Today’s post is actually based on a short note I wrote to myself while doing a workout. Here’s what the note says:

A fine art photo should be interesting even without lots and lots of detail.

There are many fine art photos in the art world that were taken with large or medium format film cameras of sometimes banal subject matter that are really only interesting because of the details you can see when it’s printed or displayed very large. This has set up the expectation that fine art photos necessarily have to be taken with large or medium format film cameras or else they’re not truly “fine art” photography.

There has been some backlash to this trend with the iPhone photo exhibits and books that have come out (iPhones take small 3 megapixel and 5 megapixel digital photos). But I think this is a novelty and still not generally accepted in the fine art photography world.

My own position on this is that a photo should be interesting even without lots of excruciating detail or else it’s not really that interesting from an art standpoint. However, I concede that some level of fine detail may be necessary to accurately see and appreciate what makes a captured image interesting–e.g., the details of a facial expression, intricate plant life, or a some manufactured artifact. Sometimes, though, a blurred image with very little fine detail can be quite powerful and engaging.

The main point I’m making is that it’s not necessary that a photograph be taken with a large or medium format film camera to be a fine art photograph worthy of collecting or hanging on a wall. A powerful or engaging image speaks for itself and can be the object of fine art appreciation regardless of what type of camera (or other type of image recording device for that matter!) was used to capture it.

This isn’t a revolutionary idea in any way, but I think it needs to be said and reinforced from time to time because there are forces out there that keep trying to make fine art photography somewhat “exclusive” by pushing for the large film requirement in order for photos to be “legitimate” collectible fine art photography.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

If almost anyone can afford a decent digital SLR camera + lens, what is it we/you’re selling as a person trying to make a living–or, at least, a partial income–from photography?

Well, one thing you’re not selling–at least not in an “exclusive” way–is the ability to generate photos or digital images; almost anyone can do this now. And even some of the lower-end digital SLR camera models can generate quite usable images for stock, weddings, and/or portraiture.

And since digital makes possible immediate and/or almost immediate review of images taken, even amateurs can be quite sure whether they’re getting good, properly exposed images or not. So, it’s more difficult to make the case that you need a professional photographer to make sure the camera equipment is producing images that look good from a technical standpoint. I’m pretty sure no one would want to hire a true novice in this regard, but the learning curve has certainly flattened out.

Now, being able to “operate” the equipment does not assure great photos, right? I don’t think anyone would argue with this. However, having equipment that is better than a compact/point-and-shoot digital camera can certainly help *anyone* make better photos….especially if they’re photographing moving targets or photographing in places with low light; it’s in these two areas that compact/point-and-shoot camera often come up short.

One area that I think still requires quite a bit of technical mastery to get right is the use of flash and external lighting for indoor–especially dark indoor–photography. Purely “natural light” practitioners will often run into difficulties at dark, nighttime and/or indoor receptions.  Having a professional for such events can make a significant difference in the quality of the photos.

Now, even though I’ve downplayed the importance of equipment, the more expensive professional equipment does make *some* difference in terms of image quality, focusing speed, and ability to take photos in lower light. This is especially true for indoor events. The more expensive equipment *will* yield a higher percentage of “keepers”, all other factors being equal.

Okay, now for the sake of argument, let’s say the event is purely outdoors and the difference in image quality and focusing speed between the consumer camera equipment and the professional equipment isn’t significantly noticeable to the client. What’s left?

It’s that “photographic eye” thing, right? That thing that tells the photographer what to take a photo of and what the client sees as the intangible “thing” that makes a photo good and/or pleasing, right?

Well, the trouble is that many budding photographers have–or claim to have, or maybe their friend or spouse claims they have it–that “photographic eye”. This is not exclusive to professional photographers. In fact, some professional photographers may have lost that “eye” because they’ve taken too many hundreds or thousands of photos and have become “desensitized image factories”!

Some of that “eye” thing may be related to the amount of enthusiasm the photographer still has for the art of photography. Beginners often have lots of this enthusiasm and it sometimes can make up for what they lack in photographic experience.

In actuality, professional photographers often go through fluctuations in enthusiasm; it’s usually not a static “have” or “not have” commodity. It comes and goes like it does with any long-term activity pursued by a human.

