Agree with this, but I normally won't upvote a photo on it's own in a post where there is not even an attempt at a description, or if the photo, to me, is actually not very good. If you took hours to create a photo, take 5 minutes to describe it in the post.
There are also some quite powerful members on here who post short format photography work which is, to be frank, crap snapshots that they took on their way home and they get tens, if not hundreds of dollars per post. That isn't the sort of short format posts that should be rewarded to that extent.
see, i love photos. for many diff reasons. but i find it extremely annoying that each and every of photos have some kinds of description, which somehow kills the value of pic.
photos talks on their own. if they need description, then something is not good.
people here are forcing themselves into descrptions after whole process already done. forced descriptions, same as any forced an unnatural efforts are just degrading the original work. just my opinion.
also there is way around this / i actually never read descriptions.
Maybe I didn't make myself 100% clear there, that's my fault... Of course, if a photo stands on its own and needs no description to inspire me then I'm going to vote on it. Guys like @axeman who I think is one of the most underrated members on here is a prime example of someone I'll vote for when I see just a solitary picture in my feed, cos i'm confident that he took the picture and he put time and effort into producing it. When I see a picture on its own that looks like the poster made no real effort to compose or think about, and then didn't make any effort to describe what they are trying to do with the photo then i dont feel that they are deserving of a vote. Im also concerned about the level of spam. If i see a photo, a description of the picture helps to verify that the person posting is the original photographer and it hasnt just been taken from a stock image site.
Agree. Speciallly if you are talking about street photography. You cant really describe what is really happening. Speculations you can do but it is always on the viewers side of what he/she may interpret the photo as.
I could understand if the photo is travel or scenaries which the original content creator can describe where the photo was taken.
It was this kind of photography I was talking about which is more like snapshots.
But just like with photography it's a huge difference in the quality.
The same goes for comedy as well except for the difference that sometimes even quality comedy such as @traf can be considered just short content - which is not fair