Photography and Social Media

<p>Here's an interesting article about photography in the social media age:</p>

<p><a href="http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-3500-Job-Info-and-Trends-Working-as-a-photographer-in-the-social-media-age/?SiteId=cbmsn43500&sc_extcmp=JS_3500_advice">http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-3500-Job-Info-and-Trends-Working-as-a-photographer-in-the-social-media-age/?SiteId=cbmsn43500&sc_extcmp=JS_3500_advice</a></p>

<p>The consensus among those interviewed seems to be that social media are necessary to success today. Your thoughts?</p>

<p>Now, myself, being a COF (Certified Old F**t), I don't like Facebook, et al, and don't participate. I much prefer to hang prints in a gallery and enjoy the occasional sale. There's a sense of reality in that, something I don't see in social media.</p>

<p>Of course, it probably helps that I have a retirement income and won't starve...</p>

<p>I'm with you but then I'm a COF as well. cb :-)</p>

<p>Are you commercial photographers? That's what the article is about. People have posted on here for years that being a successful commercial photographer requires business acumen. A big part of business is marketing. And marketing these days is heavily driven by social media.</p>

<p>Frankly, I get a lot more now from Facebook than from any old paradigm web forum - including photo.net - in terms of encouraging interests in photography.</p>

<p>Through Facebook I've been inspired by seeing the work of many photographers in diverse fields. I've been personally encouraged by fellow documentary photographers who update frequently on their progress, challenges and setbacks in pursuing projects. I've "met", in the virtual sense, folks who are engaged almost daily in passions for pinhole photography using film cameras they've modified or built themselves. I see fun stuff every day from folks who enjoy candid photography - and I don't mean just snapping pix of their lunch or selfies in the bathroom, but meeting folks in public and sharing the joy of photography as a form of communication with others.</p>

<p>On photo.net and typical old paradigm web forums I see mostly:</p>

<ul>

<li>"Bah, humbug, not like the old days of 36-exposure Grumblechrome when a real photographer would use a Curmudgekon and squeeze every frame like milking blood from the dinosaur who taught me photography back in 'aught-six."</li>

<li>"Wow, I just bought a brand new fool frame Canikolymponytax D0H and it's the best thing evar!1!11!"</li>

<li>15 minutes later, "Boo, my new Canikolymponytax D0H sux!1!11! When's the next big thing coming out?"</li>

<li>"Harrumphhh! Ansel Adams said..."</li>

<li>"Social networking? Bah! Life was better when all we had was spark gap telegraph! I my day you'd send a message only when you had something really important to say, such as 'Bah, these new fangled telephony devices only encourage people to babble nonsense!'"</li>

</ul>

<p>Web forums are still useful for sharing techniques and opinions in more depth. Social media is generally better for concise, pithy and, often, superficial communication.</p>

<p>And the website paradigm is still better for meaningful critiques, while social media is better for routine encouragement.</p>

<p>I think senses of reality have always varied immeasurably by generation. I think about my reality (and several alternate ones) of the sixties and seventies and what my parents must have thought about it. There's absolutely no reason why my parents should have adopted or seen the world through my "hippie" eyes and mind, though it was helpful that they came to accept it on some levels. The Beatles actually grew on them and their shuddering at my brother's living with his girlfriend out of wedlock has morphed into the expectation that it's not necessarily unwise to live together before marrying.</p>

<p>Accepting change doesn't always mean adopting it for oneself. There's much of today's culture I'm not interested in participating in. But I like to think I will keep recognizing how many different, rich, authentic realities there are among different generations, cultures, and peoples.</p>

<p>As for photography, I do participate both in Internet showing and viewing and gallery showing and viewing. I prefer hanging my own and looking at others' photos in galleries but am so glad for the Internet that gives me an opportunity to reach a broad audience and be exposed to a broad world of photographers and critics. I use the Internet and my local neighborhood differently and have come not to always expect the same things from the two. But I'm grateful they're both there and I have the freedom to choose which I will use for what purpose and when.</p>

