Does facebook cheapen or enhance the photographic industry? [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

I @ M

18-08-2012, 6:06pm

OK, there are truckloads of people out there using facebook to promote their photography.
Many of those people actually have their facebook photographic page labelled as a professional service but a lot of those it would seem work a 9-5 job in an unrelated industry to photography.
Of course we see some pretty way out claims to greatness and equally disparate pricing structures from some compared to the mainstream photographic industry. Is it acceptable for them to do so?
Are those people who are using facebook as a convenient ( and currently free ) advertising board actually enhancing the spirit of competition and fair trade or are they devaluing the industry in general?

We currently see facebook trading shares at 1/2 of their release price and those who bought the shares asking when they will see a return on their investment. Any return on investment relies on income so the next logical question to me is what will happen when facebook start charging for commercial sites ( those who have labelled themselves as professional photographers ) in order to generate some much needed income.

Nazz

18-08-2012, 6:14pm

Facebook degrades all forms of business in my opinion !

ricktas

18-08-2012, 6:24pm

I have never 'done business' via facebook. I find I tend to use google, AP and other sites to do my research, then the product owners site, then I buy the product, then I 'like' the FB page (sometimes).

I see FB as part of a whole, but for those using it as their sole advertising stream, then they are both selling themselves and their customers short.

I too, see a time when FB will start some sort of charging model, not for private use, but all 'business pages' etc.

Duane Pipe

18-08-2012, 6:38pm

I know a chick who has picked up work through face book Andrew and I kicked her arse at my first wedding shoot.
I attended a friends wedding for practice and a few free beers:banana: the paid tog was the above chick and the brides best friend, so you would think that she would try her best for the shoot wouldn't you. I think if that happens we will see a big drop in wanna be togs advertising on there which will benefit fair dinkum people struggling to make a profit, and in the mean time Face Book sinks:th3:

ktoopi

18-08-2012, 9:26pm

It would be interesting indeed if a requirement of the above poll was to include your age as well as opinion on Facebook.
Just a thought....

Duane Pipe

18-08-2012, 9:38pm

I didn't realize that this was a poll. I only joined fb to find old school friends and nothing else. I did manage to find some too.:cool:

Epoc

18-08-2012, 9:47pm

I make my living from a form of photography perfectly fine without any involvement with Facebook whatsoever, have done so for 12+ years, and will continue that way until I retire/sell my business. That I'm 100% sure of.

MarkChap

18-08-2012, 10:45pm

How to answer this, hmmmmmmmmmm

The problem as I see it, or rather one of the problems, is that facebook gives all sorts of wannabes access to the hoards, and as we all know constructive critique on facebook is non existent, it is all ooh's and aah's, regardless of the quality of the photographic image. This then leads to the photographer having an over inflated view of their ability, so they decide that they must be good and set about charging $50.00 for a "photoshoot" that gets the client hours in-front of the camera and a kazillion images on a disc. That devalues the industry.
I know of a photographer up my way, that now touts how he is getting "international recognition" simply because somebody from an overseas country chose to like his facebook page.

Xenedis

18-08-2012, 11:25pm

It would be interesting indeed if a requirement of the above poll was to include your age as well as opinion on Facebook.
Just a thought....

My opinion about Facebook is that it's a solution to a problem I don't have. :-)

I know of a photographer up my way, that now touts how he is getting "international recognition" simply because somebody from an overseas country chose to like his facebook page.

That would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

By the way, I'm an internationally-published author.

(I have a blog.)

Bloke

18-08-2012, 11:31pm

:gday: I am only a Newbie, But have been around the block more than a few times, Facebook does not do a damned thing for me, and appears to be going backwards at a great rate of Knots, BUT One does wonder how much Plagiarism is going on with a lot of the photos that are posted ???? Hmmmmmmm

Sifor

18-08-2012, 11:55pm

I know several photographers who operate their business solely via facebook. Facebook certainly has its place in the modern world and I don't doubt its usefulness, however in terms of advertising it probably does "cheapen the industry". In saying that though, the photography industry in general has gone south and will probably continue to do so as cameras become more advanced in terms of image reproduction and easier to use.

mechawombat

19-08-2012, 1:25am

I have set a page that I will use to showcase my own and a few friends images on FB. Essentially I see it as Gallery space. I wont be selling or asking for business. However if it generates interest that may change. I am still a beginner but considering the work I see of plenty of FAUXTOG's placing on their business pages, I think I can hold my own.

Tikira

19-08-2012, 9:25am

Whilst FB does have many drawbacks it is a growing way that many of the younger generation are shopping (buying or selling). We recently looked to sell some surplus furniture and held a garage sale which sold nothing. We then went on to the local FB buy swap sell page and sold half of the furniture within a couple of hours. Since then looking at this forum I have seen a couple of togs advertising and a couple of people requesting information on who is a good photographer. There are now a growing a number of potential customers that use this medium. As such there are many in the industry that may need to consider whether to use FB as another advertising source. This area is evolving, in much the same way as the internet did. 15 years ago there would have been many togs stating they did not need to advertise on the internet, yet now there would be almost none that do not have a web page.

I don't believe FB is anywhere near perfect, but it is another advertising medium that does not need to be considered, especially for those in the industry that are still building their business.

I am 49 and whilst I have a personal FB page, this is more to keep in touch with my nephews and a couple of friends living remotely, so I am not an avid FB user. Hope this adds another perspective.

Wayne

Xenedis

19-08-2012, 10:56am

In saying that though, the photography industry in general has gone south and will probably continue to do so as cameras become more advanced in terms of image reproduction and easier to use.

No amount of advanced features in a camera can turn a bad image into a good image.

Good photography comes from the 'CPU' inside the owner's cranium, not the electrical contraption held in his/her hands.

Buying the world's most advanced power tools will not turn you into a great furniture maker either.

One does wonder how much Plagiarism is going on with a lot of the photos that are posted ????

That problem is not unique to Facebook.

I know several photographers who operate their business solely via facebook.

IMO, the concept of investing one's entire business in a social networking site driven by popularity, plagued with rivolity, and riddled with privacy issues, just does not make any sense whatsoever.

If a business is to use Facebook, IMO, it should be just another channel, and not the core to the business's online presence. A business these days needs a proper Web site, and Facebook isn't it.

bowjac

19-08-2012, 12:11pm

It would be interesting indeed if a requirement of the above poll was to include your age as well as opinion on Facebook.
Just a thought....

A very valid thought.

Social Media is not only the way of the future for social and commercial activities, but it is well established now in the daily activities of the young and emerging consumers and leaders.

In my view Facebook both cheapens and enhances the photographic industry, mainly because it is the biggest social media forum available, and is fulfilling many purposes.

More targeted forums must surely emerge to remove the "cheapening" component.

MJay

19-08-2012, 5:41pm

We currently see facebook trading shares at 1/2 of their release price and those who bought the shares asking when they will see a return on their investment. Any return on investment relies on income so the next logical question to me is what will happen when facebook start charging for commercial sites ( those who have labelled themselves as professional photographers ) in order to generate some much needed income.

