Mon, May 23rd, 2005 by Brooks
My Pea Brain... Thinking.
A few months ago I was a little obsessed with my ranking here and even though I was doing pretty good by many standards, it was frustrating to see the work of some other blogs that were kicking my butt. I mean, I'm a professional. How dare people put those sites with graffiti and cat pictures in their favorites and NOT mine. (I'm kidding a bit here as I realize that my stuff isn't everyone's cup of tea, and come on, who doesn't love a cute picture of a cat? I know I do). Well, I thought to myself, why don't I put up an anonymous photo blog, fill it with mundane subject matter, and see how well it does?
The Method.
Well, I didn't quite conduct the most scientific experiment. I only (at first) put up pictures that I thought were kinda boring and made sure I had a few cat pictures and plenty of flowers in there. If I shot something specifically for the blog, I only shot it horizontal and only shot ONE frame. I tried to comment at other blogs with my other identity and in keeping with the spirit of the experiment, I only commented on pictures I liked and never tried to leave comments just to leave them in hopes that they would be reciprocated with a vote, I also only added about 40 or so favorites to my list to keep it similar to my main blog. Other than that, i just sat back to see what would happen.
The Results.
As you'll find out, I don't really even care what the results are anymore. Anyway, Here it is. After five and a half months of Brooks Blog being listed here, I'm (as of writing this) number 234 with 81 people considering me a favorite. Not bad.
Now the OTHER blog. Fauxtoblog has been listed for two months and has 37 people voting for it. This doesn't really tell us anything other than we're probably about even and the fact that Brooks Blog is always in the top 500 list, gets it a bit more attention.
The REAL Results
Here's the kicker folks. about a month into the experiment, I started to enjoy putting something other than studio portraits up in a blog. I started to look around when I was outside to find something to shoot for the blog that didn't suck. I started to look through slide sheets of old pictures for stuff to scan. In short. I really like the other blog now and plan to link the two together so people can see the other me. I've even toyed with the though of deleting the images at the beginning that were obviously not worthy. I was still putting up shots that don't quite cut it just to make sure it was new every day, but for the most part I've started to think more quality.
The Wrap Up
Those of you who have seen me comment on your blog as Fauxtog and those who have commented on Fauxtoblog please remember that I always commented when I felt moved by the picture or had something to say. If I've commented under both names (check my IPs) you may have noticed the similarities in the types of things I say about a picture. I never critique and never leave a "nice picture" comment. Well, maybe if I was in a big hurry, but rarely.
So, do you hate me photoblogs.org? I hope not. I'm having fun with two photoblogs now and I hope you all visit the lesser known Fauxtoblog to see the other me. I swear that last part is not part of another experiment. 
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Off With His Head!
LOL... just kidding!
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:32 pm
I think ppl. might have been attracted by the bright lights and pretty colors of fauxtoblog
But I think there are 3 groups of photoblogs/photobloggers/viewers... those that understand/appreciate professional photography, those that like the "pretty shiny" type of photography and the third... those that like it all
It would have been interesting to research those that added you, to further see if my theory is true. To see if those that favorite'd Brooks Blog also favorited other like blogs.... and to see what Fauxtoblog viewers also liked.
I have a feeling by looking at the two blogs, you'd probably have type 3 viewers... those that like any great photography.
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Interesting experiment though, and it gives a sort of example what kind of photography the majorty of the blogcommunity here prefer. (not that professional photography is bad or so)
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:39 pm
~do I hate you...no, not at all...writers publish under pen names, pseudonym, to avoid disclosure and get honest feedback without revealing who they really are, this experiement provided anninimity and such, and I like the idea of testing out your non-studio stuff, images you took for some reason or another and you wanted to 'get out there'...and you managed a nice little piece of PR here by blogging about it, that's surely going to bring a few hits and rise the favs additions, but then that also throws off your whole experiment, the numbers are going to be skewed...IMO it's not all about the numbers, if one person comes and gives you the honest, direct, considerate critiques that you are after it all makes it worth it right?~
May 23rd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
nice.
