Like reading a book, watching a movie, or listening to music, when people look at your photos, you probably want them to spend time and appreciate them. In a world where people constantly scroll and instantly forget your photos, are there ways you can have your photos noticed? Let's find out.
Popular Versus High-Brow Photography
Photography has something in common with fiction that many photographers don’t consider. Authors aim their work at a particular audience. They may be writing popular fiction, gripping yarns that captivate a multitude of readers. Alternatively, the author may consider their work to be high-brow and consequently appeal to a smaller audience.
The same applies to photography. For those of us for whom photography is our employment or at least a serious hobby, we choose who we want our audience to be. We can make pictures for mass appeal or concentrate on producing images for a narrower audience.
Of course, just like those authors who publish work of different types, sometimes under nom-de-plumes, those two approaches are not mutually exclusive. You might produce easy-to-like landscapes but prefer shooting abstracts that are less appreciated.
There’s no judgment here about which is better. Every type of photograph is valid. Nevertheless, there is a degree of snobbery by some writers of high-brow fiction when they refer unkindly to popular fiction, and the same happens in the photography world.
High-brow literature does challenge readers with intricate language, layered meanings, and deep insights into the human condition. However, when writing successful popular fiction, keeping tens or hundreds of thousands of people captivated and wanting to read more takes immense skill.
The same can be said of high-brow and popular photography. The former may contain multiple meanings that might be inaccessible to some viewers. This can be problematic for the photographer who may meet criticism from viewers who don’t understand the photograph. Many have received harsh comments online from usually unskilled photographers who lack sufficient insight to grasp the image’s meaning.
One often reads that these uninformed criticisms can negatively impact artists more than the dozens of positive comments that more educated and appreciative people make. Sadly, the online world attracts plenty of untalented people who spend their time ill-informed distributing derision instead of improving their skills. Fortunately, there is much more awareness about this now and a realization that the ignoramuses behind such comments are just making up for their lack of ability.
I recently read an old article in Rolling Stone Magazine that wrote about Paul McCartney laughing when critics had said The Beatles had dried up. They were about to release the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album, and he knew the reverse was happening. They were having what he called a “huge explosion of creative forces.” One of the most influential albums of all time was about to be released. Photographers should dismiss laptop critics with the same indifference.
Like popular fiction, producing photos that have mass appeal is equally difficult to achieve. Especially as so many people take photographs now; there will be somewhere in the region of 1,400,000,000,000 photos shot this year. However, persevering, ignoring the naysayers, and working towards making your images more compelling is still the best way to make them popular.
Whether you want your photos to have mass or limited high-brow appeal, there are certain things you can do to achieve your goal of getting your photos seen.
Love Photography
Don’t just love your pictures but love every aspect of photography. Appreciate everyone’s work, whether it is to your taste or not. The photography world is relatively small and if you network positively with other photographers, you will get noticed. Your enthusiasm will shine through.
If you love photography, you will wallow in all the information available. Read up about it, watch documentaries, look at other people’s pictures, and try deciphering what they say with their images.
If you want to pick holes in a photo because the photographer didn’t shoot it the way you did, unless asked, keep it to yourself. Why? There’s a good chance you are showing that you cannot understand what the photographer was saying. Consequently, you are probably seen as stupid as well as rude for giving an uninvited critique. For the same reason, if people make uninvited negative comments about your work, ignore them.
Shoot Projects.
I'm not a fan of cliches. However, there is truth in the saying that a set of photographs on a theme says far more than a photograph on its own.
You don’t need to continue that theme forever; your next project could be a completely different genre altogether. Projects can also overlap. Maybe you are shooting mountain landscapes for your project, but you can photograph seascapes too.
Do Research
Don’t just shoot the subject; find out about it too. As part of my journey into ornithological photography (ornithography, perhaps), I try not only to photograph my subjects but learn, through observation and reading, about the birds.
