Why no one needs to see your photography.

[pavel_l.]

Just stumbled on this nontrivial opinion.   

p.s.: please, ignore if it was discussed before.

[JDMvW]

It could also be titled "Why No One Needs to Hear" this opinion. Sorry, not my cup of tea.

Edited December 8, 2022 by JDMvW

[SCL]

An interesting perspective, and one in which I have a good deal of personal agreement. But that is just me. Outside of when I've been asked to take photographs for a specific person or purpose, I don't subscribe to taking photos to share with others. Yes, I do share on a couple of forums, either to join in sharing my perspective on a given subject, or to create what I hope will be a tantilizing challenge to other photographers to share their perspective, or lastly to secure assistance from those more knowledgable than myself to address an issue I might have with solving a photographic problem. But it seems the world today does substantially revolve around people seeking self aggrandizement by seeking "likes" on social media platforms, which I suppose is ok, just not my cup of tea.

[Sanford]

What's that guy's name, I want to check out his photographs.

[inoneeye]

I ‘assumed’you were writing with tongue in cheek but just in case … Alex Kilbee

Edited December 8, 2022 by inoneeye

[AlanKlein]

2 hours ago, Sanford said:

What's that guy's name, I want to check out his photographs.

Alex Kilbee, he's British.

https://www.youtube.com/@ThePhotographicEye/videos

[Sanford]

19 minutes ago, inoneeye said:

I ‘assumed’you were writing with tongue in cheek but just in case … Alex Kilbee

No, really curious. Thanks.

[Dustin McAmera]

I thought I remembered this; but the one I remembered was this very similar channel:

I hate these people. They have a little book of provocative titles like 'Stop focusing: start creating!', designed to annoy you enough that you will watch a few seconds,  score them a view and push a few cents their way. That is all those channels are for. They are Piers Morgan or Katie Hopkins, only with a camera; until they decide to do the 'Cameras are ruining your photography' vid. When they haven't got a provocation to hand, it's 'This will make your photos awesome!'; and of course, there are some 'Buy this featured product; it changed my photograph forever!' videos.

 

[David_Cavan]

2 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

Alex Kilbee, he's British.

https://www.youtube.com/@ThePhotographicEye/videos

That's funny. The message appears to start off with no one needs to see your photographs. His photographs, on the other hand, need to be seen, apparently.

What I do agree with him about is similar to some good advice that a long-term professional artist who is my friend gave me when I asked him to discuss my photography. The one thing he said that has stuck with me is to not worry what others will think about a photograph, but to make photographs that I'm happy with first. He added that means don't worry about what will sell, but do worry about what I would enjoy and feel good about. There's much of that in Kilbee's message and that part I agree with.

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, inoneeye said:

I ‘assumed’you were writing with tongue in cheek but just in case … Alex Kilbee

🤪

[Sandy Vongries]

Actually, under normal circumstances no one needs to see anyone's face nor hear their voice.  Demonstration of skill in any one of  variety of fields of endeavor may pique interest.

[mikemorrellNL]

Like Dustin, I'd watched Ted Forbes's video (Nobody cares ...) years ago and I initially thought this one (Why no one needs..,) was the same one.

Both indeed have YouTube channels stuffed with video's on 'how to take more awesome photo's'.

I'd like to see a video on "Why no one cares about your YouTube video's' 😉

 

 

13 hours ago, Dustin McAmera said:

I thought I remembered this; but the one I remembered was this very similar channel:

I hate these people. They have a little book of provocative titles like 'Stop focusing: start creating!', designed to annoy you enough that you will watch a few seconds,  score them a view and push a few cents their way. That is all those channels are for. They are Piers Morgan or Katie Hopkins, only with a camera; until they decide to do the 'Cameras are ruining your photography' vid. When they haven't got a provocation to hand, it's 'This will make your photos awesome!'; and of course, there are some 'Buy this featured product; it changed my photograph forever!' videos.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by mikemorrellNL

[jose_angel]

Well, I don't know who is Kilbee but I agree with most of his words at the video above. I understand that everyone has their own way of understanding their photography. Live and let live.

I'm pretty sure there are lots of Vivian Maiers out there. At the end, Vivien Maier has been known, I meet a couple photographers with loads of great images that has rarely been printed, so nobody know their photography. One of them died years ago, very likely his archive is somewhere inside a basement room, if it still exist! I wonder if I`m the only one who care about it.