i also have a confession. i am dave at chromasia. i am also justin at chromogenic. and yes, i am davin at lowresolution. and, as some of you have suspected, i am brandon at lbstone, photoblogs, photobloggers, photobloggies, and camerapedia.
i'm not a bad man and i didn't set out to deceive all of you. i just have way too much time on my hands.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:04 pm
~that's alright Ian, I am really Jimmy Hoffa, now everyone knows...and everyone thought I was encased in concrete somewhere~
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Interesting experiment. I run two blogs as well. One, Shrued, is my main site and what I post my best (arguably I know) stuff. Too.Shrued is where I pipe in my flickr photos and there is generally no rhyme or reason to what I post there. Also two different logics.
And I just got a photo posted on the front of File Magazine. Not bad for a newbie!
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:19 pm
...and I'm Johnny Cash and Elvis (pre-Vegas) rolled into one. Thankyaverymuch.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:20 pm
btezra, I thought you were in a block of cement burried 10 feet below home plate.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:22 pm
This thing of favorites is really a the "thing of the moment"....
i am doing to photoblogs now...they are very different from each other..they are "Gabriela Cravo e Canela" and "Respect"...i can really see a difference in the people that comment in them....
For me when you add a photoblog to your favorites you give some kind of support to this blogs...they can grow in the lists and become more visible...I added a lot of photoblogs of friends...Some really good ones among them...that have only 2 or 3 favorites...
I like the ranking system, but i think the photoblogs are too much mixed...for me categories are a good idea...not only country or language...but maybe.."cats".."flowers"..."oversaturated"..categories...something you could put your blog in 2 or 3 categories...and each categories would have its own ranking system...
only some ideas...
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:27 pm
"cats"…"flowers"…"oversaturated"…
add "macro" in there and i think we'll be ready to roll.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:28 pm
No problem in skewing the numbers. I figured that the experiment was a failure as is it anyway. I didn't really plan on using this post to get traffic, that's why I kept the links to one and buried them in the story. I only wanted the people that seemed interested in the story to visit and see what it was about. Oh, and Ian. How can YOU be David from Chromasia, when I'm really David from Chromasia??!!
Brooks
or
Fauxtog
Take your pick.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:30 pm
this happens in every community. we used to call them "shadow puppets." i don't know what makes people want to do it... but it's not uncommon. i've found that i've been able to find a person obnoxious but get along fine with their shadow puppet... or vice versa. honestly... i like your faux pictures better.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:32 pm
y'all are funny.
: )
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Well, I explained at length what made me do it. I doubt that my reason is the same as the people at other communities. I never intended to hide forever and there are a couple people out there that knew of my double agent status.
I also find it interesting that some people here have two photoblogs. Anyone else want to come clean?
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Brooks...your intention was very interesting...the whole idea was very interesting...The two blogs have very good works....I think you did a very good explanation...and touched a good point with this post...
I have two photoblogs....but for me it wasn´t a experience...only different sides of my work....I make very clear that booth of them are mine...
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Daniel. I've only been to the Respect blog until today and I must say that you need to make the links to each blog more prominent. I don't usually look around for links on the page and those suckers are way up in the corner hiding. Very nice blogs, both of them.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:50 pm
darn, brooks, i've been thinking of doing this for a while, but i didn't because i'm sooo lazy:)
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Am I the only one who skims through all the comments just looking for Ian's witty and caustic remarks?
Beside's Ian, I mean...
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention at the end of the post (i was reminded after re-reading one of Ian's comments) is that it's the curse of being a full time professional photographer that allows me to have WAY too much time on my hands for stupid experiments like this.
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:07 pm
So:
1) Brooks, "professional" photographer, is bitter that non-professionals are actually getting attention that he feels he deserves...even despite his pictures of naked models, the ultimate attention grabbers!
2) Makes fake photoblog to try to dupe us all into realizing how stupid we are.
3) When no one likes fake photoblog, he comes clean about the site no one visited, with an "aw shucks" blog post designed to draw attention to what a great guy he is after all.