For example, the birds that illustrate this article are turnstones (Arenaria interpres). I have dozens of photos of them. They are small but voracious waders, what we in the UK call shorebirds. They migrate here in the winter. Then, the breeding adults will migrate thousands of miles to the Arctic in the summer to nest, with only a few younger birds remaining. So I have photos of their summer and winter plumage.
They are braver than many waders, and I’ll often see them scuttling around our harbor, even when it’s busy with human activity, because they can scavenge discarded food. So, some of my photographs will illustrate that too.
The turnstone is a flocking bird, flying quickly in fast-turning groups low over the water. When feeding on the shoreline, they are sometimes in the company of other waders such as dunlin, redshank, oystercatchers, curlew, knot, and sanderling.
They get their name from turning over stones to find food. However, they will eat anything and can be seen pecking at the carcass of a dead seal or porpoise washed up on the beach.
Whenever I head out to photograph them, I discover something new to add to my knowledge. It may be a small change in their plumage or a telltale sign they are about to fly.
That’s just a summary and not everything I learned about turnstones. But it gives you an idea of what you can learn about any subject that helps you to get better shots. When shooting landscapes, I try to find out as much as possible about the place, often revisiting a scene to capture it at a different time of day, or a different season to explore how it works with different lighting.
You might find that one project leads to another, sometimes through a happy accident. Many photographers take shots in ways that were not their first intention and discard those images, but it’s worth saving them and seeing if there is anything you could learn from that mishap and apply it to your future work.
There's Always More to Learn
I roll my eyes when I read people claiming superiority because they have been photographing for 50 or more years. There is always more to learn about photography. Moreover, some of the best photographers I know are half my age and I happily learn from them. Don’t just stick to reading or watching YouTube videos; speak to other photographers of every age and ask their opinions on different aspects of photography.
Put Your Work Out There
If you want to be noticed, you must find ways for people to see your work. There’s nothing wrong with sharing your work on social media; most professional photographers have an Instagram account. However, that format type has its limitations. People will soon scroll past your post and your photos will be forgotten a few seconds later.
If you have the time, and as a busy photographer that is something I struggle with, it’s worth finding the means of displaying your images elsewhere on the internet that attracts a more discerning viewer. This can be on your website, on a third-party host such as Flickr, 500px, or even in the Fstoppers gallery. If you can, enter your work into an exhibition, or lay on one for yourself and your fellow photographers and artists. Or, create a photo book and donate a copy to your local library.
In Conclusion
The big takeaway here is that getting noticed requires hard work. It isn’t handed to you on a plate, and there is no shortcut. You need enthusiasm, love photography, keep learning, be positive about others' work, and put time and effort into getting noticed. Grab any opportunities that pass your way.
Are you frustrated that your work doesn’t get noticed? Are you tired of people scrolling past your images on Instagram? Do you get annoyed that your favorite photos are less popular than the ones you like the best? Have you been frustrated by asinine critiques of your work? It will be great to hear your comments.
I personally found most important the decision what I want to specialise in and spending all my time and money on just that and nothing else. As most ppl has limited budget it will allow one for easier way to become great and not just good as most of your time and finances are not spent across broad areas of photography, but just one area and the only one. Yet if you do so, you are more than likely going to develop that "artistic signature" and ppl going to recognise your work
I agree with that to some extent. Specializing and investing in one genre is important, but it can be time to move on to something new. Don McCullin is a high-profile example. Known for his journalism in conflict, he is now a first-class landscape photographer.
For some of us, finding a special niche is easy. For others it is quite difficult.
Why?
Well, for example, I am obsessed with wildlife. It is my love of wild animals that compels me to photograph them. I actually do not have a deep love for photography - if I could not photograph wildlife I would probably not do any photography at all. I know people who are the same way, where it is the subject matter that fuels their photography, whether it be car racing, football, birds, gorgeous women, snakes, trains, etc. It is their love for a particular thing that makes them photograph that thing, and not a love of photography itself. For us, specializing comes naturally.
