# Shoot for the Thumbnail



## mackguyver (Jun 4, 2014)

A trend I've noticed in the social media era is something I call _*shooting for the thumbnail*_. What I mean by that is focusing on the impact of the image as it appears in a tiny thumbnail on the screen of a PC, tablet, or phone. Bright colors, tons of contrast, and often lots of bokeh draw your eye and those photos tend to be very popular on the web in general, but especially on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, 500px, Flickr, etc. Examples of my work are photos like this, all of which have been extremely popular on social media:















While there's nothing wrong with these photos, there are a lot of photos that don't look so good at this size and really need to be viewed as large prints or at least on a large monitor to be appreciated. The photos below are some of my most popular in terms of prints, but have drawn almost zero interest online:














Each of these photos have a large number of subtle details that can't be seen in a thumbnail.

This isn't a new phenomenon of course. If you walk into a American art museum, as I did when these artists were both on display, Andy Warhol's work will jump off the wall at you from down the hall, while Norman Rockwell's work won't even elicit a response. Up close, the Marilyn works from Warhol were interesting and catchy, but I quickly passed them and moved on to other work. When I reach Rockwell's work, I was mesmerized by the detail and layers in his paintings of the diners and soda shops. I probably spent 10 minutes with Warhol and over an hour with Rockwell despite there being twice as many Warhol works.

I guess the point of all this is that I worry not only that future generations are losing their appreciation for printed art/photos and large detailed works, but also that the instant gratification of the thumbnail will influence my own work.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2014)

If you make a great thumbnail, it will get better when they see the details.


----------



## DKN (Jun 4, 2014)

I completely agree, I've found too that a a bright, satured thumbnail grants an image more visibility on the web. I have also several images that look boring when viewed small, but look great when printed big (like 40x70cm)


----------



## distant.star (Jun 4, 2014)

.
I don't mean this as a duh!, but I suspect this is not different than it's always been. The evolution of the human eye/brain connections will surely take more than the 10 years or so we have generally been commonly viewing images on computer screens.


----------



## Joe M (Jun 4, 2014)

This reminds me of an article I read about a month ago on the BBC. A researcher at MIT has been working on an algorithm to predict the popularity of a photo online, and while there are so many thumbnails, I'd think it may apply to these as well. Long story short, bikinis and guns get the most hits. Like really? But what struck me is another point he brought up was what you, mackguyver, said "Bright colors, tons of contrast" is what gets people clicking too (and so says the researcher). Has the world become so over stimulated that only "in your face" pics are worth looking at anymore? I hope not. Oh, and the link....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27389786


----------

