The photography world has changed beyond anyone’s imagination with the evolution of digital and social media. There seems to be a whole new culture and I am very curious to hear all your opinions about these changes. I hope you will share your opinions through the comment section of this blog (just click the comment link at the bottom of this post)
What brought me to finally take a risk to discuss this, is the launch of Google+. In the beginning, we had the launch of Flicker a photo sharing sight, followed by 500 px and then several others. We had the launch of Facebook and Twitter which were followed by more social media outlets. When Google+ launched about year ago, the photographers flocked to it creating a large powerful photo sharing social media platform.
After spending several months on Google+ my observation, as I don’t have enough information to form a true opinion, is that there are many situations where popularity is becoming more important than the quality of the work or the credibility of the photographer. Having prior experience with other social media networks there were those that jumped on board Google+ early during the beta testing. When the platform was open to the public, they quickly gained followers in the 1,000 and then 100,000 or more. I witnessed photographers gain success from their ability to create a large audience but who had never even had a website, been published or had any real credibly of their photography skills. Great marketing? Or misleading?
Social media is a great way for photographers to market their work and I believe it would be foolish not to use such a great tool. I love being able to discover so many talented photographers whose work I may never have seen or been inspired by, if we had only the past medium of the publishing world. We saw only the work of a few who were extraordinarily talented and whom were able to capture the attention of an editor. However, as we head into this new era, are the iconic photographer’s such as Steve McCurry, Art Wolf, and Annie Leibovitz becoming a thing of the past. I am not saying this is good or bad, just different. That is why I am curious to know your view on this to help me better form my opinion.
In this new culture there seems to be a greater importance on popularity and who is following a person rather than the accomplishments from their talent. Is having credibility such as; being published, having a contract with a large stock agency, or working in the field on assignment still matter? Or is being popular by building a community though all the social media outlets going to be what creates the hero’s of the new photography world?
This is not meant to create a heated discussion but I am incredibly curious about your own observations and opinions. I am curious if this new culture has had an impact on the way you view a photographer you discover over social media rather than in the more traditional formats. I want everyone to feel they can openly share their thoughts and opinions so please do not make negative opinions of some else’s comments. No opinions are right or wrong, they are interesting because they will all be different based on one’s own experience. If you are reading this and are an editor, publisher or agent, I think we would love to have your view on this subject.
All too often, the “names” that people follow MAY not be the most talented in any given area, whether it is photography, wilderness skills, etc. In today’s world of social media and reality TV, the people with Type-A personalities who are good at marketing themselves have great capability to build a following. Having large numbers of folks who are interested in their work may have more to do with their personality or marketing skills than the quality of their work. All too often, we see the on-line photo contests where the winners are the ones with the most “friends” who “like” their work, not the images with the highest quality.
I really don’t see this as a problem. I think the bigger problem is that too many people don’t realize this and perhaps seek out better “local” experts in their area of interest at times…
Great post, Piper!
Thanks for you comments Robert, this is just something I have been very curious about and really wanted to know what others think! It is a great marketing tool but sometimes its hard to watch how it is being used when you really know the background of a person and what they are portraying is quite different than what is…….
I believe the new digital world changes the viewer much more than it changes the photographer. Having exponentially greater access to photographers worldwide means that the casual web-surfer can run across untold millions of images of every conceivable subject from every conceivable angle or lighting condition, but what that really means is that the average viewer is saturated with mediocre images. There are still great photographers who care about their art and take great pains to create lasting images with maximum impact, but you now have to wade through a thousand other yahoos with iPhones and a Facebook account in order to view those few diamonds in the rough. In the past, only those diamonds made it far enough to earn to approval of an editor and get printed, published and thereafter admired by an appreciative public, but now, everybody’s got a camera that does a lot of the hard work of picking aperture and shutter speed for them.
What this means for the professional is that it is no longer sufficient to take a “good” photo; one must now seek out subjects no one else has seen, under unusual conditions, and capture them on a memory card in such a way that goes beyond what the casual vacationing shutterbug might get. What we all must also bear in mind, however, is the flip side of the coin: just because there are a million mediocre or downright bad photos out there on the Internet doesn’t diminish the value of what we do as professionals, but it does mean we must do more to distinguish our work from that of the guy who drops a few grand on a high end camera and fancies himself a professional photographer.
Great comment Micheal!! And I agree. I think it has made me push myself harder to create more powerful photographs and to become a better photographer!
