While many use FB to help drive traffic to their sites or products/services, there seems to be a developing trend of serious photographers posting their serious work there. The abysmal display of photos on FB - massive JPEG compression - and a really clunky interface for commenting leaves me wondering what the attraction is. Could it be that a zillion views from the uninformed masses trumps all?
While NPN maintains a FB page to help drive traffic here, why would anyone who cares about their photography post their "serious work" photos on FB knowing all the downsides (poor display, copyright issues of your photos, etc.)?
As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!
Posted by Jim Zablotny on July 15, 2015 at 7:42 AM
Hi JIm,
I have had little success with facebook. I set up my Fine Art America sales page to post new pictures on my FB pages. Serious photos never get the critiques that we get here on NPN. I have only sold 2 images in 2 years so it has not really made an impact regarding sales. Post a picture of a baby, cat, or dog or combination of both and the complements flow in. Facebook might come in handy by broadening the audience for NPN, but it is hard to find the gems in all of the on-line mud.............................Jim
Jim, I'm sure there are reasons for their being on FB and trying to muster up sales or traffic. Beyond that I can't see the attraction. Now it's easy for me to say, I've never BEEN to FB in any capacity. I would think folks in wedding photography, social gathering type photo events, rock concerts and the like it would be a fantastic connecting tool. But for serious nature photo work and critiquing I do not see a use at all........I've been wrong before, once, this could be a second time......
I agree with you on all counts, Jim. I don't post serious photos there for the reasons you mention (image infringement in particular) and seldom even a snapshot. I do post links to my blog on FB though and I get quite a few views that way.
Hi Jim, I do have a business page on FB, but it is not meant to showcase my nature photos. I mainly use it to get my name out there, because I lost my job some time ago and I am now trying to make a living from photography, In The Netherlands it is almost impossible to make a living from nature photography, so the photos I do showcase are horses, pets and just occasionally some nature photos. It is just meant to let people see where my passion is coming from. For serious critique I think it is completely useless.
I don't use FB, but I can make one guess in that it is apparently easy to "follow" other friends/photographers on FB. Whenever someone you have "friended" posts a photo, it will end up on your FB page so you can check it out, thus making a social cricle. (I think, but have never done this.) I have never understood why so many of the RMNP forum left NPN for Facebook for just the reasons you said Jim, so my guess is the only thing I can think of. I don't think they care about the critique aspect any more, but desire the social aspect. There's nowhere better than NPN for photo critiques.
I am a new NPN member, I have attemted to use FB to help drive traffic to our workshop site, but it really hasn't been that effective. Personnal FB page has been idle for years and I never really understood the whole thing. I can see where people with large families can stay in touch, but I really got tired of seeing my so called FB friends photos from the beach or out at a bar. I watch people wih thier phones and I am amazed that some people will sit there with their heads down looking into the phone saying they like this and that and then trying to show veido to everyone on a 3 inch screen. I guess thats enough for now.
I believe FB is very useful for many. For example, a dog rescue group I follow/support uses it very effectively to educate the masses on dog rescue and to find dogs homes. I'm sure there are many other kinds of uses that make plenty of sense, but by a photography group to post photos? For the reasons mentioned so far in this thread, it seems odd when better venues are available.
Maybe it's not the photography they are interested in anymore?
I think social media in all it's various incarnations is a scourge. I will not participate in it. I have toyed with the idea of starting a small blog with a few images to be used mainly as a driver for folks to visit my main site.
There has been a migration of NPN members to other sites, including FB, but I don't have any hard numbers. Like Carol, I really don't understand why, given the most excellent benefits and the community spirit here at NPN.
Just my personal opinion, but every artist can benefit from critique of their work, regardless of their level of skill. The excuse, " I don't need critiques any longer." just doesn't hold water for me.
--P
Posted by John Neukirch on July 15, 2015 at 10:17 PM
I don't do FB, it's way too expensive and nothing more than a data gathering and profiling tool.
