second life photography discussion

[Ceka Cianci]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

ewwwww.

Ok, this is going too far.

I am now convinced: we live in degenerate times.

That's what they all say until they try it..

 

 

 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Ceka Cianci said:

That's what they all say until they try it..

 

 

 

 

"Hawaiian Pizza Lovers Sack Rome, 410 CE."
Oils, by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre, 1890

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Hawaiian Pizza Lovers Sack Rome, 410 CE."
Oils, by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre, 1890

So thats what happened to Little Ceasar's Pizza! 

[Nalates Urriah]

21 hours ago, xXJupiterHeightsXx Starchild said:

maybe some could help me better understand why? I noticed within the art and photography of second life it seems those who put way less effort into pictures and avatar appearance have a higher likelihood of more reactions, following and comments, meanwhile someone like me who spends well over 7 hours on a photoshoot from start to finish who very well cleans up and cares about detail yet the follows, reactions and comments are nowhere to be found, personally it's a *****ty feeling as someone who works really hard on photography and puts in the effort but in no return is not interacted with but on the other hand someone with no skills or a nice looking avatar gets to what I can see full fame, sure one can argue about what makes a picture what it is, colors, detail, outfits, setting, lighting, background etc. maybe someone could shed light on what I'm doing wrong but it just seems backwards, no talent gets everything mean while talent gets nothing. it is very frustrating, and I totally get it there is a lot of us here but coming into second life and getting into photography just seems like a waste at this point. 

You seem to have the idea effort equates to talent/skill. Also, the idea that they can make a nice-looking avatar and yet have no 'skill' doesn't hold up. If they can make a pleasing avatar, they have some measure of skill. For some, it is in making the avatar, for others dressing the avatar, for others posing the avatar, and for others their level of photographic skill. Each of us has varying levels of each of these abilities. If people are "liking" an image it suggests there is SOMETHING that works for those people in that image.

17 hours ago, xXJupiterHeightsXx Starchild said:

okay so this goes out to everyone who has responded, thank you. you all have giving me some Steller advice to move forward with! I suppose I worded the first post a bit weirdly and noticed some comments in a way think all I care about is views, comments etc. which is not true and here is my point of view to help round out what I am aiming for and please note all advice giving has helped me already. so, coming from someone who is very much into real life photography as you can find a link in my profile. the same happened to my real-life pictures as I am a drone pilot and got into that hobby of arial photography. my Facebook page has no comments or likes or interactions and the same has followed with my second life pictures, which is why I sounded off in my post by getting discourage, likes, comments and follows are not what I generally care about however I am no expert or have gone to school for photography but instead picked this up as passion of mine and learned what I can do within second life and real world photography. I very much enjoy the community and what it offers but when barley getting any interaction from my posts I often wonder if I have done something wrong? is my work good? etc not sure if creators feel that way or if it's just me, the comments everyone has put down makes sense, but I guess being a human, an artist or hobbiest certain things go through my mind and when I hear nothing, I think sometimes is what I am doing even enjoyable for others. the comments though are what I needed to hear in support as this is the first time I'm coming out and seeking advice, guidance and support.

Since the same thing happens in RL as in the SL realm... it suggests there is something in the art you are doing that just doesn't work for many people. That makes it neither good nor bad. It is what it is.

The things that go through YOUR mind are totally you. It seems you are trying to take value for your art as something that is measured by the amount of approval you get FROM OTHERS. Do you see the problem?

The idea that a few hours of effort makes art is not a reasonable idea. Talent, skill, imagination, emotional state... and more... all contribute.

This is an image by Natsumi Xenga. The "how to" video runs an hour and a half. The time to make the video and capture the image in SL... I have no idea. But I can see the effort and skill put into making a photo-realistic image, which I consider very well done. But, I prefer photo-realistic, sharp, crisp images to 'artsy' Monet-like images.

The Monet that Scylla posted is considered great art. I'm not into it. Does Monet suck... or do I have lousy taste in art? I prefer to think neither. However, Monet's work is an influence on what I think is meant by art. But, that doesn't change what I like and don't really care for.

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The painting in question is Claude Monet's "Impression. Sunrise."

So at some point, one must decide why they make the art they make. Is it for one's self... or is it for others? And if others, which others?