Facebook needs to look at charging for the app (or placing ads within the app, like so many smart phone apps do these days)

And also placing ads on it's site for those browsing the mobile site. (ie accessing the site via a tablet/smartphones browser)

I am not sure that facebook devalues the entire photographic industry. The photography pages I have come across on facebook seem to be mainly geared towards photos of people. (mums and bub, weddings)

Redgum

19-08-2012, 5:41pm

In a business sense the value of Facebook or any other communication resource is surely in its commercial value. The recent share devaluation from $US38 to $US19 on the first day of open trading is a good (only) indicator of Facebook value. Shareholders (who depend on revenues from its advertising to make a profit) plainly think its only worth half its original value. In November, staff of Facebook who were issued two billion shares get an opportunity to further invest or divest themselves of shares and considering in one day they have already lost half their value it isn't hard to guess which way that will go. This probably means that both shareholders and staff have a significantly reduced confidence in what Facebook can do and without this investment potential advertisers will be left in the lurch or without value.
Of course, most of the togs here who only seek free advertising won't be greatly disadvantaged but they're not really in business anyway and should take the opportunity whilst it lasts.
Local people generally buy local product and Facebook is of course multi-national. So whilst it may be attractive to advertise to several billion people worldwide you compete directly with tens of millions of advertisers offering similar products. It's a minefield which probably explains why Woolworths and Coles advertise in the local paper and by letterbox drop and not in Facebook.

jasevk

20-08-2012, 2:14am

It's a minefield which probably explains why Woolworths and Coles advertise in the local paper and by letterbox drop and not in Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/coles

http://www.facebook.com/woolworths

They most certainly do use FB as a marketing tool. Most large corporations are.

Dylan & Marianne

20-08-2012, 9:20am

What's facebook good at doing (whether you like it or not) ?
- quick talk that doesn't necessarily result in anything deep and meaningful !

So what do I do with our facebook page? - post stuff at lowish resolution and talk!
The numbers game is something I like playing around with in spare time (after all, I used to be a world of warcraft addict waiting for the next level up!)
Marianne and I don't do any advertising for services with that page and honestly, despite the amount of 'likes' and 'fans' we don't get work through facebook - Nearly all of that has come through people looking at flickr, 500px or our website from searches, or word of mouth.

My summary :
If you don't like using facebook, then don't! No one's forcing you to no one can make you.
If you like it and enjoy it, then go ahead! with moderation of course and the caveats that come with overuse/commercial use.
Good discussion points come of topics like this but I think trying to convince one camp to change their minds is probably just going to lead to unnecessary angst -
(I took my chill pill this morning after Charlie woke us up with a nightmare :P)

swifty

20-08-2012, 5:11pm

JM Tran

22-08-2012, 10:36pm

Facebook doesn't devalue the photographic industry. Bad photographers do.
Facebook just made it easy for them to get the word out.
Facebook is just another communication tool. It's stockmarket price probably just reflects the poor commercialisation of the entity.
Something that's great for communicating and sharing doesn't make it nevessarily great for generating revenue.
Its great for things like reaching old friends that U've lost touch with.

And the above post by Dave - is the best so far and sums it up nicely, especially the first line I highlighted.

Facebook is a great medium for me to interact more personally and regularly with my potential, current, and past clients - a more direct and quicker method than the usual emailing etc. I still run my website and separate travel blog too.

Most famous photographers/entity run some sort of facebook page and are able to interact a lot better and faster with their fans and clients.

Who cares what the shares value of Facebook is, it does not correlate or affect photography on Facebook at all. Bad/cheap photographers do.

Its 2012, get with the times, social media is here to stay and can be utilized very effectively if you know how to, and have the time for it.

I @ M

23-08-2012, 5:47pm

Facebook doesn't devalue the photographic industry. Bad photographers do.
Facebook just made it easy for them to get the word out.

I agree strongly with the fact that bad photographers devalue the industry enormously and going by your statement that facebook enables the bad photographers to get the word out does it not therefore follow that facebook are aiding and abetting that devaluation.

Facebook is just another communication tool. It's stockmarket price probably just reflects the poor commercialisation of the entity.
Something that's great for communicating and sharing doesn't make it nevessarily great for generating revenue.
Its great for things like reaching old friends that U've lost touch with.

Nobody can even really begin to argue that facebook is an enormously powerful communication tool and a very handy ( currently free ) advertising platform to reach the masses but by issuing shares they clearly have an intent to capitalise on the perceived worth of the business. To raise money from selling shares in a business usually means that the shares will rise in value and be a sought after commodity but at the current state of the market even one of the facebook co founders seems to be dumping huge amounts of stock at a loss. Somehow they have to get an income stream happening to prop up that slight hiccup and seeing as their only income stream comes from advertising one has to wonder when they will start charging for businesses to advertise on the site.
Going by the limited number of responses to the poll here it would appear that large number of people regard facebook as an extremely effective marketing tool yet few would actually pay to use that marketing service.

Maybe we could even suggest that the target market reached by the ( free ) advertisers are purely those who see any picture other than that of a pet cat taken with a .08 MP phone camera as purely awe inspiring and have a horrendous addiction to hitting the "like" or "follow" button but would never actually consider purchasing a photograph anyway.

ricktas

23-08-2012, 6:37pm

:needs:

arthurking83

23-08-2012, 7:03pm

Facebook doesn't devalue the photographic industry. Bad photographers do.
.....

Whilst this is true, it's not just the 'bad photographers' of the environment that are the cause .. it's also the general population of the sociosphere that help to perpetuate the problem.

So while the problem is endemic to FB alone and may also be an issue on other sites(websites/blogs/forums/etc) or any other social specific outlets ... FB is a giant in the field and giants are always where fingers get pointed towards first.

The main issue is generally the like system, where a photographer (most likely bad) achieves this false sense of greatness, because their circle of friends can't take the time to critically analyse the photographic work.
So in effect facebook IS the cause as it's not (really)set up to be both a judging system and advertising space in a non partisan manner.

If there were a voting system in place where images are rated completely anonymously and those points or gradings went towards the photographers rating on the site then at least the idealistic notion of impartiality couldn't be a factor against it(facebook).

So while it's true that bad photographers give photography a bad rap, facebook exacerbates the issue by allowing that bad photographer to gain unwarranted high levels of status(in this case 'likes') or whatever the ratings are called.

If we switch to a forum based environment instead of FB) and this bad photographer starts posting images(the same bad images) to the site and there is a rating system for each image, due to the fact that on the forum this bad photographer isn't cushioned by a group of friends .. the ratings of those images will surely be lower.
If this were the case, then the problem surely must lie on facebook as it's causing a distortion of the reality.

Forums, which are also social based interfaces, tend to help any not so great photographers along their journey to greatness .. but not just blindly heap praise on them if the images aren't worthy.

Xenedis

23-08-2012, 7:38pm

Bad photographs and bad photographers have always existed.

Facebook has simply been a tool that has given those people far more exposure than they should have ever had, and in the process has deluded them into believing that they've got the right stuff.

The Internet in general has devalued photography, and fostered a societal expectation that images should be free, and that anyone who owns a camera is a photographer who can produce great shots.

Ironically, the Internet has also given exposure to masses of photographers out there who are great photographers with great images.

Double-edged sword and all.

norwest

23-08-2012, 7:40pm

But we don't use forums to sell business, only critique among like minded people. No viewer is able to give points to or critique shots on my official website, they can simply compare my shots with those on other websites and make up their mind. As can also be done on facebook or any other of the numerous free web based vehicles available to anyone and everyone.

I've decided there's only one way to combat the facebook 'OOOhs! Ahhhs! & Wows!' and that's to give them something on facebook to compare to the less than ordinary work and open up their eyes to the alternative. Even on facebook breaking into the local 'club' isn't easy and it won't happen overnight but it will happen.

swifty

23-08-2012, 9:21pm

I agree strongly with the fact that bad photographers devalue the industry enormously and going by your statement that facebook enables the bad photographers to get the word out does it not therefore follow that facebook are aiding and abetting that devaluation.

But then why stop there, the internet allows social networking such as facebook to exist therefore perhaps the internet is the real culprit.
If Facebook isn't top dog, whatever is will be blamed for devaluating photography.
But whatever's in the firing line, be it myspace a couple of years ago, facebook today or something else tomorrow, the common denominator will always be the bad photographer, the source of the bad photography.

Perhaps Xenedis has summed it up quite well in post #25. Ironically the great communication portal that is the internet might actually be the culprit :confused013

Nobody can even really begin to argue that facebook is an enormously powerful communication tool and a very handy ( currently free ) advertising platform to reach the masses but by issuing shares they clearly have an intent to capitalise on the perceived worth of the business. To raise money from selling shares in a business usually means that the shares will rise in value and be a sought after commodity but at the current state of the market even one of the facebook co founders seems to be dumping huge amounts of stock at a loss. Somehow they have to get an income stream happening to prop up that slight hiccup and seeing as their only income stream comes from advertising one has to wonder when they will start charging for businesses to advertise on the site.
Going by the limited number of responses to the poll here it would appear that large number of people regard facebook as an extremely effective marketing tool yet few would actually pay to use that marketing service.

Maybe we could even suggest that the target market reached by the ( free ) advertisers are purely those who see any picture other than that of a pet cat taken with a .08 MP phone camera as purely awe inspiring and have a horrendous addiction to hitting the "like" or "follow" button but would never actually consider purchasing a photograph anyway.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I don't see the connection between Facebook's stocks and what that has to do with devaluating photography. Unless you're suggesting charging money to weed out pretenders from the real pros will fix this but I somehow think FB's problems are a little more fundamental. I do agree FB has a huge problem on their hand re: income stream. The whole IPO was a farce but we're getting a bit far away from the topic at hand.

FB is what it is - a great way to communicate. Pros such as Jackie and Dylan understand and utilise it very well I believe. Some people don't and use it in a way to inflate their egos but how far will that carry them? If their message/photos/whatever is poor, they will always fall away whilst the cream rises to the top.

pmack

23-08-2012, 9:28pm

agree with xenedis.

Though my experience, I started a wordpress photoblog around 3 months ago, and had a total of about 10 followers, wooot!
I didn't want to make a facebook page because i didn't want to over spam my friends as i already posted each update on my own profile etc, though a few days ago i caved in, i want exposure! :D

And i'm thinking of cheapening myself even further by doing one of those competitions "Like and share this page, and win this lens of mine I don't want, etc" Oh dear...

swifty

23-08-2012, 9:51pm

Whilst this is true, it's not just the 'bad photographers' of the environment that are the cause .. it's also the general population of the sociosphere that help to perpetuate the problem.

So while the problem is endemic to FB alone and may also be an issue on other sites(websites/blogs/forums/etc) or any other social specific outlets ... FB is a giant in the field and giants are always where fingers get pointed towards first.

The main issue is generally the like system, where a photographer (most likely bad) achieves this false sense of greatness, because their circle of friends can't take the time to critically analyse the photographic work.
So in effect facebook IS the cause as it's not (really)set up to be both a judging system and advertising space in a non partisan manner.

If there were a voting system in place where images are rated completely anonymously and those points or gradings went towards the photographers rating on the site then at least the idealistic notion of impartiality couldn't be a factor against it(facebook).

So while it's true that bad photographers give photography a bad rap, facebook exacerbates the issue by allowing that bad photographer to gain unwarranted high levels of status(in this case 'likes') or whatever the ratings are called.

If we switch to a forum based environment instead of FB) and this bad photographer starts posting images(the same bad images) to the site and there is a rating system for each image, due to the fact that on the forum this bad photographer isn't cushioned by a group of friends .. the ratings of those images will surely be lower.
If this were the case, then the problem surely must lie on facebook as it's causing a distortion of the reality.

Forums, which are also social based interfaces, tend to help any not so great photographers along their journey to greatness .. but not just blindly heap praise on them if the images aren't worthy.

Part of FB's success is probably the simplistic nature of its rating system. A poke to get your attention (in the old days), a like to indicate your approval etc.
I don't disagree with many of your points and yes, FB probably never had photographers in mind in their development.
Its just taking the blame cos as you've said, its the giant and where the finger's pointed at.
It'll probably never be tailored for the improvement of photography nor should it IMO.
I really think its blown out of proportions. I don't see many (if any) top photographers complaining about the poor FB-only togs putting out crap. It doesn't affect their work and quite irrelevant to them I think.

pmack

23-08-2012, 10:55pm

FB probably never had photographers in mind in their development.

well perhaps not professionals, though i'm pretty sure it was set up as a social networking site with the main purpose of sharing photos?
So everyone is a photographer, i suppose you could say it was set up for the lowest common denominator type photographer.
And interestingly, when i tried to set up my page, i had a lot of trouble deciding which category to put it in, as there was no "photographer" of "photos" category. In the end I put it under Travel/Leisure, but every friend I've seen with a photography page seems to have it as something differe, a group, a place, an organisation, etc etc.

JM Tran

23-08-2012, 11:07pm

Let me tell you guys about my history with Facebook.

I had originally signed up with Facebook at the end of 2004, when it was still a university networking thing in Northern America between campuses - as I had a lot of friends in uni over there who persuaded me to so I can keep in touch with them easier. Back then it was very basic and it was more about writing on ppls walls and inboxing each other. There werent many photos around and you could only upload something like 30 per album max, and no advertisements whatsoever.

I took a few yrs off with the Australian Army, then made an new account in 2007 - it had grew worldwide by then and vastly different to the simplistic layout back then, now you can go up to 60 photos! You could create a fan page of some sort.

In 2010 - the max number of photos in the album went up to 200, and you could set up a separate business page with your personal page to advertise for businesses.

In 2012 - I have seen albums with around 900 photos in it, in 1 album. So FB has probably made it limitless now. They also changed the way business pages function to make it more efficient and effective, which it is!

So really, FB was and is never intended for just purely photo sharing - ppl use it because its fast and very efficient in loading times. I can also say the number of personal trainers/instructors on my FB - with over 2k friends - are on par with the number of professional and amateur photographers on my friends list too. But thats just me.

Im just curious to see if those who decry facebook and like to always list its 'negative' aspects, actually use Facebook on a regular basis, for a number of years, or like to assume that it is just bad juju from they way they perceive it?

I dont discourage ppl from making their own photography pages for fun or business, because I support and encourage creativity and art. If they are unsuccessful at it then so be it, its their problem not mine. I will not tell them you are devaluing the industry because your photos are bad. I just dont care about that. I do good work, and I will keep doing good work.

But the constant mention of the shares value of Facebook, and how it relates to devaluing the photography industry - is mystifying:)

ricktas

24-08-2012, 6:44am

Something to consider. Facebook runs some serious compression on your photos when you upload them. I uploaded a photo the other day. I tend to only upload happy snap stuff to FB, as I do not have a FB photography page, cause I use FB to post rubbish, jokes, and keep in touch with friends interstate and overseas more than use it as a advertising medium. But I digress, the photo I uploaded was 198kb. Upon upload and display, I thinks to myself 'gee, that looks crap', to right click it and find it is now 19.4kb. So I try another, 204kb, comes in at 21.6kb once uploaded. Not long after realising this, a photographer friend posted a photo (lovely landscape) and his first post was 'what the hell happened ot my photo, it looks crap'. I pointed him to check the filesize and he was shocked.

With that sort of compression going on, I really am not a fan of FB as a place to put high quality photos. So FB may or may not cheapen the photography industry, but it sure as hell knows how to destroy my photo quality.

Pobbs

24-08-2012, 8:55am

Did you upload it with the 'high quality' box ticked?

A photographer in the UK who has written a book uses FB as both a marketing tool and way to connect with his fans.

Steve Axford

24-08-2012, 9:11am

I really can't understand what the fuss is about. Facebook is a great medium for communicating with friends and family and like minded people. That often involves pictures. Ausphotography is also a great medium for communication with friends and like minded people about photography. Both could be seen as degrading photography because neither of them is capable of displaying the photographs in it's full glory. But, do we really care? It's either Facebook, Ausphotography etc ----- or revert back to the dark ages of photoclubs and printed display only.
The latest thing is Instagram, which allows people to send their iphone pictures around for comment. It's even worse than facebook in terms of quality. But lots of people don't see quality as the most important thing. They see convenience as more important, and who can say they are wrong. Lots of young people are getting into photography because it is so easy to take a picture, post it, and have people talk about it; all while you're doing it. You get much closer to sharing the experience than we ever did. Think back to our youth (a long way fro some of us). We would take the photo and some weeks later we would get a print back from the lab which we could then post in an album and show to friends. Now we process them in a day or two and post them on the net. The kids take them, post them and talk about them as it happens. Sounds good to me. I do like quality, but I accept that that is a rarity and others don't always see it like I do.

ricktas

24-08-2012, 10:22am

Did you upload it with the 'high quality' box ticked?

A photographer in the UK who has written a book uses FB as both a marketing tool and way to connect with his fans.

What High Quality Box? I have never seen that box and just looked now and I certainly do not have a HQ box during the upload process??

ricktas

24-08-2012, 10:24am

Ignore that. Found it. You have to choose high quality when you create the Album, not when you upload the photo(s).

norwest

24-08-2012, 10:28am

Pobbs

24-08-2012, 5:15pm

Ignore that. Found it. You have to choose high quality when you create the Album, not when you upload the photo(s).

I must have ticked it when I created the album then because I have the option of high quality uploads for all my albums.

I didn't realise you had to tick it upon album creation because it's always there as an option for me.

s1l3nt

24-08-2012, 9:09pm

Dont think you need to tick it upon making the album, because i have the ability to check the box on each upload as is the case for Pobbs also.

I believe facebook has just allowed people to upload their "happy snaps" and have their egos boosted by family members who are "like" happy which just makes them upload more and more thinking they are a great photographers. This doesnt so devalue the photography industry in my opinion because most of these people never make it anywhere meaningful anyway :confused013

neil70

24-08-2012, 10:13pm

i have and use facebook all the time and find it a great way to keep in touch with people in my life.
When i had my first child 15 yrs ago we received some advertising including a free photo sitting for the family and a free 8" by 10" with the option to by others. we took up this offer from a professional studio photographer working from home and it ended up costing about $200.
Fast forward to today and how is this different to the face book protog offering a $50.00 sitting with a free print and an option to buy more. if the photos are good you will buy more.
facebook has just replace the mailout / flyer from yesterday making the marketing cheaper.

pmack

24-08-2012, 11:33pm

I thought the "high quality upload" was that it stored the full size image on their, as well as the resized sample.
Though i haven't seen that tick box recently, and when i uploaded a 1000 wide photo, it posts a resampled 960x pick, and if i right click save, i get that same dodgey resampled pick, though if i click "OPTIONS" under the pic and then DOWNLOAD, i get the original image.

Nazz

25-08-2012, 8:17am

I've really enjoyed following this thread :) I ran a handmade clothing business for the past 5 years, which I folded recently. So have had an interest in checking out other FB sewing business pages. It works the same as it does for photography ! I considered my business and products to be of a high quality, (with over 20years prior sewing experience)and priced accordingly... but... as you get with photography, FB allows anyone to just start a "business page" and those pages get "fanned up" and "liked" by friends networking. So where I had set up a professional website, had an ABN and was a registered business etc. For every "me" there are probably 50 other FB businesses that are dodgy as ! Not only in professionalism, but quality as well. And as with photography, they sell themselves cheaply for the ego boost factor. They underprice what they make for the joy of getting a sale, and the fans go for it !

I guess my point is, FB makes "setting up a business" very simple. People do it with little thought other than... Ooooooh I'm a photographer or I can sew etc. In sayng all of that, I also agree that FB is here to stay. Professionals CAN use it to their advantage, but I always favoured using it as an avenue to direct to my website, rather than as a place to conduct business. You can't deny that FB's impact on the industry ( and again not only photography) due to the nature of how easy it is to become a Facebook Business, has a somewhat negative impact.

pmack

25-08-2012, 5:37pm

You can't deny that FB's impact on the industry ( and again not only photography) due to the nature of how easy it is to become a Facebook Business, has a somewhat negative impact.
It has negative impacts as well as positive.
And the whole 'liking' thing def has it's negatives as it is more often about how many friends you have and how much spam you generate - and the main audience who 'likes' things are just young kids, so not really the audience who buys images. But kids can be good marketers to get your page out there. Basically, you need to be in it to win it, so there's no point sitting back sad about it all, we gotta play the same game!

Chinook

25-08-2012, 6:30pm

I know some top photographers from around Australia that post some of their work on Facebook. I cannot see why it makes it bad for the so called Pro photographers. I have signed up to many of their personal websites. Many are not working from Facebook itself but hey it is free advertising after all. I would have not even known they existed if I had not seen a beautiful image come up in the news feed. Many of the photographers that come to judge at our camera club are indeed on Facebook not trying to push work out to people but you get to know them and then look out for a special image they may put up from time to time.

One photographer who is a Master photographer very rarely their work actually on Facebook but when it does come up it is great to see. I then go on to look for their personal website and it is there that I would contact them if I was interested.

