Meta Flickr
Jan. 19th, 2009 05:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhythmaningI never cease to be surprised by what people look at on my flickr pages.
But I am curious for a real preference for scanned text over photographs. The pair scans of aphorisms which I was given by a stranger in Darjeeling 18 years ago have got way more hits than any of the photographs taken at the same time I uploaded today.
Also interesting is a real preference for people: the pictures of G., with whom I was travelling, also have more hits than the landscapes and cityscapes.
I often don't include people in my photographs - unless they are the subject of the photograph. I go to lengths to exclude people, sometimes: you could look at my pictures of Edinburgh, New York or London and think of them as unpopulated, desolate places. (Aside from some people getting married and some others running through an art gallery...)
This is partly because I am always wary of putting pictures of people I know on flickr - they may not want to be there. I have have some lovely pictures of the friends I stay with when I visit New York, but they might not want pictures of their kids splashed over the internet.
It is also because if a picture is of a building or a shape (and a lot of mine are), I don't need to see people there, too: the abstract is enough for me.
But that's just me: and clearly other people like pictures of smiling faces!
But I am curious for a real preference for scanned text over photographs. The pair scans of aphorisms which I was given by a stranger in Darjeeling 18 years ago have got way more hits than any of the photographs taken at the same time I uploaded today.
Also interesting is a real preference for people: the pictures of G., with whom I was travelling, also have more hits than the landscapes and cityscapes.
I often don't include people in my photographs - unless they are the subject of the photograph. I go to lengths to exclude people, sometimes: you could look at my pictures of Edinburgh, New York or London and think of them as unpopulated, desolate places. (Aside from some people getting married and some others running through an art gallery...)
This is partly because I am always wary of putting pictures of people I know on flickr - they may not want to be there. I have have some lovely pictures of the friends I stay with when I visit New York, but they might not want pictures of their kids splashed over the internet.
It is also because if a picture is of a building or a shape (and a lot of mine are), I don't need to see people there, too: the abstract is enough for me.
But that's just me: and clearly other people like pictures of smiling faces!