That about sum it up?
Ha ha ha! That Brooks. Such a card.
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:07 pm
One reason ppeople probably didn't add you, brooks, is because it's less interesting to them to see a professional studio blog than an ordinary amateur blog. I mean c'mon, for one thing, you've got professional equipment, a studio, and models, not something that would inspire the ordinary hobbyist who only has a coolpix, and his kid and cat to model for him. IF i wanted to see really professional good stuff, I might skip the photoblogs all together look at books and galleries. Why I'm here looking at blogs is to see ideas that can inspire my as an amateur.
No offense intended by the way. I've never even come accross your blog before. I'm just speculating here.
And to those of you dissing cats, flowers, amd macros, all I have to say is, please! Let's just throw in graffiti, street bums, kids, people, pastoral landscapes, gritty urban street scenes, expressive faces, and the whole lot, because its all been done, and done to death. To each his own, and for any kind of subject, there's the potential to do it well or to do it plainly. Keep it in perspective, people, and don't be so ready to dismiss entire genres of photography just because it's not your cup of tea, unless maybe you're so sure your own photography rocks above all else. Hmmm. Maybe we've got some Robert Franks or Alfred Stieglitzs around on photoblogs.org?
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Hey Anonymous. Please read one of my favorite Tony Pierce posts:
http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/2005/03/why-are-anonymous-negative-commentors.htm
You obviously have NO idea what you're talking about since of the hundreds of posts, I've posted TWO nudes. AND until just recently, I made it a rule to post one male shot for every female, usually every other day.
As for the next comment. I totally agree. I forgot to mention that this was one of my theories. I realize that my main blog is not for everyone (as mentioned above) and that many people want to look at things that they can relate to and are comfortable with. This doesn't make them any less desirable as viewers.
As photoblogs go, I get very few visitors per day, but most of my visitors don't have photoblogs, they are regulars that still come around from before my blog was all photos. It started out as your run of the mill personal blog, mostly text.
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:24 pm
nobody at all ?
i agree with you...i talked about flowers oversaturated etc....i was just kidding...every theme has potential...What i was trying to say is that photoblogs could be really organized in categories...only this...Totally agree with you.
May 23rd, 2005 at 4:49 pm
i think there is a lesson here for all of us. just follow these simple instructions:
check out brooks blog.
link up to the shot of his studio.
inspect his ten-of-thousands of dollars worth of equipage.
inspect his glamour shot photos.
your done!
...now raise your catholic school hand and tell me what youve learned....other than the fact that im a prick...
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:04 pm
I'm a professional photographer. I can make magic with a simple coolpix and nothing else because it doesn't matter so much what camera I use.
I can also take all of Brooks' thousands of dollars worth of studio equiptment and not produce nearly the work that He does. That guy has a talent for making people look sexy.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:09 pm
You're not a prick Victor, just a little misinformed about what takes a picture. It's not the equipment, it's the photographer. Most of the pictures that I show on Brooks Blog are done with one or two lights and an old 4x5 camera. Now, I do have tons of equipment, but I need that mostly to do large product shots, which I don't show much on the blog, if ever anymore.
I think it's funny that people bag on me because they think I can only do what I do with tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and that that gives me some sort of advantage. Let me inform you. I own a Canon 10D, most of the photographers with blogs around here have better camera's than that. I own a few lenses, none of them are white and only one is an "L" (Canon users know what I mean). The only NEW piece of equipment I've bought in the last 15 years was the 10D. I rent a 1Ds MK II when I need it. Almost every hobbiest I know has better equipment than me. That's always been true.
I don't know much about Justin Ouellette at Chromogenic, but he has the best photoblog that I've ever seen and he is way more talented than I, but he doesn't do it with tons of equipment. Why the obsession with equipment?