For some people photography is just an emotional database, made to rely themselves or to feed their nostalgia. It could be good or bad, let the good feelings came by just looking at an image. Or to check themselves living in a world they can't see in any other way. I bet these people doesn't care about others, they made the images for themselves.

Pro photographers or anyone who want to make money need to spread their images, obviously. And there is the social media stuff, with other motivations (very likely not related to photography, btw).

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by jose_angel

[samstevens]

No one needs to see anyone else's photography and no one needs to hear the tree fall in the forest.

That doesn't preclude the richness, empathy, understanding, communication and other benefits that can come from sharing photography. But not everyone wants or needs those things. It also doesn't preclude the sound the tree will make.

Timmmmmber!

[Ricochetrider]

Well

maybe no one “needs to see your  photography” … but,

 

…what if I need people to see my photography? 

… or,

…what if I wish to pore over other peoples’ photography? 
 

So, photography… a visual medium. Intended from the very beginning to be seen. Or do we shoot and shoot only to keep our photos to ourselves? Who among us does this- never sharing your photos. 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Ricochetrider

[Rick Helmke]

I used to share them every day but have gotten past being published regularly so for the last couple of years no one has seen any of my work. That’s okay, some of it isn’t worth the effort but the problem now is what to do with work I’m proud to show. I’ve been hearing rumors of something called social media but I don’t know……

 

Eick H.

[doug grosjean]

Nobody needs photography, the way they need air & water.
But if it gives the photographer joy to share their work?
And if it gives the recipient joy to look at the shared photos?
There's no harm, and at least 2 people are happier for it.
.
For me, personally?
Wife & I shoot weddings.
Potential clients may not need to see our photos.
But I suspect we'd have fewer clients if we didn't share.
Our relatives don't really need to see photos of our toddlers.
But when we visit face to face, they thank us putting them online for them.
.
Do people still do what's best for themselves, even if a self-proclaimed experts says there's no need?
I certainly hope so.

[AlanKlein]

Show your pictures.  If you want to be a monk, move to Nepal. 

[rodeo_joe1]

I'm not sure that some of the above responders watched the same video I just did... or even watched it at all. 

The title is not just click bait. 

The message, surely, is to stop and inwardly reflect on one's motives and motivation for taking pictures. With a side bonus of showcasing Vivian Maier's work.

Of course a picture is meant to be seen.. if only by its maker. But consider - how many people saw, and much less appreciated, Van Gogh's work during his lifetime? Did a lack of audience diminish his vision? Or would wide acclaim and fame have diminished it far more? 

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

10 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Of course a picture is meant to be seen.. if only by its maker. But consider - how many people saw, and much less appreciated, Van Gogh's work during his lifetime? Did a lack of audience diminish his vision? Or would wide acclaim and fame have diminished it far more? 

Agree in general principal, but different artists gained appreciation via different routes.  Surely Picasso, Matisse, Warhol, Adams Eggleston, etc., etc. achieved wide acclaim during their lifetimes and I don't think it diminished their achievements.. But it doesn't diminish the brilliance of Van Gogh, Maier, etc for not being famous during their life times.

On the general topic, personally for me and I'm sure for the most of us, I don't delude myself to think people wake up thinking "I need to see Barry's photos today".  But sometimes I do think the way I look at photography and a print can be useful to beginners asking how to improve their photos. Maybe, maybe not.

[samstevens]

31 minutes ago, httpwww.photo.netbarry said:

I don't delude myself to think people wake up thinking "I need to see Barry's photos today".

Since I don’t want you to risk deluding yourself, I just set a daily reminder on my phone to think about Barry’s photos. I’ll be a better witch for it! 🙂

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

6 hours ago, samstevens said:

Since I don’t want you to risk deluding yourself, I just set a daily reminder on my phone to think about Barry’s photos. I’ll be a better witch for it! 🙂

Thanks Sam. The checks in the mail! lol

 

[inoneeye]

pssst Alan check out Nicholas Vreeland. 

[T. R. Tinker]

58 minutes ago, inoneeye said:

pssst Alan check out Nicholas Vreeland. 

Good one!  Now you owe me for the coffee I spit through my nose.