'Yevgenia' No. 2

In fairness, I went to delete the parts of the above comment about your not having offered 'constructive criticism'.  I had not then been cogniscent that it was you who had offered some criticism farther above, and for that oversight I apologize; I would simply have deleted that portion of my comment above to be fair to you, but the editing function had expired very quickly it seems, and I am left to this post script.

My apologies for not having researched your prior comment, and thus having implied you offered no criticism.

john

John (Crosley)

At the propensity or perceived 'need' by many Photo.net members (few subscribers actually) to view and rate nude photos, mine or others.

As a male, I certainly understand the desire to  view a beautiful photograph, or just a beautiful female form, and a beautiful female form photographed beautifully certainly for me requires no justification.

Yet, there somehow is what I perceive as a great tendency of Photo.netters to 'rate' nude images or any that in any way relate to nudity or sexuality, rather than other images that are not so related and that has gone unabated over the almost seven years I have been here, and it continues to astonish me.

Not so long ago (less than six months or so), I posted a very personal, very intimate 'nude' (or at least it appeared to have been so, for one could not really tell for sure it was 'nude') of a woman wrapped in her own arms taken rather close up. 

It depicted, in retrospect, a vast change in her life, and was intensely personal, though neither she nor I realized just how so at the time - it was taken instinctively, and of a pose that was adopted instinctively (just as the pose above was also).

Technically, I am not sure the last photo was a 'nude' or not, as there was nothing truly 'intimate' shown other than bare shoulders, bare arms and a bit of bare torso side. 

But it did convey the 'idea' of nudity. 

For all that, it had viewers in the thousands, but not one fifth the viewers of this photo.  It to me was exquisitely sensitive and thoughtful and indeed was part of a personal 'story', and also to my mind 'beautiful', but this image has soared well beyond that both in ratings and viewership.

I can take both kinds of photos, and each is easy for me to take; I just record what I 'see', and what I see is different from subject to subject and from minute to minute.

I do have an overall dedication to good or attempts at good composition.

The lead photo today in my portfolio is a photo titled 'Three States of Awareness' showing aging people in a single room occupancy (SRO) hotel lobby, mostly waiting for creeping old age to overtake them.  Yet when one juxtaposes this photo, today shown just below that photo, with the lead photo, taken over four decades ago, there is a remarkable similarity of style, despite huge dissimilarity of subject matter.

Both photos were instant view and click hits from first posting -- literally click magnets. 

I think there is a reason, and that is a matter of composition, and not for any other reason, though some have tried to put their finger on it for this photo, and to my mind simply have missed.

It isn't about sexuality, nudy, pornography, or being 'in-your-face' but about good design and composition, and a straightforward depiction of something in a special way.

In a lesser way, it's about all those other things as well, just as the lead photo was about loneliness, aging, somnolence, vigor (or lack thereof), money  (and lack thereof) and the process of aging with attendant pain (remarked on).

But most of all that photo was about good design and composition.

I think this one comes from the same place, which is why it has been an overwhelming click hit -- far more than any of the greatly attractive nudes that are generally posted  here and the far more beautiful models that have been captured and shown on these web pages in recent times.

When I looked first at this photo, frankly 'sexuality' was literally rather distant from my considerations when I went to post. 

I didn't overlook that the woman was nude of course, but I was far from moved by any 'sexuality' here, and found it NOT to be seductive or arousing, and in fact may be anti-arousal in its viewpoint and for that it may be disappointing for those who expect 'nude' photos to have a sole purpose other than the one that this shows me.

john

John (Crosley)

John,

Me thinks thou protest too much.  Not worthy of PN.  Sorry

You seem entirely unaware of the way comments and commentaries traditionally have been kept under my photos, including my own, based on the content of your remark.  Please refrain from ad hominem remarks.  I invited 'constructive criticism' of the photo - you have offered none.  'What's to like?' is kvetching, nothing more.

john

John (Crosley)

It's new year's eve, or rather what has just followed (past 3.00 in the morning here), so I am filled with probably more than a reasonable amount of champagne glasses, which may affect my views.

