Now if every photo is “Awesome”, then none are, it seems that way to me. That is the problem with photos on the web. Every photo is awesome, yet as you probably have figured out, many are subjectively so. The word has lost its true meaning and impact when it is used with such abandon. And there is so much more we can say. Why don’t we do that then?
It is funny too that some really great photos that really are awesome don’t get people’s admiration. Why you ask? I ask that too. I would love to understand why when commenting, the word is thrown around so often and not always were it belongs.
I am very appreciative when getting a comment, because someone took the time to write it. Don’t get me wrong, I love the acknowledgement. I just think in certain forums like some photography groups, it is much more important to say why the image is so compelling. There certainly are reasons why one is drawn to a photograph.
So you might actually think a photograph is awesome, but why? Is it about the light, the composition, or the subject’s relationship to surrounding elements or unique background?
How about choices the photographer made? Like using one lens instead of another. Maybe a slow shutter speed helped make that photo interesting. Maybe it is the difficulty in getting or finding that wildlife. Figure out what made the photo special or even how it was made. There maybe a useful question, compliment or comment to say. A purposely blurred image often creates intrigue and mood. Say so.
Many times I add something to show I actually analyzed or studied the photo when commenting in photography groups. If it is awesome, I will say so, but I add why many times.
If an image is for documentation or journalistic submission, then a crisp, clear, true-color image is expected. If the goal is artist expression, then all the better for something that might excite the senses.
Photographs that have a stunning sense of place and scale can give so much story in a photo. Maybe they have the animal very small in the frame which makes the relationship of scenery and the animal all that more important. The photo is emotive. It shows where the animal lives, a very useful element of the animal’s existence and story.
At local camera clubs, images are juried. The club invites a judge to critique member photos. It is meant to improve the member’s way of “seeing” the image and increase the ability to improve their photography. Very rarely will a judge ever just remark an image as awesome. They may say the word, but they always add why.
Using Facebook for gathering accolades by seeking approval from your family and friends, you will be getting that warm tummy rub of their adulation, but it is likely a hollow compliment. They have to say they like it or risk hurting your feelings. It really is funny how we put such faith in the gesture of “likening” an image.
On blogs, commenting is much different from photo groups because the images are not compared to others. They stand alone and there is no reason to explain why you like a photo, just that you do. I suppose since I participate in many groups, I am quick to see this difference. Some groups are based on making friends and comradeliness, while others seem to benefit from comments of greater value.