Posted by Eva McDermott on July 15, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Short answer, NO from my perspective. I have a personal FB page mainly to stay in touch with family and friends since most are far away. I also have a business page, Eva McDermott Photography. Most of what I post there has been posted on my website and NPN before. I also post when I am having a local showing (Boothbay ME, Atkinson NH, Southport ME) then share on my personal page. Those shows have attracted some friends as well as local photographers. Good for meet ups but not sales. In general, most followers are also photographers so no chance of a sale from that crowd. You like my page, I'll like yours. No, FB has not led to any sales for me but serves as a vehicle to stay in touch with family and potentially "meet" other photographers with like interests. Last autumn I met up in the White Mountains of NH with a women from England who had taken a workshop with Ian Cameron who I met through Ian's Transient Light Group on Flickr but was also FB. I have connected with many other photographers with like interests on FB - both local and a far. Most of the images I have sold are through the Boothbay Region Art Foundation and my website. I have sold a few through Deviantart and RedBubble but no major sales to write home about, and no sales from FB. If you want to expand your reach, FB wants you to pay (sorry, but screw that). I'm am sure some photographers use FB effectively for business (or make it sound like they do) but in general I don't think that is the case for most others. People share a lot of junk on FB especially links to meaningless stuff that does not interest me. I usually unfriend them after 3 such posts. BTW Jim - I like your dog stories and links to the great work that Mary's Dogs does...... FB is more about interests and not business to me....... To each his own......... But don't me started on 500px popularity contest. Many use FB to get more likes on 500px to get on the front page. FB and 500px popularity does NOT make one a great photographer.
I enjoy sharing images, so having a Facebook page is fine with me. I certainly don't think of it as a portfolio or critique forum, so I can live with the fact that the image quality is brutal.
Simply put, it can be an effective business tool. I've been able to generate sales and tour signups via Facebook (far more than NPN, in large part because I'm mainly just reaching my peers here). I never post large/high res. images there--heck, I barely post anything much larger here for that matter--because thievery is always a concern. Facebook's policy of throttling traffic is annoying as well, but sometimes it does pay to promote certain posts.
I think a lot of the "success" one might have on social media depends on the type of photo business you run and also your audience. Some photographers get a boatload of people Sharing their work, which is a great way to expand one's audience. Others generate a lot of print sales. There are a lot of photographers who see it as a waste of time, but it can be effective in the right circumstances.
I'd be curious to hear what Morkel thinks, since he probably has the largest FB following here. Over 200,000 Likes (which is a lot, for the uninitiated)!
Max
Posted by Howard Cheek on July 16, 2015 at 7:50 AM
I'm with Max Waugh, I enjoy sharing images. And I agree with his comments. For example:
"I certainly don't think of it as a portfolio or critique forum, so I can live with the fact that the image quality is brutal.
Simply put, it can be an effective business tool."
Last week a print sale and a request from an established Texas artist CJ Latta (Painter) to use my work. And when I ask how they found me, FB is the answer most of the time.. So it's free advertisement. But you have to work it
I too, am in the Max camp. Although I don't partake in social media other than NPN, there are certain types of photo businesses that use FB effectively. The Ski photo business being the one I am familiar with. Had I not left 3 1/2 + years ago, it would have been the next step for us. The folks that succeeded us, as well as a few others, (Vail resorts for one), use RF card readers to sort images to specific clients and post images directly to their FB accounts, at no cost, that they can then order prints from or not. It's an effective strategy that keeps the images in front of potential print purchasers longer as well as keeping their brand out there being shared and passed around to potential clientele. A very deliberate and focused marketing tool that is very cost effective. For socially centric activities such as skiing, kid sports, etc., I see it as a valuable tool. It isn't appropriate for all situations, however.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on July 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM
No doubt FB is an excellent way to promote products and services. In case you are not aware, to add to their current $14 billion in yearly ad revenue they will soon be offering this as well (which is supposedly a $350 billion a year market).
So the consensus seems to be that FB is excellent for product/service promotion (including photography) but that for critical image display and photo critique/discussion, it falls well short of other venues like NPN - at least until they can figure out how to make billions doing that as well.
I miss the Internet of old when surfing it was like going to a flea market with countless small vendors. Today, it's more like a walk down Wall Street, dominated by multi-billion dollar corporations that seem to be growing bigger/wealthier by the day.
I miss the Internet of old when surfing it was like going to a flea market with countless small vendors. Today, it's more like a walk down Wall Street, dominated by multi-billion dollar corporations that seem to be growing bigger/wealthier by the day.