I cannot really decide whether I like this photo or not. I find the expression a little void which rather kills it for me .. I somehow don't receive any message. Otherwise technically for me it's possibly  not up to par either, whereas in all fairness I am the first to claim usually that it shouldn't matter, it should all be in the "impact" … I may return with less champagne!

Two things drew my attention otherwise to this page. The first is the usual implications made about nudes attracting more attention, rates etc., and all that stuff. Funnily, my gallery on "portraits", without a suspicion of nudity in it, has around two and a half million more all time views than its two nearest competitors (my "glamour" nude files) with approx. the same number of photos in them, the "artistic nude" files being way further down still. So somehow that argument doesn't make sense to me or should be formulated differently.

The second funny thing I observe on this page is how few adult males seem to know where the vagina is situated (since some of you seem so pointed on vocabulary)! It's what is far inside, and you can't see it without a special probe, so there is no way a vagina is ever visible in a photo.

I'll possibly come back with less champagne and try to talk less nonsense. In the meantime, a very Happy New Year to you and the others John.

As ever, your comments -- blood and brain filled with champagne -- are right on.

Yes, she is indeed quite 'vacant' appearing in her stare.  This is her manner; she is observing intelligently and not interacting.  She is ready, watching, and prepared to take any directions I might give about posing, but I gave none.  Instead I took her photo.  I took others, but this was the standout for me.

She has assumed a pose of watchful waiting, which for her I assume is somewhat usual, or I believe so, based on some brief interaction with her, plus certain facts I have learned since.

You may not have noticed about the composition, but it's fairly elaborate.

What may appear to be a 'box within a box (the frame)' [the bed within the four corners of the photo frame) is really a decagon or nonagon within a rectangle, which is a fairly complex geometry.

I tried to count the areas where the mattress coincides with the frame corners, the areas where it doesn't, the edges of the mattress leading to the pillow, the pillow edges (for they are part of the framework) and then the mattress frame again.

I have counted nine or ten lines, (maybe more) all encased within the four lines of the frame's rectangle . . . . . for a very complex figure, framing her.

She lies at a diagonal at least if her legs were together, but they are not.  Still the photo has the appearance of dynamism because of her diagonal positioning, and her legs, which might have formed the rest of the diagonal have instead ended up roughly equidistant from the lower left corner, (above and to the right) for symmetry.

You don't see her feet; you also don't see her hands. 

That is something no one (even I) has commented on, yet it is a central point of composition and another part of symmetry or near symmetry - essentially a sort of 'mirroring' from upper right to lower left(most).  While some may complain feet are cut off, if they had been in the photo (parts were) I would have cropped them (as I did partially).  It's hard to take a photo standing on a soft and springy mattress, when one can't get a decent purchase . . . . especially when one is taking about one or two seconds a frame, then moving on.

I wasn't about to commment on the need for a speculum to view what others were commonly calling the vagina, yet really are the labial lips, but then I didn't feel that anyone would appreciate an anatomy lesson.  Thanks for making the point, so I don't feel so pedantic.  It was of small moment to me.

This is really a documentary about this woman, and not with an attempt to prettify her.  She is attractive but it is not an attempt to present her as some idealized person person, perhaps someone waiting to 'bed me' as was suggested early on.  

She is what she is, and she is presented  thusly.

I will e-mail you with the solution, which I will not print here.

This photo was not made for anyone to admire this woman for her beauty or its attractiveness though she is a pretty woman.  Idid not take this to make a 'pretty photogrph' but an interesting one, and it certainly has provoked a response with a very small miniority of viewers, and then only after about 8,000 clicks. 

This photo has other purposes which are more in line with the other styles of photos I take, although I am perfectly capable of taking an attractive photo, warm and fuzzy of a woman.  Anyone looking through my portfolio can see a small but representative number of very good looking women, and none looking like this with this look.

And until I came to grips with the 'other purposes' and also relied on my own special knowledge, I was able to post it without regret, and I still have none.

This photo belongs in a special category of nude, and I think you may agree when you read your e-mail, when I get around to sending it.