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:25 pm
That's a very interesting experiment. I will admit that I like the layout of Fauxtoblog a lot better, and I think I might've come across Brooks about the same number of times I came across Fauxtoblog. Looking through the Fauxtoblog images, after knowing it wasn't for real gets really funny after a while, When the pictures start to be of really mundane subjects, like the sign on the fence and the shoes and the graffiti. It had me laughing.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:32 pm
I agree with Brooks that when it comes to excellent photography, it's the person who has to do the job. I have about 40 lenses at home (yes... 40) in different sizes and shapes and all that. But does having that amount of equipment make me a better photographer? When I stroll through my archives, sometimes I think that some of the photographs there say (or should say) the following: 'you suck'.
May 23rd, 2005 at 5:51 pm
I also agree, equipment is not the whole story.
ONe thing that's really interesting, is that the line between amateur and pro isn't always so distinct on these blogs. I've seen quite a few pro blogs on photoblogs. And I've seen non-pro work that, in my humble opinion, seems even more creative than the pro work.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Being a pro often has nothing to do with creativity. In my particular segment of photography, it's more about solving problems brought to me by clients than being creative all the time. Look at this image:
http://ayola.com/work/images/1universal01.jpg
I got paid $6000 plus expenses to create it (two versions, one with a woman), but there wasn't anything creative about it. The client gave me a marker comp with a drawing of what they wanted and it was my job to produce it. I hired the talent, the wardrobe stylist, bought props, rented the couch and plasma screen, build a set wall to mount the thing on safely (and had the room in my studio to so), and lit it so that very little photoshop work was needed to make it fit into the layout (the images on screen are composed). I needed a certain amount of the equipment mentioned above to pull it off and it all had to be done on budget and within the deadline. Not to mention the extra day of taking Polaroids of many couches at prop houses until we found the right one even though all you see is a little bit of the arm. That's what being a professional means to me. Anyone here could have taken a similar picture, but not everyone could have done it while keeping the client happy and confident that it was going to be exactly what they needed.
Being a professional photographer doesn't mean you're a better one. It's way more complicated than that.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:34 pm
brooks seems to be in the awkward position of having to defend his professional status... which is weird.
i think his experiment has shown that there are more than one way to approach making images.
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:34 pm
A pile of the most expensive gear doesn't make a great photograph any more than a pile of wood makes a house, it's the ability and creativity of the person looking in the viewfinder and it doesn't matter how long you've been doing it or if you've been formally educated. If the image is good that's all there is. I think blogging is liberating for all of us regardless of skill level and I applaude you Brooks for liberating a side of your creativity that was dorment. It's such a solitary activity and it's easy to develop techniques and workflows that are ultimately frustrating to your creative eye. I'm off to create a whole new persona, probably a one eyed Hungarian pirate with a shoe fetish and a Nikon. Think about it, it could be porn it could be high fashion look out:)LOL
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:21 pm
creativity = human
equipment = machine
obviously, machine is better. how vain we are to say that we are "taking pictures" or "making art" when all we are doing is pressing a button. it is the camera that is taking a picture… it is the camera that is making the art. the camera is the photographer, we are simply glorified button pushers.
good. you've read this far. you see that the logic is indisputable.
also: some machines are better than other machines. this too, stands to reason - some machines are better built, some have more megapixels (for you non-techies out there, this means that it is better: mega(meaning big) pixel; bigger is better. and it is reasonable that better machines should cost more money. so, by the transitive property of equality:
more money spent on equipment = better equipment = better pictures (or better art)
in the battle between man and machine, machine will win. evil robots will rule the earth in less than 15 years. at that point there will be none of this nonsensical obsession over "creativity".
May 23rd, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Sanslingua is right. Brooks doesn't need to defend his professional status to anyone. The equipment doesn't make the art. The person behind the camera does. Having seen the amazing things some people can do with crappy plastic cameras (Susan B. always comes to mind), that's proof enough for me.
And being a professional or commericial photographer IS complicated. Brooks makes a great point that creativity sometimes has very little to do with a commericial shoot. You basically give the client what he/she wants. When you're shooting just for yourself, you only have to answer to yourself. Off the soapbox...
May 23rd, 2005 at 8:29 pm
I'm not taking the bait Ian.