Really, I think it’s *not* the photographic eye, per se, that you’re paying the professional for; even a good amateur should have that. With a professional, what you’re paying for, is a well-established photographic vision. Whereas an amateur photographer is typically experimenting with different styles, viewpoints, post-processing, etcetera…a professional has found his or her strength and developed it to a high degree.

When you hire a professional photographer, the photos s/he delivers will be *very* similar to the sample portfolios and galleries s/he has shown you. There’s a consistency in vision that the photographer has carried out over and over. You, as the customer, know and can be sure of what you’ll get when you hire this photographer. This photographer has shown s/he will deliver consistently and what the end product will look like. If you, as the customer, like what you see, you can be quite sure you’ll get the results you want when you hire this photographer.

So, photographers, what are we selling? A well-established photographic vision.

Does this mean a professional photographer can’t experiment like an amateur can? No, I don’t think that’s the case. Even the professional’s “experimentations” will carry his or her signature vision or style. S/he can’t get away from this vision or style; it’s who s/he is as an established photographer…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

San Francisco’s Museum of Modern Art is hosting a symposium in which 13 invited participants discuss the question: “Is Photography Over?”

Rather than fear such questions (which you might if you’re a photographer or interested in being a photographer), I think it’s good to embrace and explore them–i.e., I think it’s a healthy exercise. You can see the participants’ initial written responses to the question here.

A number of the commentators state that it depends on what is meant by “photography” and what is meant by “over”. Let me try…

Photography: “Using a camera to make art and/or to make money”
Over: “Photos no longer considered an art form or salable product

“Is Photography Over? Nah, just crippled and metamorphosing, I think.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

I thought Auto ISO was going to be a great feature…until I started using it!

I borrowed a Canon 5D Mark II from Canon Professional Services a few times and wanted to try out the auto ISO feature, which covers 100-3200 ISO. I mean, how many times have I suddenly gone from a low-light situation to a bright-light situation while photographing (e.g., a bridal couple coming out from inside a dark church to the bright sunshine outdoors) and forgot or didn’t have a chance to change the ISO from 1600 or 3200 to 200 or 100?

I normally shoot in either aperture priority or manual exposure mode. It turns out that the 5D Mark II defaults to 400 ISO in manual mode (i.e., it doesn’t really do anything in manual mode). In aperture priority, it will look for a shutter speed + ISO combination that gives the “proper” exposure given the aperture you’ve selected. This would be OK if the camera didn’t “think” that a shutter speed as low as 1/20 or 1/15 sec was acceptable in low light, or that a high ISO of 800 or 1600 in conjunction with an unnecessarily high shutter speed of 1/4000 or 1/8000 sec was just peachy when you’ve moved outdoors into plenty of daylight.

The problem is that you can’t set a minimum or maximum shutter speed on the 5D Mark II, so you can’t prevent it from deciding to use unacceptably slow shutter speeds or unnecessarily high ISOs.

With the Canon 1D Mark IV, not only *can* you set minimum and maximum shutter speeds, but auto ISO still works in manual exposure mode! When I discovered this (auto ISO in manual mode), I thought I would never have a reason to use aperture priority with the 1D. Heck, you can decide your ideal aperture and shutter speed, and then let the camera choose the lowest ISO that still yields a proper exposure….like having simultaneous aperture and shutter speed priority with auto exposure!

It turns out there’s one little “fly in the ointment” with auto ISO in manual mode on the 1D: you can’t use the “*” button to fix exposure and recompose the shot like you can in aperture or shutter priority. I would think this is something Canon could change with a simple firmware update (Canon, are you listening?).

There’s another potential problem with using auto ISO in manual mode on the 1D that I’ll mention a little later in this post; but the purpose of this post is to discuss making auto ISO useful, regardless of which camera you own. So, back to the question…

How do you make auto ISO actually useful?

It depends on your camera. Here’s a short decision tree I’ve devised:

A) If you have a camera that allows the setting of minimum and maximum shutter speeds and you plan to shoot in something other than shutter priority mode, set these min and max shutter speeds accordingly to keep the camera from selecting too low shutter speeds or too high ISOs when set for auto ISO. I find that the 1D actually tends to seek a low ISO if possible, so I set the min possible shutter speed to something like 1/60 sec and don’t worry about the max shutter speed. A little testing with your own camera should allow you to figure out the best settings for it.