<p>Wow Fred... well said. Couldn't agree more. I always tell my kids they are unique, unique, just like everyone else. There are few truly wrong ways to approach photography. Making it your own, however you do it, lets you connect with it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>On photo.net and typical old paradigm web forums I see mostly:</p>

<ul>

<li>"Bah, humbug, not like the old days of 36-exposure Grumblechrome when a real photographer would use a Curmudgekon and squeeze every frame like milking blood from the dinosaur who taught me photography back in 'aught-six."</li>

<li>"Wow, I just bought a brand new fool frame Canikolymponytax D0H and it's the best thing evar!1!11!"</li>

<li>15 minutes later, "Boo, my new Canikolymponytax D0H sux!1!11! When's the next big thing coming out?"</li>

<li>"Harrumphhh! Ansel Adams said..."</li>

<li>"Social networking? Bah! Life was better when all we had was spark gap telegraph! I my day you'd send a message only when you had something really important to say, such as 'Bah, these new fangled telephony devices only encourage people to babble nonsense!'"</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm still laughing, Lex! Very good summation of what <em>sometimes </em>goes on.</p>

<p>I'm not a commercial photographer and not even in the same zip code as famous, but social media has given me greater opportunities to get my work exposed, and to be exposed to the work of others. I once poo-pooed FB, but found, like Lex, that by making the right connections, it can be fun, inspiring, and provide exposure "from" and "to".</p>

<p>And, like Fred, I like the mix of internet and "local neighborhood".</p>

<p>Unless a photographer is already well known and has an established base of clients and admirers, I don't see how they can expect to grow a business without utilizing social media in some fashion or other. I won't mention any names (they are not on PN), but I know of several photographers who have enormous followings and great social media presence. And their work is largely mediocre. I sometimes look at an image that receives hundreds upon hundreds of "likes" or "+1's" and have to scratch my head. Popularity inertia you might call it. Maybe that's the flip side of social media.</p>

<p>I'm on facebook as me rather than as a photographer, but twitter seems to work quite well as a way of drumming up business. That and good tags/metadata as a way of being found.<br>

My 2p</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I know of several photographers who have enormous followings and great social media presence. And their work is largely mediocre."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, there's some of that too. I know of a fellow who has a large, faithful and enthusiastic following for his "stuff I see while walking around downtown" photos. The photos are mostly competent snapshots, not even postcard quality. They're in focus and you can tell what his camera was aimed at. Beyond that, they're pretty meh. They aren't "street" photos - there's no particular aesthetic involved. His photos of people are from across the street or using a telephoto from a safe distance - like, a 300mm or 500mm lens from a *very* safe distance. He even admits he's not comfortable photographing people, but it's unavoidable when snapping pix in a vibrant downtown area.</p>

<p>But he's likeable and gets plenty of likes. His posts appeal to a certain demographic of folks who are enthusiastic about the revitalization and gentrification of downtown, and it's hard to fault them for that, considering our downtown area was a ghost town during the 1970s-'80s.</p>

<p>Well said, Fred, and you've echoed my feelings almost exactly. I also use the internet to market my work (yessy.com), as well as brick and mortar galleries. Also, it's not a matter of resisting new technology. I transitioned from film to digital with hardly a whimper. I just do not like social media, which, to me, bears the same relationship to the internet as reality shows do to television. "Swap People" is not real television. "Masterpiece Theater" is real television. Even "Rocky and Bullwinkle" is real television. Similarly, the real internet is here, yessy.com, Arcanum Café (poetry site), and a few other places I hang out, but definitely not Facebook, and tweeting is best left to birds.</p>

<p>But the real issue of the article is whether social media is <em>necessary</em> for professional photography to thrive, or survive. I hope not.</p>

<p>By the way, Lex, I felt kind of a warm glow at your mention of spark gap telegraphy. My late aunt Elva was one of the last railroad telegraphers (Santa Fe RR, Schulenburg, TX) in the late 1940s. I occasionally got to go to work with her (I think she was my babysitter du jour) and was fascinated by the equipment and the sounds. Not exactly spark gap, but damn close...</p>

