This post is partially just in amazement of recent activity, but also an interesting thought on photography.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
the web is funny for photography
- Thread starter FrankieTDouglas
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it's two separate audiences those who view artworks in a museum or gallery and those who view it on the web. Pictures that may catch on and work on the web might not work well in a gallery setting. Pictures in the gallery might take back seat to others that proliferate on the web.
I listened to a neat interview a long time ago I don't remember where and who was involved, but they did speak about how certain types of images have more impact online, which would probably get passed over in a physical viewing. Pictures with simple compositions and strong colors, saturation seem to stand out online because they jump out amongst a sea of otherwise more subdued thumbnails. However, you cannot examine the detail or sublety that can be preset in a photo that you see hanging in a gallery. Therefore, a work that would not be popular online might really work well in person, because you could admire all the detail present. Also, it was noted that people who view photographs online only look at them for a very brief time, whereas people who are looking at a picture in a museum or gallery typically spend a lot more time admiring each work. This extra time allows them to appreciate subtle aspects of a photo, gradually understanding the strength of a particular composition, etc. Whereas that photo would have been long passed up by an online viewer who only gives each picture 5 seconds, and for whom the brightest, strongest, most simple compositions stand out the best.
I guess it is up to you as an artist to whether or not you want to follow one direction or another. I can't really comment as I shoot for a hobby and have not had any work displayed other than what is hanging on my own walls.
Ruahrc
I listened to a neat interview a long time ago I don't remember where and who was involved, but they did speak about how certain types of images have more impact online, which would probably get passed over in a physical viewing. Pictures with simple compositions and strong colors, saturation seem to stand out online because they jump out amongst a sea of otherwise more subdued thumbnails. However, you cannot examine the detail or sublety that can be preset in a photo that you see hanging in a gallery. Therefore, a work that would not be popular online might really work well in person, because you could admire all the detail present. Also, it was noted that people who view photographs online only look at them for a very brief time, whereas people who are looking at a picture in a museum or gallery typically spend a lot more time admiring each work. This extra time allows them to appreciate subtle aspects of a photo, gradually understanding the strength of a particular composition, etc. Whereas that photo would have been long passed up by an online viewer who only gives each picture 5 seconds, and for whom the brightest, strongest, most simple compositions stand out the best.
I guess it is up to you as an artist to whether or not you want to follow one direction or another. I can't really comment as I shoot for a hobby and have not had any work displayed other than what is hanging on my own walls.
Ruahrc
I don't know what kind if a business model statement the web is for anyone. All I have to say for your Polaroids is one word. Clever. Very clever.
Dale
Dale