In this modern day even the largest of business are on Facebook and in my humble opinion you are behind the eight ball if you are not on Facebook. I do not mean using it as a tool to sell your work and I cannot see a problem with that anyway.

It took me many year before I used Facebook and now I have become involved I see many photographers going out on the special photo walks they do it is videoed for those less fortunate that cannot or are unable to get out themselves. If I had not been on Facebook I would not have been able to see the images they post.

I am not a professional by a long shot but if somebody has success using Facebook I cannot see a problem with it.

Mark L

25-08-2012, 9:11pm

....
And the whole 'liking' thing def has it's negatives as it is more often about how many friends you have and how much spam you generate - .....
"The going rate for 1000 Australian Facebook "likes" is $90." http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/cant-buy-love-online-likes-for-sale-20120823-24o64.html

... I ran a handmade clothing business for the past 5 years, which I folded recently. .......

Sorry to hear that Nazz, however this made me :):confused013

arthurking83

26-08-2012, 9:57am

Facebook appears to have done to the photograph/photographer industry, what Maccas had done to the take away hamburger industry.

Likes!! :confused013 LOL

Nazz

26-08-2012, 11:09am

Sorry to hear that Nazz, however this made me :):confused013 :lol: Like I "folded" the clothes I made ?

Facebook appears to have done to the photograph/photographer industry, what Maccas had done to the take away hamburger industry.

Likes!! :confused013 LOL

Love it !

Cocoajam

26-08-2012, 12:09pm

Hi guys. I have a sister-in-law who works in marketing. She is setting up her own small business (not photography) and has a Facebook page. I think that it can help, depending on the clientèle wanted (ie generational) - perhaps a few older generational buyers will see it as cheap, younger buyers will see it as a necessary (ie, no Facebook page, no feedback, no accessibility). I am in the "middle generation" I think, having grown up with the Commodore 64 and having both a father and brother in the programming field. I think that Facebook can be used to link to a well formatted and presented website and is great for free advertising, although I agree that if Facebook is looking for profit, this will not last.

As for cheapening photography, I don't really think so. If you are in the market for someone to take your picture and hand over the disc, you will find many, including in the local messenger. If you want someone to take your photo, compose the picture well, use professional manners, and finish off the work the way the photographer envisioned this, they will pay for it. I recently attended a talk by Yervant (Wedding photographer) who said just that. He charges a bucket load for clients and will only hand over a completed album, not a CD full of un-finished pictures.

pmack

26-08-2012, 5:14pm

JM Tran

26-08-2012, 6:09pm

I'll add something my sister said when she commented on my facebook page.
"Can you put more photos on your fan page? Some people these days don't look at websites so you have to cater for everyone"

Obviously you don't NEED to cater for everyone, but if you're cutting out a certain audience (even if they are a young audience who won't buy your work), you're only doing yourself a disservice. Think about it, all those kids 'liking' your photos, advertises it to the wider community so it helps get your work out there, and also if you've built up a large base of young people, young people grow up and buy and decorate their houses perhaps with images at some stage too! Or for example if you're a wedding photographer, young people get married eventually too! (I think wedding photography would be the one that benefits from FB the most - helped hugely by being able to tag people in the photos)

Damn straight!

All this negativity about FB here, is laughable.

1 young girl clicks on a 'like', it shows on other people's newsfeeds - they get interested and contact me - another client. Doesnt really get any easier than that.

Quoting Chinook above -

In this modern day even the largest of business are on Facebook and in my humble opinion you are behind the eight ball if you are not on Facebook.

ricktas

26-08-2012, 6:52pm

I have not really commented on the actual discussion as questioned in the original post. My answer is that facebook is a valuable tool as PART of a marketing strategy, but like all marketing, it should be multi-pronged. Using FB as the sole advertising medium is fraught with issues. The most notable, to me, being the ability of the rabid horde to quickly turn. I hope those using FB have a contingency in place, should for any reason, you become the brunt of an attack, deserved or otherwise, on FB, cause popular opinion is a fickle thing and what you see as a great advertising medium, could, without warning, become the biggest threat to your business.

Do I think FB devalues photography, no, photography in general is doing that to itself, across the board. Is FB a good tool, yes, used well and with thought to it being part of an overall advertising strategy. But all you need is one person with a grudge and your whole FB world can come crashing down, so use it for what it is, but be aware it is also fraught with possible danger to your business.

I @ M

26-08-2012, 7:14pm

:needs:

Ok boss, just for you.

So is facebook all about ---
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/ABAA_2012_04_20%20174452.JPG

or maybe just that ---
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/ABAA_2012_04_20%20163110.JPG

ApolloLXII

31-08-2012, 5:44pm

Like anything, Facebook has it's pros and cons. As a tool, it can be valuable and a very efficient means of promoting ones' photography and or business. As for devaluing photography I have to say no. While good photos on FB are outnumbered by a lot of bad ones, people tend to forget that the primary function of Facebook is for Joe or Joan Public to share their pics, whether they are taken with a DSLR/DSLT, an iPhone or a homemade pinhole camera. It was never intended to be like a dedicated photography site like this one or a host of others but is much more of a WYSIWYG kind of thing and always will be.

Would I use FB to advertise my photography business (if I had one)? Absolutely but only as so far as to direct potential customers to a website. Would I use it as my sole point of contact and photo display? Probably not but only because this is how some of the more "dubiously skilled" photographers that can be found on FB operate. Like it or not, FB is here to stay (unless Zuckerberg goes broke and the share price reaches about 5 cents or some other site comes along that blitzes FB out of existence through sheer functionality and popularity).

Redgum

31-08-2012, 7:55pm

It would be interesting to know what turnover, if any, people on this site have made from selling photos on Facebook. If it were to be useful for business you would expect $5k+ pa. otherwise it's only lolly money. Would also be interesting to know how that income is measured. I would suspect that some have made a few quid through friends FB referrals and others are very hopeful but as a genuine business tool there's little or no value at all. Advertising and promotion are quite different to actual sales (ask anyone who has gone bankrupt). It really comes back to having a good website and store and any links back from FB can be measured precisely (webstats) and I guess that wouldn't exceed even 1% of traffic for the best managed photographic business.
As for blitzing Facebook out of existence, that will probably happen sooner rather than later if they try charging for advertising as recently proposed. It's the nature of IT as we've discovered over 20+ years.

norwest

31-08-2012, 8:49pm

Next time I hear someone being lambasted for failing to move with the times to keep up with the fast pace of change in photography, I intend to post a link to this thread.

Honestly, I've had a dislike for the damn thing in the past for the trouble caused by misuse by teens and adults with teen brains, but hell, some of you blokes sound like the older generation in the late 60's early seventies when I was wearing body shirts, flares, hair to my shoulders and playing rock n roll on the the new newfangled cassette player in my shiny EH Holden with mags, lowering blocks and dice hanging from the rear view mirror.

"I dun like it Ma and I gunna go down kickin n screamin, dang it!"