Mr. Bill, Michal Daniel at 640x480 is also a great example.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:14 pm
Ian,
Many fish bites if ya' got good bait.
I'm a goin fishin', Yes I'm goin' fishin,
And my baby goin' fishin' too.
correction:
creativity = human
human creation = machine
human = machine
machine > human
bee in flower = human creation
human < bee
bee = machine
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:21 pm
i've come across 'brooks blog' before and sorry to day it's not the type of photography that i'm interested to see as far as photoblogs go. i don't really like the design either
(but checking your website again, i do like the galleries though - why have a photobblog? just wondering)
i've never seen 'fauxtoblog' before, but from a few clicks i know i'm going to enjoy coming back. i prefer the cleaner design and one post per page layout as well. the photos show places different from where i'm from, etc. typical photoblog visitor then.
May 23rd, 2005 at 9:22 pm
oops i meant 'to say'.
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Well, G. I'm not sure what you mean by the galleries. Do you mean my commercial web site? If that's the case, I use the blog as a marketing tool to reinforce my regular site. It's a way for clients to see a more personal side of me instead of just looking at the pictures in my portfolio. Also, the blog has evolved (as mentioned above) from a personal "regular" blog to a photo blog over time. The commercial site is my branding, and the blog supports it along with my book (hard bound portfolio) and direct mail pieces designed to accompany the whole marketing program. Joining photoblogs.org and getting involved in the community (at the suggestion of David at Chromasia) was an afterthought and I've come to love it.
As far as the design goes, as I said, it started out as a text blog so it's just a function of that. Many people say they like it, but I'm in the process of making it more "photoblog like." One hint of my blogs origins might be my blogroll. As you might notice it doesn't have many photoblogs in it because most of my visitors are still regular bloggers. There are a lot of great photo blogs out there that you must stay away from because of the design. I hope that's not the case. It's more about the pictures, but you don't like my pictures either so I guess I've got a double whammy against me there.
You have a very specific thing that you're looking for in a photoblog it seems. You like to see places that are different from where you're from. Am I correct in assuming that you have no interest in seeing portraits of people, or is it just the way I do it?
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:33 pm
I'm sorry, I guess you're Q not G.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:41 pm
Brooks, I think you're a phenomenal photographer and once upon a time, I did have your professional site as a favorite. However, I will admit that the reason I left is that it all felt the same to me. I didn't feel YOU in it. I like getting a feeling for the photographer from his photography.
Plus, I think it started to bother me that whenever something came up about how many favorites someone had, you always threw in that you're a professional and no one was putting you on their lists.
I'm glad to hear you're feeling better about that now. You can probably relax a lot more and actually enjoy the blog experience...and it shows that you're enjoying it through your new blog. Wonderful work. It shows pieces of you...and I like that.
May 23rd, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Oh...and yeah...I have two but they have the same pictures. One is a gallery/photoblog for family and the other is my private site with a weblog and photoblog. My family doesn't need to know everything I rant about in my weblog. Heh.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:34 am
That's a curious statement, that you didn't feel me in it because it all seemed the same to you. I'm constantly striving (struggling) to find my vision so prospective clients know who I am and what I bring to the table. I don't want to be all things to everyone because that's the kiss of death to people I'm trying to reach.
As far as enjoying the blog experience goes, I've only been blogging since late 2003, but I've always loved doing it. I've never lost that with my main blog. I was excited to show my work to a different audience here, one with no pressure involved. I'm sure most people are a little excited to see people adding them as favorites when they first join here. I'm no different there. I'm also sure some of them feel a little disappointed if they feel under appreciated for their hard work. I just happened to mention it a few times around here. I've never felt that everyone would like my work. I just felt that I'd never seen a blog like mine and the fact that it was unique would drive it. I'm not disappointed at all to have been added by 80 plus people.
I still enjoy shooting people more than anything. The new blog is definitely a different thing altogether, but shooting scenics and flowers is not my favorite thing to do. I'll take interacting with a human in front of my camera any day.