B) If you can’t set minimum or maximum shutter speeds, you may be better off using shutter priority (versus aperture priority, program, full auto, or what have you). If you’re controlling the shutter speed, you can make sure it’s fast enough to keep your dark indoor images from being blurred due to camera shake or movement of your subject. Also, you can make sure it’s not so fast that it forces the camera to choose higher than necessary ISOs when there’s plenty of light (e.g., outdoors on a bright day). You have to be somewhat careful to change it from slower speeds to higher speeds when you step outdoors into bright conditions from a dark indoor situation. If your lens is able to constrict to small apertures–like f/16, f/22 or even smaller–you should be fine if you forget initially. If you don’t want the aperture to be so small (e.g., because you don’t want the depth of field to be large), make sure to increase the shutter speed in the new brighter scene as soon as you can.

The main reason to use auto ISO is to have your camera automatically use the lowest ISO possible given the prevailing light level so that image noise is kept to a minimum. Each camera comes with its own algorithm that decides what combination of aperture size, shutter speed, and ISO to use for any particular shot. If you shoot in full auto mode, the camera chooses some combination of all three parameters to get a good exposure. If you shoot aperture priority with auto ISO, you’ve taken away aperture size as a parameter and the camera will vary only shutter speed and ISO to get the correct exposure. If you shoot shutter priority with auto ISO, you’ve taken away shutter speed as a parameter and the camera will vary only aperture size and ISO to get the correct exposure.

What’s at issue here is what the camera decides to do with the 2-3 parameters it’s varying. In automatic mode, your camera is varying all 3 parameters and you’ve got little control over its decisions. Being able to specify a minimum and/or maximum shutter speed can give you *some* control, but not many cameras include this ability.

If you fix the aperture size (via aperture priority) at, say, f/4, the camera could decide to drop the ISO down to 100 and the shutter speed to 1/15 sec to get a proper exposure. It’s difficult to get a non-blurry image at 1/15 sec, especially if the subject is a person or animal which seldom stay perfectly still.

If you fix the shutter speed (via shutter priority) at, say, 1/125 sec, the camera could decide to set the aperture to f/8 and raise the ISO to 3200, even though the lens is capable of an aperture of f/2.8 or larger; this larger aperture could bring the ISO down to 400 or lower, which most photographers I know would prefer.

Unfortunately, most cameras don’t let you tweak their internal algorithms so that it makes its decisions directly in line with your preferences.

The reason I got excited about the 1D Mark IV’s ability to shoot auto ISO in manual mode is that you can fix *both* the aperture size and the shutter speed, and only allow the ISO to vary to obtain the correct exposure. I found two problems with it however. First, there’s the problem I mentioned where you can’t press the “*” button, which fixes the exposure, and then recompose the shot (something that Canon may be able to change in the firmware). The other potential problem is if it’s very bright outside, the camera may not be able to find a ISO low enough to get a proper exposure with your selected aperture + shutter settings, leading to a potentially badly over-exposed image.

Ultimately, the best way to make auto ISO work for you is test it with your own camera in different modes with different settings and see which combination gets closest to the way you want your camera to operate. You may find a combination that gets agreeably close to your preferences. Or you may–as many have–simply give up on auto ISO altogether!

If auto ISO is important to you, it would be best to test various cameras first–perhaps using some of the tips I’ve mentioned in this post–before you actually make your camera purchase.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

When I’m photographing a wedding, I’m using the equipment I own that gives me the best quality images–e.g., my Canon 1-series DSLR + an “L” zoom lens or my prime lenses. Same with my portrait sessions. (Clients like to see that you are using expensive camera equipment when they’re paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for your services; it probably shouldn’t be that way; but, believe me, it truly makes a difference to some clients.)

But prime lenses and the best quality zoom lenses cover limited focal lengths; there’s always a trade-off between optical image quality and the range of focal lengths a zoom lens covers. Normally a prime lens–which only covers one fixed focal length–provides the epitome of image quality but the least flexibility in terms of focal length range. And professional quality zoom lenses–like the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS–extend focal length flexibility with a slight, but usually acceptable, drop in image quality. However, any one of these high-quality professional zoom lenses necessarily leave out a large part of the focal length range photographers commonly like to cover–e.g., 24-300mm.

