Companies slowly abondoning photographers?

[Exdsc]

here is a very practical reason, do you want to know how your images look online? the main mode of display these days, then upload them online, look at them from different computers, watch people's response.

Share only examples of your photos not your personal work.

 

[Michael Markey]

To me Flickr is just a community same as this but without the gear talk.
No more , no less.
There is a Manchester Flickr group ,for example ,who regularly hold meets.

As previously mentioned by Exdsc ,the other advantage is that you can delete your stuff from other web sites with a single click.

 

[btgc]

The other thing I find astonishing is the huge number of people who own very expensive cameras - some like the Nikon D800, that will produce very big printable files and what they do with these files is reduce the image size drastically and upload their stiff to social media sites. A small point and shoot or a cellphone camera would deliver the same product in most instances (sans extreme wide or tele). These social/photo sites were designed for the masses + common camera/phone gear and I'm sure are put to good use in that form.

You don't get the point...flickr shows camera used to take picture. Whole new dimension.

 

[willie_901]

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?

Not at all. I am a photographer and a member of the subversive, perverse, shallow and lemming-like smartphone crowd.

I think the changes are part of a strategy to sell advertisements that appeal to a young, diverse, global demographic. In otherwords, people you define as photographers are not relevant to Flickr's business model because advertisers won't support such a narrow demographic.

Yahoo's changes may parallel Adobe's CC or it may not. We won't know how photographers fit into Adobe's future business plans for a while. Adobe may eventually convert all image software to a subscription model, never have a subscription only model, or come up with a very attractive set of photographer packages we haven't considered. Who knows?

Every since day one we provided Flickr, and eventually Yahoo, with content and they indirectly used our content to sell ads. Flickr Pro account holders did not see ads, but others who viewed their content did see ads.

Now we are being compensated with 1 TB of Cloud jpeg storage for the same indirerect usage and for viewing ads. . For comparison, Dropbox charges $499/yr for 500 GB. Amazon Cloud Dive storage is $500/yr. Flickr storage is much more limited (jpeg photos only), so let's say it's only worth $250/yr. If you back up your full-sized images on Flickr by making them Private, then you can call yourself a professional photographer. Flickr is giving you a service worth at least $250/yr for the small-sized photos you make Public.

If 1TB of off-site physical storage for your digital images is of no value, then it doesn't make sense to stay with Flickr

For me an added benefit is the ability to get feedback and learn from peers who have visited my Flickr page for years as well as from random people who stop by.

I think the best alternative for RFF members who reject Flickr's changes is to just use the RFF gallery.

 

[Exdsc]

It has meaning to me and what I do. I am a photographer and am unconcerned about what that means to others not of the same mind. "Focus" on what this activity means to you and how it shapes the way you interact with the world and enhances your life.

I agree but if the amateur photography market is assimilated into the smartphone and tablet market, this is not a good thing at all. Photography will get trivialized further than it already has.

 

[Exdsc]

The hard drive storage capacity/$ price ratio decreases almost by 100% every year, so storage is not a big deal anymore.

what flickr has planned is simple and easy, get as many uploaders as they can, smartphone will be the majority, use the geotagging and other metadata from their photos and sell advertisement.


the only people making money out of other people's photos are social network sites. There is no free lunch/cloud storage.

Not at all. I am a photographer and a member of the subversive, perverse, shallow and lemming-like smartphone crowd.

I think the changes are part of a strategy to sell advertisements that appeal to a young, diverse, global demographic. In otherwords, people you define as photographers are not relevant to Flickr's business model because advertisers won't support such a narrow demographic.

Yahoo's changes may parallel Adobe's CC or it may not. We won't know how photographers fit into Adobe's future business plans for a while. Adobe may eventually convert all image software to a subscription model, never have a subscription only model, or come up with a very attractive set of photographer packages we haven't considered. Who knows?

Every since day one we provided Flickr, and eventually Yahoo, with content and they indirectly used our content to sell ads. Flickr Pro account holders did not see ads, but others who viewed their content did see ads.

