Why are some photography styles less popular, even if they are considered special?
Take minimalism, for example. Representing objects in a very reduced way…making them very small in the image, reducing the colors, etc. Or creative photography with certain effects, etc., or, in macro photography, shading the animals to create certain backgrounds, which are usually very bright or "glow" and can also have different colors.
There are many photographers, even recognized and well-known, who specialize in this. Basically, according to the photographers, a standard animal photo in its natural habitat or portrait is considered standard, shaded and with special backgrounds, possibly even fogging, is considered the "next level," and creative photography, etc., is considered the "top league."
However, if you look at photo groups or likes on YouTube, it usually seems to be the other way around, and the statements don't support this. Isn't this the case, or are many viewers simply "overwhelmed" because the subject is photographed in a way that doesn't correspond to the usual, everyday view, requiring more attention and understanding? It's at least somewhat of a contradiction.
(1 votes)
Loading...
After my experience, two things play an important role:
1. Minimalism and similar stalks are really hard to make really good. Everyone can be minimalism, but by being so little in the picture, the few must be absolutely perfect.
Two. Generally, but especially online, the Otto-Normal consumer is not looking for artistic value, but for “that looked great in the first half second I saw it.” There is simply time and will not there to really deal with the picture.
Specific for animal photos, however, things like fog and the deep black backgrounds are now completely exhausted. For me, it makes it interesting to compose the photo now, without resorting to such games. But of course, this is just my personal opinion.
In addition, everyone crawls with his phone. I don’t know about photography. The friends like.