For those who love photography itself, where it is the love of image-making that comes before the love of any particular subject matter, I can see where it would be very hard to narrow things down to a very tight niche. And I don't think that these folks should try to narrow things down so much. For them, enjoyment and fulfillment and learning can come from shooting a broad range of subject matter.
Tom you are absolutely right. But if we aren't limiting ourselves to narrow things down it in most cases will be narrowed time wise and financially. Less is more. Imagine that you have love for cars and instead of buying one expensive car, you decided to get 5 cheap ones. It is everyones decision, buy our time is limited. Everyone has a deep love for something... Photography should be the way how to "record" it in its most amazing way. You don't need to play instrument to love music and you don't need to be chef to love good food... I think that biggest issue ppl has with photography is patience.... They want to know everything in a month...
Yet there is two sides of the coin.
Photography as an art and photography as an craft
I found the author's article a good reminder for checking my attitudes towards other people's work and my own attitudes toward photography. I have often criticized other's work, in my head as being too simple but now I have found myself simplifying my compositions understanding how less can be more. Monochrome photography has become important to me but I used to think color was better. I look back at images I created several years ago and find some of the ones I thought were my best as mediocre by current standards. Social Media can be very discouraging but I have come to understand it. I try now to produce photographs that I like and when I do, I find they are appreciated better by the photographers that I respect and that is satisfying to me,
"If you want to pick holes in a photo because the photographer didn’t shoot it the way you did, unless asked, keep it to yourself. Why? ..." I agree, but I also post under a pseudoname, so very low chance anything I say would come back to me.
I really dislike any sort of criticism about people’s approach to photography because it’s not the way the person criticising does it. We are all individuals and there’s no right or wrong way, just finding a way that suits our own individual approach. I’ve been criticised for sharing my approach to how I like to shoot, including preferring a manual lens and this to me says more about the criticiser than it does about my approach, or my gear choices.
I agree 100% with everything you've said. But what happens next? Those people who criticize aren't going away. If one rude person quits the community, another one will join to take their place. And as Ivor pointed out below, those who negatively comment tend to outnumber those who write positively.
I suspect we either quit the community, ignore the critics, or develop our own methods for dealing with criticism. The first two are easy; it's the last option which interests me. Otherwise, why am I here? Maybe we can reply to criticism in a manner which opens the door to learning by both parties to the discussion. I realize that it can sometimes be a case of banging one's head against a brick wall, but other times people could be a lot smarter and have more to offer than they might initially appear.
I've found that many political arguments are so polarized that it might seem like we have absolutely nothing in common, but in reality we are often more alike than different. Might that be relevant here as well?
Max, I disregard the validity of comments from those who hide behind false personas. So, although it gives you a (false) sense of security, it devalues your comments. Interestingly, there was a troll on Twitter (as it was then) using a false ID who was constantly defaming a journalist. The journalist set a PI on it and found out who it was. The troll ended up paying a six-figure sum in damages. So, although you might think you are hidden behind a mask, it's easy to find out who people are.
Sam, I absolutely agree.
Edward, I think there's mileage in those who post positively challenging the negativity, as the people here do. I've seen it happening more and more. Those making the uninvited criticisms think their comments will be read and believed, but when challenged it shows them it is not the case. Furthermore, those reading the replies will see the comment for what it is, often just a piece of nastiness.
Ivor, I really don't care whether you value my comments or not, and especially so if my choice of username is the reason. And anyway, how would you even suspect if my username (or anyone else's) is not real unless I (or the user) told you? Do you really think any significant number of names people post under on the internet are real? What era are you from anyway? And why would you automatically assume anyone who posts under a pseudonym is a troll? That's not a very sophisticated view. I do it only because I value privacy (e.g. if I choose to post political commentary, i don't have to worry that some nutjob is going to show up on my doorstep or that I'm now going to be canceled because someone doesn’t like my opinion). Also, since it's so easy ("it's easy to find out who people are"), why don't you go ahead and show me and post my real name?