<p>William, when I see articles telling me what's "necessary," I usually simply translate that for myself to "what the author recommends." I then listen to what he says about the subject and get what I can out of it, if anything. It's rare that ANYTHING in life is NECESSARY for all people and in all situations. Professional photographers do this and professional photographers do that. Some artists do this and some do that. I don't doubt that there are many photographers successfully using social media and I don't see how it could hurt to be aware of how that's being done. A headline which claims it to be necessary is just an attention-grabber, much like social networking can be to begin with. I always take headlines and hyperbole with a grain of salt but try not to let that discount good information an article may still contain.</p>

<p>As for reality-TV not being real TV, that would be an interesting and amusing irony. It reminds me of when people claim that a photo isn't reality (presumably because a two-dimensional image of something on a screen or piece of paper isn't the same as what was originally shot). What they forget is that a two-dimensional image on a piece of paper is, in fact, a reality. Just a different one from the original, no more or less real, no more or less valid. One ought to be perfectly comfortable preferring or liking whatever they please. But I'm not sure anyone but God (and he's busy inciting hurricanes to keep people from acting out sexually) has the bona fides to determine what realities are realer than what other realities.</p>

<p>Thanks, William, for a stimulating conversation.</p>

<p>Now, taking a dose of my own medicine, I suppose if I can easily translate "this is necessary" to "this is what I recommend" I can also easily translate "this isn't real" to "I don't like this." </p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>Thanks, Fred. I was getting ready to do some rephrasing, myself. To wit: For "real" read "Good and worth viewing"; and for "not real" read "crap"... ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Swap People" is not real television.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You're speaking for everyone? How can you tell other people what is and is not "real television"? When I see these kinds of statements, I pretty much ignore them. There's an "I'm the only one capable of judging" in them that turns my stomach and certainly affects my view of the people who say them.</p>

<p>Nope, Jeff, only speaking for myself. Go with whatever floats your boat. Nice job ignoring my statement, by the way... :-)</p>

<p>I will say that social media can be a trap for some professional creative types. I've seen some pros posting crazy stuff that would make me facepalm if I wasn't laughing so hard. Occasionally I'm tempted to ask them whether they'd be willing to print their latest Facebook post on a card and tack it up next to their work in a gallery.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Grumblerella trained at the prestigious <em>L'atelier d'une bombe de gaz</em>. Her oil paintings of the endangered Hartz Mountain purple beret manatees have received international acclaim and are displayed by conservation groups worldwide. She loves kittens, puppies, and anything in baskets. She despises poor people and other vermin who are sucking society dry. Her Facebook commentaries on social issues and politics cannot be reprinted without using Sgt. Snorkel style comic strip <em>#@$%&!</em> cussing, and she wishes her ex-boyfriend's genitalia would be caught in a leaf mulcher."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, sure, social media has its challenges for the professional artist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"But the real issue of the article is whether social media is necessary for professional photography to thrive, or survive. I hope not."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think social media is necessary to survive, but to thrive is a whole new level that requires the clever use of it. <br>

<br>

Social networking sites live or die on the amount of advertising dollars they rake in through the only leverage they have, which are the sheer number of eyeballs loyal to their site. Turning the industry upside down is an understatement and most advertisers are still baffled by it all except the most sophisticated among them. <br>

<br>

For photographers and many other professions/industries, the smart use of this new medium is to leverage the platform to build ones brand. This is the distinction between marketing and advertising which is not well understood. Subscribing to McDonald's on Facebook to get news of their discount booklet as soon as it's released is advertising. <a href="

response</a> to <a href=" rant on Facebook</a> about feminine cycles is marketing to create brand awareness. <br>

<br>

There's a lot we can learn from the big boys. GM quit its advertising on Facebook only to return to it a couple of years later. Their strategy is still the old school 800-pound gorilla approach by using the biggest megaphone they can find to overwhelm us with messages nobody cares about. Ford, on the other hand, cleverly packages their message in a form auto enthusiasts openly embrace, and the numbers speak for themselves whether it's "Likes" on Facebook, channel subscriber-count of YouTube, or any other metric. <br>