I tend to make images for myself. If I like them enough, I share them. Sometimes I ask for feedback. Most of the time I don't really care because I see more stuff wrong with the image than others ever seem to notice.

I click LIKE on various images for a number of reasons. There are some long discussions here about why people click LIKE. I have decided it varies from person to person and image by image. I have also decided while most people are interested in the number of LIKES they get... that is seldom the reason they are posting images. I suspect you'll be happier if you get clear on why you do what you do.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, MoiraKathleen said:

I take inworld pictures to capture experiences or looks mainly for myself, and from time to time there's one or two that I really like and choose to post to share with others.

9 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I tend to make images for myself. If I like them enough, I share them. Sometimes I ask for feedback. Most of the time I don't really care because I see more stuff wrong with the image than others ever seem to notice.

Totally. My hard drive is stuffed with pics that I don't post here. And I post even fewer on Flickr.

And yes, it's mainly, if not entirely, for me. I do make money from my pics, but it all just goes to buying hair and boots anyway; I certainly wouldn't bother specifically producing pics designed to "sell well."

Which is why I'm not really freaking out about the fact that my Flickr faves have been nose-diving recently. (I'm more concerned that fewer people are seeing them, which is a different issue.)

 

[Evangeline Arcadia]

23 hours ago, ValKalAstra said:

There is a bit of a bitter truth to "success" in virtual photography (or any creative endeavour for that matter) that it's so much more about the social game than it is about the actual work.

Take Flickr interactions. They're almost exclusively a factor of outside influences. First being how many groups you post it in. There's a lot of spam going on there where I see burly muscle guys post in groups for sexy ladies and likewise. Yet that spam works. It puts more eyeballs on the image.

The second thing is the silly Flickr handshake. Follow someone and they usually follow you back. Like their pictures and you get yours liked back. That sounds simple enough right? Well it's more than that, some will absolutely never click your image unless you've interacted with theirs and I'm never quite sure they genuinely liked it or just randomly clicked to play the social game.

Third factor is something silly like the time you post it. I've seen pictures posted at European Times get absolutely left in the dust. You get more interactions during American Times, ideally give or take centered on population hubs. SL in general just seems very us centric.

Fourth factor is luck and randomness. A good friend of mine who makes amazing pictures randomly had one of hers go through the roof. Like she averages around 400 interactions and that single image suddenly went to 6000 interactions over the couple of a few days and we never found out what had made it pop off.

The good news is that if you crave actual interaction, there are ways to get it. People already mentioned the subforums here. There are many people that try to be encouraging and interact with your works there. Another source are photography groups in world. Something like naturally naughty (one of the most supportive groups I know, nevermind the name), Sunny's or for example the group of the Focus photo magazine. They often have interesting discussions going on and you can see people help each other. They'd be your best bet.

Last but not least, pick up photography friends. Most in world put their Flickr in their profile picks. Find someone you like, compliment them, reach out and if chemistry is alright, you found someone to share the creative passion with!

I agree with a lot of this. Don't forget on somewhere like Flickr you are competing for visibility with thousands of other people's pics. If your're not involved in groups, reciprocating etc. then it's harder to be seen. Same with all kinds of online social media.

I do feel where you are coming from though. It can be so discouraging for an artist. I don't however think that the time spent on creating it equals how good it is.

Also  popular doesn't mean good. There are countless artist who are are very talented but don't get the recognition that some less talented ones do (although of course you can argue about what defines 'good' or 'talented', but that's another conversation). Just look in history and you'll see many artists now revered were ignored in their time. I know that might not sound encouraging, but I'm just trying to say you can't let popularity define how good you are as an artist. It sucks, but unfortunately that's the way life is.

Just carry on doing what you love, do it from the heart, because that will be the best art you can do - that's the most important thing. Maybe join some inworld groups as suggested before, or even set up your own gallery if you haven't already.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Evangeline Arcadia

[BelindaN]

I take pics for myself. I'm self indulgent. I don't worry too much about likes here, it's a small group.

To get recognition on flickr takes some serious effort but also time served. Groups matter. Followers matter. Numbers you follow matter. Comments you make matter. The whole thing hangs on all of this. Somehow I made decent number of followers but I still don't really understand why. Nor do I understand the number of likes, which vary depending on the shot. Like solo, portrait, group etc will all throw up a difference. If I can pull 100 likes on flickr, I'm doing OK, but it's not why I take SL photos. I just enjoy taking photos!