Given that you wrote my name using a Russian spelling, and all your comments are negative bile aimed at undermining this American site, I think any of the readers will have a pretty shrewd idea of who you are.
Oh, so I'm a Russian now? You would seem to be the better example of a true "Russian." You are the one spewing negative bile, apparently unable to tolerate even a slightly different opinion - like a true fascist unacquainted with the first amendment to the US Constitution. And good job chasing S.G. Osejavin away! (who apparently deleted his/her account). Wouldn't want anyone on here commenting who is not in complete agreement with you! And what happened to "...it's easy to find out who people are"? Go ahead and post my real name since it's so easy.
Whatever, comrade.
Instead of poking holes, you can ask the photographer why they shot it the way they did. For example,
"I notice that there is an out of focus branch behind the bird, that stands out agains the surrounding background. Was this intentional? If so, I am interested in knowing why you wanted that branch to stand out, and why you lined it up so that it appears to be sticking out of the center of the bird's head. Was this alignment intentional, or did you only have one position to shoot from to get a clear shot? If that is the case, did you think about removing the branch while editing the image? If so, then why did you ultimately decide to leave it in in the version of the image that you posted?"
More often than not, you will get replies like,
"To be honest, I never even noticed the branch until I read your comment, but now it is all I can see when I look at the photo. Thank you for pointing it out. I need to be more observant about the backgrounds when I am shooting. I guess I paid all of my attention to the bird itself, and didn't even think about shooting it so that the background would be less distracting. Thanks!"
Tom, in case you didn't notice, I never advocated "poking holes." I just explained that fear of blowback or retribution isn't much of a deterrent if the commenter is posting under a pseudonym. And since this isn't China, that is likely the case more often than not. It also appears the author has now edited that part out of the article, probably in response to my comment.
Numerous studies have pointed to the fact that the average amount of time a person spends viewing any one artwork in a museum is less than 30 seconds. Some as little as eight seconds. And these are some of the most highly curated works of art in the world. Puts my humble photography in perspective. Sometimes I think any critique, good or bad, invited or uninvited, is better than the sound of silence.
I guess that's about the quality of the viewer, how long they spend looking at an image. It is an average so some captivated viewers will spend much longer poring over an image and studying it, while some will drift past quickly, and some will be there for exactly 30 seconds.
The problem with uninvited critiques is that the people are rarely qualified to make them, nor have the skills to do so properly Also, negatively-minded people are more likely to comment than positively-minded, so opinion is skewed to the negative.
How do we qualify a person as competent in that regard? At first glance it might be on the basis of past critiques, but the quality and skill demonstrated by past critiques can be as subjective as the subject of the photograph itself.
Camera club competitions, for example, are notorious for controversial judges' scores and comments. Some of the dumbest comments I've ever heard have come from judges with pretty decent credentials. So while I was in charge of organizing our club competitions, I made sure there was ample time and opportunity for everyone, regardless of skill level and ability, to respond to the judges comments. That's how discussions work. You can't just hope to filter out stuff we deem stupid. The better way, in my opinion, is to push for more information. I never allowed a comment at our club so simple as "the photo sucks" to go by without asking for a further explanation for why they felt that way. How would that person improve the photo? And that way, people who have trouble articulating their thoughts learn something too. And for a camera club to be successful, everyone needs to feel comfortable expressing themselves... again, regardless of skill level.
Granted an online forum has its challenges. People can be a bit more prickly than a local camera club. I understand and sympathize that you've suffered plenty of rude and snarky comments about your work. But don't we have the same ultimate goal here as the local camera club, which for a discussion oriented forum, would be to improve the quality of the comments as well as the photography?
If that's true, then I think we do the best we can to expand the conversation, and, as I explained to our camera club members... take and learn from the discussion what you think will improve your photography and ignore the rest. And don't expect that everyone will view your images the same way that you do. Being appreciated for our work is even harder than getting noticed. That's why almost any recognition, good or bad, seems better to me than no response at all. At least it's a start. You write fine thought-provoking articles... don't let those with less developed analytical skills discourage you. Consider ways to constructively engage with them. After all, if one leaves the community, another will surely take his place.