Whenever I am covering a wedding (or other event) or photographing a portrait session, fleeting moments appear in front of me that I may not be able to capture well with the focal length or lengths available to me with the lens currently on my camera, and there often isn’t time to change my lens before the moment has passed. Also, there is occasionally a need for some flash lighting that may or may not be available on my camera at that moment.

So, what do you do to insure that you are “ready for anything”?

First, I try to use a lens on my primary DSLR that can capture 80% or more of the types of images I’m trying to capture during any particular stretch of the session or event. A prime lens may suit this purpose (e.g., a large max aperture prime lens when low lighting is an issue), or a high-quality professional zoom lens might be the way to go.

What about those other 20% (or so) unexpected shots? I like to have a relatively small DSLR with a prime or zoom lens (the lens should be relatively small & light as well) on my hip, and this lens should cover a portion of the 24-300mm range not being covered by the lens on my primary camera.

Now, I’ve photographed many weddings and portrait sessions with two large DSLRs hanging on me (e.g., a 1-series and a 5D with grip) and trying to capture roughly equal numbers of photos with each camera. It’s a pain in the butt in many ways. Two large cameras weigh a lot and they can get tangled up–even when you start using some of these innovations now available to get one or both of the cameras off of your neck (I’ve experimented with some of them); also it’s amazing how easy the camera you’re not currently using can get bumped and the settings messed up such that its not available for that quick shot! The standard configuration here is having two cameras (with the same or similar crop factor), one with a 24-70mm lens and the other with a 70-200mm lens.

I have found that relying on one main camera + lens for 80% or more of your shots (during any particular stretch of an event or session) truly simplifies things and makes it easier to focus and enjoy doing the photography: less weight, less time switching back-and-forth between cameras. And if the second camera is one of the smaller, less expensive DSLRs, they come with a built-in flash just in case you need it; this is *much* more portable than having one of the professional DSLRs that require an attached flash unit.

I just photographed a fashion show this past weekend. My primary camera + lens was a Canon 1D with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, which covered more than 90% of the shots I wanted to get. However, at my side I had my good old Canon 20D with a 28mm f/1.8  lens to grab any wide angle shots that might appear before me on short notice. This combination worked great!

The actual combination of lenses you’ll want to use will depend on the event, and may even change during the course of a particular event–e.g., for a wedding, I normally use different lenses for the “getting ready” photos than I use for the ceremony photos. For outdoor portrait sessions, I’m finding that a 24-105 lens on a 1.3 crop factor Canon 1-series DSLR works well for more than 80% of the photos; match that with a telephoto zoom on a small DSLR (e.g., 100-300 mm) and you’ll also be able to zoom in for some close-up shots from a comfortable (for both you and the subject) distance.

So, if you photograph event and/or portrait sessions and you don’t want to buy or carry around two large and expensive DSLR cameras–or spend the time and experience the hassle of regularly switching back-and-forth between them–then consider buying and using one expensive “primary” camera and lens. Supplement it with a cheaper and smaller camera + lens “safety net” at your hip that can fill in all or part of the critical focal range you’ve necessarily had to leave out to maintain the single, high-quality camera and lens configuration, and you’ll be “ready for anything”…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Psychologist Abraham Maslow formalized and popularized the term “Peak Experience” in the 1960s. According to Maslow, peak experiences are especially joyous and exciting moments in life, involving sudden feelings of intense happiness and well-being, wonder and awe, and possibly also involving an awareness of transcendental unity or knowledge of higher truth.

Maslow (1970) describes how the peak experience tends to be uplifting and ego-transcending; it releases creative energies; it affirms the meaning and value of existence; it gives a sense of purpose to the individual; it gives a feeling of integration; it leaves a permanent mark on the individual, evidently changing them for the better. Peak experiences can be therapeutic in that they tend to increase the individual’s free will, self-determination, creativity, and empathy (see wikipedia for more on Maslow and peak experience).

What does peak experience have to do with photography?

I believe there is–and have personally experienced–a synergistic relationship between photography and peak experience. That is, I have found that photography can help to bring on peak experiences; and also, that peak experiences often feed positively into photography to help create especially compelling and transcendent images.

Truth be told, in fact, I think the main reason I have continued to pursue photography is because of its ability to help me have these “peak experiences”. When you recognize something transcendent in a scene you are photographing and are able to capture it, or later on when looking through your photos, you see some bit of beauty or truth you would have never seen without the stop-action capability of still photography, you are beholding the “magic” photography provides for entering peak psychological (and spiritual?) states.