This is why I said things like FB are a scourge.
On a related note: Walk down Main Street USA and see how many brick & mortar storefronts are empty. They are empty for the same reason. /end rant/
--P
Posted by Basil Greber on July 16, 2015 at 3:12 PM
Depends on what you want. If you want thoughtful critique - well, maybe not. If you want exposure - certainly. The sheer number of FB profiles from well-known and well-respected photographers answers the question in the title, in my opinion. FB is the biggest photo sharing site on the planet, after all, and if you want to have a wide audience look at your work, you should probably use it. No?
FB is the biggest photo sharing site on the planet, after all, and if you want to have a wide audience look at your work, you should probably use it. No?
I think using FB to direct views to a website where your work is displayed better than something barely worthy of cell phone snap shots, yes.
I certainly don't think of it as a portfolio or critique forum, so I can live with the fact that the image quality is brutal. Simply put, it can be an effective business tool.
I submit based on those images that the quality of the image has little or no positive correlation to the sales price. It is all about marketing. (In some of the cases there are other factors that drove the price, but largely marketing). FB is a marketing tool. I'd love to have seen the comments posted here if some of those images were to have been posted for critique.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on July 17, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Keith, that is some interesting perspective on this discussion!
Though I very much doubt that FB had anything to do with the sale of those images, it does illustrate very well that it is "all about marketing" and that beauty (and value) is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Peter Lik is a mediocre photographer at best yet he managed to build a name for himself that would command that kind of money. In his case, it's all about brand recognition.
With so many trying to leverage FB for the promotion of their photography - and the fact that most think of FB as nothing more than a social media site overflowing with amateurish snap shots of family vacations - it's hard to imagine that it is of much use other than for selling coffee mugs with a photo slapped on it.
Thus I come back to my original assertion - while "serious photographers" may use it in an almost obligatory fashion for whatever marketing benefits they can derive from it, anyone who can sell a photo for millions would have most probably been able to do so without a FB page.
From a marketing perspective, I see FB in the same way as a flyer from Harbor Freight.
Peter Lik is a mediocre photographer at best yet he managed to build a name for himself that would command that kind of money. In his case, it's all about brand recognition.
Jim, as far as salesmanship and quality you're right, they do not mean the same thing. I've stated this story a couple times over the years, but here it is again. I was at a photo seminar back in the early 90's and during one of the coffee breaks the presenter said to a few of us during the break; "...my biggest competitor is not the better photographer, it is the better salesperson...."
I've personally not seen that perspective change to date.....
Discussion
20 repliesWhile many use FB to help drive traffic to their sites or products/services, there seems to be a developing trend of serious photographers posting their serious work there. The abysmal display of photos on FB - massive JPEG compression - and a really clunky interface for commenting leaves me wondering what the attraction is. Could it be that a zillion views from the uninformed masses trumps all?
While NPN maintains a FB page to help drive traffic here, why would anyone who cares about their photography post their "serious work" photos on FB knowing all the downsides (poor display, copyright issues of your photos, etc.)?
As always, your thoughts and comments are appreciated!
Hi JIm,
I have had little success with facebook. I set up my Fine Art America sales page to post new pictures on my FB pages. Serious photos never get the critiques that we get here on NPN. I have only sold 2 images in 2 years so it has not really made an impact regarding sales. Post a picture of a baby, cat, or dog or combination of both and the complements flow in. Facebook might come in handy by broadening the audience for NPN, but it is hard to find the gems in all of the on-line mud.............................Jim
Jim, I'm sure there are reasons for their being on FB and trying to muster up sales or traffic. Beyond that I can't see the attraction. Now it's easy for me to say, I've never BEEN to FB in any capacity. I would think folks in wedding photography, social gathering type photo events, rock concerts and the like it would be a fantastic connecting tool. But for serious nature photo work and critiquing I do not see a use at all........I've been wrong before, once, this could be a second time......
I agree with you on all counts, Jim. I don't post serious photos there for the reasons you mention (image infringement in particular) and seldom even a snapshot. I do post links to my blog on FB though and I get quite a few views that way.