Edited March 9, 2023 by BelindaN

[Akane Nacht]

My flickr photos are like snapshots taken on a vacation - they document random things I did in SL over the past 14+ yrs. I did try to make some "arty", and I especially like SL forests, beaches and pathways. One of my photos I think got confused by some as a RL forest, but I just kept quiet and accept the compliments 😅

The people I follow are almost all friends, and a few whose styles I especially liked. The ones who follow me are probably half just advertising things or just randomly adding me and hoping for a follow back. Years back when there were not as many people posting SL pics, or on niche sites like koinup, it was easier to get noticed, now there's too much noise.

[Love Zhaoying]

19 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I am not going to rush to the aesthetic defence of any and every pic that gets hung on a gallery wall by any means, but it might be wise to be a bit circumspect about trashing contemporary "cultural standards." Virtually every new movement in art, music, and literature has been, at its inception, derided as easy-to-produce garbage.

Here's a small but representative quote from a satirical art review published in 1874:

"Le papier peint à l’état embryonnaire est encore plus fait que cette marine-là!" 

"Wallpaper in its embryonic state is more finished than that seascape!"

The painting in question is Claude Monet's "Impression. Sunrise."

So..if I understand correctly, you are comparing the critics' response at the dawn of the Impressionist Period (of one of the Great Impressionistic painters) to criticism of the Second Life "photographic" art?  

That's quite a bold comparison!  It implies that one day, generations may look back at the Second Life "photographic" art and proclaim how great it truly was.  

Very interesting perspective.  I learned something.

[JeromFranzic]

I follow people I know, and random others on Flickr. Lately I've been taking more pics in Open Sim VS SL. I've been getting more likes since I've increased my Open Sim output.

It's not as huge as you may think, just an observation. It's also by design, I just want Open Sim to get more attention, but that doesn't mean I hate SL. I'm not one of those SL refugees in Open Sim that sling $h*+ at SL after turning into OS zealots... I just happen to love OS more, but not abandoning SL by any means.

Anyway, I'm not a blogger so I just enjoy the process as it is. Maybe someday I'll want to be more professional, but for now I'm like a virtual street shooting tourist in SL/OS and I'm happy with that.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

18 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What I was responding to specifically was the suggestion creeping into some of these comments that "modern art" has gone to hell in a handbasket, standards have been thrown out the door, kids these days, etc., etc.

I didn't find any comments like that. I will go back and read the entire thread.

Thanks again!

Edited to add: Nope, I went back and checked every post before yours, and did not see any "kids these days", or "modern art is..." creeping in.  I must have low comprehension. As usual!

Edited March 9, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Rolig Loon]

12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

18 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What I was responding to specifically was the suggestion creeping into some of these comments that "modern art" has gone to hell in a handbasket, standards have been thrown out the door, kids these days, etc., etc.

I didn't find any comments like that. I will go back and read the entire thread.

I'm pretty sure that @Scylla Rhiadra was responding to my flippant observation that "I think our cultural standards for rubbish have been shot to hell.  If you have a really BAD photo, just give it a title like "Ode to Banality" or "Oh, the Inhumanity!".  The critics will love it."  I was in a rare Get Off My Lawn mood at the time and wasn't truly meant to be taken seriously.  Her gentle pushback cleared my head. We're all good now.  Well, I am anyway.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Rolig Loon

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

I'm pretty sure that @Scylla Rhiadra responding to my flippant observation that "I think our cultural standards for rubbish have been shot to hell.  If you have a really BAD photo, just give it a title like "Ode to Banality" or "Oh, the Inhumanity!".  The critics will love it."  I was in a rare Get Off My Lawn mood at the time and wasn't truly meant to be taken seriously.  Her gentle pushback cleared my head. We're all good now.  Well, I am anyway.

Understood.  "Art photos" may or may not be art. They may or may not be "rubbish".  But you're still not implying "ALL" or "MUCH" art these days is "rubbish", you're just commenting on "photos" in particular.

Then again, there was a time when "photos" would not have been considered "art"!

And also, I've seen (not so much in person) Modern Art exhibitions that was LITERALLY rubbish. Trash. Things that were thrown away. Garbage. LITERALLY. <= in case someone missed the first LITERALLY.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

So..if I understand correctly, you are comparing the critics' response at the dawn of the Impressionist Period (of one of the Great Impressionistic painters) to criticism of the Second Life "photographic" art?  