Of course, photography isn’t the only way to truth, beauty, and peak experiences. Other common means are other artistic pursuits, art appreciation, meditation, yoga, intense physical exertion, relationships with others, exposure to nature, and so on. Photography just happens to be a means that suits me and my life situation well at this point, and may (or may not) continue to be a particularly effective and convenient means for the rest of my life.

I have also found that intense physical activity, writing, reading, and exposure to nature have gone a long way toward helping me achieve “higher” states of consciousness. And whenever possible, I try to combine them and/or play them off of one another to help prolong and spread the influence of my transcendent experiences from one sector of my life & pursuits to another.

I recently bought and read the book “Tao of Photography: Seeing Beyond Seeing“, By Philippe L. Gross, S.I. Shapiro. In most respects, I think it’s worth reading. It showcases many inspiring photos from the author Gross and several significant photographers from photography’s history (e.g,. Minor White, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Wynn Bullock, Ansel Adams, etc).

The book makes the case that the photographer’s state of mind and all that that includes (clarity of perception, stillness/centeredness, patience, relaxed expectations) is the most important factor determining whether a “successful” photograph will be made. It acknowledges that some technical knowledge and expertise are required to make an effective or compelling photograph, but that these requirements are relatively easily acquired and pale in importance compared to the photographer’s state of mind and “being”.

I am in 98% agreement with the book’s message; the photographer’s state of mind is critical in making transcendent photographs. Without the proper mental disposition and awareness, inspired photos are unlikely to happen. When photography students are taught things like “The Rule of Thirds”, such mental constraints can actually get in the way of making inspired photos. Here are some other “barriers to seeing” listed in the book (paraphrased):

• The need to conform, win approval, or be a member of a group; the inability to disagree, be unpopular, or stand alone.
• Over-respect for authority or a great practitioner; becoming a disciple, loyal follower, and unable to affirm oneself.
• The need to be dominant and in control versus non-interfering and receptive.
• The need to rubricize and categorize versus simply experiencing.
• Intolerance of ambiguity.
• The need for radical novelty versus seeing what is special in the familiar.

As I said, I think this book is worth reading and I’m mostly in agreement with it. Ironically, my biggest disappointment in the book is that it presents its case in a somewhat uninspired, almost “academic” way! The photography is inspiring, the ideas are inspiring, but the writing is kinda, well, uninspiring and not as compelling or insightful as I would have expected. Yet, there aren’t a lot of other options out there covering these ideas. (Here are a few others that may at least get close to some of these issues if you’re interested.)

So, getting back to Maslow (who, by the way, is mentioned a few times in The Tao of Photography)…

I have found photography to be an effective vehicle for achieving peak experiences, and for peak experiences to inform and feed my photography in a way that brings it to a higher level. When things are going optimally, a reverberative cycle is created in which the peak experience feeds into the quality of the photo, which then–being inspired and transcendent–flows back to me in the form of an even more elevated state of peak experience. This elevated perceptual state then further influences the photos I’m capturing, leading to photos that are even more original and/or transcendent.

I imagine that if this feedback cycle were to continue indefinitely, the photographer would likely lose himself and go insane or something! The reality is that the cycle is usually somewhat short-lived; and also, that since the photographer is, in fact, focusing his heightened perception on physical reality (that’s what’s in his viewfinder!), it tends to fortuitously tether him to physical reality–i.e., to keep him somewhat “grounded”.

Even though this highly exhilerating feedback loop is fairly short-lived, the effects of it are not; there’s often a residual “aura” of stimulation that goes on to enhance the photographer’s thoughts and perceptions the rest of the day–if not over the course of multiple days–though at a lower, more sustainable level.

I think I could on and on about the relationship between photography and peak experience, but I think it may be an issue better explored in book format due to the amount of discussion involved to really flesh it out. Maybe I’ll write that book! Or maybe I’ll just return to the subject multiple times here at the blog.

In any case, I think peak experiences are the true reason I do many of the things I do in life, including photography. Photography is just a means to get there, and it is a means I–and hopefully you too–quite enjoy…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

I’ve participated in photo sharing websites for the past 5-6 years and found them helpful in some ways but frustrating in others. I’ve tried to use them as places to put up my images to discover which are “objectively good” (if such a thing is even possible) and which aren’t. I mean, maybe I really like a particular photo I’ve taken, but let’s see what the rest of the photo sharing audience thinks!

