in reading them. Otherwise let's go back posting photos and looking at them, commenting on them or ignoring them, and keeping the photographs, not the photographers, the point of interest.

 

[The_Traveler]

There are two possible reasons you got a message that the picture was too large. The actual dimension in pixels was so large that the file size was in megapixels or
the dimensions in pixels was down around 1200 x 800 but the 'quality' was so high that the fielsize in bytes was too great.

If you keep the aspect ratio to max 1100 x 900 and the compression to 50% then the eventual filesize is realitvely small.
There is no need for a quality (1/compression) more than 50%, it just isn't visible on screens.

70 KB

394 kb

 

[The_Traveler]

You Call Those Rats just showed an odd aspect of New York. I thought keeping the rat as just another feature of the street scene added humor. You Call That Pizza . . . was, I thought, a funny response to another poster's humorous response to the first rat post. I don't think the center of interest is hard to find.

If you are expecting people to look for a center of interest, your pictures will fall flat because not every picture will have a big inflatable rat to attract people's eyes. The entire idea of street photography is for you to see something of interest and present in such a way that people aren't wandering around. Frame, expose and edit around the center of interest.

 

[jcdeboever]

You Call Those Rats just showed an odd aspect of New York. I thought keeping the rat as just another feature of the street scene added humor. You Call That Pizza . . . was, I thought, a funny response to another poster's humorous response to the first rat post. I don't think the center of interest is hard to find.

If you are expecting people to look for a center of interest, your pictures will fall flat because not every picture will have a big inflatable rat to attract people's eyes. The entire idea of street photography is for you to see something of interest and present in such a way that people aren't wandering around. Frame, expose and edit around the center of interest.

Horse is dead Lew...

 

[pixmedic]

 

[otherprof87 28]

There are two possible reasons you got a message that the picture was too large. The actual dimension in pixels was so large that the file size was in megapixels or
the dimensions in pixels was down around 1200 x 800 but the 'quality' was so high that the fielsize in bytes was too great.

If you keep the aspect ratio to max 1100 x 900 and the compression to 50% then the eventual filesize is realitvely small.
There is no need for a quality (1/compression) more than 50%, it just isn't visible on screens.

70 KB

View attachment 126472

394 kb

View attachment 126473

Thanks for the info.

 

[TheLibrarian]

It's easier to tell people whats wrong than to say that's an ok acceptable photo with no mistakes and maybe nothing unique either. It may even be nice but its a tree and a sunset. What is there to say about it.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

I just chalk the silence up to people being nice and not saying anything bad. I try and look at different topics but my main interest is wildlife and outdoor shots. Unless the photos are really inspiring in the topics I am not as interested in, I usually don't comment because I just don't feel I am qualified to give advice or praise.