Redgum

31-08-2012, 9:55pm

norwest

01-09-2012, 12:18am

Not sure of what you're trying to say but this is "The Business of Photography" forum and the question was "Does facebook cheapen or enhance the photographic industry?" Emotional claptrap or likes or dislikes has really nothing to do with the question. Facebook is a great tool for sorting out potential employees and by using supplementary software you can soon measure the intelligence of potential workers. Couldn't do that easily five years ago. When it comes to selling or marketing product it has limited potential. So, does it cheapen or enhance the photographic industry? I don't think it does either because apart from a few people on this site the majority wouldn't give a fig. There's a lot of other tools out there that are more relevant to selling photos if that's what the questioner intended to establish.

Excuse me, Sunshine, but don't tell me what does or does not have to do with the question and resist being condescending. Please.

I'm on facebook as of a few weeks ago. It's used as a doorway to my website, a networking page in a country community and a method of regularly getting into the homes of every member of the wider community. So don't tell me what is or isn't suitable for myself, my region and my circumstances because you haven't a damn sniff of a clue of the local knowledge required to know what does and doesn't work in different regions with different people with different attitudes.

arthurking83

01-09-2012, 12:44am

Settle chappies! :lol2:

Xenedis

01-09-2012, 1:28am

Excuse me, Sunshine

Precious much?

ricktas

01-09-2012, 7:49am

Precious much?

OK everyone. Please stop now. This is getting personal and I will ban whoever breaches the 'no personal attacks/baiting' rule, from now on, in this thread!

arthurking83

01-09-2012, 9:50am

......
Of course we see some pretty way out claims to greatness and equally disparate pricing structures from some compared to the mainstream photographic industry. Is it acceptable for them to do so?
Are those people who are using facebook as a convenient ( and currently free ) advertising board actually enhancing the spirit of competition and fair trade or are they devaluing the industry in general?

.....

Not sure of what you're trying to say but this is "The Business of Photography" forum and the question was "Does facebook cheapen or enhance the photographic industry?" Emotional claptrap or likes or dislikes has really nothing to do with the question. .....

I'm not entirely sure of how FB(or addons) can be used as a tool for locating and enlisiting potentially intelligent employees .. I just wished the bloke that pays my wage woudl use it to assess my 'supervisor'! :p

But I may be reading part your last comment correctly, Redgum .. likes and dislikes ... is that in FB terms?? Or is that a reference to norwest's (personal)likes/dislikes?

if it's in reference to FB like/dislikes ..... I think the cheapening of any product/industry/company is all about the likes system.

It seems you can be top of the pops if you like :p .. and it's just a matter of how deep your pockets are.
You pay another company to increase your likes ratings.
it seems that most people are duped by the power of the people, and not really the power or allure of the product.
That is, most folks tend to purchase something because 'everyone else likes it' .. or given a good rap by many others.

In many ways, this is understandable, but (in my view) in most respects it's convoluted thinking.
I always(99.9%) of the time purchase products based on a few reviews to see if the product is right for me!(it's that simple for me)

Do I want it, does it do for me what I want, does it operate or handle or display for me what and how I like for it to operate ... I couldn't give two hoots if the product is great because everyone else says so.
(to be honest in most instances I'm usually weary of those products in many ways .. but that's just me)

So we're back to the issue of likes on Facebook and why it cheapens the idea of advertising in any industry .. not just photography.

One operator can have the worst product and a massive advertising fund to start up a Facebook based biz and become more successful than the other gal with the much better product but with less nous on how to wisely spend their limited initial funds. The advertising guru will win the race initially because humans tend to have a herd mentality and just go with what everyone else is doing.
Then what happens, is that the advertising shonk(in the above hypothetical) makes an initial squillion in no time, and then purchases the rights to manufacture the better product form the hapless(hopeless) geek with no advertising ability. The advertising guru will always win out.

For the best product experience, you generally want to deal with the geeky/committed/anally retentive perfectionist with no idea on how to advertise!

It seems that people want an easier life and so we tend to gravitate towards easier ways to do things.
Some of those things can be browsing for products and services online, and FB may take over from the traditional idea of online shopping where you search out many businesses over a period of time.
you used to use search engines for that .. type in your keyword and make a list(possibly on pen and paper! :D) and/or open a few relevant links to stuff that look promising.

So now we have facebook(and Amazon and other useless garbage websites that allows folks to upload ratings for the products in question).
And folks will then tend towards the easy way of searching online .. casting a digital dart equivalent based on the number of likes(or dislikes) .. or stars .... or thumbs ... or whatever's going to be the next rage.

JayR

18-10-2012, 1:49pm

People seem to be going off facebook a reasonable bit lately, what with the 'paid' announcements thing and several privacy scares, so I'd be very wary of investing anything in it beyond just having a presence.

I had set up a profile primarily for my DJing after it was apparent no one cared for myspace anymore, and it might not be going as inactive as myspace went, people are noticably deactivating their accounts.

jagged angel

21-10-2012, 7:03am

ricktas

21-10-2012, 7:35am

i reject that it is elitism, rather opinion. facebook is a brand and a tool. just like a camera. if somone chooses not to use fb then that has no more implication or reflection as to whether they are elitist than not choosing Canon does. someones choice and opinion in this thread being called elitist doesnt gel well with me. if not using fb makes one elitist then the world has changed more than i realised.

Xenedis

21-10-2012, 8:23am

I find the elitism displayed in this thread interesting. Facebook is the current social networking tool, and as such is an important way to reach people. In a few years, it will be something else. I agree with the person who said 'move with the times'... FB doesn't cheapen photography, it allows it to grow and reach into different areas of life. FB should be used (just like all other marketing tools) as only one part of a multi-pronged marketing strategy.

The only thing that actually cheapens photography is bad photographers.

I agree with Rick's comment re elitism, and I also rebuke the notion that being absent from Facebook is a form of elitism.

I am not on Facebook, never have been, and don't wish to be. Facebook is only an important way to reach people if the person using it places importance on it. To me, it is not an important way to reach people; it is a solution to a problem I don't have.

I agree with you 100% that bad photographers cheapen photography, but Facebook, and the Internet in general, has allowed bad photographers and bad images to thrive far more than they could have done otherwise.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: in my opinion, Facebook is to photography what Justin Bieber is to music.

Dylan & Marianne

21-10-2012, 8:32am

Choosing to be on FB is everyone's decision and I don't consider it elitism to elect not to be on it (heck I don't even have a smartphone!)
However, not doing something just because everyone else is doing it (as a main reason not to do it) could be self deprivation for self deprivation's sake (sometimes).
I'm talking about considerations like people outwardly not liking commercial radio stations because they're a pure indie music fan so if it's popular it's bad! people who won't watch a certain movie because it's popular and only watch what's in trak cinemas , etc etc. (I would love to say I HATE Gangnam style but the truth is, I find the guy's absolute taking the micky out of himself and his upbringing hilarious deep down)
So just to summarise my thoughts - it's fine if you choose not to do something (like FB), just examine your own reasons for the avoidance - you might be missing out on something you otherwise would enjoy :o
I think FB went down the wrong track with the paid promotions

Xenedis

21-10-2012, 8:58am

I agree that avoiding something purely because it's in vogue is rather silly.

