Skip to main content

Critical success

The internet allows photographers to publish their images to a potentially huge international audience. Online systems enable them to measure the popularity of an image through seeing how often a picture is viewed or through ratings systems. And of course authors can get direct feedback through comments on their work.

But is the approval of peers and the ratings they give a true measure of how good an image is. The short answer is no. Inevitably when any of us interact within community we create an online personal brand. People's reactions to a picture are influenced by the way they perceive the photographer's personal brand. Audiences often measure success in terms of expectations so that a beginner who suddenly produces a good image may be rated higher on an image than someone more experienced who consistently produces a high standard of work. The appreciation of an image is influenced by numerous factors.

How then do you know if your images really are good? Like all successful brands the best measure is in fact how passionate people are about your brand and your images. Being disliked is just as good an indication that you are making an impact as being popular. In fact the more brilliant your images are and the more passionately people feel about your photography the more likely you are to experience detractors, negative criticism and dislike.

To illustrate the point about brands lets take the example of Canon and Nikon. To all intents and purposes both camera systems are equally good. Yet like all successful brands Nikon and Cannon have passionate supporters and equally importantly passionate detractors. When it comes to good clearly defined brands, opinions  are invariably polarised

Look at the great photographers who have made a huge impact on the world. All of the master photographers have their ardent supporters and their fierce critics. The key indicator of success is not how popular your photography is but rather how passionate people are about it.

So I say embrace negative criticism, celebrate your detractors because it shows that you are making your mark and your personal brand is becoming successful.

I'd love to hear what you think.

Paul Indigo

Comments

Anonymous said…
Very thought provoking and well written. Thanks.
Anonymous said…
Well stated Paul, the question of "what makes a good image" will never be resolved as there are too many considerations to come up with one definite answer. Having said that, there still is a minimum foundation required in terms of skill sets (technical and artistic) and experience along with patience and experimentation that appear to project an overall unique level of creativity - which, I might add is a bumpy up and down journey at best. Your advice to keep on going is very true and applicable.
Great Blog, and I enjoy reading your ideas and comments ...
Thanks, Sam (samr on treklens)
Anonymous said…
An interesting take on something I am wrestling with at the moment.

Popular posts from this blog

Approach to taking a portrait

Portrait of Amitabh Bachchan. Click on the image to see larger version. Every portrait is different but there are also elements which are the same, whether you’re shooting the famous or the locally famous. Fame is of course all relative. It depends on profession, accomplishments or media celebrity status. Whoever the ‘famous’ individual is there are millions of people in the world who will never have heard them. For example I photographed the legendary Indian Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan, who amongst his many accolades was awarded the Legion d'Honneur, the highest civilian award of France. But I’m positive that many people in North America will not have heard of him – although he has more fans than Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro put together. I find that however well known a person is cracking through egos and insecurities is really important when it comes to getting authentic strong portraits. However I hasten to add that when it came to photographing Amitabh th

The portrait photographer's motivation

Easy access to the Internet and digital photography has resulted in an ever growing number of photographers uploading their images for comments and ratings from peers. Online communities evolve and these mini-societies each have their pecking order, internal groups and communal preferences. Photographers learn from each other. On sites that have a rating system there is often pressure to conform to certain styles, techniques and even subject matter. Although I participate in numerous sites (it's great fun), I recognise the danger of becoming a herd animal and losing the edge of individual creativity. There will always be the creatives that lead the way and the imitators that can only try to follow in their footsteps. This lead me to think about classifying photographers according their inner motivation. So as a bit of fun here are a few different types: The innovator Driven to always find something new, different and creative. Wants to be leading edge. Motivated by creative satisfa

Is professional photography still a viable career?

I am not against amateurs and semi-professionals selling their photography. It's a great way to earn some extra cash. However I am concerned about the level of high quality published work and the standards that clients and the public accept these days. It seems that just about everyone is a photographer. The line between amateur enthusiast and professional is fuzzy to say the least. Photography enthusiasts are selling their images through stock libraries and microstock websites, directly to magazines or through their own and third party sites. They're accepting commissions to shoot weddings, being hired to shoot for magazines and selling fine art prints from their websites. They're teaching photography on the weekend and guiding photographic holidays and safaris. Photography became accessible to the masses with the first non-expert cameras and the famous Kodak slogan"You press the button, we do the rest." The digital camera age has taken the whole thing to a ne