If I give you a URL, please do click on it, but I ask you for discretion as to the disclosures, but emphsize the disclosures do not relate to any relationship of me with this particular woman and I have had NO relationship with her at all other than to photograph her and talk with her (as I do all my models who speak English).  I emphasize I found her quite nice, intelligent and articulate.

You will receive special explanation, because I have always known you to be an educated and fair individual, interested in creating art with a substantial body of genuine work.

[a side note:  although YOUR non-nude work folder has a very substantial number of views, I suggest the totality of your nude work far outweighs the totality of views of your nonnude work, and that in that regard 'you are a special case' to my posited 'general rule' about clicks, rates and nudes.]

It may be quite expected that you don't like this image; it isnt of the sort of image that you ever have been known for, nor was it an attempt to emulate or imitate the reactions I am sure your images create in viewers.

I happen to like it not for making her 'attractive', though she is 'attractive in her own way.

I like it for its depiction of HER, as who she is.

I had passed over it some time ago, without regard ever to posting it, but when in going over past captures I said to myself (as I struck the top of my forehead with my hand  'Why didn't I see that this is possibly an important capture'!

But alas, captioning it is tricky, as you will see.

Same in part, with defending it, without breaking discretion.

As I don't do break discretion.

You must also keep in mind that I do not always not follow Photo.net traditions and so follow my own nose in what I photograph, how I choose subjects, and how I present them.  I trust in myself rather than in convention, and often my photos are quite different and singular for that.

Without your absolute trust, I couldn't and wouldn't e-mail you what I will with champagne or without, for I trust an intoxicated you more than any sober hoo-haw from the farm any old day, including this stunningly cold New Year's morning.

I hope what arrives will throw some light on the fine line I've had to tread.

I'm always thankful when I find you've been watching and lurking about my work.  I am a great admirer of your work, which I find extremely tantalizing, and therefore find I must ration my views lest I be in danger of an overimbibed libido.   

May the New Year treat you kindly and with good will. 

john

John (Crosley)

Boring.

Maybe you 'get it' or something related.

john

John (Crosley)

So many comments, I didn't have time to read them all. A confident young woman(model) relaxed in posing as directed. The 'shock' of an exposed vulva doesn't work any more and good too!

The photograph: I don't why you cropped the feet off, to me it seems the wrong place to do the crop, also a little more contrast (for me) would have been better. I love the 'odd' angle, I think any facial expression other than the one adopted would have completely changed the meaning of the image. Good work, well done!   

Thanks John, but I am a scientist and I have learned to compare comparables. To compare views of folders containing an equal number of photos in them seems to me to be the coherent approach. One cannot do as you suggest any more than one can compare the total numbers of disease in a population when comparing a village with a big town. In fact, contrary to your argument, the sheer numbers of nudes in my portfolio proportionately should act as a deterrent to looking at my other photos, which appears not to be the case. (I am embarrassed to have quoted some figures further up, I would not have done that with less champagne!).

I am no exception. In fact, if you look at the figures in both the number and value of ratings posted every week, they are listed on PN, the non-nude photos almost always surpass the nudes, even more so in the long term. I'm afraid the theory just doesn't stand up John. It's one of those slogans one innocently throws around the net that is more closely related to wishful thinking than is based on any fact. This is less true for number of views, but ratings will demonstrate how much more time and importance is spent on the former of these two.

That said, I am certainly a guilty party. because time being measured, I almost never visit new arrivals outside of nudes, portraits and occasionally some landscapes. However, statistically speaking, judging by the results, I am a minority. I don't think I "lurk" around photo net .. one just cannot be everywhere at one time, nor be all things to all people. I just looked at your street shots today and discovered some wonderful pieces that I have never seen before. Maybe one day I will light a cigar and look at some of them in more detail. One day, I will surprise some of my friends on PN by throwing out my nudes and moving to children and street photography. Other than some photo I took when I was around 15, my miserable collection of street photos consists for the moment of pictures taken during two afternoons spent walking around New York with my wife that I posted over a matter of days, but it is a wonderful area of investigation that I could become very passionate about.