In my case I don't avoid Facebook because it's popular; I have various other reasons for opting not to be involved with it.

arthurking83

21-10-2012, 9:24am

I find the elitism displayed in this thread interesting. Facebook is the current social networking tool, and as such is an important way to reach people. ......

LOL! I have no idea on what that means!! :confused013

Facebook is the current social networking tool??? :confused:

So the other tools such as actually going out and meeting people no longer exists, or has been made either redundant or illegal or something??

Like Xenedis said, FB has answered calls to a problem that never existed. It's been marketed to infinity and people have fallen for that form of product.

This is not elitism .. it's called choice.

And If I've come across as elitist in any of my responses it's simply due to the fact that I actually prefer to interface with people in person. It gives you a better overall perspective of the people you are interfacing with .. rather than this virtual reality.

The importance of tools such as these for social networking is manufactured by marketing gurus. They tell you you need to do this or use this or purchase that and so forth ....

If this were not true, then the world would have never progressed to the point it has now, otherwise we'd all still be living in the stone age waiting for Facebook, the all important social networking tool to arrive and lift us out of the pit of social darkness! :rolleyes:

1 million years of evolution and 10,000 years of civilization is proof that Facebook is not as important as people think it is!

... The only thing that actually cheapens photography is bad photographers.

this is true, and what Facebook does, is to assist in the rapid deployment of this situation with very little time for real analysis of the photographer.

Someone shoots to fame in an instant on FB with enormous numbers of positive hits on her apparently awesome photography skills.
And then months later when someone actually takes the time to review the images properly, it's then found out that this FB user was living the lie, and everyone was duped!

It's best to let the individual to conclude what to make of the system or the user base in this instance, but I do have my opinions of what it all means.

Mark L

21-10-2012, 8:25pm

I'm glad I had the chance to read the above AK.

And If I've come across as elitist in any of my responses it's simply due to the fact that I actually prefer to interface with people in person. It gives you a better overall perspective of the people you are interfacing with .. rather than this virtual reality.

If you're ever passing throw Mudgee, let me know so we can interface in person. :D:th3:
PS I don't play FB either.

norwest

22-10-2012, 12:19am

And If I've come across as elitist in any of my responses it's simply due to the fact that I actually prefer to interface with people in person.

I do as well, as I'd imagine do most people, but as your regular use of this forum to 'interact' with both acquaintances and total strangers displays, your interaction preference doesn't prevent you from using the virtual world. Has it been suggested that we restrict our interaction to web based, only, btw?

It gives you a better overall perspective of the people you are interfacing with .. rather than this virtual reality.

Yes it does, of course, but just like this forum on which we all likely spend too much time 'interacting', interaction on a facebook page will not prevent anyone from also 'interacting' face to face.

arthurking83

22-10-2012, 7:05am

I do as well, as I'd imagine do most people, but as your regular use of this forum to 'interact' with both acquaintances and total strangers displays, your interaction preference doesn't prevent you from using the virtual world. Has it been suggested that we restrict our interaction to web based, only, btw?.......

Y'know, last night I was going to reply to Mark's response with word to the effect of how ironic my reply was.
Using a virtual environment to proclaim my preference for real world interfacing, etc....
(but I got a case of the coughs, and I had to abandon the reply)

But my response was directly aimed at the quoted text by jagged angel about this fact that Fb is the current social networking tool.

The reality is that talking to actual people, going to parties, events, or traveling and and all those old fashioned types of human interaction .. are all social networking tools, but they've never really been described as such.
And now these younger folks seem to think that current methods are THE force de jour, or the only way that things are done, because that's all they seem to know.

Obviously that's not the case, and it needed pointing out as people have been socially networking for millennia prior to this Facebooking system.

I have no personal gripe against Fb myself, I simply don't feel a need to use it, nor do I believe that it will help me in any way.
I still think that Fb does propagate this notion of cheapened photography, due to this almost 'hysterical' fervor with which it seems to be used and praised by all and sundry that use the service.
And the checks and balances that usually apply in most other social networking tools of the past, don't seem to be present in Fb.

The end result is that it's easier to be be used for non genuine purposes by those that do this sort of thing, and the sheer volume and ease makes it hard to filter out these weeds.

A quality social networking photography site, be that in the form of a forum(such as this) or chat room, or online gallery/human interface site will have many forms of checks and balances to minimize the possibility that a lecherous charlatan will abuse the system.
The images posted will tend to be scrutinized more seriously by folks that have a higher level of interest in photography than a site such as Facebook will offer.

Facebook is for general purpose use, and seems to be everything to everyone. It has no real focus, for example on any particular topic or social interest as an interest group or forum will have.

Using Facebook for photography related exposure is something like the equivalent of Ken Duncan or Peter Lik hocking their wares at the local Sunday markets because traffic has slowed considerably at their galleries.
Those prints, no matter how good!.... are not going to command $10K a piece at the local ephemeral market as they would at one of the galleries.

Same deal with Fb .. while many photography specific aficionados will frequent the service, the majority of the praises will come from folks that just don't know enough about photography to critique and possibly not like a piece.
This cheapens photography considerably, as per the OP's original question.

norwest

22-10-2012, 9:02am

A quality social networking photography site, be that in the form of a forum(such as this) or chat room, or online gallery/human interface site will have many forms of checks and balances to minimize the possibility that a lecherous charlatan will abuse the system.
The images posted will tend to be scrutinized more seriously by folks that have a higher level of interest in photography than a site such as Facebook will offer.

.

This I don't understand. My official website isn't for critical critique, it's for displaying work for the purpose of gaining work. My facebook page is a window to my website as well as a coffee shop for people to browse small samples of the latest work, talk about them and/or others and ask questions before using the multiple links to my website to browse a gallery in total.

If I want critique I'll post on a photographic forum. This is what I don't understand. Why would I want critical critique from potential clients and why would I try to gain clients on a photo critique forum?

How does one gain the claimed important critical critique said not to be available on facebook? The public do not critique work they simply decide what they do and do not like, regardless of where work might be displayed.

Facebook is for general purpose use, and seems to be everything to everyone. It has no real focus, for example on any particular topic or social interest as an interest group or forum will have.

Eh? This is getting silly. My facebook page is named identical to my website. It's a speciality photography page where my latest shot samples can be viewed, talked about and any questions answered regarding the shots and associated work. I know it has a very real focus on a particular topic.

Using Facebook for photography related exposure is something like the equivalent of Ken Duncan or Peter Lik hocking their wares at the local Sunday markets because traffic has slowed considerably at their galleries.
Those prints, no matter how good!.... are not going to command $10K a piece at the local ephemeral market as they would at one of the galleries.

http://www.facebook.com/kenduncanphotographer

http://www.facebook.com/PeterLik

Btw, I use both my website and the facebook page for exposure to gain client work, not to sell prints.

jeffde

22-10-2012, 1:37pm

I use FB advertising and i also use it for my wife's business and it gives me far better value for my $ than any other advertising i do (except my bridal fairs - but they are harder as well) - You can target your audience and control your spend - however i see alot of businessess including photographers who aren't targeting their audience.

In answer to the original post though - FB and all other social media is lessening the impact and the value of good photography - the likes a crap photo gets is crazy. However although FB uses photography - its not about photography - its about social interaction ...

ApolloLXII

22-10-2012, 5:14pm

I use Fb primarily for the purpose that it was intended, to connect with family and friends and for that purpose, it works very well as it is a much better option (in most instances) than a phone call or an e-mail. By using Fb, I have managed to find people that I used to go to school with and old acquaintances which would have been an extremely difficult task in the old days of snail mail and blind luck in happening to run into people. Like anything, Fb has it's advantages and disadvantages but I find that most opposition to using it stems from a lack of understanding how to use it properly and safely. The negative reports in the media put people off using it as well however, in my own experience of using it over the past 5 years, I've never had a bad experience. Also, like anything else, it's use is entirely optional but it cannot be denied that it can be a useful tool.

As far as enhancing or cheapening photography goes, that is for subjective debate. Yes, there are a lot of shonky photographers to be found on Fb but you can find shonky photographers elsewhere on the web too. It's just the fact that a page on Fb is free as opposed to a paid for website that makes them numerous. If I were to be looking to hire a photographer then Fb would be an absolute last resort because of that fact alone. People only resort to using the shonky brigade on Fb because they are too cheap to pay for an experienced professional. As the tried and tested saying goes, "You gets what you pays for".

sonickel77

22-10-2012, 10:41pm

There are a few art photographers locally who I follow on Facebook. I love being able to see their latest work as it's made, and to share my own photos with my social network. Whether that translates into sales for people I don't know, as for the time being I am a student/hobbyist, still learning, and I don't talk business with people.

Perhaps photography is becoming more accessible now, so it is cheapened as a whole; people think that anyone could do it. This is an issue that goes beyond Facebook entirely.

ricktas

23-10-2012, 6:27am

Perhaps facebook is a reflection of life in general. We used to pick a career path and stick to it, for life. Many of our parents did. Now we swap and change career directions all the time, humans are treated as a commodity. Everything on the planet is valued by its monetary worth. Even things like our National Parks have their value calculated by how many people will visit them and how much money those people spend while doing so. We even have insurance that gives our actual life a monetary value. Our supermarkets have decreased the price of 'necessities' like milk, and we see that as a good thing, but ask the dairy farmers who are doing it tougher than they have in years. But how many of us buy the cheaper milk? EVERYTHING has become a value based on its $$ price, not its quality, uniqueness, intrinsic non-money related value. There is a big chasm between what something is valued$ at, and what it is worth. But for many they do not see this.

I do not think we can really look at FB in isolation, it is probably not the cause of the cheapening of the photographic industry, we are, cause we let it happen, and we also are part of the problem, constantly wanting the best deals on our camera gear, searching out the cheapest supplier of that new lens we want.

FB is just part of it, not the cause, or only source.

I @ M

23-10-2012, 7:57am

The reality is that talking to actual people, going to parties, events, or traveling and and all those old fashioned types of human interaction .. are all social networking tools, but they've never really been described as such.
And now these younger folks seem to think that current methods are THE force de jour, or the only way that things are done, because that's all they seem to know.

Just so as I can force you to type a nice long wordy response on a forum in a virtual conversation instead of meeting someone in real time ------ :D

Maybe, just maybe facebook has become an adjunct to the real social networking such as parties because isn't that how parties are arranged these days, simply post about your party on there and you are guaranteed a huge turn out and 5 minutes of fame in the media when lots of your friends attend your party and trash the neighbourhood. :p

But that is a another story not related to photography and facebook so I won't post it. :rolleyes:

Funnily enogh, seeing as it is the 23rd day of the second month when I am due to log into my facebook account I find that I can't because I get a message saying that due to the fact that I am logging in from an unkown device in a country other than where my account is based they deem it a security threat and I have to answer all sorts of questions about what my great grandmothers maiden name was in order to access it.

Security ----- talk about the pot calling the kettle ------

Oh well, all to hard, how in the hell will I live without 30 second updates from all my friends detailing the important things in their lives such as cups of tea and broken fingernails. :rolleyes:

kalley

05-11-2012, 7:54pm

Facebook doesn't devalue the photographic industry. Bad photographers do.
Facebook just made it easy for them to get the word out.
Facebook is just another communication tool. It's stockmarket price probably just reflects the poor commercialisation of the entity.
Something that's great for communicating and sharing doesn't make it nevessarily great for generating revenue.
Its great for things like reaching old friends that U've lost touch with.

I agree with swiftly.
Facebook is just another tool that unfortunately whether we like it or not, is a way of advertising.

I have seen some awesome photo's on FB and I have seen some absolute shite ones.I think it of it is as bringing to people your value and redirecting them to your Website.

Give them enough of an interest to actualy visit your site where your can make a sale.

Free advertising at the moment, what's up?

Kevin

Chris G

06-11-2012, 8:39am

To me facebook is just a tool / another means of networking & promoting your style of work, much like everything else out there with socializing along with other like minded people, much like here on the forums. You can love or hate it but fine line is, its a very powerful tool and I don't know about the rest of you guys here but if you knew the people I have the chance to talk to and get creative ideas and help from would probably make you think other wise.. And I'm not talking just nobody's either, I mean from people like Jasin Boland, Rob Williams, Robert Coppa & Scott Powick just to name a couple.. Facebook is now a photographer, mua and stylist breeding ground for both business and networking far greater than anything I have seen to date.

Dylan & Marianne

06-11-2012, 11:01am

I've met and arranged some interesting people (photographers) through FB as well.
Just like my contacts on flickr, I feel quite privileged that if I travel to certain countries, there will be people now wanting to go shooting with us and give us some general advice.
Eyre peninsula was made all the more fun through meeting up with 2 local photographers through FB.

FB is not the only means by doing this but it's free and it has helped me personally to network to allow these possibilities. I'm not complaining! Cheapen the industry? Probably by dilution but like with anything, you can 'bend' it to suit your needs to a degree too :)

William

06-11-2012, 11:20am

Further to Dylans comment, I was down the beach at a place called Flatrock this morning , Would you believe I was walking back to my car I saw this gentleman looking at me , He had a tripod and Camera slung over his shoulder, He came over to me and said , Liquidboulevard !! Yes I said , He said he was from Canada and been following our daily images since we started , He came specifically to this part of the Gold Coast directly from viewing my morning shots, He was hoping to spot me during his holiday , Made his day and mine , He thanked me again and left happy :)

ricktas

06-11-2012, 11:56am

So with the recent changes to FB, where even if someone has 'liked' your page, about only 10% of those people now see any one post, unless you 'pay to promote' it, has any here noticed the decline in activity on their pages by likers? Have you paid to promote something? Did paying really get the post more attention?

I think we might be seeing a whole transition at present as to how powerful a tool FB will be, and just how many are willing to pay to continue to get their name out there and ultimately we might see anything other than personal pages being based on a payments system entirely. After all FB now has shareholders to answer to.

So those of you who purely use FB and no other marketing, what is your strategy should you have to start paying to promote? What other marketing ideas are you using/considering?