DP Investigates...Social Networking

[HayleyEPaterek]

For our next issue we are looking to investigate the impact of Social Networking in Photography.

Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Flickr not only make a difference to how we communicate with each other but can also have the power to help launch a career in photography. Equally, in reverse these sites do have a downside, making it difficult to really get noticed amongst the masses, with some photographer's practically giving away their work just to get published.

What are your thoughts on social networking sites? Do you use them for your photography? And do you think they have a positive or negative impact on the photographic industry?

[NigelD]

I don't use Facebook and Twitter but I use Flickr for gleaning information on my cameras and the way to do things in Photoshop. I also run a small Group in there called Photoshop Fixes Group where a group of folks just have fun playing around with images in a weekly challenge. Its open to anyone and we have all levels of experience and ability - just a good way of getting to know people.

I don't use it for professional reasons, purely social.

[Medley]

I don't use social networking sites as a display out let, but I do use them for pointing to my website. Spokes leading to a hub, if you will.

- Joe U.

[Keitht]

I don't use any of the social networking sites although I do have a Facebook account which was created for the sole purpose of passing on some photographs taken on holiday last year. I haven't accessed since posting the images.

I really don't understand why people want/need to share the minutiae of their lives with the rest of the world.

[4colourprogress]

I really don't understand why people want/need to share the minutiae of their lives with the rest of the world.

If you want to become "famous" these days you have to be prepared to be on Twitter/Facebook all the time promoting your work and yourself, your photographs are important sure, but now with how easy it is to access information people want to know about the person behind the camera too.

Take Trey Ratcliff for example he has posted new images on his website and Facebook accounts every single day for the past 3 years and posted countless Tweets and to be honest most of the shots are pretty crap. The fact is if you give people a reason to keep coming back they are less likely to forget about you.

Unfortunately if you want to become famous it's very much Quantity over Quality.

I plan on using Twitter a lot more once Pixel Cove is launched, my Facebook is used all the time but I rarely upload my photos to it as you loose all ownership rights to the photographs as soon as you upload them.

Google + on the other hand is a different story, every photographer should get over there and start sharing their work ASAP, why? You retain all the rights to your photographs

[ALwin]

...Facebook is used all the time but I rarely upload my photos to it as you loose all ownership rights to the photographs as soon as you upload them.

Really? Guess I don't have to worry then since I've only uploaded a few photos to FB, which I've now deleted.

I think I'll keep my photos on Flickr and my site for the time being and just post the URLs on FB and G+.

[4colourprogress]

This is from Facebook's T&C's

"...you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

What that essentially is saying is, even if you delete your profile as long as you or your friends have any of your shared content Facebook can do whatever they want with it! (as they own it) without giving you money or attribution.

So yeah as you say posting the Links into facebook is the best way to do it.

[Rosie]

Social networking is often looked down on, but i think if you're savvy you can really work it to your advantage and promote yourself to thousands of people for free.
As long as you're not using it to tell the world what you ate for breakfast, then I think it has massive benefits. Many photographers have been discovered via flickr and got their big break from it, which is pretty amazing

[ALwin]

This is from Facebook's T&C's

"...you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

What that essentially is saying is, even if you delete your profile as long as you or your friends have any of your shared content Facebook can do whatever they want with it! (as they own it) without giving you money or attribution.

So yeah as you say posting the Links into facebook is the best way to do it.

Are you absolutely sure Google is just as safe?

Here is section 11.1 from their terms: http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en

You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

[4colourprogress]

I read this http://imgur.com/gallery/lNh82

[ALwin]

I read this http://imgur.com/gallery/lNh82

Hmm I see, well in the mean time I will continue to use FB and G+ (when I have time) to share my work by posting links to my site and my flickr account. Better safe than sorry as they say.

[erika24]

I'm surprised that so few people use Facebook on here. I thought it was a very popular platform.

My views on Twitter are mixed. On the one hand, I don't like using it - it takes forever to find the right people to follow and to get people following you and it's all a bunch of updates and nothing really interesting on there to read.

Yet on the other hand, one has to be prepared to use Twitter if they want to be noticed in the media. That is today's reality. In the UK, Twitter is used as a news-breaking tool and it's often that the events are out first there and then on the BBC (same with Fb sometimes, but more rarely, as it is only disseminating messages to a limited crowd).

I can't see them as having a big impact on the photographic industry. If one has a website and publishes photography links on Twitter, I am not completely sure they will get a big amount of popularity. It is a safer bet to do engine optimisation and to get contacts in a professional network and sponsors, which to diseseminate one's photography, rather than wasting time putting them on Fb and Twitter.

[dombower]

F

Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Flickr not only make a difference to how we communicate with each other but can also have the power to help launch a career in photography. Equally, in reverse these sites do have a downside, making it difficult to really get noticed amongst the masses, with some photographer's practically giving away their work just to get published.

What are your thoughts on social networking sites? Do you use them for your photography? And do you think they have a positive or negative impact on the photographic industry?

I use them all, twitter, facebook, youtube, and some others that i forget. all is good, the more you get out on the sites the more hits you get the more recognition etc, people who are giving away stuff for free are either not that good at it in the first place to get paying clients or are not finding a way to get paid for their work in ways that exceed the benefits of cash.