Thanks, Edward. I agree with you about some camera club competition judging. I've written about that very topic before: https://fstoppers.com/opinion/how-protect-yourself-toxic-photographers-6...
A lot of the snaky comments are placed by people who have no online portfolio. Consequently, they cannot be judged as they judge others. So, how can their opinion be respected? They might not even be photographers.
Furthermore, it is often not a critique but an insult that gets posted. That's not because they don't have the skills to critique but because they get a kick out of trying to belittle others.
The important part is that it is uninvited. Nobody is asking for their opinion.
That's why I think such comments should be challenged.
Personally, I rely on feedback from other successful photographers and photographic writers whose work and opinions I respect.
Edward,
This is one of the most insightful and well-written comments I have seen here on this website. Thank you for making several excellent and thought-provoking points.
Thanks, Tom.
Desire for prosperity is not the way. Striving for popularity - i.e. fame and, consequently, money - always involves manipulative lowest-common-denominator strategies, as well as sacrificing one's own integrity. Furthermore, practicing art has nothing to do with the question of pleasing oneself vs. pleasing the others; it comes down to a matter of being vs. having. True art is immanent and inevitable - you do it no matter what. Or you don't.
Desire for prosperity and money is the way if paying the mortgage or feeding the family is of value. Of course art is ingrained in most of us who endeavor to make it, but I would also argue that photography is not at its core an art form. For most of us, it's either a visual record of life's activities, or it's a business. As a hypothetical art form, photography is simply way too devalued for it to deserve a place among traditional art forms. The price of photography correlates more with a commodity than a work of art. Not to say there aren't exceptions. Heck, a banana taped to a wall has been considered a work of art by some people. We can argue that a photograph is conceived in the mind, just like a painting or sculpture, and that creative photography is an art form while ordinary photos are snapshots. But designing a spreadsheet can be a creative endeavor, and we don't call that art.
Photography, when conducted as a business, does sometimes feel like giving up one's soul for the sake of satisfying the customer when asked to provide a product or service which doesn't quite align with our own best interests. That's true of any business which prioritizes the customer. Very few photographers enjoy the task of selling their work, but it's pretty hard to earn money without some of the strategies you've alluded to. It's a fact of life that, unless you've got a trust fund waiting for you at age 21, life typically entails sacrifices. However, I don't generally consider it sacrificing one's integrity by providing a service to another person or business which helps them achieve their goals. In fact, feeling appreciated for having helped someone else feels good. I don't see anything wrong with that business plan. Nor is there anything fundamentally wrong with seeking popularity. Give a little, take a little; as long as there's a balance between them.
Reading your comments here make so much sense Edward. I wish there was more ppl like you writing for Fstoppers.
.Thanks for all the time you spent writing it... I'll probably copy it and save it for me. 👌
You're welcome, Zdenek, and thank you. Glad to know someone thinks similarly. Sometimes I wonder. You have some really great images in your portfolio.... keep up the good work. I love the long exposures.
No, desire for prosperity is not the way in any circumstances. It brings nothing but misery to this world. If it is hard to make money in photography (or elsewhere) without employing degrading strategies, then one is to look for another way to earn money.
As Chesterton's Father Brown put it: "Never be afraid to try something new. Remember professionals built the Titanic but an amateur built the ark."
S G Osejavin, I wasn't referring to financial reward in the article, and it's not something I pursue. As I have written previously, money is a side-effect of success and, as you say, should not be a motivation. I make a living out of photography, and it's a welcome side benefit of doing something I love.
I don't entirely agree with the spirit of the second part of your Chesterton quote. Ask couples who have asked amateurs to photograph their wedding and most will tell you a very different story. It was also professionals who put humans on the moon. The first part, "try something new" is absolutely spot on, although I wouldn't recommend brain surgery.
