Is instagram the new Flickr?

J

jojoman2

Guest
I was taking photos on the street recently, and the subject of one of my photographs asked me if I had an instagram account so she could see my work. This isn't the first time this has happened. Is Flickr no longer the best place to garner interest in your portfolio, especially for attracting the interest of non-photographers? I don't know anybody who isn't into photography (actively takes pictures with a dedicated camera) that has a Flickr account. I do know that nearly all of my friends from college have instagrams (I'm a millennial). It seems to me that, since everyone virtually lives on their phones/tablets) that Flickr is inherently flawed as a place to display work for the regular person.

Thoughts?

This is my instagram site: https://www.instagram.com/jonnymoondog/
 
I just licensed a photo for a book cover from Flickr. Don't have an instagram account. Flickr works for me.
 
I would think Flickr was used by the photography masses... and Instagram is used by the cell phone masses. I would think a lot more people are aware of Instagram than of Flickr when it comes to the mainstream.
 
Instagram is huge next to Flickr ! It can generate massive following and most photographers are well aware of that.
Just check Adorama "Through the lens" series on youtube for example.
 
It seems that a lot more photographers are using Instagram to accompany their portfolio sites as kind of a daily diary than in previous years. I'd say its at least 50-50 with respect to Flickr.

Frankly I'd rather look at Flickr streams than most portfolio sites because the interface is clean and allows you to scroll through the images easily. Instagram's not bad, but the images are smaller on the computer screen. Its better on a phone than Flickr.

Mike
 
Flickr was early social media. I think what hurt them in respect to adoption by the cellphone masses and staying relevant with many photographers was their poor adaptation to the mobile platform. IIRC, they were slow to release a decent app and it was only recently that they put out something good. There was never an option to add any kind of filter effects or edit the photos. Maybe there is now?

I really haven't done much with my Flickr account in a couple years, but do make a few sales through it from time to time. For me it's more a repository of images.

For those looking create a personal brand by creating a social media following, Instagram and Facebook are more relevant.
 
My daughter is on Instagram, because of her prime interest in "filming" with photo-cameras. I'm on Flickr because of my interest in analog photography and prints.
Flickr is established platform for photography of all kinds. Instagram isn't new Flickr, it is something else and new.
500pix is old (now) failure to be "new Flickr".

Assumption what regular person is looking at pictures on mobile phone is new to me. I'm old enough to have my place and my desktop computer with advanced video card in it.
I can't see what I want in pictures on the phone.
I also have space for few photo books and access to the public library. Heck, I have some money to travel to museums with prints and paintings on display. I have seen plenty of millennials just yesterday at Detroit Institute of Arts. :)
 
Why not? Creating an Instagram account is easy. Nowadays it is common for photo sites to allow the photo to share across different sites. For example, after uploading to Flickr, you can share to Twitter, Instagram, Facebook & Tumblr etc. There are analog camera users on Instagram as well.
 
I just started to post on Instagram,
what I like is I can share my post to Flickr/ Facebook at the same time with no effort.
fair for me, Instagram and Flickr.
 
Quite a few prominent photographers now have Instagram accounts, to market themselves, show their latest work, experiment, connect with followers. Instagram started as a cell phone driven platform but has moved well beyond that. I get the sense that there's a lot of interesting work being displayed on Instagram while Flickr is stagnating.
 
Lot of photographers use Instagram to display some sample his/her collections. But for completed set (bigger and better IQ) they stored in their website or Flickr,500px etc.(they put link in Instagram)
I saw Steve McCurry and some Magnumphoto member in Instagram.

Other nice photo host:
500px
LFI gallery for Leica
Forums: RFF, L-Camera,


~ron~
 
Last edited:
Bingley said:
I get the sense that there's a lot of interesting work being displayed on Instagram while Flickr is stagnating.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. There are a number of very good and high profile photographers (the latter not always the former) on Instagram and I find it an interesting way to while away a few minutes. Flickr, as you say, (much like Twitter and Facebook) seems to have had its day.
 
I agree that photos displayed on Flickr have better image quality than on Instagram. Instagram is not set up to store large sets of photos, organized into sets or albums. It does provide a good platform to show work in progress. Look at the Instagram photos of Stephen Shore, David Alan Harvey, David Hume Kennerly, Maggie Steber, Pete Turnley, Lynnsey Addario, and quite a few younger photogs who are working in film as well as digital (lots of hashtags now devoted to film). There seems to be a lot going on over at Instagram. My point is that Instagram has become more than just a spot to share cell phone snaps abd selfies (though there's a lot of both there too).
 
On any given day.... There is little difference in the content of either.
IG has a larger presence from the Strawberry generation.
Want To find that group? Broadcast to IG.
No group spends more with their social media presence.

Flickr is a storage device more than it is social media.
 
f16sunshine said:
Flickr is a storage device more than it is social media.
Click to expand...

You and I might have a bunch of stuff up there, but for most it's a place to look and share. Really nice to have the fulls available for few or download. Huge range and many public institutions with large portfolios.

Yahoo is not the best curator, but flickr is still the "big gallery". :)

IG? Well do I really want to go there?

500px? One is enough for me right now :)
 
uhoh7 said:
Huge range and many public institutions with large portfolios.

Yahoo is not the best curator, but flickr is still the "big gallery". :)
Click to expand...

It looks like IG is for "now and ME", while Flickr is more like an archive, than storage. Personally, if I would face the choice where to go - gallery with some "fancy as of now names" or archive with "no names, but history", I'll go to archive.
I'm subscribed to all kind of Archives on Flickr. Ireland, Alberta and so on.
 
Yeah I'm a young photographer, a millennial, shooting medium format street/documentary portraiture in places like Newark, Harlem, Manhattan. I need to capture the attention of people my age, as well as have a small portfolio ready to whip out on the street in case I need to persuade potential subjects that I really am an artist, not a cop or a creep, and that I have some artistic integrity when it comes to how I use their images.
 
Agreed that Instagram is set up for immediacy; old posts are certainly accessible but don't seem to be the bread and butter of the app. The fact that it's so strictly linear sets it apart from gallery services like flickr. I use Instagram far more, but don't really even think of it as a photography app; it's more a visual communication medium to share with friends. I dislike facebook intensely but am really fond of Instagram.
 
I agree that Flickr is not social media. I'm not interested in being stylish. I like occasionally selling a photo. On Flickr, I've done that. Not seeing what the point of being fashionable is.

I hand out business cards with my Flickr link to interested parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom