Love and hate? How do you feel about Flickr and other pro photographer sites?

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>I didn't even notice that flickr is a 'pro' platform. </p>

<p>I am not sharing my work, I sell it or put it on display in exhibitions.</p>

<p>Now what?</p>

<p> </p>

[james_c1]

<p>The poblm is cleer you shood open a spelling gramer site to help us ignoent folk out.</p>

[stp]

<p>@ Craig: Definately!</p>

[james_c1]

<p>Now that I can spell this word G u l l i b l e . I’m on my way to better pictures.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>I know almost no pros on flickr.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is at least one pro on Flickr, and he wrote about how photographers can use it for marketing, right here at PN. But not everyone agreed with him, read the comments.<br>

http://www.photo.net/column/harolddavis/finding-an-audience-for-your-photography/using-flickr-for-marketing/</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>What is Flickr? and the others I know exist but forget the names ..... I have my own site :-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>...hereas photo.net gallery images tend to be more about heavy post-processing, over-simplified compositions, and unnatural looking graphic arts (top rated gallery certainly). So I almost never view images on photo.net gallery...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you would view images on photo.net gallery, you could find a whole raft of different photos here. The portofolios I frequent here are light on post-processing, have original compositions and look natural. And they're quality photos. The critique forum shows a wide variety of styles, and shows that this site is open enough to differing opinions.<br>

It's more a matter of searching for it and knowing where to look. And sure the top rated ones are not necessarily the best. But that's the case everywhere.</p>

[james_c1]

<p>Ilkka and georg have to agree with you Flickr is a good source of information. What is ones definition of pro? There are many here are some I found looking up pro.<br>

prō 1. professional person: a professional, especially in sports 2. skilled person: somebody who is very skilled at what they do. Example - prostitute- a prostitute (slang)<br>

Not the best explanation I know, wont get of the beaten path. My point is, why must there be only one choice. Other sites are a good thing, different point of view, different people, different way of putting it. Different, (Hatter!)<br>

On the other hand, this site does seem to be a lot more argumentative on matters that don’t even have anything to do with the original post. It kind of becomes you has the biggest brain contest. Even been told what should be available in My local area.(Guess they know better than me) There are things we don’t like everywhere in life. If I don’t like the people in the local coffee shop and they have good coffee, I’m still going there.<br>

This site is great. It has helped me in many ways and more than any of the others Its just good to have different photography choices . Oh no bet I just started another digital VS film war</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Are you saying there are other photo sites besides photo.net? I'm shocked!</p>

<p>Seriously, I totally approve the moderation on photo.net. I've visited other sites over the years, but photo.net covers all the bases. Hardware forums. Genre forums. News. Business. Beginner. What else could photo.net be doing to be better? For the many years that I've been a member I haven't found a better site. I followed photo.net for quite a few years before I actually signed up. Lex will always be Lex. Shun seems well grounded. Josh, even though he is younger than many of us, seems to have a good vision of what is right. I'm not a Canon user, but I know about Bob Atkins. Photo.net has a lot of history. I wonder how many of the new members know about Philip Greenspun? Many photo sites are geared towards volume (of photos posted). Many survive on rumors. I want quality so my web site of choice is photo.net.</p>

<p>I see photo.net as a true community. It's not just a place to throw up pictures. It's not just a place for pure facts and statistics. Photo.net is a place for real people to share ideas.</p>

<p>Just my two cents. - Mark</p>

 

[iqbal]

<p>As an amateur, I found PN very distinct and extremely valuable site: to find variety of techniques, rich collections of photos on every areas conceivable with all possible cameras and formats, pre and post processing. PN really opened my eyes to know what really photogrpahy is. Most important, there are so many professionals willing to help to beginners, to those with craving for learning and to those with specific photo related problems. </p>

<p>The only reason I post my photos in Flickr (I hope spelling is right), because it is free and also flexible in terms of photo size (although PN is also free but only for limited number of photos), but there is no comparison in terms of qualities and discussions that take place in PN as compared to Flickr (and readers pretty well know which ranks what).</p>

<p>And Josh righly pointed out that there is always room for improvement (in every area, photography or not). We will all love to know and appreciate with positive comments and contributions. I am certain that administrators at PN would wellcome those comments and would impliment positive needed changes.</p>

[billangel]

<blockquote>

<p>Flickr is right now unbeatable if someone wants to find a wide variety of images for given theme or technique... and it's more fun to discover the work of others over there.</p></blockquote>

<p>I emphatically agree.<br>

I started a group at Flickr whose subject is <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/illustrating_euphemisms/">"Illustrating Euphemisms".</a><br>

I periodically scan the Flickr image database and continually find new or unusual images to invite the creators to submit to this group.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>mmh, this is getting interesting. The info here favoring flickr is new to me which troubles me even more because I have to wait till someone points me in another direction on the use of the site that never crossed my mind.</p>

<p>Figuring out the differences on how Facebook, Google +, Photo.net and now flickr function for photographers is never made clear until you have to start using each of these sites and even then you're never sure what's going on under the hood and whether a wide range of folks are seeing your work. Most folks don't have the time or mental capacity to figure out all the little nuances that allow users to devise usage strategies. Too much to wrap your head around.</p>