My point (and Chesterton's, I believe) is that being an amateur (not in the condescending sense of the word) is a basis for any meaningful practice. You can't be a good pro if you aren't an amateur at heart. Especially if you're a brain surgeon.
As Ivor has pointed out here, financial reward was not his intended message... at least directly. However, it's understandable that a reader could make the connection between "getting noticed and appreciated," and making some money as a result. It's especially pertinent to those of us who depend on photography for making a living.
As long as we're here though, S.G., I feel that there's a huge distinction between compensation, prosperity, and greed. I don't see how it can be argued, outside a purely communist ideology, that accepting money for your labor and property ownership is bad. And prosperity is good to the extent that beyond food and water for survival, we might have air-conditioning in our home to keep us comfortable on 100-degree summer days. Prosperity reduces misery... not increase it. Misery is created at the point of human greed and aggression. The need for power and control, as inflicted by dictators and authoritarians, is the heart of human misery. Wars begin when one person takes something belonging to someone else. Poorly managed companies are run by owners who suck as much out of the business as possible, and give as little to employees as they can get away with. That's not prosperity... that's abuse.
You can't survive as a professional without successfully dealing with – not just your art – but also marketing, accounting, taxes, insurance, technology, etc. In response to your suggestion: "If it is hard to make money in photography (or elsewhere) without employing degrading strategies, then one is to look for another way to earn money." That's all well and fine... if it's possible. I'm 69 years old and have yet to find a perfect utopia, free from a few unpleasant challenges. If you think any sort of sales strategy is degrading, filing a tax return must be a nightmare. There's always a bit of sacrifice in an imperfect world. But ultimately we determine our own happiness from the decisions we make about the world we live. If you think a business strategy is degrading, you'll undoubtedly feel misery from doing it. If you think of those tasks as part of what needs to be done to have heat and air-conditioning, and a little reasonable prosperity, then they don't feel so miserable after all.
There's nothing wrong with prosperity per se - it is the (Christian, if you will) notion of the DESIRE for prosperity I was referring to. The way I see it, it's not a matter of some abstract idealism or ideology, but of basic morality. And I wasn't attacking Mr. Rackham's article, but merely generalizing.
I just got to thinking, S.G., after going through this philosophical exercise.... what tasks or strategies exactly do you consider degrading or which challenge your integrity? Are we arguing the principle, or is there something specifically that seems really unpleasant in the context of a job as a photographer (or just seeking appreciation as a hobbyist) which makes you feel the way you do?
It's the principle, of course. And in principle, any human actions that stem from the desire for (one's own) prosperity are degrading. It's that simple. As for your questions: I prefer to keep the discourse impersonal.
S. G. Osejavin wrote:
"It's the principle, of course. And in principle, any human actions that stem from the desire for (one's own) prosperity are degrading."
This seems very incorrect.
I am currently building a brick and stone walkway that I have been hired to design and build. It is a rather complex project that involves grade changes and other challenges. I am getting paid well to design and build this walkway. I greatly enjoy this kind of work, and the creative challenges that must be faced and solved. I will prosper form doing this work, and the monetary compensation is what drives me to take on the job. How on earth do you see such an endeavor as being degrading on any level?
Yes, but the devil's in the details - in this case this: "drive" and "desire" are not exactly synonymous. I'm talking about the desire for prosperity as opposed to one's spiritual disposition, i.e. the condition in which someone neglects or sacrifices inherent spiritual aspects od human existence, opting instead to follow the trail of money and success.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Many of the things I do to get money for myself are things that I have a deep love and passion for. Other things that I do to get money for myself, I may not have a deep love and passion for, but I see the value doing them, and learn so much about life and the world I live in by doing them, even though the only reason I do them is for the money I will get paid.
Things are not as binary - as "either / or" as you seem to think they are. Our motivations for doing things are so complex and multi-tiered that it can be tricky to make value judgements about the things that other people choose to do, because we can not really know all of the factors that are in play for those people doing those things. If someone does something solely to gain popularity or to amass a following, then that seems vulgar and evil to me ..... but maybe there are other factors at play that we do not know about.