I know that a lot of my work looks alike and I'm OK with that.
This was a mess of a reply, but I'm tired and I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:45 am
Oh, Brooks...I'm sorry if that came across harshly. I didn't mean it that way. I'm the queen of backhanded compliments, I think.
I love your work. It's beautiful. I just like the new blog a bit more because there is something different about it that speaks to me. It's not better or worse, just different.
May 24th, 2005 at 1:04 am
Don't worry Dawn. It was an honest criticism of my blog. I didn't take it too hard, just a few tears is all.
I think if I can keep them both going, they'll eventually even out as far as visitors go. It's just two completely different sets of visitors.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:01 am
I'm considering starting up a 2nd blog as well. I didn't know so many other people had them.
Very interesting experiment. I tend to like the stuff on your newer one better as well. Just more my kind of thing, I guess. I also think that some of your earlier stuff wasn't too bad. Could it be that as an experienced photographer it was hard to take a bad shot? Subtle, subconcious things that you just did naturally to make them relatively good shots?
Also, some of your newest stuff on there is amazing. Kinda makes me feel inadaquate...
May 24th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
I think the whole experiment thing definitely has some sort of cynical overtone and I don't like it. The name of the "fake" blog, the "types" of photos on it... I find it disrespectful of the community, somewhat self-centered, and the whole apologetic rhetoric doesn't cut it for me. Don't believe you anymore. Sorry...
May 24th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Has it occured to you that perhaps some of us brought viewers/visitors with us when we signed up at photoblogs.org? That this isn't just a pissing contest and there are people like me who have put major time and effort into our sites over a span of years and cultivated a group of regular viewers before Brandon had ever thought of photoblogs.org?
This is something that also sort of applies to the whole, "Who ARE these people in the Top 100 and WHY am I not one of them????" thing that people tend to get into around here a month after they've fired up a "photoblog".
I have been posting my photos online for about six years now. For god's sake, when I started, those of us doing it had to hand code our pages.
Not all "photoblogs" suddenly appeared with the arrival of photoblogs.org (or Movable Type.)
Check out how long some of those in the Top 10 here have been doing this (Rachel of brownglasses, Heather Champ...) I know that before I signed up here, I had a notify list with almost seventy people on it. So it's safe to assume I brought at LEAST half that many with me.
And just why should anyone get to show up one day and cut in line in front of the rest of us? That's what I find so insulting.
Excuse me, pardon me, excuse me, "professional" coming through, make way please.
What the hell?
May 24th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I like the idea - I kinda wonder myself whats up with the
popularity of many photoblogs.
I'm running 2 photo websites for different purposes as
well, but I always use my real name
May 24th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
i think Em has identified the exact thing that most people find galling about the whole "experiment." not so much the idea of having a shadow puppet, but the attitude of entitlement along with the elitist disapproval of all things "kitty."
clearly brooks isn't going to get the "miss congeniality" award for this revelation.
May 24th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
i have multiple photo personas all over, at this point most of them are accessible through random thoughts, but there are a couple of stray ones out there.
i do this for a variety of reasons:
2 are a dialogue with each other
some i use to post an image in "response" to another person's (i love doing this) but since i usually post somewhat sequentially i don't have a place to put it.
some i have started because i wanted to explore a new way of "seeing" or work something out visually
some because i wanted to post anonymously in a community where i am known...
anyway, it's all good and all fun and i love that the experiment,
)
(which IMHO certainly didn't backfire)
undertaken for one reason,
led to another discovery
because ultimately, isn't that what it is all about?
some sort of personal growth?
(i mean life, not necessarily just photoblogging,
May 24th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Well, the fact that the experiment changed me for the better will always be lost on some people. They'll read my initial thoughts and skip all of the rest. When I was wondering about my initial slow progress, I was judging that progress against the other blogs in the newcomer ranks, not the top 100. To assume that is just ridiculous and not a very well thought out argument against me. How could I assume that after a couple months I would be in the top 100? I'll probably never get there. The light hearted statement about me being a pro and "How dare they.." was meant as a joke and even though there may be some pride in my profession, I stated right from the beginning that I knew my blog wasn't for everyone.