Your analysis of the photo above is interesting, and you bring up a large number of items that I would not have noticed otherwise and I wonder whether I should, though indeed they may work collectively on the subconscious in measuring the impact that a photo will ultimately have. Photo views have been measured in fractions of a second, sometimes eliciting longer examination when something catches the attention. We scan information around us and stop on what we find of interest, so any message that is there must be captured instantly. Undoubtedly, all the lines etc., that you mention will help to formulate the image in your brain, but the "impact factor" is what remains the most important thing and that means how the message is conveyed .. it is why I said the photo "doesn't speak to me".

I am sorry to bore those that may have already read this recently on one of my pages, but we have just been through Photo Month in Paris and, I as I do every year, I then truly "lurk" around the city looking at what is new. What strikes one immediately is that all the nonsense we read about on forums such as this (a minor critique, I love PN) has nothing to do with the real word of photography and art. The photos chosen for exposure by museum curators, exhibition managers and gallery owners whose only aim is to make a profit, the true "specialists" in the field that is to say (not us amateurs), are filled with burned out areas, missing limbs and ears, crooked walls and horizons, absence of contrast and all the others things that are anathema to the majority of our readers and result in low ratings on PN. So what really matters then? …. "Impact", it is the only thing. An image has to speak to us, instantly, and leave an impression. You speak of the reactions that I may "emulate" in my viewers, indeed more often than not I work with "glamour", however it would be unkind to suggest that it is only so. I also have work that will hopefully inspire other senses too. If not, I think I would be the first to get bored, well before my readers do. As a glamour photographer however, it is true that the tomatoes that go into the making of my soup are carefully chosen, though as you well know a bad cook can spoil any ingredients, though the opposite may sometimes also be true.

Haha, I must conclude from your comment that you know where that vagina is .. : -) .. but … though a speculum may open the orifice and lead the way, it will still not allow a doctor to see anything without a visual probe. The polite medical term for all those wrongly referring to the vagina in photos posted on the net is the vulva or pubic region if you want to be coy.

This is a very bad beginning to the year, I am not usually this verbose. As with our photos, anyone with a minimum of experience in marketing will know that a message should be short and precise. It all has to do with "impact" once again and, though I clearly see how much you enjoy the exchange process John, which is very admirable, you may be wrong sometimes in trying too hard to explain your vision. In reality it's there in the photo for all to see, or it should be so let us say. Photography is a visual art, not an essay in philosophy.

All the very best John.

How thankful I am for a 'constructive criticism' (other than John Peri's who's in a class by himself due to his leadership in this field, as well as other attributes which may not be readily quite so obvious).

Yes, this young woman's 'attitude' and positioning did not and still does not shock me.  Perhaps I'm jaded, or just show my age, but it just says 'relaxed and waiting:  e.g.  watchful  waiting. 

I'm glad you saw it for what it was, not imbuing it with some characteristics manque which it did not have which were only projections in your mind of what it should have been and was not, and have stuck to critique of the image posted.

As to the vulva, as John Peri notes, you have correctly named it, many others have little idea what it is, and also the labial lips, which we see somewhat, but are in a tangle, and not really worthy of much discussion; it is the whole here that counts. 

I guess by now the pose is one that some people either like very much or dislike very much, and some are passionate about same; something I never expected when I posted this.  In fact, I never in a thousand years would have expected the response of so many views or critiques. 

For all that, I guess then this photo has an 'impact', that was unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable.

As to cutting off the feet, some portion of feet was shown in my capture, but they were cut off in the miiddle and unshowable, so a crop was necessary. 

My purchase on the springy mattress for all of a few seconds, and no stepladder or boom available, made my two feet on this springy mattress necessary but unsteady, and I had to struggle to keep from falling on her (maybe that's why she's engaged in 'watchful waiting' - fearful that giant John may come crashing down on her?) ;~)

But the crop was beneficial as I see it; her hands are similarly cut off, and if it did not have visual 'raison' with me for doing thusly, I wouldn't have posted it.

