How can I take pictures people give a shit about?

take lots of photos at various angles and of things not everyone sees or in lighting that might be appealing to the average photocunt
in short: be different than photocunt

File: which-way-is-the-frontline-from-here-1024.jpg (527KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1024x576px

>>3025314
Go to countries ravaged by famine and war, take pictures, sell them to varying news sources before getting killed in a shell attack or beheaded on the internet.

Will it help if I take photos in ways people can't just easily see from their own perspective? Telephoto and macro shots?

File: 20130912-IMG_9220-2.jpg (2MB, 2000x1096px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1096px

this will at least take 3 seconds.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Jack
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:18 16:58:11
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1096
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

This about it this way mate; if your shots are getting glanced over, they're not absolute shit and are just average.

>>3025334
But nobody cares about average photography.

>>3025314
Take a photo YOU give a shit about and hope your taste is similar to "people's" taste?

>>3025314
It's about recognising yourself what is and isn't a good photo.
If you go out and take 100 photos, expect to use maybe 10 at most. Then you start processing and that number dwindles to 5. Then you consider them among the rest of your portfolio and you end up using 3 great photos of the original 100.

Personally, I end up deeming less than 10% of all photos I take on a given outing/session 'usable'; this isn't because I'm a bad photographer, but because I know the difference, for myself, between average, good, and great images, and I am personally picky and only wish to put out my best.

Sever all emotional ties you have to your images. The only feeling an image you publish as art should give you is interest or admiration of aesthetic beauty. I don't know what kind of photo you post here but this is a common problem–photos that have value to you may not have the same value to any random viewer.

Bottom line is, don't post average snapshits and expect to get deep, insightful critique.

>>3025329
I lingered at least 20

File: fox.jpg (354KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 667x1000px

100% subject.
Even the best possible photo of something uninteresting gets lovingly glanced at. Meanwhile, even a terrible photo of something strange, unique, or moving will capture people's attention.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:20 20:18:35
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000