<p>All I want to do is put up a small collection of photos showing how I see the uniqueness of my town and have it be found quickly in a search using words associated with my town by a wide range of people on the web and it's been one stiff arm obstacle after another in getting that to happen. It's not like I'm asking for the world. I can't believe I'm having this much trouble with something this simple.</p>

<p>Wonder what stiff arm I'll encounter with flickr in making happen what I want over there. I gave up on Facebook.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>All I want to do is put up a small collection of photos showing how I see the uniqueness of my town and have it be found quickly in a search using words associated with my town by a wide range of people on the web and it's been one stiff arm obstacle after another in getting that to happen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>Are the photos up on photo.net yet? If not, try putting them up in a folder named after the town, then name each image after the town and the specific subject, then tag each image with all the relevant words (town name, subject, etc). Photo.net has a pretty good google ranking and unless the town or subjects are very common or generic, I would be surprised if your images didn't show up after doing that.</p>

[georg_s1]

<blockquote>

<p>putting them up in a folder named after the town, then name each image after the town and the specific subject, then tag each image with all the relevant words (town name, subject, etc)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh, <br>

bashing PN is the last thing I would do, but uploading, tagging and sorting images is much more comfortable at flickr.<br>

Especially the different PN-uploading-procedures are a pain for me.<br>

I really like photo.net, but for some purposes (forming a group like „friends of streetart in Nowhere, Nebraska” or so) flickr is right now the way to go in my opinion.<br>

Many thanks for your efforts to keep/make PN a cozy place for photographers from all over the world, Georg.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I really like photo.net, but for some purposes (forming a group like „friends of streetart in Nowhere, Nebraska” or so) flickr is right now the way to go in my opinion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be clear, Photo.net isn't trying (and won't ever try) to be Flickr. Flickr does a great job of that already. So some things simply are going to be better done here or there. That having been said, I was just trying to help Tim out with a solution to his problem. He didn't mention that he wanted to make a "group" of any sort. It appeared to me that he just wanted to make it easy for people to find images based on keywords. Hence my suggestion.</p>

<p>I'm not actually against the "group" concept. But you will hear just as many anti-group people as you will pro-group people. I think a lot of people love the idea, but a lot of other people hate the constant "Hey, I run a 'basset hound' group and we'd love to have this photo in the group" type stuff that is a constant on Flickr. That having been said, is there a reason we couldn't create groups of some sort on photo.net? No. We actually had critique groups on PN back in the long ago (2002 or so?). I'm not sure what happened to them because I never used them as a user and they disappeared a few years before I started running the place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>bashing PN is the last thing I would do, but uploading, tagging and sorting images is much more comfortable at flickr.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am always happy to hear opinions on this sort of thing. I have no interest in making things any more difficult than they need to be. Anyone who wants to email me and spell out a few examples of how something is easier or better elsewhere would have my thanks. Keep in mind, image tagging and uploading is a win/win, it's nothing but good for the site and for the users. There is no reason I would want to discourage people from uploading or tagging images.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Especially the different PN-uploading-procedures are a pain for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are two places to upload images to photo.net. You are either uploading them to the gallery or attaching them to a forum thread. Flickr, as far as I know, does not have a way to attach an image to a discussion. So, unless I am wrong about that, the fact that we have a different method for forum image attachment has to be disregarded when comparing how things are done on PN and Flickr since they do not offer such a thing at all.</p>

<p>You can upload images to your Photo.net personal gallery via three methods, the java "multiple image" uploader, the basic single "backup" uploader, and via email. Flickr essentially has the same thing, a fancy uploader, a basic uploader and uploading via email. They also have some stuff that we probably can't match as far as desktop mac/windows software and third party plugins. But as far as web-based uploading, PN and Flickr aren't that much different.</p>

<p>Now, of course, it is entirely legitimate to say "I find Flickr's uploaders easier to use" That is a personal preference and I wouldn't argue with anyone who felt that way. And again, I would love to hear from anyone via email who wanted to take the time to let me know what exactly it was that they found easier or harder one place or another.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Yikes! I forgot I posted to this thread. I've got about 4 going one of which I'm trying to change the world by debating Matt Laur on the efficacy of Capitalism. Not an easy task.</p>

<p>Anyway, I don't share George's thoughts on the difficulty of uploading images to Photo.net. I like the ability to upload several at a time into a folder and then enter data like EXIF, location in a listed format..."Adobe! Are you listening? When are you going to do this for keywording in Bridge?".</p>

<p>Josh, I thank you for the tip on entering a name and tag for each image to improve google rankings. I'm going to try that out and see how google handles it. I've tried that on my other gallery images and got nothing, so maybe I did something wrong in the way I named and tagged the images.</p>

<p>What do I have to lose, none of the other sites are working.</p>

[bobbollinger]