Hi Jim, I do have a business page on FB, but it is not meant to showcase my nature photos. I mainly use it to get my name out there, because I lost my job some time ago and I am now trying to make a living from photography, In The Netherlands it is almost impossible to make a living from nature photography, so the photos I do showcase are horses, pets and just occasionally some nature photos. It is just meant to let people see where my passion is coming from. For serious critique I think it is completely useless.
I don't use FB, but I can make one guess in that it is apparently easy to "follow" other friends/photographers on FB. Whenever someone you have "friended" posts a photo, it will end up on your FB page so you can check it out, thus making a social cricle. (I think, but have never done this.) I have never understood why so many of the RMNP forum left NPN for Facebook for just the reasons you said Jim, so my guess is the only thing I can think of. I don't think they care about the critique aspect any more, but desire the social aspect. There's nowhere better than NPN for photo critiques.
I am a new NPN member, I have attemted to use FB to help drive traffic to our workshop site, but it really hasn't been that effective. Personnal FB page has been idle for years and I never really understood the whole thing. I can see where people with large families can stay in touch, but I really got tired of seeing my so called FB friends photos from the beach or out at a bar. I watch people wih thier phones and I am amazed that some people will sit there with their heads down looking into the phone saying they like this and that and then trying to show veido to everyone on a 3 inch screen. I guess thats enough for now.
I believe FB is very useful for many. For example, a dog rescue group I follow/support uses it very effectively to educate the masses on dog rescue and to find dogs homes. I'm sure there are many other kinds of uses that make plenty of sense, but by a photography group to post photos? For the reasons mentioned so far in this thread, it seems odd when better venues are available.
Maybe it's not the photography they are interested in anymore?
I think social media in all it's various incarnations is a scourge. I will not participate in it. I have toyed with the idea of starting a small blog with a few images to be used mainly as a driver for folks to visit my main site.
There has been a migration of NPN members to other sites, including FB, but I don't have any hard numbers. Like Carol, I really don't understand why, given the most excellent benefits and the community spirit here at NPN.
Just my personal opinion, but every artist can benefit from critique of their work, regardless of their level of skill. The excuse, " I don't need critiques any longer." just doesn't hold water for me.
--P
I don't do FB, it's way too expensive and nothing more than a data gathering and profiling tool.
Short answer, NO from my perspective. I have a personal FB page mainly to stay in touch with family and friends since most are far away. I also have a business page, Eva McDermott Photography. Most of what I post there has been posted on my website and NPN before. I also post when I am having a local showing (Boothbay ME, Atkinson NH, Southport ME) then share on my personal page. Those shows have attracted some friends as well as local photographers. Good for meet ups but not sales. In general, most followers are also photographers so no chance of a sale from that crowd. You like my page, I'll like yours. No, FB has not led to any sales for me but serves as a vehicle to stay in touch with family and potentially "meet" other photographers with like interests. Last autumn I met up in the White Mountains of NH with a women from England who had taken a workshop with Ian Cameron who I met through Ian's Transient Light Group on Flickr but was also FB. I have connected with many other photographers with like interests on FB - both local and a far. Most of the images I have sold are through the Boothbay Region Art Foundation and my website. I have sold a few through Deviantart and RedBubble but no major sales to write home about, and no sales from FB. If you want to expand your reach, FB wants you to pay (sorry, but screw that). I'm am sure some photographers use FB effectively for business (or make it sound like they do) but in general I don't think that is the case for most others. People share a lot of junk on FB especially links to meaningless stuff that does not interest me. I usually unfriend them after 3 such posts. BTW Jim - I like your dog stories and links to the great work that Mary's Dogs does...... FB is more about interests and not business to me....... To each his own......... But don't me started on 500px popularity contest. Many use FB to get more likes on 500px to get on the front page. FB and 500px popularity does NOT make one a great photographer.
I enjoy sharing images, so having a Facebook page is fine with me. I certainly don't think of it as a portfolio or critique forum, so I can live with the fact that the image quality is brutal.
Simply put, it can be an effective business tool. I've been able to generate sales and tour signups via Facebook (far more than NPN, in large part because I'm mainly just reaching my peers here). I never post large/high res. images there--heck, I barely post anything much larger here for that matter--because thievery is always a concern. Facebook's policy of throttling traffic is annoying as well, but sometimes it does pay to promote certain posts.