Now we are being compensated with 1 TB of Cloud jpeg storage for the same indirerect usage and for viewing ads. . For comparison, Dropbox charges $499/yr for 500 GB. Amazon Cloud Dive storage is $500/yr. Flickr storage is much more limited (jpeg photos only), so let's say it's only worth $250/yr. If you back up your full-sized images on Flickr by making them Private, then you can call yourself a professional photographer. Flickr is giving you a service worth at least $250/yr for the small-sized photos you make Public.

If 1TB of off-site physical storage for your digital images is of no value, then it doesn't make sense to stay with Flickr

For me an added benefit is the ability to get feedback and learn from peers who have visited my Flickr page for years as well as from random people who stop by.

I think the best alternative for RFF members who reject Flickr's changes is to just use the RFF gallery.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks to all those who have explained more about Flickr. It's still true that as Damien pointed out, I can't see any advantage in it for me; but at least I now have a better idea of exactly why not.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A better question is how many graphic designers compared to photographers have a copy of Photoshop in regular use. I would venture EVERY graphic designer. There are no amateur graphic designers, only photography has this huge mass of so called advanced amateurs, who are massively over equipped - both in software and hardware.

Adobe does not release this kind of sales information.

I'm not sure it's a better question, but it's still a very good and worthwhile question. My suspicion -- as you say, unprovable in the absence of sales figures, and how would they know/why would they care anyway -- is that "massively over equipped" amateurs are at least as big a market for Photoshop as graphic designers, and that quite possibly, professional photographers are as big a market again.

I'd also suggest that as graphic designers generally have a better idea of what they want/need than photographers, it's easiest for Adobe to base 'upgrades' on what graphic designers want/need than on what photographers want/need.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not at all. I am a photographer and a member of the subversive, perverse, shallow and lemming-like smartphone crowd.

I think the changes are part of a strategy to sell advertisements that appeal to a young, diverse, global demographic. In otherwords, people you define as photographers are not relevant to Flickr's business model because advertisers won't support such a narrow demographic.

Yahoo's changes may parallel Adobe's CC or it may not. We won't know how photographers fit into Adobe's future business plans for a while. Adobe may eventually convert all image software to a subscription model, never have a subscription only model, or come up with a very attractive set of photographer packages we haven't considered. Who knows?

Every since day one we provided Flickr, and eventually Yahoo, with content and they indirectly used our content to sell ads. Flickr Pro account holders did not see ads, but others who viewed their content did see ads.

Now we are being compensated with 1 TB of Cloud jpeg storage for the same indirerect usage and for viewing ads. . For comparison, Dropbox charges $499/yr for 500 GB. Amazon Cloud Dive storage is $500/yr. Flickr storage is much more limited (jpeg photos only), so let's say it's only worth $250/yr. If you back up your full-sized images on Flickr by making them Private, then you can call yourself a professional photographer. Flickr is giving you a service worth at least $250/yr for the small-sized photos you make Public.

If 1TB of off-site physical storage for your digital images is of no value, then it doesn't make sense to stay with Flickr

For me an added benefit is the ability to get feedback and learn from peers who have visited my Flickr page for years as well as from random people who stop by.

I think the best alternative for RFF members who reject Flickr's changes is to just use the RFF gallery.

Or to go to real bricks-and-mortar galleries.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess what I am saying is amateurs are not making "work" which is the beauty of not trying to support oneself, they are hopefully having fun and are at "play."

Of course as a bike rider, I know 60 year olds who still "train" rather than just exercise for fitness, as though they might enter the Tour by magic.

Yes, but these slightly pretentious usages go back well over a century.

Cheers,

R.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I use flickr to upload photos and post in different places instead of uploading over and over again.

If you upload your images to different places you no longer have control over them, with flickr you can stop sharing those images with one click.

Exactly the same here.

 

[Lauffray]

Or to go to real bricks-and-mortar galleries

...which aren't as readily available everywhere, which is why I appreciate sites like Flickr

 

[MaxElmar]

Good for us. Good for Flickr. More space, great. Some control? Ok. I guess they are figuring out what to offer those of us who have paid for a "pro" account for a few years.... I'm figuring out whether to cancel my pro account.

