Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Photo "clutter" becoming a problem?

Reply
Thread Tools

Photo "clutter" becoming a problem?

 
 
MC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2012
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online

> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
> >
> >
> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
> > This is the point I am making.
> >

>
> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
> orders too.


I did say "worth their salt". )

MC
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2012
"MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> >
>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online

>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
>> > This is the point I am making.
>> >

>>
>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
>> orders too.

>
> I did say "worth their salt". )


True.

So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2012
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:05:28 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> There are several published profressional photographers who have
>>> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online tutorials,
>>> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books. There are some who
>>> became well known published professionals by doing that. There are
>>> some still doing that.

>>
>>
>> Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
>> using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work. This
>> is the point I am making.
>>

>
>That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list who
>use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer orders
>too.


As a user of SmugMug, though not a professional, I object to SmugMug
being grouped with Flickr as a showcase.

Flickr is a photo host primarily used by people who want both exposure
and (usually undeserved) excessive praise for their photos. For most
users, it seems that the exchange of inane compliments is more
important than anything else.

It is possible to leave a comment on a photo linked to a SmugMug
linked photo, but it's rather uncommon. Certainly, there's no
pressure to compliment my photo so I will compliment your photo. I'm
not sure, but I think only the SmugMug site owner sees the comments.

I regularly follow the Digital Grin forums, so I regularly view
SmugMug hosted photos. Digital Grin is hosted by SmugMug, so most of
the links in DG are to SmugMug-hosted photos. However, a link to any
photo host can be used in DG forums.

This is not a knock on Flickr, by the way. For some people, it works
just fine and they get out of it what they want with a photo host. I
would be surprised, though, to find many professional photographers
using Flickr unless they use Flickr just for their own family
snapshots. Even professional photographers have families and
relatives that they want to send the current snaps to.

SmugMug has three levels of membership: Basic, Power, and Pro. A
Basic membership (which I have) allows me to disable the ability of
others to buy my photographs. I wouldn't be compensated if someone
would purchase an image of mine if that feature wasn't disabled. If I
had a Pro membership, I could set the prices and be compensated.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
>>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
>>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
>>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
>>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
>>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
>>> > This is the point I am making.
>>> >
>>>
>>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
>>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
>>> orders too.

>>
>> I did say "worth their salt". )

>
>True.
>
>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.



Or back in the land of circular arguments.

It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
everything in between.

Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
snapshots appear on the screen.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2012
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>> "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
>>>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
>>>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
>>>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
>>>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
>>>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
>>>> > This is the point I am making.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
>>>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
>>>> orders too.
>>>
>>> I did say "worth their salt". )

>>
>>True.
>>
>>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

>
>
> Or back in the land of circular arguments.
>
> It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
> will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
> images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
> everything in between.


Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.

In practice, they differ.

Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
that reason.

> Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
> variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
> site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
> ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
> snapshots appear on the screen.


I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such. Sure, there's junk too,
and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
events I was at or some such. I probably take sane search strategies
for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-13-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

>>
>> Or back in the land of circular arguments.
>>
>> It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
>> will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
>> images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
>> everything in between.

>
>Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.
>
>In practice, they differ.
>
>Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
>any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
>free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
>that reason.



I can only guess at the proportions in the categories such as
outstanding/excellent/good/mediocre/bad/appalling/SI, but experience
shows that they are all (except the SI) represented to some extent or
other. But I conceded that you may have a point about free accounts.


>> Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
>> variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
>> site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
>> ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
>> snapshots appear on the screen.

>
>I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
>find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such. Sure, there's junk too,
>and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
>events I was at or some such. I probably take sane search strategies
>for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.



I mostly ignore the junk, but even there you can find the occasional
gem, perhaps something that someone snapped almost by accident, and it
just happened to work. It's the converse to putting a lot of effort
into lighting, composition and exposure only to find that the result
is a disappointment.

The important thing about using Flickr is not to complain about the
junk.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2012
In rec.photo.digital MC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:


>> In rec.photo.digital MC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > RichA wrote:

>>
>> >> Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming

>> dumping >> grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly
>> in this >> article.
>>
>> > That is why serious photographers should avoid these sites where
>> > their own images are concerned. No decent photographer worth his
>> > salt should even consider using them.

>>
>> That's like saying no serious writer would ever consider blogging
>> because most blogging is rubbish.


> They are not using the blog to produce their next novel, though.


Blogging not really a suitable format in which to develop a novel. But
it could for other kinds of serious writing, and is used for that
purpose. It allows the development of drafts in something akin to a
on-line tutorial or seminar series.