I think a lot of the "success" one might have on social media depends on the type of photo business you run and also your audience. Some photographers get a boatload of people Sharing their work, which is a great way to expand one's audience. Others generate a lot of print sales. There are a lot of photographers who see it as a waste of time, but it can be effective in the right circumstances.
I'd be curious to hear what Morkel thinks, since he probably has the largest FB following here. Over 200,000 Likes (which is a lot, for the uninitiated)!
Max
I'm with Max Waugh, I enjoy sharing images. And I agree with his comments. For example:
"I certainly don't think of it as a portfolio or critique forum, so I can live with the fact that the image quality is brutal.
Simply put, it can be an effective business tool."
Last week a print sale and a request from an established Texas artist CJ Latta (Painter) to use my work. And when I ask how they found me, FB is the answer most of the time.. So it's free advertisement. But you have to work it
I too, am in the Max camp. Although I don't partake in social media other than NPN, there are certain types of photo businesses that use FB effectively. The Ski photo business being the one I am familiar with. Had I not left 3 1/2 + years ago, it would have been the next step for us. The folks that succeeded us, as well as a few others, (Vail resorts for one), use RF card readers to sort images to specific clients and post images directly to their FB accounts, at no cost, that they can then order prints from or not. It's an effective strategy that keeps the images in front of potential print purchasers longer as well as keeping their brand out there being shared and passed around to potential clientele. A very deliberate and focused marketing tool that is very cost effective. For socially centric activities such as skiing, kid sports, etc., I see it as a valuable tool. It isn't appropriate for all situations, however.
No doubt FB is an excellent way to promote products and services. In case you are not aware, to add to their current $14 billion in yearly ad revenue they will soon be offering this as well (which is supposedly a $350 billion a year market).
So the consensus seems to be that FB is excellent for product/service promotion (including photography) but that for critical image display and photo critique/discussion, it falls well short of other venues like NPN - at least until they can figure out how to make billions doing that as well.
I miss the Internet of old when surfing it was like going to a flea market with countless small vendors. Today, it's more like a walk down Wall Street, dominated by multi-billion dollar corporations that seem to be growing bigger/wealthier by the day.
This is why I said things like FB are a scourge.
On a related note: Walk down Main Street USA and see how many brick & mortar storefronts are empty. They are empty for the same reason. /end rant/
--P
Depends on what you want. If you want thoughtful critique - well, maybe not. If you want exposure - certainly. The sheer number of FB profiles from well-known and well-respected photographers answers the question in the title, in my opinion. FB is the biggest photo sharing site on the planet, after all, and if you want to have a wide audience look at your work, you should probably use it. No?
I think using FB to direct views to a website where your work is displayed better than something barely worthy of cell phone snap shots, yes.
Agreed.
Here's a link to the 10 most expensive photographs sold:
http://resourcemagonline.com/2014/08/most-expensive-photographs/41214/
I submit based on those images that the quality of the image has little or no positive correlation to the sales price. It is all about marketing. (In some of the cases there are other factors that drove the price, but largely marketing). FB is a marketing tool. I'd love to have seen the comments posted here if some of those images were to have been posted for critique.
Keith, that is some interesting perspective on this discussion!
Though I very much doubt that FB had anything to do with the sale of those images, it does illustrate very well that it is "all about marketing" and that beauty (and value) is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Peter Lik is a mediocre photographer at best yet he managed to build a name for himself that would command that kind of money. In his case, it's all about brand recognition.
With so many trying to leverage FB for the promotion of their photography - and the fact that most think of FB as nothing more than a social media site overflowing with amateurish snap shots of family vacations - it's hard to imagine that it is of much use other than for selling coffee mugs with a photo slapped on it.
Thus I come back to my original assertion - while "serious photographers" may use it in an almost obligatory fashion for whatever marketing benefits they can derive from it, anyone who can sell a photo for millions would have most probably been able to do so without a FB page.
From a marketing perspective, I see FB in the same way as a flyer from Harbor Freight.
Jim, as far as salesmanship and quality you're right, they do not mean the same thing. I've stated this story a couple times over the years, but here it is again. I was at a photo seminar back in the early 90's and during one of the coffee breaks the presenter said to a few of us during the break; "...my biggest competitor is not the better photographer, it is the better salesperson...."
I've personally not seen that perspective change to date.....