The hierarchy of photo subject

[greypoint]

It's interesting to see on all general photo sites which pictures have the most views. Which generate the most interest. I was once told rather condesendingly that one of my photos 'was'nt bad for a dog portrait' - but resisted the temptation to comment under one of the commenters portraits of their child that it was'nt bad for a kiddie pic! Is subject matter the be all and end all of your photographic viewing? I can't honestly say that I find any [legal!] subject not worth a look - even 'glamour' which I dislike on most occasions If you have an interest in photography is'nt technique, composition and capturing the light and moment the important thing? Whatever the subject.

[Oly Paul]

I'm with you Sue as I class myself as a light chaser and not a subject chaser, even the most mundane subject can magicly be transformed when the light hits it in a certain way if only for a few seconds.

[Oldboy]

Well I do go out to chase subjects like birds, insects, people and such, but the thing that get my blood rushing is the light. When that magic light appears I rush around like mad trying to get as many shots as I can, often thinking I should be in another position to get the perfect shot.  No matter what I'm photographing I always keep my eyes open for that magic light appearing.

[greypoint]

This was really more about pictures taken by others. The way that some subjects attract lots of comments and views while others are ignored. Is subject matter the most important thing or does your general interest in photography mean you take an interest in genres other than those you actually take.

[Oldboy]

A good picture is a good picture regardless of subject, but I agree that some people only comment of subjects they like, and ignore the others whether they are cracking shots or not. 

[Graham]

     Well. I'm inclined to think that subject matter is irrelevant to the make up of a worthwhile image.
     A celebrated photographer (I can't remember which one.) said "I have found most of my subjects not a hundred yards from my back door!"
     I kind of know what he means.
                             Graham. 

[Nemesis]

I guess I am drawn to the subject of the image first (hence my choice of groups over on Flickr), and then appreciate the vision, technique etc behind the image.

[ABERS]

The treatment rather than the subject usually attracts me. I've found more B+W groups than you can shake a stick at on Flickr. What people take is irrelevant as long as it's well seen, well composed, and well presented, and that applies to colour as well as monochrome as far as I'm concerned.
I do grit my teeth somewhat at B+W images that are the result of someone just 'giving it a go' and usually ends up as an image that's either a uniformally grey splodge, or a soot and whitewash effort. It seems that just because there's no colour in it it will pass as a monochrome image.

[Peter Jackson]

................. or a soot and whitewash effort. It seems that just because there's no colour in it it will pass as a monochrome image.

Guilty as charged M'Lud 

[picsfor]

I have favourite subjects when i take pictures.

But i don't have any favourite subjects when i view pictures.
I have favourite photographers who produce a higher proportion of pictures that i like to look at but not every picture they take works for me.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a more than apt statement for considering a pictures worth to the viewer.

[Hybridphotog]

I had favourite subjects, a few years ago. But as I've said before, you can only take so many photos of steaming lumps of metal before the "Sausage factory" effect kicks in.

Change the subject matter, you might surprise yourself.