I think if I shot it again, I purposely would cut off the feet.

I like the lines of the pose.

Perhaps to satisy myself that would be the correct decision, I'd bring a stepladder or other elevating device, and try to gain altitude to see if the feet could be included.  They couldn't be as I shot it, so we can never know, and this nmodel now has aged by four years, minimum since this was taken.

But I won't shoot it again; this shooting took 2-3 seconds, then I moved on.

My shooting so often is like that, so quick compared to so many photographers, who look, measure, look again, adjust, look again, then eventually fire.

I just fire away.

I often get great captures by NOT measuring out everything and taking chances (as here).

I think this photo has impact judging by views in third day steadily climbing past 14,000 headed for months' high for a single photo, and also the vigor of the discussion it has provoked.

When a photo has such a response there usually is a very good reason, and part of that is good and/or interesting design I think, and for that reason it's posted in my portfolio below one of my all-time best critiqued and memorable photos (go look!).

They both have much similarity to them despite NO similarity in subject matter.

Both have a compositional similarity that to me is stunning though from about forty years apart.

From the start both attracted both a great number of clicks and a great number of comments (though some comments, of those late to the party here) were negative, but now have turned somewhat in a more measured direction.

I will watch for future critiques from you; yours is full of 'raison', and for for that it invites special attention to points you percreive as 'negatives'.

With pleasure in responding.

And thanks for a critique with points well made and taken.

john

John (Crosley)

I am having computer difficulties with the spelling program that Photo.net asked us to install.

I installed it, and it was or enormous help. I even started cleaning up spelling in comments from past years until PN editing was 'frozen' on past comments.

Now, I have a new problem; my computer won't respond to the program.

I have installed, uninstalled, restarted, reinstalled and so forth, and there is no way I can get it to re-install.

I would compose on an outside word processor and spell check there, but the new anti-spam feature mistakes various 'code' from word processing programs copied with text here as 'spam' and rejects the such copied posts.

For the time being, until I reinstall my operating system, I beg indulgence from those who spot spelling or other obvious errors in my posts: My eyesight is not always good enough to catch them all, and the spell check program now does not work. 

I'll try to make your reading experience enjoyable and pay close and extra attention to future posts.

Thank you for enduring this problem, readers. I'm working to remedy the issue.

john

John (Crosley)

I think both John Peri and John Crosley express way too much concern, at least in this thread, for numbers of views. It's the quality of the photos and of the views that matter to me. Good quality photos don't necessarily get the most views and the most views don't necessarily come from intelligent and/or photo-savvy viewers. 

I submit that the number of views on Photo.net is often directly contrary to what are good photos. Some of the finest photographers here get a very small amount of views, for several reasons. First, they don't promote themselves and keep a low profile. Second, they don't create crowd pleasers but are doing some monumentally important and personal work that will only appeal to a small sector of viewers.

John Peri, immediate or "instant impact" may be your criteria, and it's a valid one, but you used the word "us" when you should have referred to yourself. It may sometimes (even often) be of significance to me (as a photographer and as a viewer) but it's definitely NOT the only thing or the primary thing or the most important thing for a lot of people. Many of my favorite photos did not have that kind of initial impact. They grew, like a fine wine, over time. Layers were revealed slowly. It is often the more superficial photos that have that immediate impact you talk about and then aren't really worth a second look because they have no more than powerful but fleeting niceties to offer.

A lot has been written about this photo already. Interpretations are best left to the viewer and so it is quite possible that what the viewer thinks may not be what the photographer has in mind. Sometimes it may raise new ideas and possibly a few learning points; else, it may be better to acknowledge a view/critique and move on.

To me, this is a photo of a lady, nude, in bed. A capture of a moment, like thousands of others, in time. Period.

Your comment is music to my eyes and [figureatively] my ears.

I post a very large number of photos that do not get high views and do not have major impact, yet I have been tolda certain number are gallery and museum worthy at the highest level, and am preparing just such exhibition.  (wish me luck, please).