None of my professional work is on there. (My stuff is all 'work for hire' me no copyright.) Flickr is for family stuff and other personal images I like and I want to share. It's fun for gearheads like me to see images taken with old junk I like. Love seeing T&T and Mr. B's stuff on there. I like the UI better than most others. (More likely - I'm just used to it.)

 

[Aristophanes]

I agree but if the amateur photography market is assimilated into the smartphone and tablet market, this is not a good thing at all. Photography will get trivialized further than it already has.

not going to happen. Smartphone optics cannot do what a dedicated camera can. Laws of Physics and all...

The major issue is that the camera makers have worked in a bubble of sorts, treating the PC, software, tablet, phone, and even the internet as an accessory to their products.

No longer. The camera is now an accessory to the network. But today's cameras do't play nice with the network, so people default to the lower IQ of a smartphone because there is a convergence there where the collection/organization/sharing capacity of the iPhone trumps the IQ of the dumb dedicated camera.

 

[Aristophanes]

Perhaps they are leaving photography (camera) stores.

How many smart phones are purchased at photo oriented businesses and how many from communication providers?

How many via Amazon? Books, cameras, you name it, we are increasingly leaving brick and mortar for online purchases of everything from pharmacy to chairs.

 

[Aristophanes]

Or to go to real bricks-and-mortar galleries.

And browse Flickr.

It's not a zero sum game.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...which aren't as readily available everywhere, which is why I appreciate sites like Flickr

Highlight: VERY true. But this is why I go out of my way -- sometimes a long way out of my way -- to see 'real' exhibitions. For me, there's a very clear ranking, each an order of magnitude better than the one below it:

1 Real prints at an exhibition

2 Good photomechanical reproductions in books

3 Mediocre photomechanical reproductions in books and magazines

4 Poor photomechanical reproductions and on-screen

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lauffray]

But today's cameras do't play nice with the network, so people default to the lower IQ of a smartphone because there is a convergence there where the collection/organization/sharing capacity of the iPhone trumps the IQ of the dumb dedicated camera.

Let's not over-intellectualize this. Maybe folks here are pretty serious about their pre-war made in Germany special version super lens, but most people always have and always will just take holiday snaps that they want to show their friends without having to email humongous attachments.
Cameras are over engineered and have feature bloat, phones are simple, have a camera, are connected to the internet.

EDIT: wait, reading this again I think we're saying the same thing 😛

 

[Lauffray]

Highlight: VERY true. But this is why I go out of my way -- sometimes a long way out of my way -- to see 'real' exhibitions.

How far (just out of curiosity) ? I try to do that too and not just lament the absence of photography related exhibits in my city but there's only so much I'm willing to pay for to go see an exhibit somewhere

 

[Aristophanes]

Highlight: VERY true. But this is why I go out of my way -- sometimes a long way out of my way -- to see 'real' exhibitions. For me, there's a very clear ranking, each an order of magnitude better than the one below it:

1 Real prints at an exhibition

2 Good photomechanical reproductions in books

3 Mediocre photomechanical reproductions in books and magazines

4 Poor photomechanical reproductions and on-screen

Cheers,

R.

I think you're confusing the raison d'etre of Flickr and social network sites.

It's about volume and social experience, not gallery quality technical photography. Flickr hosts the whole spectrum of photography in a few clinks, things most people might not otherwise see. Flickr is about content en masses, not reproduction par excellence.

No gallery could do what Flickr does because most galleries have a gatekeeper curatorial system so you see THEIR interpretation of good photography, browsing outside those boundaries deliberately limited.

Sure, the gallery may be technically superior. But technical superiority in photographs has always been a very, very tiny niche of appreciation by the same people who own loupes.

Flickr is like seeing Earth from space then zooming in where you want to go. A gallery is like walking down one path, staying on that path, and, albeit beautiful and often sublime, someone else chose for you what to see.