Some people just love to hate and anything will set them off.
Thanks Neene, you're one of they few people that got it.
May 24th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
hi brooks - i guess i was just showing you what you've discovered, that you have different types of visitors to each photoblog. that's all. and i love portraits sometimes, but not so interested in studio shots.
anyway it doesn't matter or mean much to me how long a website's been up. my feeble mind has a hard time remembering useless facts like who's been around the longest and bla bla bla, anyway. as long as there's something in their photography that catches my attention, i'll continue to visit.
and yes, it's Q
May 24th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
ps. go and make an archive page! thanks
May 24th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
"you're one of they few people that got it."
As for people not getting it...
The point I was making about having been at it for years wasn't about who has been here the longest and expecting people to remember that, feebleminded or not. It had to do with the amount of favorites that some people have and the fact that they had a realitvely wide audience BEFORE signing on to photoblogs.org that they brought with them because I was under the impression (perhaps I was mistaken) that there was a question as to why people got favorites and how quickly, etc.
Ain't no hating goin' on here, Brooks, in fact, I'm not sure I've ever met a person who "loves to hate". That's just silly.
May 25th, 2005 at 12:28 am
I have.
May 25th, 2005 at 1:20 am
There are really people who love to hate? That's sad.
I know there are people who post places like this in an attempt to piss people off for sport and though I don't, for the life of me, see the fun in it, I never really thought they were hating. I thought they were just misguided attention seekers.
May 25th, 2005 at 2:35 am
what a weird bunch of ppl...
May 25th, 2005 at 3:20 am
It's an expression. I guess I need to be a little more literal.
"...the attitude of entitlement along with the elitist disapproval of all things "kitty."
I don't see this at all. I made a joke about cats and and then said straight up that I always love a cute cat photo. I love my cats and two of the pictures of them on the blog are beautiful portraits. Also, I don't get the part about "the attitude of enlightenment." Realizing that I enjoyed doing a blog of pictures other than portraits is an attitude? My favorite thing to do is shoot people, so it was a surprise to me how much I enjoyed doing and showing the other. I don't understand.
I'm assuming Em that you know what I'm thinking. I never wanted to piss anyone off. If you read any of what I wrote, and I'm not sure you have, I specifically said that I hoped that it didn't piss anyone off. I know that was hidden in the first paragraph, so I'll forgive you for missing it.
The whole point of posting this story was to show how at first I was misguided and how the exercise changed my mind about the photoblog that that I had created to see what people really wanted to see here. It didn't really show me what I was expecting to see and it was never meant to be harmful. I don't understand why some people are so pissed about that. I always replied to the comments on the blog with friendly discourse and answered any questions or praise and I tried to reciprocate by checking out their blogs and commenting there. One of my early regular commentors was Flygirl from Zoom Vienna and they were also the first to know that it was a secret blog of mine. We both still visit each other and all is good.
I agree fishcake, as long as I'm included in that statement.
May 25th, 2005 at 9:08 am
"I know there are people who post places like this in an attempt to piss people off for sport… I thought they were just misguided attention seekers."
ouch, em. you cut me. i bleed.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
LOL!! Brooks your so funny =)
May 26th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
I rather enjoy the "Brooks" site. I have been haunting Brooks for a while now, but I have never encountered the "experiment." You don't come across studio art in a photoblog very often, so it is rather unique. As for the favorites and rankings, I've never played that game. I've also never participated in a meme, nor submitted for a publication. I've been listed about a year and a half with only 10 favorites. I'm not online to be popular, just to be seen. What's the point of shooting as much as I do, and no one ever saw any of it. I really like this community and I support it whole heartedly. I have derived many inspirations from members and discussions here, and I try to give back when I can. (I have not read ALL the comments before writing this.)
May 27th, 2005 at 7:00 am
NO, I'm Spartacus!
I like your experiment, I like how it backfired, I like how you like it backfired.
That's a lot of like and no hate.