Bias towards certain photographers...?

elven

Someone mentioned something in another thread about attractive girls getting more comments on their pictures (by blokes, generally that is), and it got me thinking about my own bias on pictures when I'm looking at them.

I know in one way, I take a photo (in the viewing sense) differently depending on who took it because I know people tend to have different approaches, and i would also probably have seen them progress through different styles so I see it as part of a bigger picture - but I wondered just how much it comes into play when you're looking at someone's stuff for the first time? I must admit, i have pretty much the opposite reaction when i see a stream on flickr that's obviously some attention seeker who posts self portraits every two pictures... indeed I cancelled a male contact because he was doing the same thing and it got annoying, even though his other stuff was great.

Thoughts? Comments? Guilty admissions?

Placebo

Well personally any hobby is made better when enjoyed by the opposite sex.
Female gamers, female computer artists, female guitar players... you name it.
Same with photography.
Also from a photos perspective, a picture of a girl is much more interesting [in most cases] mainly because they almost always have bigger and inturn better styled hair, their clothes are also much more interesting looking [not that i like dressing as a girl ] and colourful.

Apart from that, self potraits ! Alot of girls just post those, i think its because of the 'oh so pretty'' 500 comments on some previous photo. Apart from that alot of people just whore comments and they get comments back , until they reach this god like state where they get 1k comments for posting a picture of their sock, photoshopped with some blue tint.

GristlyEnd

Placebo wrote: »

Apart from that alot of people just whore comments and they get comments back , until they reach this god like state where they get 1k comments for posting a picture of their sock, photoshopped with some blue tint.

I actually removed some of my contacts on flickr because of this. It was like a game to see who could comment and fave a photo (I use the term photo liberally) first :rolleyes:

ShakeyBlakey

Really when i look at a pic, i either like it or dont, plenty of in between's, but really if miss world took a pic and i had to comment on it, and it was good i'd say its good, if it was crap, i'd say its crap. I call a spade a spade!

TelePaul

elven wrote: »

Thoughts? Comments? Guilty admissions?

I find you somewhat attractive? Havn't seen much of your photos though, sadly. Not sure if that's what you wanted to hear or not. Your philosophical questions get the better of me quite a bit

TelePaul

Placebo wrote: »

female guitar players.

What's a female guitar player?

ShakeyBlakey

TelePaul wrote: »

I find you attractive? Havn't seen much of your photos though, sadly.

HAHA, now elven there's 1 for the books, or the block list, and fair play telepaul, God loves a trier,

TelePaul

ShakeyBlakey wrote: »

HAHA, now elven there's 1 for the books, or the block list, and fair play telepaul, God loves a trier,

Just being honest. In terms of the original question (which I don't really get) I will give someone the benefit of the doubt if I've taken to some of their other work. If they produce something below their usual standard, I'll consider the photo for alot longer than I would if they hadn't produced good shots in the past.

TelePaul

Me is thinking that Elven's gone to fill out the required 'Permanent Ban' paperwork.

Ricky91t

TelePaul wrote: »

Me is thinking that Elven's gone to fill out the required 'Permanent Ban' paperwork.

haha
im not gonna even try answering this question so

AnCatDubh

hmnnnnn... I don't know if it can actually be defined. I think it's different for everyone. I'm thinking about the subjective nature of the interpretation of the photograph - for some people viewed in the same way but then again it may be very different to others. I think there are two common 'themes' recurring; (a) aesthetics and (b) interesting-ness. There may be more but for me i think it is the two above.

Temporarily moving slightly off topic; consider this - What attracts us to our partner/husband/wife/or significant other. It may be the visuals i.e. the aesthetics and perhaps a first glance the visuals are high on the internal evaluation scale, but it may also be interesting-ness of himself or herself.

Back on topic - transpose the above to an image. Aesthetics will play a big part on our internal evaluation scale i.e. does the image visually appeal to us in the first instance. Do we like saturated colours, lovely bokeh, pin sharp focus, black and white, or sepia tone. I don't think we can define why we like what we like. We just do. The second part is do we find the image interesting - do we like a story and does the image tell one, does the image hold a bit of intrigue and are we curious about something not yet told in the image, does the image challenge your very makeup/beliefs/well being, does the image make you feel comfortable/uncomfortable. We all appreciate some of the foregoing but not all.

But your thread title refers to photographers rather than images. I think photographers will become good with certain genres of photography - some are gifted and have more than one genre. Typically you will find that you maybe attracted to the aesthetics and interesting-ness of the photography genre that the photographer enjoys and enthuses about and does so well. It therefore suggests that you will indeed have bias towards certain photographers.

By the way the above assumes we are talking about the end product (the images) and not the source (your attraction to the actual photographer) which could blind your internal evaluation of the aesthetics and interesting-ness. Complicated eh?

Interesting thread elven...

elven

You're lucky I'm off to bed and don't have time for banning...

Maybe I shouldn't have requested guilty admissions :rolleyes: I got a lot to learn...

Dragan

Personally i judge a photo as a photo. When i see something i like i just link directly to that, make my mind up on it, leave a comment, favour it if i really like and then just go back to browsing photos.

The only time i ever end up in a person's profile is when i am talking to them in chat rooms and such and i would like to look through their whole portfolio.

What a photographer looks like matters about as much to me as the colour of their shoes. I just care about what they make me see.

Hugh_C

On flickr I can think of a few examples of outstanding photographers who are women AND beautiful. _rebekka - an outstanding photographer but seems to attract an inordinate number of fanbois and girls. Same as Miss Aniela. Silvetreewhispers the same. I dunno, tough question Elven,

rahtkennades

I don't get it really. I guess I agree with Dragan mostly. If I'm skimming through the interweb and come across photos, generally I won't know even whether the photographer is male or female, never mind if they're good-looking or not. If I like their work, I might (though rarely will) comment on it. If I don't, I'll just move on.

That said, if I happened across some 'hot chick' selling photos, I might be as much tempted to stop to see her as her pics! I'm only human!!:)

King Eric

I think this somehow may be relevant

Even if its not, she still deserves a posting





shes from sweden dont ya know

band are really good too called the laundry shop

Rojo

TelePaul wrote: »

What's a female guitar player?

Charlotte Hatherley is a really inventive guitar player!! One of my favourites, in fact!


Eh that male self portrait fella isn't me, is it?? I am quite fond of the old self portraits...

Third_Echelon

King Eric wrote: »

I think this somehow may be relevant

Even if its not, she still deserves a posting





shes from sweden dont ya know

band are really good too called the laundry shop

Great shot... Did you take this?

It was from Whelans on saturday night...

Hugh_C

King Eric wrote: »

I think this somehow may be relevant

girl bass players are beyond cool ... Kim Gordon, Kim Deal, eh ... Suzi Quatro

King Eric

Yeah thats mine. Was so dissapointed tho the lovely bright light on her was turned off about 30 secs after i took that photo.

Few more from Whelans of Ham Sandwich up here if you fancy a look

www.endadoran.com/whelans.html

PeakOutput

firstly i dont know enough about photography to be that critical but at the same time its possible that can be an advantage(iv looked at alot of other more traditional forms of art over the years and am facinated by the difference in opinion from a "trained" eye and a layman)

being a guy there is definitely more of a chance ill give a crap photo of a good looking girl a second look instead of a crap to half decent photo of a guy but that dosnt mean i will think its a great photo i can still be as critical. i can say she is beautifull but hte photographer is crap the same way i can(i hope) say i know that landscape is beautifull but the artist that painted the picture is crap

also i dont take pictures of myself unless its for record purposes(fitness) and i have been pretty **** in that regard recently so my new camera hasnt had the pleasure of photoing myself yet

Placebo

King Eric wrote: »

Yeah thats mine. Was so dissapointed tho the lovely bright light on her was turned off about 30 secs after i took that photo.

Few more from Whelans of Ham Sandwich up here if you fancy a look

www.endadoran.com/whelans.html

some very nice pics of that phsyco girl, good work !

Third_Echelon

King Eric wrote: »

Yeah thats mine. Was so dissapointed tho the lovely bright light on her was turned off about 30 secs after i took that photo.

Few more from Whelans of Ham Sandwich up here if you fancy a look

www.endadoran.com/whelans.html

Cool... Some nice shots there...

elven

Ahem.

Aaaanyway, pictures of hot chicks aside... don't you think it might actually be a Good Thing to take someone's overall body of work, including their own personality, into account when viewing a single image, to give it more context? I think round here people are missing out on a lot of good stuff because they can't see anything unless it's got immediate visual eye candy interest - surely there's more to photography than that sort of thing?

elven

I was also thinking about it last night, and i realised that the same picture, posted by, say, two of my contacts on flickr would be taken in entirely different ways because I know what they are generally trying to do with their photography.

The same image posted by one person who is generally into completely visual stuff would seem boring, but posted by an emotive photographer who puts a lot of stock in the meaning of their pictures, would make me think harder about what it makes me feel when i look at it. That says a lot to me about how i view photography in relation to the photographer themself, and makes me think that maybe they aren't single entities that should be able to stand alone, without a series or some sort of explanation. i don't think an image that takes an explanation (even something as simple as a title) is necessarily a weak image, because everyone's going to interpret it differently anyway depending on their own experience and personality.

Paulw

Photography is very subjective, and that isn't a bad thing. People have their own view on things, and I don't think it's a male/female thing, more an individual thing.

I would generally comment on photos that I like, or give reasons why i think the image could be better, in my opinion. I wouldn't comment just because the photographer is male or female, but because of the image itself.

I don't think my images get biased comments either from those who view them.

Placebo

personally, an image has to be striking to grab anyones attention, i do computer grahics, while something that may require alot of effort will be appreciated by me but at the end of the day, the image that is most visually appealing will win.
A picture of bertie with 3 umbrella lights and your canon 1d blah blah vs a picture of a girl with a holga.

nilhg

elven wrote: »

I was also thinking about it last night, and i realised that the same picture, posted by, say, two of my contacts on flickr would be taken in entirely different ways because I know what they are generally trying to do with their photography.

The same image posted by one person who is generally into completely visual stuff would seem boring, but posted by an emotive photographer who puts a lot of stock in the meaning of their pictures, would make me think harder about what it makes me feel when i look at it. That says a lot to me about how i view photography in relation to the photographer themself, and makes me think that maybe they aren't single entities that should be able to stand alone, without a series or some sort of explanation. i don't think an image that takes an explanation (even something as simple as a title) is necessarily a weak image, because everyone's going to interpret it differently anyway depending on their own experience and personality.

Interesting.....

Are you not saying you cannot form an opinion on an image without knowing something about the person who created it, and also (maybe I'm stretching it here) that you cannot divorce the art from the artist.

Do you think that some of what you have said above, puts you on the edge of stereotyping some of your contacts?

Maybe I've misunderstood your reasoning.

Dragan

elven wrote: »

I was also thinking about it last night, and i realised that the same picture, posted by, say, two of my contacts on flickr would be taken in entirely different ways because I know what they are generally trying to do with their photography.

The same image posted by one person who is generally into completely visual stuff would seem boring, but posted by an emotive photographer who puts a lot of stock in the meaning of their pictures, would make me think harder about what it makes me feel when i look at it. That says a lot to me about how i view photography in relation to the photographer themself, and makes me think that maybe they aren't single entities that should be able to stand alone, without a series or some sort of explanation. i don't think an image that takes an explanation (even something as simple as a title) is necessarily a weak image, because everyone's going to interpret it differently anyway depending on their own experience and personality.

Personally at this point i know very little photographers, be it on the net or in real life. Personally, i know 3 ( what i consider to be ) fantastic photographers and i am lucky enough to have complete access to a massive body of work between the three of them.

Your actually spot on, as i do tend to spend more time looking at their work than i do looking at random work on the net, as knowing them personally allows me to read far more into the photo's they have taken and , in a way, to get more from them as well.

I think you make a very valid point.

sheesh

Most of the people I have added as contacts to keep an eye on their photographs I don't know I don't know their process I just liked a few of their photographs and decided that I wanted to see more. I don't have that many contacts. and do not see the need to add more unless it might be some one from here or another photo site I am on. I comment just to encourage. I don't think a hot chick on the other side of the world is going to fall madly in love with me ( or even be 'just good friends') if a say something nice about her photographs.

I was also thinking about it last night, and i realised that the same picture, posted by, say, two of my contacts on flickr would be taken in entirely different ways because I know what they are generally trying to do with their photography.

The same image posted by one person who is generally into completely visual stuff would seem boring, but posted by an emotive photographer who puts a lot of stock in the meaning of their pictures, would make me think harder about what it makes me feel when i look at it. That says a lot to me about how i view photography in relation to the photographer themself, and makes me think that maybe they aren't single entities that should be able to stand alone, without a series or some sort of explanation. i don't think an image that takes an explanation (even something as simple as a title) is necessarily a weak image, because everyone's going to interpret it differently anyway depending on their own experience and personality

.

well that is just context you know the individuals and you react to them differently

I've been saying for years that we should be lowering our carbon emissions al gore says it and they give him a Noble Prize lol .

you see something similar in music I think some people are seen to be arty and creative and 'real artists' others with just as much talent are seen as 'commercial' so people listen to their songs differently. PR or communications people refer to as a 'Aura' I think. When the person is percieved to be a certain way. one persons picture of a landscape might be ignored while another persons image of the same landscape might be hailed as genius. when they might be substantially the same.

Dundhoone

Im confused.

There are two different questions here arent there - one is the pretty girl (or fella for the opposite sex)who posts some good photos but really takes off when she starts posting photos of herself. While these can be creative and tasteful and artistic they also raise the profile of everything else she has done - in some cases way too much. Its base and crass but Im sure some comments are posted inorder to encourage the self-photographer to produce more photos.

The other case is where you know what the photographer looks like, presumably if they post a few candid shots of themsleves or you have met them someplace. The main body of what they do is not self portrait. But you think that maybe they get more praise from guys if maybe there is some romantic interest? Maybe, for the deluded few.

For me its about the non self portrait photos. I would and have commented equally on all my contacts photos that I liked regardless of gender, while I was active on flickr at least!!!!


On the interpretation question - knowing things about a person can definately help you interpret motivation in any art I'd say, where someone has a particular theme or style. I cant see that knowing the photographer is in fact a hot girl would have all that much influence on interpretation. (unless it was a very arty take on actually being a hot girl) Knowing it was a girl who took the photo should be enough. okay im rambling.

Benster

elven wrote: »

don't you think it might actually be a Good Thing to take someone's overall body of work, including their own personality, into account when viewing a single image, to give it more context?

I wish that was the case, if people got to know me more they'd appreciate me for the photographic god I am...

Nah, I dunno if I'd agree with that thought process 100%. It DOES help to critique a photo if it's put in context a bit, with a description of the subject matter or what it was intended to capture. But I'm not sure I'd need the backstory of a photographer to know whether I liked the shot or not.

I like Lee Miller's story, she led some life, but I don't think she's the greatest war photographer ever. On the flip side, Larry Burrows' Vietnam helicopter gunner sequence was so well put together when it was coupled with the Life magazine article it was first published in, putting it in context.

It also raises an interesting question - I like the photos of Alfred Steiglitz but if I heard he was a wife-beater, would that change my view of his work?

B.

City-Exile

Read...
Skip...
Skip...
Skip...
Skip...
Skip...
Read...
Skip...

Right, I missed most of the stuff above.
Your questions are often very ambiguous, elven.
If I continually see great shots from someone, then I'll give them credit when they post something new, which I like.
If someone gets a "lucky" shot, that I happen to like, but I see rubbish in the rest of their sets, I'll usually just ignore the shot.

I show a bias towards photographers who are consistently showing thought & effort in their work.

P.

elven

City-Exile wrote: »

Your questions are often very ambiguous, elven.

My questions aren't usually designed to prompt a 'yes/no' response... I'm just looking to open up a bit of discussion. Sometimes I can't even answer the question fo rmyself and I think that by discussing it on here I might get some ideas from others to help me think about it more.

Are you not saying you cannot form an opinion on an image without knowing something about the person who created it, and also (maybe I'm stretching it here) that you cannot divorce the art from the artist.

Do you think that some of what you have said above, puts you on the edge of stereotyping some of your contacts?

I never intended to suggest that an image can't be taken literally, on its own without further explanation or background knowledge. I think there are different kinds of images that benefit from different levels of explanation. It occurred to me that round here, people wouldn't necessarily take anything into account except the picture in front of them, and maybe sometimes, you could miss out on something interesting because of that. It seems naive to think that either ends of the scale are true for all images, there's going to be a mix in there.

As far as stereotyping is concerned, I think that's probably an element of it. But stereotyping has very negative associations, and I meant that we could use our understanding of the photographer to help us understand their images, in a good way. But it does bring up an interesting thought that maybe it's very easy to fall into a stereotype in photography? "Macro girl" spring to mind, anyone?