I tend to think that everyone who is posting pictures they took or created thinks their stuff is good. But I think the way we grow as creatives is to detach from our connection to the image (especially the ego part ) and be able to objectively judge whether it works or not – whether it “grabs you” in some way… (For me, I can't really objectively assess an image until I have worked on at least two more after it . Only then am I able to critique that work without the veil of "I worked hard on this" wrapped around it).
I think there are three kinds of images ultimately:
Ones that have the “Wow factor”: These are images that are visually stunning and command your attention. They may just be “eye candy”, but you simply can not ignore them when they present themselves to your eyes. This can be attributed to a few different things - a stunning subject (be it model or landscape), spectacular lighting and composition and a unique perspective that forces you to look.
Then there are ones with “the Ponder Further factor”: that make you think, provoke emotions or ask you questions about the intent of the artist. These are images you can spend hours with and return to again and again.
And then there are the “Ho Hum” pictures: which neither dazzle nor captivate the imagination of the viewer. Usually what makes them boring is a lack of either of the first two components.
The best images in my opinion are a combination of the first two in some way.
Most images are in the third category and I have begun to analyze more and more what makes some images exceptional and others boring. It is more than just elements of composition, lighting, and perspective – it is ultimately the subject itself and the way it is captured and manipulated by the mind of the artist that either draws you in or doesn’t.
I try and learn from them all – what to avoid and what works.
Or, as the late great Robert Mapplethorpe said “The more pictures you see, the better you are as a photographer”.
“Cloud of Unknowing” by Thomas Dodd