That's quite a bold comparison!  It implies that one day, generations may look back at the Second Life "photographic" art and proclaim how great it truly was.  

Very interesting perspective.  I learned something.

Well, that's not quite what I was doing -- my comment related to views on modern art, and are only tangentially relevant to SL screenshots.

Although, I do think that the biggest challenge facing art criticism these days is how to respond to digital art, in general, and AI-generated art in particular. I think that will go hand-in-hand with digital artists themselves learning how to use AI in a way that is  both meaningfully productive and responsible.

And I should say too that I certainly have seen SL pics that I would classify as "art" without hesitation. But as that word itself is a bit problematic and unstable, I'm not sure how important that is, really.

[Rolig Loon]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

And also, I've seen (not so much in person) Modern Art exhibitions that was LITERALLY rubbish. Trash. Things that were thrown away. Garbage. LITERALLY. <= in case someone missed the first LITERALLY.

I have seen works like that myself. One of the leading museums in D.C. had an installation of a very complex creation by a leading  artist about a year ago that was basically a jumble of shattered articles of blown glass. It was received well by the critics, but as far as I was concerned, it was ... um ... trash.

[Rowan Amore]

Art or not...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_Buried_Woodshed

My dad worked at the university.  Even as a child I was scratching my head about this one.  Yes, deeper meaning and all that but 1/2 the work was already there!

[Bree Giffen]

 

[Quistess Alpha]

6 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

 

Hilarious! Thanks for sharing. I wish the dubbing was better synced though .

[Orwar]

4 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Understood.  "Art photos" may or may not be art. They may or may not be "rubbish".  But you're still not implying "ALL" or "MUCH" art these days is "rubbish", you're just commenting on "photos" in particular.

   There's a wide gradience of rubbishness, going from 'that's amazing' to 'a blind kindergartener armed with a brown crayon and yellow paper could produce things more pleasing to the eye and at the same time put more passion and meaning into it even though they have not yet fully mastered the art of going potty'. Most stuff is somewhere in between! 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

On 3/8/2023 at 9:39 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I am not going to rush to the aesthetic defence of any and every pic that gets hung on a gallery wall by any means, but it might be wise to be a bit circumspect about trashing contemporary "cultural standards." Virtually every new movement in art, music, and literature has been, at its inception, derided as easy-to-produce garbage.

Here's a small but representative quote from a satirical art review published in 1874:

"Le papier peint à l’état embryonnaire est encore plus fait que cette marine-là!" 

"Wallpaper in its embryonic state is more finished than that seascape!"

The painting in question is Claude Monet's "Impression. Sunrise."

 

 

And I'm betting that you simply don't realise that there are many of us who would rather hang wallpaper on our walls than a Monet, and who would instantly sell the overpriced, over rated Impressionist drek to some snobby pretentious pseudo intellectual sucker with more millions than brain cells, and spend the cash on something we like better.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

And I'm betting that you simply don't realise that there are many of us who would rather hang wallpaper on our walls than a Monet, and who would instantly sell the overpriced, over rated Impressionist drek to some snobby pretentious pseudo intellectual sucker with more millions than brain cells, and spend the cash on something we like better.

Well, no, actually -- I do realize that.

I am pretty sure that the world has many millions of highly intelligent and sensible people with good taste who just happen not to like Impressionism. And that's cool: appreciating a Monet or a Cezanne isn't some sort of qualification or credential.

For that matter, the museums of the world are stuffed full of art that I don't much like, wouldn't buy, and would hate seeing hanging on my wall. The difference is that I wouldn't necessarily dismiss something as "drek" merely because I don't "like" it.

The really great thing is that no one is likely to ever force you to buy or display a painting by an Impressionist -- although this does mean that you're missing out on the opportunity to cash in on the gullibility all of those wealthy pseudo-intellectuals.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Scylla Rhiadra]

I think maybe it's time we introduced some actual art criticism into this discussion.

