Photography tends to attract a lot of fairly critical people, and it can be a bit much to take sometimes. Before you get too down about it all, it is important to remember that you simply can't please everyone with your work.
Coming to you from Thomas Heaton, this great video features him discussing dealing with the never-ending stream of critics in his comments section and how he continues despite them. Though Heaton is very respected both as a photographer and a teacher, with over 400,000 subscribers, he certainly has to deal with his share of detractors and unkind comments. The important thing to remember is that photographic taste is a subjective thing, and while comments on technique or the like can be helpful for improving your work, people often confuse comments on subjective creative choices with those on objective questions of technique. Furthermore, it is generally a good guideline to consider the source of feedback and to reject any comments that are overly positive or negative, as neither are likely to contain valuable information on your work. Personally, I like to find a friend or two whose opinions I trust and listen to them only. Check out the video above for Heaton's full thoughts.
Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of those trolls can't shoot...
Sean Tucker advanced the notion that the behaviour is motivated by bitterness, which is driven by a failure to acheive what they believe they deserve; I think there's something to that.
In most cases that is certainly true. However, in the case of Sean Tucker his trolls probably have a point. He's not exactly the worlds greatest photographer ...
Sure, let me rephrase, research is consistently demonstrating that people who troll view themselves as abject failures and are beset with feelings of inadequacy.
That's to say any negative feedback to an online image is cast by inadequate, abject failures? Rather sweeping generalisation ...
You fail in premise, definition, and comprehension.
Singular anecdotal examples do not rebut a generalisation which has been empirically established. See also, statistical outlier.
Also, I don't think the word "troll" means what you think it means.
I love your work, I don't have much respect for you otherwise.
Now now, no need for that we're all friends here.
Not disputing your empirical research, just making the point it's a shame any negative feedback these days get lumped under the definition of 'trolling'. One big echo chamber.
But do continue editing your retort. It's very well considered 👍
For a paying client, I better care. If it's my own personal work it is a different story. I am always interested in how my work is perceived by people and why, but their perception really does not influence what I do, because it is my work
If someone is going to do something that is subjective like photography or art or music, you really should understand that not everyone is going to like what you do. I used to play rock music, but I know that there's country or folk or classical lovers that didn't like what I played. Heck, my wife was a coffee house folkie and I was playing Led Zeppelin. She used a Taylor, I used an SG Std. :-)
Then there's those that don't like what you do because you're successful at the same vocation that they aren't so successful doing. Human nature is a fickle thing.
It would be an interesting experiment to use an obscure photo from someone considered transformative in the world of photography and see how people who don't know who's photo it is, review it. Then do the same photo but let people know who shot it and see if idolatry replaces negative comments.
I find that if people know who shot a photo or wrote something an inherent bias comes into play depending on whether the commenter wants to be included somehow with the famous person.