>> There are several published profressional photographers who have
>> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online tutorials,
>> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books. There are some who
>> became well known published professionals by doing that. There are
>> some still doing that.


> Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
> using flickr type sites to showcase their own photographic work. This
> is the point I am making.


Showcasing is only one of the possible uses of Flickr
etc.. Photographic writers have used Flickr etc to develop
photographic tutorial materials which are later published in book
form. Photography students like me use Flickr to find people who are
masters of a certain technique and willing to discuss how they do it.
I find that works very well.

>> The British Copyright Library is by definition a dumping ground of
>> everything published on paper. It's also an invaluable much used
>> resource for serious writers.


> "Published" is the keyword. The British Copyright Library does not
> contain EVERYTHING on paper though, does it?


The point of web-based knowledge sources is that they do contain
everything. Which means that from your point of view the web is chock
full of complete nonsense and therefore no serious writer would ever
use it to publish any of their work, partly because nobody would ever
be able to find it. But what Google et al have pointed out is that the
totally undiscriminating dumping ground of the web can be an extremely
useful educational resource given good searching methods. Consequently
the web, despite being the most comprehensive and undiscriminationg
dumping ground ever devised, is also both a very useful library and a
very useful publishing medium.

The same goes for Flickr etc. Like the web, they are what you make of
them.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>"MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >>>> "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >>>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
> >>>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
> >>>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
> >>>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
> >>>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
> >>>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
> >>>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
> >>>> > This is the point I am making.
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
> >>>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
> >>>> orders too.
> >>>
> >>> I did say "worth their salt". )
> >>
> >>True.
> >>
> >>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

> >
> >
> > Or back in the land of circular arguments.
> >
> > It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
> > will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
> > images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
> > everything in between.

>
> Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.
>
> In practice, they differ.
>
> Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
> any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
> free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
> that reason.


Check again. Flickr's free accounts offer unlimited storage. What they
limit is the number of images displayed and the amount of data that can
be uploaded in a single month.

> > Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
> > variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
> > site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
> > ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
> > snapshots appear on the screen.

>
> I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
> find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such. Sure, there's junk too,
> and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
> events I was at or some such. I probably take sane search strategies
> for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2012
On Jan 18, 1:30*pm, "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>
> > > David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >>"MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > >>>> "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > >>>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > >>>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
> > >>>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
> > >>>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
> > >>>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
> > >>>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.

>
> > >>>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
> > >>>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
> > >>>> > This is the point I am making.

>
> > >>>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
> > >>>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
> > >>>> orders too.

>
> > >>> I did say "worth their salt". *)

>
> > >>True.

>
> > >>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

>
> > > Or back in the land of circular arguments.

>
> > > It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
> > > will make use of it to store images. *Some people will store great
> > > images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
> > > everything in between.

>
> > Theory is great. *In theory, theory in practice are the same.

>
> > In practice, they differ. *

>
> > Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
> > any wide dumping of big collections. *In fact, you may find that the
> > free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
> > that reason.

>
> Check again. *Flickr's free accounts offer unlimited storage. *What they
> limit is the number of images displayed and the amount of data that can
> be uploaded in a single month.


Yes, you can display the last 200 images uploaded, and as you say
there's a limit on
the amount you can upload each month with a free account 100MB.
I'm at 186 at the moment.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
> > > variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
> > > site. *The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
> > > ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
> > > snapshots appear on the screen.

>
> > I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
> > find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such. *Sure, there's junk too,
> > and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
> > events I was at or some such. *I probably take sane search strategies
> > for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2012
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>> > It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
>> > will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
>> > images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
>> > everything in between.

>>
>> Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.
>>
>> In practice, they differ.
>>
>> Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
>> any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
>> free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
>> that reason.

>
> Check again. Flickr's free accounts offer unlimited storage. What they
> limit is the number of images displayed and the amount of data that can
> be uploaded in a single month.


If you can't get it back, it's not "stored" there in any sense that
matters to me. And the limits are so harsh that I can't upload even my
edited-down albums from events. The free account really can't
effectively be used as a dumping ground due to the limits.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My experience becoming an MCAD David Kavanagh MCSD 24 09-04-2005 01:16 AM
javascript references becoming undefined when adding validators =?Utf-8?B?TWlsZXM=?= ASP .Net 3 08-11-2005 03:32 PM
OT: jtyc-- u are becoming a colonial power.. welcome billyw MCSE 90 02-01-2005 04:17 PM
jobs after becoming certified dennis Microsoft Certification 5 01-22-2004 07:19 PM
Becoming MCSD in a strange way mna MCSD 2 09-16-2003 10:16 AM



Advertisments