Companies slowly abondoning photographers?

[Exdsc]

First adobe leaving photographers for its core business and now flickr transforming itself to cater the smartphone crowd... Do you get a feeling that companies are slowly abandoning photographers?

The lagging sales figures for cameras scared them?

 

[Mackinaw]

They're just going where the market is.

Jim B.

 

[Exdsc]

They're just going where the market is.

Jim B.

That is understandable but they're doing it in such forthright manner that it almost seems like they're panicking.

 

[kbg32]

As technology changes, so does the norm. It'll be interesting to see where flickr, Tumblr, etc., are in a couple of years. I'm sure things will be different then what they seem now. Better? Not so sure. For one thing, cell phones are getting better cameras, and everyone thinks they're a photographer. Companies are trying to capitalize on that.

Does being a "professional photographer" mean anything anymore?

 

[Exdsc]

Does being a "professional photographer" mean anything anymore?

Forget professional, does amateur photographer mean anything anymore?

 

[Murchu]

We still have not reached the end of the gold rush phase of the internet, in my opinion. When we do, companies will see sense, and as in bricks and mortar businesses, realise that the best way to run their business is by serving the needs of their users. Right now its still a big grab for users, and personally wonder who are all these people clicking through on online advertising, that is justifying this whole drive to grab users.

Its a pity Flickr decided users, any users, were better for it, so they could sell advertising, rather than instead focussing on its previous core function of being the go-to place for 'serious' photographers online.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I believe we historically have significantly overemphasized our market importance.

Kodak has not been a film company for several decades. Neither has Fujifilm. Nor is Fuji a camera company. Those are are insignificant parts of diversified companies. BTW, neither Nikon or Canon are "camera companies"

Photoshop has never been a keystone product for Adobe. Nor was it designed for photographers. We have adapted part of the usefulness of a product intended for the graphic arts industry.

Flickr is adapting to the fact that many more photos are taken with smartphones than cameras.

It would be great if we were as important as we believed we are. But reality says otherwise.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We still have not reached the end of the gold rush phase of the internet, in my opinion. When we do, companies will see sense, and as in bricks and mortar businesses, realise that the best way to run their business is by serving the needs of their users. Right now its still a big grab for users, and personally wonder who are all these people clicking through on online advertising, that is justifying this whole drive to grab users.

Its a pity Flickr decided users, any users, were better for it, so they could sell advertising, rather than instead focussing on its previous core function of being the go-to place for 'serious' photographers online.

'Serious'? What are the advantages of Flickr to a 'serious' photographer?

Cheers,

R.

 

[kbg32]

Bob, Flickr was never created for "serious" photography. If there were serious photographers and photographs, they were just part of its process - a place to deposit, host, and share images.

- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flickr is an image hosting and video hosting website, web services suite, and online community that was created by Ludicorp in 2004 and acquired by Yahoo! in 2005. In addition to being a popular website for users to share and embed personal photographs, the service is widely used by bloggers to host images that they embed in blogs and social media.

 

[Murchu]

'Serious'? What are the advantages of Flickr to a 'serious' photographer?

Cheers,

R.

Well, as a trite comment, I might probably agree with you, Roger. For those that were more than just casual image takers, the 'serious' ones I referred to in my previous post, Flickr had many benefits. Not being a Flickr user (account holder, but never really a user), I am sure others are better versed in what Flickr was/ offered, to chime in.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, as a trite comment, I might probably agree with you, Roger. For those that were more than just casual image takers, the 'serious' ones I referred to in my previous post, Flickr had many benefits. Not being a Flickr user (account holder, but never really a user), I am sure others are better versed in what Flickr was/ offered, to chime in.

Seriously, what were they? You could give your pictures away easier? How many people (other than perhaps the owners of Flickr) have ever made any money out of Flickr? And is having your pictures on Flickr -- among billions of others -- as much use as even a small, local exhibition of real prints on a real wall? As far as I've ever seen, Flickr was a cheap, easy way of pretending to do something, whether as a 'serious' photographer or cute kitten photographer.

I could be wrong. I probably know even less about it than you. But I wasn't being trite.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Exdsc]

We still have not reached the end of the gold rush phase of the internet, in my opinion.

But one thing that we can be certain about is the end of post-digital photography gold rush.