I'm not making value judgement about "other" people (myself not being a bot). Yes, it's all relative and complex and so on, but the principle is ruthless and the dark side cannot be neglected.
What you say about lowest denominator is so true.
This was never more evident than when still photographers suddenly started posting "reels" on a daily basis because that is what Instagram suddenly started pushing, and weighted heavily in their algorithm. Those photographers were not true to themselves or to their art, because they changed everything about their output just to get more views and follows. This is shameful behavior for people who are supposed to be creative and original.
Unfortunately, sales and marketing have become considerably more complicated than, say, 30 or 40 years ago when strategies were limited to direct mail, print advertising, or cold-calling. I never had much success with direct mail and print advertising, and since there was a high cost involved with both those strategies, I chose the cheapest path to selling my work... beating the pavement and handing out business cards. It wasn't the most fun I ever had, but necessary for getting customers.
While the strategies and techniques may have changed over the years, sales and marketing are still critical for business survival. If it means calling attention to ourselves, well… that’s how advertising generally works. Anything which detracts from time spent creating art probably feels slimy to an artist, but it simply has to be done. At this point in my life, I can be more selective; however, back in the day when I had a mortgage payment and two kids in college, I’d have stood on my head in a clown suit on the corner of 1st and Main to get business. I’d rather have embarrassed myself than gone hungry. Fortunately it never got to that point.
My point is that I suspect you can be true to yourself and still adopt various marketing techniques which are arguably a deviation from your original product or advertising strategy. In fact, still photographers often evolved into videographers. Wedding photographers probably found it a necessity. For awhile I dabbled in real estate photography, preferring to contract just for still images. But nearly every realtor was asking for drone images too, which I had no interest in. As I said, it’s easier to say no at this point, but twenty years ago, I’d have developed the skills to shoot drone photos. Technology forces us to change who we are, or who we think we are, or who we want to be. Creativity is a great personal quality, but not very useful if it’s expressed on paper and everyone wants digital. I have no interest in creating YouTube videos or Instagram reels for creating a following. For that matter, I don’t even have a Facebook account, but I certainly don’t fault anyone for using these tools. Selling is not easy.
I was in advertising for 2-1/2 years. If anyone got 10% response for direct mail, they would turn cartwheels and handsprings in the parking lot. There are no easy answers for success in photography.
I believe a photographic project is a very good way of engaging with photography. I take a subject that really interests me outside of photography as a starting point for a project. A project might take weeks to complete, or it can continue over several years like my Romanesque Architecture project. My photography projects generally end with a hard copy Blurb photobook or Ebook.
https://read.bookcreator.com/rif2lDkyWHfEIsD2FUePGB1OalK2/Mgti9vrgRJCnpZ...
Very much connected to my projects is research. Understanding what you are photographing is much more valuable than buying that latest camera. I now have a small library of books concerning Romanesque architecture bought SH on Ebay mostly, that is fundamental to the project, as by now I have some understanding of this architecture and I know what is important at a certain site.
That's an interesting way of displaying your work. I've had a quick look and it's well worth browsing, which I'll do later. Thanks for sharing it. It's great to hear about your research too. Fascinating stuff.
Ivor,
Thank you so much for telling us some things about the Turnstones that you have been photographing. We have Turnstones here, too, but I have not given them the attention they deserve because there are many other species of shorebirds in the same places, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to get to know each species intimately. But now that I have read your paragraphs about them and seen your photos of them, the next time I see them amongst other shorebirds, I will give them some love!
I especially like your flock-in-flight shot that you placed right before the article's conclusion.
Thank you, Tom. That's very kind.
Great article and most helpful. I'm heading to 77 years, "serious" photography for six years. In all my years, I have never stopped learning in anything, photography included. My grandfather said, "You are never too old to learn." Again, thanks.
Thank you, John.
Wonderful interesting article. Thank you. It is great you provoke good discussion.
Thanks Tessa,