A photo may have impact, and that may be important in a gallery if someone is making a purchase -- witness the famous photo by Elliott Erwitt of shoes and dogs from a dog's eye view. 

Some gallleries who should know more about Erwitt's wonderful talents, l talents may only stock that one photo, because it has 'impact' mostly  of its unusual point of view (caused by his lifelong love of dogs.) and subject matter.  His other wonderful work often is overlooked.

I do indeed post lots of photos that have very low impact, yet I wouldn't stop for a minute or withdraw them for 'low views'.  Some of my best work has 'low views' and thus 'low impact' and is being 'seasoned' here.

Indeed, for me this photo is a fluke and ratings are almost absurdly high, and so is its immediate 'impact',, but it is not so I think because of some drawback but because it relies( and very well I think)  on special compositional values and devices that are not readily apparent, applied to subject matter, that has resonated with viewers. 

Some of my better 'street' work has done that, and it has been well received, and like bottles of vino from a stunning year for wine, that work has stood the tes of time (forty years, is that enough?) and now some is considered historical and I hope also 'important.  I have been told that by experts in the field, but will test that myself.

I think also that mostly I have helped turn what once was a very unfriendly forum for street photography here into a place where at least street is repected and sometimes also well recveived, if not always well viewed.

I do have followers, one is just above, and I cherish them, for they help me in my quest to become a better photographer and to understand the worth in others' educated eyes of what I produce.

The followers' identifies have varied and changed over time, but the role they fill is most important, nay almost indispensable, and I cherish them, like Mr. Bose, next above, who is tremendously helpful to me.

So, rather than relying solely on 'impact' as suggested by comments underthis photograph, try taking a look through my huge portfolio, which does not rely in huge views.  You'll notice that if I post something I almost never take it down; I may only move it from one folder to another.  I believe in my work.

So, Fred, instead of finding a 'sting' in your words, I find them tremendously supportive.

And I thank you for that possibly unknowing compliment.

john

John (Crosley)

Please see my reply to Mr. Goldsmith's comment, next above, for an assessment of the worth you fulfill to me.

I am most thankful for each and every critique you have shared with me, and the tremendous effort you have put into the process; I hope that has benefitted your work, as I think it has.

That is the whole point of my sharing so much; to help others, especially those such as yourself.

(and no, I'm not ignoring you, I'm tardy in my correspondence, after first responding to an emergency then getting my first camera after a month without one and just now shooting up a storm with I think wonderful and unexpected happy and fulfilling results - new stuff every time.)

I am most appreciative of your presence here on Photo.net and the critiques you have given me; I hope to return the favor anon.

john

John (Crosley)

 John Crosley:  I agree that if any work gets this much attention, there is reason for it. Art is often  rightly  controversial, not necessarily attractive, and from that viewpoint it represents a sign of success.

Fred. G.:  Fred raises an excellent point about artwork sometimes growing on us and of course I agree. People  too!  Unfortunately in this world of fast food however, we don't always give them a second chance. But it's not really my criterion Fred, considerable marketing studies have been made to measure information that we notice and retain. Indeed, that should not necessarily apply to art, though applying for attention on a photo forum does demand certain considerations. As for popularity, ratings and all that nonsense, I think we all cater to the media to a certain degree. I have lots of stuff I keep to myself, which others will largely not identify with. I hate the rating system personally, but it tends to increase viewing around tenfold, so alike many other things around us I consider it a necessarily evil. From my perspective, the "concern for viewing" you refer to is generally attached to the wish to receive useful feedback. If one does not share that goal, there are other places than PN where one can stock one's photos and have them viewed selectively. I have no predisposition regarding quality and have never expressed an opinion on my works except when challenged specifically to do so, I post to receive other's views. 