<br>

You don't need to spend a lot of time on these sites to promote yourself if you're clever about it, and just like the world before Facebook and Google there will be winners and losers independent of advertising or marketing platform; these new channels merely demand a user mindset that is acutely tuned to its strengths.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Those of you not on Facebook are really missing out on Lex's classic series, "Earthakitty vs. Foot". Oh, and "Earthakitty vs. Other Kitty". Oh, and "Ain't Earthakitty cute, in a I'll rip your face off way".<br /><br />You're welcome, Lex. I do love Earthakitty...</p>

<p>I just have a problem discerning and accepting what's real in online social exchanges since certain aspects of senses I normally use to function in the real world such as sight, sound, taste and smell are virtually turned off.</p>

<p>I don't get to see/hear a person click "Like" on FB.</p>

<p>You go online to "press the flesh" so to speak as a way of building a media buzz on a body of work except there's no flesh. There's no tactile way of making an impression on a wide range of people to get them to remember you among the million other photographers.</p>

<p>I don't get to see/hear a person get a check for their services as a photographer or see a single sale of an image be it in digital or hard copy form. Even if you took pictures of a gallery event to show others online that there is truly an interest in their work, it still doesn't rule out the possibility the attendees are just relatives and friends of the photographer. This is what politicians of either party do at a rally to give the impression a majority favors them when in fact no one can really tell for sure until the votes are counted.</p>

<p>Folks who say "Go to this or that website because it's better" are never able to show any proof of this which they really can't anyway.</p>

<p>Even folks who claim to be "professional" photographers don't really show any proof of this to the extent it's a viable and sustainable business. I can't see how many photos that photographer sold.</p>

<p>Sorry to rain on your parade, but unless the web can show with proof what is happening is really happening and changing lives on account of it, I'm going to remain doubtful of the efficacy of social media networking for now.</p>

<p>Tim, <strong><a href="http://www.cheatengine.org/forum/files/lol-i-troll-you_174.png">this illustration</a></strong> gives helpful hints to discerning what's really happening behind the conflicts you read online.</p>

<p>And <a href="http://xkcd.com/386/">this is your typical internet helpful advice guy</a>.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/faq.htm">Here's an old school internet famous master photographer</a>. Not sure he's on Tweetie, Fauxbouquet or Gargle+.</p>

<p><a href="http://beam.zackarias.com/#!/index"><strong>Here's a guy</strong></a> who probably wouldn't be where he is today without knowing how to do social networking right.</p>

<p><a href="http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/10/sad-tale-jasmine-star-doug-gordon/">Here are some photographers doing social networking wrong</a>.</p>

<p><a href="http://fstoppers.com/i-was-wrong-i-need-to-apologize-to-anyone-ive-offended">Here's a rockstar photographer doing a little image rehab</a>.</p>

<p>And <a href="http://www.this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/">here's</a> a successful photographer who doesn't master the internets or social media.</p>

<p>Lex, not sure if the links in your response were supporting my points or you were just being funny.</p>

<p>But back at ya' with the posted image below that sums up what I think is really going on with online social media networking with questions to ask yourself and anyone else...</p>

<p>Can you really tell which ones are looking at their own reflection from those looking at what's behind the window from those appreciating the reflected architecture? And guess who's missing?...</p>

<p>Anyone looking at the photo... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nYPkfQVjQig/TfULB3iKa9I/AAAAAAAAGmM/c-dUFahcxjA/s1600/Pentecost-web-6084.jpg</p>

<p>and this photographer par excellence is way ahead of the pack <br>

<a href="http://www.derekpyephotography.com/">http://www.derekpyephotography.com/</a></p>

<p>Tim, you're not raining on anyone's parade; the world is what it is regardless of our interpretation. </p>

<p>If one were to play the game, though, it'd be really helpful if one were armed with sufficient information to form a perspective and a game plan that's conducive to succeeding, otherwise it'd just be fruitless dabbling. </p>

<p>Fruitless dabbling can be an experience in itself, and not always an unworthy one! :-)</p>

<p>You're right, Fred, unless, of course, your next meal depends on making the right call. </p>