'Publishing' in 2012

[celluloidprop]

Upload RAW to converter of choice, process/edit, finalize (or get as close to finalization as exists these days - I'm constantly tinkering with old files).

From there:
publish to portfolio site (suburbandetritus.com, y'all)
publish to Flickr
publish to Tumblr via Flickr
Tweet a link to one or all of the above
consider annoying friends on Facebook with link, think better of it
go ahead and post a link on Google+, no one will see it anyway
post image to several photography forums, with a link to your portfolio, Flickr, Tumblr and Twitter accounts in your signature

Start all over again with the next batch of files tomorrow.
Just typing that out feels exhausting.

 

[rxmd]

As opposed to?

 

[celluloidprop]

Pass away after a long, quiet life and have your negatives/hard drives found via a storage auction. Posthumous fame is still fame.

I'm not proposing alternatives, my micro-generation was the vanguard of growing up online, all of this is second nature to me. But it does make a cold-water flat, graded fiber paper and some hip new bebop on the turntable sound appealing.

 

[dct]

Yes. Of course. Prints and negatives are the best. But: I also use digital and I'm willing to publish online too.

As opposed to?

I had a hard time reducing my online publishing effort. I feel with the OP. After several trials my publishing workflow is now very simplified:

1) process analog or digital images with whatever you like: Only for the keepers, at the end I have two files.
- an original size TIF with lossless compression, already processed for general enhancements and corrections (like dust, scratches, color or exposure, bad pixels, slight crop where required)
- a 1920px wide JPG compressed only to 95%
This file is the official published image on my home media server

2) Printing:
- For a small print I start directly with the 1920px JPG
- For big prints I start over with the TIF and do the required enhancements and crop before sending it to the print processor
- For expensive and very special prints, I might use the negative (if it the original was on film!) and discuss the print process with the store

3) Web site publishing:
After trying many of the mass image websites (like flickr, FB...) and the more pro oriented (like wordpress, zenfolio...) I still was really unhappy. Too much LIKES and ++ and friends and more bells and whistles on one side. Too elitist/designed and selling oriented on the other side. For all of this I have no time. And no passion. And no need.
Finally I got something in the middle, not well known but already running for many years. It is pbase.com for me. I deleted all the other accounts and my further reduced keepers will go up there, again using the 1920px JPG. I also deleted parallel forum galleries, which I (mis)used as publishing space.

4) Forum publishing:
Again I start with the 1920px JPG and reduce it in size and/or compression for the different forum entries. But I don't use any forum galleries for publishing purposes. It is only as reference for forum posts where images are required. If this is one of my official pbase entries, I link also to that gallery outside the forum.

Future ideas, further thinking...
If I would go more pro (showing portofolio, nice web design, allowing to buy my stuff) I still would look for one website only and forget the parallel pubslihing on different platforms: Too much silly work.

 

[jsrockit]

Start all over again with the next batch of files tomorrow.

Don't post everything from every day you photograph. Really edit down and post in chunks every few weeks or so. Of course the extent to which you do any of the stuff in this thread depends on what you ultimately want to do with your photography (i.e. is it serious project oriented work or is it family / friend snapshots).

 

[Bob Michaels]

My thinking is quite different from the majority here. I believe:

1) no one, not even your family or best friends, wants to see more than 30 photos.

2) do not delude yourself, you probably only shoot 30 photos worth looking at per year. Famous photographers who work full time do not do much more than this.

3) you will be judged by your worst photo, not your best. Volume is not your friend.

4) never publicly show a photo until you have lived with it long enough to be sure you think it is good.

5) a series of tightly edited cohesive photos that tell a story is always much better than a singular image.

6) you will not be discovered from inclusion of your photos mixed in with millions of others on the internet. Tailor your work for someone who has specifically sought you out.

7) ignore the comments of the internet masses. They will steer your efforts to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

8) your return for displaying your photos will be directly related to the effort you put forth.

This is just my thinking. I have no problem is yours is different. You will see my photos only on my website, grouped into series. There are about 200 photos there representing 12 years of work and I need to cut that down. I will include a photo or two here in a RFF thread to make a point but never in the gallery, never on flicker or any other photo sharing website. But that is just my way.

 

[FrankS]

My thinking is quite different from the majority here. I believe:

1) no one, not even your family or best friends, wants to see more than 30 photos.

2) do not delude yourself, you probably only shoot 30 photos worth looking at per year. Famous photographers who work full time do not do much more than this.

3) you will be judged by your worst photo, not your best. Volume is not your friend.

4) never publicly show a photo until you have lived with it long enough to be sure you think it is good.

5) a series of tightly edited cohesive photos that tell a story is always much better than a singular image.

6) you will not be discovered from inclusion of your photos mixed in with millions of others on the internet. Tailor your work for someone who has specifically sought you out.

7) ignore the comments of the internet masses. They will steer your efforts to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

8) your return for displaying your photos will be directly related to the effort you put forth.

This is just my thinking. I have no problem is yours is different. You will see my photos only on my website, grouped into series. There are about 200 photos there representing 12 years of work and I need to cut that down. I will include a photo or two here in a RFF thread to make a point but never in the gallery, never on flicker or any other photo sharing website. But that is just my way.

Bingo .

 

[willie_901]

You left out one step: submit images online to Copyright Office for registration.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Try e-books. It's probably the future. I've done several (http://www.rogerandfrances.com/e-books.html -- they went up last month) and although I'll be doing more in black and white only (like the existing B&W Step by Step, Accessories, and Tripods), I'm also planning on more in colour, like Arles and the Baltic trip. Sales have been pretty good so far, but I'm waiting for the press releases to get into the magazines.

As for copyright (willie_901), I'm afraid that my reaction is "Why bother?" Copyright is automatic anyway (Berne convention), and the only advantage of US copyright registration (and then, only in the USA) is that you can get statutory damages in the unlikely event that the infringer is worth pursuing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[paulfish4570]

very interesting thread. thanks.