 

[Highway 61]

I believe we historically have significantly overemphasized our market importance.

Kodak has not been a film company for several decades. Neither has Fujifilm. Nor is Fuji a camera company. Those are are insignificant parts of diversified companies. BTW, neither Nikon or Canon are "camera companies"

Photoshop has never been a keystone product for Adobe. Nor was it designed for photographers. We have adapted part of the usefulness of a product intended for the graphic arts industry.

Flickr is adapting to the fact that many more photos are taken with smartphones than cameras.

It would be great if we were as important as we believed we are. But reality says otherwise.

Excellent, as usual. Thanks.

Hey - those darn smartphones/Instagram/new Flickr things may kill real digital photography tools (DSLRs, EVILs, P&S) quite promptly so that genuine cameras will keep alive and well for longer than them ! 😛

I'm just back from 8 days in Tuscany and during the sole May 13th day in Florence I can testify that there were at least FOUR people using FILM cameras in this large city (three people I met by chance, and me). 😀

 

[thegman]

Seriously, what were they? You could give your pictures away easier? How many people (other than perhaps the owners of Flickr) have ever made any money out of Flickr? And is having your pictures on Flickr -- among billions of others -- as much use as even a small, local exhibition of real prints on a real wall? As far as I've ever seen, Flickr was a cheap, easy way of pretending to do something, whether as a 'serious' photographer or cute kitten photographer.

I could be wrong. I probably know even less about it than you. But I wasn't being trite.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,
I think photographers need Flickr in the same way smartphone buyers need 100,000 apps, we all need the latest camera, we need the 35mm and the 40mm lens etc.

I think you're quite right about it being about pretending to do something, or maybe it's genuine belief, I don't know.

It's a triumph of marketing more than anything else.

Garry

 

[kbg32]

But one thing that we can be certain about is the end of post-digital photography gold rush.

Oooo, are you ever wrong. This is just the beginning. The companies are rushing in because they have figured out a way to make gold from all those digital images rushing to get up online. Maybe not yours, but there are millions of cell images waiting for a place to call home.

 

[Murchu]

Seriously, what were they? You could give your pictures away easier? How many people (other than perhaps the owners of Flickr) have ever made any money out of Flickr? And is having your pictures on Flickr -- among billions of others -- as much use as even a small, local exhibition of real prints on a real wall? As far as I've ever seen, Flickr was a cheap, easy way of pretending to do something, whether as a 'serious' photographer or cute kitten photographer.

I could be wrong. I probably know even less about it than you. But I wasn't being trite.

Cheers,

R.

Fair enough, it's not for you, I get it 🙂

 

[MaxElmar]

Kodak has not been a film company for several decades. Neither has Fujifilm. Nor is Fuji a camera company. Those are are insignificant parts of diversified companies. BTW, neither Nikon or Canon are "camera companies"

It would be great if we were as important as we believed we are. But reality says otherwise.

Beg to differ - Nikon is most definitely a camera company - with about 75% of revenues and nearly all profit coming from that division.

Totally agree with everything else. Especially that last bit about our place in the world.

 

[Exdsc]

Oooo, are you ever wrong. This is just the beginning. The companies are rushing in because they have figured out a way to make gold from all those digital images rushing to get up online. Maybe not yours, but there are millions of cell images waiting for a place to call home.

The photographs of cellphones users is like an anchor point to hook their users, pull them in and make money from them with ads, apps and other smartphone stuff. Not to mention the smartphone users are the most desirable target market for advertisers.

flickr is gone on this route and while I don't care for flickr, for me its a image host service, for those who had been there for long and had established networks with others, for them this move was more of pay more or leave. But the motivation for the move is the main thing and that is photography in-itself losing ground and slowly becoming just a by-product of smartphone and tablet business.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fair enough, it's not for you, I get it 🙂

Dear Damien,

Well, seriously, who is it for? You're quite right: it's not for me. But I'd be interested in hearing someone tell me why it is for them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ped]

Dear Damien,

Well, seriously, who is it for? You're quite right: it's not for me. But I'd be interested in hearing someone tell me why it is for them.

Cheers,

R.

I like it because it's a convenient place to store my pics at full res, so I can have a backup. I also follow some other people who's pics I enjoy and find inspiring.

** cough http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiscocks/ cough**

🙂