<p>I have been hanging around PN for years now and I pretty much share Mark Cooper's assessment of PN. I think Josh and the moderators are doing a good job and I frankly find little to criticize. I am an amateur photographer, and in my day job I am a lawyer who goes to court quite often, so the little conflicts on PN don't bother me at all. I have to wallow in more serious and much nastier conflicts all day at work most days, so the little jibes here are just pebbles in the road. But the information sharing on PN is very useful and the banter between the regulars is entertaining. So don't change anything. </p>

[jason]

<p>i have been here at PN for many years.i've posted a number of photos to illustrate specific answers.Many times there has been very angry, vicious statements to my own experiences. One certain forum, where a certain camera system is the one place, where you'd better toe the Party line much like North Korea. A certain very famous writer, who actually had assembled at least one of that famous marque, was derided and hated.<br>

i have also gone to Flickr. The answers to a problem, mostly helpful and genuine. Easy to post pix. Through my "groups" last week met many at a get together in my wondrous city. Yesterday had a photo walk in an area that is fast being rebuilt. Later a really excellent lunch. Nice chats with really fun people.<br>

A true pro might have a personal blog. That might be the idea of some, yet on flickr are Magnum, Nat Geo, VII and Noor folks.These are also on Facebook as well as other main social groups. i have joined Tumblr and Facebook. I recently needed help with, for me a film, that i've never heard about let alone owned! In Flickr a few good replies and 2 films already exposed and processed.<br>

i still use film but rely on digital for all "pro" work. i use more than one system of cameras and formats.<br>

i also use other social communities.<br>

Seeing some of the numbers of members, on those other "lesser" sites, better not do comparisons..<br>

The stuff of anguish!</p>

[museebfoto]

<p>I have been here since the year 2007 and have learned too much from members, forums and articles.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Well I did as Josh suggested and uploaded a folder of 16 images of my town's unique spots I photographed, tagged and named everything related to it and I get nothing in a Google search. All the tourist sites like "VirtualTourist" dominates the results no matter what tag name I enter. See the Google image screengrab below.</p>

<p>This is what's so disappointing about the internet in that the little guy at the bottom with very little resources is virtually made non-existant due to the complexities of how the internet has evolved and now works. I can't tell if this is a Photo.net thing or my fault or just the way things work.</p>

<p>And who really knows? Someone will make an excuse you got to do this and that and then it will work and so on and so on until you're strung along so far you just give up and go away to disappear into oblivion.</p>

<p>I wonder how many folks realize just how invisible they really are when they want to be found out about on the web, when they keep seeing in the news media stating otherwise getting everyone to think to them self... "OH! You've got to protect your privacy" "Your boss is watching everything you do! Oh MY GOD! What will I do!". Some one is controlling this sh*t and I'm getting pissed that it's not being made clear who and how.</p>

<p>Happy Monday! </p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>And what even makes no sense at all on how all this works is I entered a name that had a specific spelling that no one would even think to enter in a google search and this is what I got. Notice the hit is from a "No Words" thread I started months ago and not from my gallery folder which this image resides.</p><div></div>

[joshroot]

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>Do keep in mind that Google isn't instant. It can take time for things to be updated and reflected in search results. Give it a week or two and see what happens. It may still end up being exactly what you've got now. But it may also change.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Tim, allow 6 weeks for google to grab your info.</p>

<p>If you open up your own free blog with i.e. wordpress.com, google will need the same amount of time to catch your keywords.</p>

<p>Great to see you are from New Braunfels - I've been there when I studied in Texas 28 years ago :-)</p>

<p>Wagenfuehr - in German Wagenführ, stemming from coach or waggon driver. Interesting!</p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Thanks for getting back, Josh and your contribution also, jens.</p>

<p>And interesting is how I've found this town since I moved here in 2007, more interesting than the regular touristy, outfitter, tubing Schlitterbahn water park stuff that dominates a google search on this town and no one, not even the Chamber Of Commerce is doing anything to change it.</p>

<p>Because of the powers that seem to be at the helm to maintain the status quo ruled by the outfitters, tourist, real estate and beer vendors associations, I doubt mine any other's photos representing anything other will make it to the top of a google search.</p>

<p>There's future city council meetings coming up in the future to get feedback from the community on how to spread the tourist dollars for the rest of the businesses in our town who appreciate and want to promote the more "interesting" aspects of our town other than the beverage and tubing crowd.</p>

<p>These opposing associations including the long standing family who invented and built the first Schlitterbahn have already filed two more lawsuits against the city on the state level opposing the city ordinance banning disposable containers. These people are relentless.</p>

[billangel]

"If you open up your own free blog with i.e. wordpress.com, google will need the same amount of time to catch your keywords."

 

I have had a different experience with my personal blog at livejournal.com.

If I create and post an entry to my blog, and then do a text search on a unique sentence in my blog entry, Google returns a reference to my blog entry (at the top of the search results) pretty much instantaneously after I have made the posting!

The reason for this I would expect is that the sentence I created and searched on is pretty much unique to my blog entry.

There are no "ranking" algorithms involved, as their would be if I had entered a set of key word search terms such as "New York Street Portraits"