Interestingly–and I’ve heard this from other photographers as well–many of my favorites (of photos that *I* have produced) are *not* the favorites of my photo sharing audience. Sometimes they go nuts over an image I post that I wasn’t even sure I wanted to post because I thought it was marginal. Other times, I’ll post an image that I think is one of the best photos I’ve ever taken, and it meets with dead “silence” from my photo sharing audience…heck, sometimes I can barely get them to even click the thumbnail and view the image larger!

So, what’s going on here?

First, I don’t think *subtlety* plays well at photo sharing websites. Probably the main reason for this is that image viewers are making a decision whether to click on and view your image larger based on a relatively small thumbnail image. If the compelling aspect/s of your image are relatively small within the image and/or not visually “loud”, when it’s thumbnail sized, it may not appear interesting at all! Related to this: your image may be one of those that needs to be seen large (800 pixels or more in the maximum dimension) to be appreciated. But many photo sharing websites display the enlarged image at a mere 400-500 pixels in the maximum dimension. These common constraints at photo sharing websites have therefore–unintentionally, I think–made certain types of photos more prevalent and popular (e.g., close-ups, bright colors, high contrast, and the appearance of nudity) because that’s what gets *noticed* when images are presented small, and this small presentation used as a basis for the viewer’s decision to investigate and evaluate the image further.

It seems that the one exception to the non-subtlety bias is when a photographer has such a dedicated following that his/her “fans” will click on anything the photographer posts and closely look for anything that makes it compelling.

Second, if you tend to jump back and forth between various subjects (children, weddings, fine art nudes, etc) and/or styles of photography (B&W vs. Color, film vs digital, sharp focus vs blurry focus, etc), you tend to lose your audience’s viewing “loyalty” because–good or bad–most people want to see photography regarding a certain subject matter or style and want to see it again and again. I think they want to see creativity (at least I’m pretty sure they want to), but they want to see it *within* a particular subject matter or style that they enjoy.

So, if you want to make it hard on yourself getting a dedicated following, just keep jumping all over the map in terms of subject matter and style and you’ll find out how easy it is to drive viewers away. (A recommendation: if you really need to pursue different subjects or styles, consider creating multiple accounts and dedicate each one to a single style or subject matter.)

A third factor: activity at photo sharing sites can sometimes degrade into pure popularity contests. I don’t want to infer that this is always the case, because it’s not. But some photographers at these sites get so many views and comments because they have a large network of photo sharing friends–much like having lots of friends at a social networking site like Facebook–that are good about viewing and commenting on each others’ photos. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this, but it can make it difficult for someone to evaluate how “successful” their images are if they’re comparing their number of comments and/or views to the images of someone else when that someone else has a much more extensive photo sharing friend network!

A fourth factor: most photo sharing websites are set up to show one enlarged image at a time and are geared toward “one hit” photos that stand on their own. Sure, you can group a bunch of related photos into one folder; but visually, it’s the thumbnails you see together, not a series of enlarged images next to each other, like in a book. Also, the order of the images is usually chronological rather than being chosen by the photographer to appear in a particular, meaningful sequence.

I’ve noticed that when fine art photographers put together a portfolio, the sequencing and the juxtaposition of photos on facing pages is crucial to the success of the photos’ presentation. Often, I find that any one of these photos from a series isn’t all that interesting by itself. Together, though, the photos tell a story and/or present a consistent perspective that can be very compelling. Photo sharing websites are geared more toward singular “hits” that shine individually and don’t require a consistent supporting artistic vision.

Conclusion

Sometimes, I think the best thing about photo sharing websites is seeing the work of other photographers! For your own work, I think you have to be careful what you take away from the feedback you get from them. I would caution you against using them to decide which of your photos is the absolute best (e.g., for contests) or for putting together a portfolio of your best work. I have found that photo sharing websites are not very helpful for determining how to group or sequence photos for a book or portfolio because they’re geared more toward the presentation and evaluation of one image at a time. Also, you have to keep in mind that photos do well at photo sharing websites for various reasons, and some of those reasons may have little to do with the critical or artistic quality of a photo.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!