 

[Marigold Devin]

On 3/8/2023 at 1:43 AM, xXJupiterHeightsXx Starchild said:

maybe some could help me better understand why? I noticed within the art and photography of second life it seems those who put way less effort into pictures and avatar appearance have a higher likelihood of more reactions, following and comments, meanwhile someone like me who spends well over 7 hours on a photoshoot from start to finish who very well cleans up and cares about detail yet the follows, reactions and comments are nowhere to be found, personally it's a *****ty feeling as someone who works really hard on photography and puts in the effort but in no return is not interacted with but on the other hand someone with no skills or a nice looking avatar gets to what I can see full fame, sure one can argue about what makes a picture what it is, colors, detail, outfits, setting, lighting, background etc. maybe someone could shed light on what I'm doing wrong but it just seems backwards, no talent gets everything mean while talent gets nothing. it is very frustrating, and I totally get it there is a lot of us here but coming into second life and getting into photography just seems like a waste at this point. 

I once submitted a really crap accidental photograph to the Second Life Flickr Group and it got chosen as the picture of the day! The secret to that one, I think, was either they just truly were picking a random photo, or I just happened to chose the right theme and have the "right" lighting settings selected in world. It was a raw shot, nothing tweaked afterwards, and I knew it was crap. I just dropped lucky that day.

Regarding generally the seeming popularity of some photographers, in Second Life and in Second Life, it has baffled me for years, but what Rowan said about people able to actually pay for followers that makes it crystal clear. 

At school one of my teachers said something that stuck in my mind to one of the lads in my class who had cheated by getting someone else to do his homework. "The only person you cheat is yourself.", so all the fakers out there who have these mock-friends and followers, must be really sad individuals.

As for you, dear original poster, as long as YOU are enjoying what YOU are doing with your photography, and believe in yourself, you'll get what you truly merit in the end, and that won't be a bunch of faking sycophants.

Please, if you haven't done so already, add some photos - just snapshots, not necessarily anything you've spent major amounts of time on - to the many photo threads on these forums. I particularly like the How Does Your Avatar Look Today thread because everyone of every species, age, level of talent are so welcome, and it is always interesting to see what other people create.

We can all be taking a photograph or painting a portrait of the same view, but every one of us will have a very different take on what is "perfect".

I don't feel I've answered your question particularly well, but hope something within this rambling post makes some sense. Don't feel so downhearted is what I'm saying. Do what you do if you enjoy what you do, that's the main thing. Nothing else matters.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think maybe it's time we introduced some actual art criticism into this discussion.

 

Mr.Bean did it bett..I mean also. 

I guess the "art discussion" derail has become enjoyable for those who are "experts".

[Zalificent Corvinus]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, no, actually -- I do realize that.

I am pretty sure that the world has many millions of highly intelligent and sensible people with good taste who just happen not to like Impressionism. And that's cool: appreciating a Monet or a Cezanne isn't some sort of qualification or credential.

For that matter, the museums of the world are stuffed full of art that I don't much like, wouldn't buy, and would hate seeing hanging on my wall. The difference is that I wouldn't necessarily dismiss something as "drek" merely because I don't "like" it.

The really great thing is that no one is likely to ever force you to buy or display a painting by an Impressionist -- although this does mean that you're missing out on the opportunity to cash in on the gullibility all of those wealthy pseudo-intellectuals.

There is a piece of "modern art" in a city in England, the "artist" picked a 4 inch long pebble of a beach, sent to some company with a 3d scaling pantograph cutter, who made a flimsy copy, 4 feet long, that got sent to a concrete casting firm, who made a polished concrete version, that sold as "modern art" to a city council for about $75,000 tax dollars, from the kind of people who hate so-called "modern art".

There's an "artist" who bought a cheap tent, used it to attend rock festivals for several years, getting drunk, stoned, and laid in it. When it wore out, she wrote the names of all the guys who had banged her, on strips of paper, safety pinned these to the inside of the tent, put it up in an art gallery and asked more than $50,000 for it.

The vast majority of "modern art" IS pseudo-intellectual drek, by zero talent parasites counting on self-proclaimed "art experts" to "interpret" deep meaning into the drek and heap undeserved praise on it as their contribution to the investment scam parasite industry that is "High Brow Modern Art Appreciation".

 

You're right, this does exclude ripping off wealthy, pretentious snobs, as does avoiding Fake Money Crypto-Crap Not Effing True Financial Fraud Scam Tokens backed by Blag-Chain, an industry that is marginally more honest than "modern art".