What makes a photoblog interesting

[nox]

During our discussion about how to make a site known to the public (http://forum.pixelpost.org/showthread.php?t=4785), I thought about the important qualities of a photoblog.

Most people will agree with me that a photoblog you want to visit frequently has to be updated frequently and has to have interesting images frequently.

But what makes an image or blog interesting for me?

1. The technical quality of the photos is important. However it can be an image that is not perfect, is taken with a toy camera, has strange colours, wrong exposure or is taken from an unusual angle that grabs my attention.

2. It is boring to look at ten hdr shots with perfect light in a row. A good photoblog should be a bit unpredictable. I like to be surprised.

3. The variety of images is important. I think it is great if a blog is dedicated to macro shots, to images of crashed cars or to soft-focus landscapes. But I would not go there every day.

4. The content of the images is most significant. I want to see or at least think about why an image was taken and what the authors fascination with their environment is. I like images that tell stories, that make me see the world through the eyes of someone else. This is especially interesting if the person behind a blog comes from a culture or social setting that is completely different from my own.

How about you? What would make you check out a site regularly?

[dakwegmo]

What makes a photoblog interesting is different for most people, and I think that's why there's such a huge variety of photoblogs that get quite a lot of attention. One of the things that I find most interesting about photoblogs is what it reveals about the photographer. I don't think all photography should do this, but as a blog, the shots posted should say something about the artist. For me, the technical aspects of the photos are important, but only insofar as they prevent distractions. I don't mind looking at dozens of shots that are relatively similar, if the artist can show me something new, or tell me somthing different about him/her-self.

I agree with you though that the content of the images is the most imporatnt thing.

[nygorilla]

Things that captures my attention and gets me going back are the same for all the sites that have become regulars:
- consistent posting (daily, or close to daily)
- something a little different or unique
- no shots of the cat on the window ledge, etc unless its one great kitty shot :)

Sites like mute.rigent.com always has an impact shot (or often two) to get me visiting each day for example.

Hope this thread continues, it will be interesting to see what others think.

[Spudooli]

I find that my RSS feed has a high degree of churn in it. I find a new photoblog that really jives with me and so I subscribe. then after a few months I start to get bored with it and move on.

Not because their photography is poor, in most cases it's excellent. But more because the blog has become a little predictable.

It's really hard to keep things fresh. I've now run out of intersting locations near my house. I have to drive for an hour to get somewhere new. Yeah there is plenty of great locations near me, but I'm bored with taking photos there.

That's why it's so great to keep looking at as many photoblogas as I can. They are almost all inspiring and motivating.

So what makes for an interesting photoblog for me? VARIETY BABY!!!1one

[nox]

One of the things that I find most interesting about photoblogs is what it reveals about the photographer.

I agree with you and I think all photoblogs reveal something about the person behind it.

Photos that talk about someone's everyday life and personality are interesting. It is the voyeuristic tendency in all of us that makes us enjoy it - or call it our natural interest in other people.

[Spudooli]

Oh yeah, voyeuristic.

I just know I'm going to subscribe to the RSS feed when I'm interested enough in the images to click on the about button to see the person behind the photos.

[sentinel]

@spudooli:hmm that's quite an interesting point of view.
for sure voyeuristic reasons are the one thing, the other one is the already mentioned "new thing" that makes me look (the new thing can be seen as crap, technically, by other people sometimes)

edit: what i forgot, good old analog b'n'w, _the_ reason for me to have a daily visit at a blog !! f.e. Jens Hoffmann (http://look-s.de/)

[glloeb]

I understand photoblogging is all about the photos. However, for me, a part of it is the text/story/description that comes with it. One of the things that I love about Chromasia, for instance, is that david always spends time putting up something legible about each photo. I've tried to emulate this on my site, but it is often quite difficult to write about each photo, especially when they aren't based on a concept, but just something that you've found.

My two cents,
Gabriel Loeb (http://gabrielloeb.com/)

[nox]

Gabriel,

That is a good point. Sometimes I would like to read about the context. The story behind the photo can change the perception of the image. I am not really interested in techical information though.

[Vernon.Trent]

:-))

every picture tells a story... it's nice to read about how it was taken or the intention behind. if you need words to explain your shot, then there is something wrong. some pictures don't need words... the key is to leave enough "room" for the people for their thoughts and let them think and feel what they like to.

there are not so many sites where I can find such shots/pictures.

[dakwegmo]

A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.
Ansel Adams

Every photo has something to say, if it's not telling a story, it's trying to communicate something. In a photoblog, I don't like for the artist to go too much into what they were trying to convey. I need that room to interpret for myself because a lot of times I see something in the photo different than what the artist was going for. Knowing what they were trying to achieve can ruin a shot that I might otherwise love.

[nox]

Reading about what the message of an image should be is as boring as listening to the explanation of a punch-line.

First I have to be interested in the photo. Then it might be helpful to know why a picture was taken or to get additional information about the topic. A good title can sometimes be enough.

[digitalfrog]

What makes you leave a comment versus browse and move on ?

[nox]

I feel that leaving comments is sometimes a way of advertising your own site -
and there is nothing wrong with that. I enjoy visiting the blogs of people who write me a line.

I write a comment when I like the picture and there are none or not so many
comments yet.

How about you then?