A word on John Crosley's street photography. I find remarkable his ability to move in close, both figuratively speaking and in practice. Some of his superb studies are very intimate and revealing, and as such deserve close attention not only from the viewpoint of photography but also through their sociological implications. I do however stand by the idea that it should be the audience largely that analyzes a work and not the author, you cannot really spoon feed art or the message it conveys. John, kindly meant, you tend to drown the fish sometimes, but as Fred will rightly say it's only my opinion.  And let's face it, discussion on this forum is part of the fun, even if some  people occasionally confuse it  with a blood sport ... :-)  

John Peri, on drowning the fish, we agree. As we see in this thread, so-called useful feedback can be spun by a photographer in many ways and become not so useful and the feedback almost disappears into the ether of rationalization and defense. The fine line between deserved confidence in and defense of our work and the risk of cocooning ourselves from valid criticism (someone mentioned protesting too much) is one that is often not walked clumsily on PN. I think desire for views is as often about ego and, as you yourself say, marketing, as it is about getting useful feedback. I'm not immune from any of this myself, if we're being honest.

Of course, in my post above, I should have said that the fine line IS walked clumsily.

One more thing about the suggestion that a lot of attention must mean a photograph is a success, though my comment does not reflect at all on this particular photo and is meant as a generic observation and a counterexample to this often-heard contention. Elvises on black velvet get a lot of attention as do American Idol contestants. The amount of attention has zero to do with the quality of a photo or any work of art.

@Fred G

Check a lot more of the images in his portfolio and you will find the same common theme of long winded and self-serving rationalizations and defensive comments. As predictable as a sunrise.

Fred. G.:

Hmm,  as Sun Tzu pointed out in the 6th century BC, discourse alike warfare is all about prediction (actually he said the opposite!), I find many people quite predictable and I am sure many of us write in consequence!   

To keep up the analogy, like a fisherman one selects the useful items that one wants from among the feedback, how could it be otherwise on a public forum. Undoubtedly this selective process is biased.  However, anyone without an ego has deep psychological problems which  hopefully receive therapy, so I don't think that it is a cause of reprimand.  It's normal to try and validate one's own ideas, though on should not become immune to criticism in the process, of course I agree. Spinning .. well it's all just another strategy of warfare, sorry discourse, hmm, in fishing too.

That said maybe we overestimate the importance of this all. Some people read detective stories to relax, others beat the dog. Personally, like others here I post photos. Now if it lifts our ego or destroys it, well so what, but I do genuinely appreciate comments to the point. I wish everyone the enjoyment that they seek from their hobby, whatever the underlying motive.

Fred G.:  

As Madonna rightly said, "it's a material world". Any television programme that is looked at frequently translates into dollars, and that in today's world means success.

Strangely, to return to "art", so is a tomato thrown onto a canvas on the wall by Yoko Ono, and here I am still more mystified as to what success truly means.  

Now if I opened John's thumbnail and took the trouble to say the photo didn't speak to me, though I do hear a whisper now, I think that gives certain pertinence to the image, there are many more thumbnails I didn't bother with. Isn't impact, reaction, once again what it's largely all about.  

John Peri, consider degrees. Yes, we all spin. Yes, normal people have egos. Some spin more than others and to more bizarre results. Some have bigger egos than others and some egos dominate and others don't. I try to treat people as individuals, not predictable adversaries, and I'm not always successful.

You and I measure success differently. A photo of mine is a success if I show and express something of significance. It has little to do with frequency of views and Madonna-like materialism.

No, impact and reaction is not what it's all about. I'd have to write a term paper to add all the many things it's about. Do you think Edward Weston's prime concern was impact and reaction or might it have been the pepper and photographing it?

Fred,

..either I expressed myself badly, the more likely of the two, or you misunderstood. Possibly, the discussion has strayed from the original point. I did not refer to success in the original context as a measure of the worth of any photo. I spoke of success in the accomplishment of one's goal, which I defined as arriving at a certain number of views in order to maximize comments. I am sometimes surprised by  how many "views" a photo may receive. I do not consider that a success in terms of quality and have not implied that to my knowledge.

To others:

I think that different opinions are good things to debate, however controversial, but when remarks become personal I believe there is something mean going on. There is nothing to be gained by hurting and offending people. At the beginning of this new year, I plead for some tolerance and understanding of others, putting yourself in their place, it's called empathy.