Michael, agree with what you said. But do you think somebody who is looking for something to put on their wall will be satisfied with mediocre quality just because it’s the first best thing they found on the Internet? I would hope that people will still seek out the good stuff. That doesn’t mean though that they always have to choose the established photographers. The digital revolution has given lots of people the opportunity to evolve as photographers, I would include myself in that group. That no doubt puts lots of pressure on the established ones and, as Piper says, pushes them hard to become even better.
Astrid… I think some of my curiosity is more from those who do buy the professional gear, take a trip or two, put up a lot of photographs over a year and then start offering workshops (teaching) and tours(getting photographers to amazing places at the right time) My concern is that these are not cheap and the photographer is very inexperienced….and I question if they are truly there for their clients or their own agenda…. New photographers have had some bad experiences with this and that is very sad…. If a person wants to move in that direction it is great! and I hope myself and other photographers can inspire younger photographers to do so… but knowing your skill level and misrepresenting it is an integrity issue for me.
Piper, totally agree. I have seen people do exactly that. One can only hope that they will be found out sooner or later.
On one side of the coin, some people settle for middling quality images because they’re good enough for the non-photographer and match the drapes… and they’re $30 with a crappy frame from your local department store. So if you’re going to far flung places and selling your prints for $300, they’d better be ten times as good (in the eyes of your customer) or they’re going to choose the crappy ones in order to save money. On the other side of the coin, because consumer digital technology has gotten so good, the professional has to exert that much more effort to create something that truly stops people in their tracks. In this day and age, it’s simply too easy to snap a decent photo of something, so your potential audience might very well say, “Yeah, that’s nice, but I can take just as good a photo with my iPhone or my POS pocket camera, so why would I pay $100 for this picture of a flower? What’s that? It’s endangered and you had to fight off a jaguar and climb a cliff in a thunderstorm to take it, and you had to wait until just the right moment when the sun dropped below the cloud level so the light was just right? It looks like a flower you can buy at Home Depot for $4.99. I think I’ll just frame a picture of my dog EATING the flower that looks like your endagered species and call it good.”
As to what Piper said, the hobbyist who buys a higher end camera and immediately calls themselves a professional misses the point entirely. The camera is only a tool, and can only produce great art when wielded by those who know what its capabilities and limitations are. The most important hardware in a photographer’s arsenal is the seven-pound squishy bit behind the camera itself. The camera captures, but it does not compose — the most expensive gear in the world will still take mediocre images if the photographer wielding it doesn’t have the vision to see the image in the scene before them.
I don’t know how many people buy mediocre prints based solely on the fame or notoriety of the photographer. I’d like to think that people would still judge the print on its merits first, but perhaps I’m naive, or simply try to give too much credit to the artistic sensibilities of the public at large.
Michael Thanks for the big laugh!!! And that brings up, that like the fisherman, it is not the size of the fish, but the story behind catching it. My father was a big fisherman for fun and oh the stories I got to hear when I was a child! Professionally editing my images is when I have a hard time separating my story from the quality of the image. But if your image does not have a great story, then stick with the iPhone (no disrespect, I use mine a lot) cause you have missed the whole point of trying to capture something truly amazing! and the madness behind us photographers 🙂
I think it is important to find the right balance between marketing, social interaction and restraint. Marketing is good, but being bombarded with 50 images every day is killing. I know from speaking to others that they too get “overloaded” by some photographers they follow. I think it helps a lot if at least some social interaction takes place, ie. if the photographer allows and reacts to comments, etc. although I understand that busy professionals don’t have too much time for that. I, as a potential customer (perhaps for booking a workshop) want to feel that the photographer cares.
Astrid, Thank you for your comments. It is hard to find a balance. I really enjoy the interaction I have with people through social media, especially because at times I spend so many hours at my computer, solitary. It allows me to stay connected. However these past few months I have almost been MIA because I found myself just drowning in deadlines..It is a challenge to just go on, post, and respond to some comments.. I soon find myself all over the place, commenting away, like I am at a party and then notice 2 hours have gone by…. I also love that I have found so many talented and inspiring photographers that I may never have known about. However the other side of that and perhaps a friend said it best ” it seems like high school for adults”…
This brings back the old question…
Which is going to be more successful…having an excellent product and average marketing,
or average product and excellent marketing?
Sadly, the later is usually more successful, simply because they are out there making sales to fund their development, while the person with excellent product may labour in obscurity and give up, thinking they aren’t good enough.
I do agree with your Post, and I’ve spoken with some people on the printing/developing side of things over the last few years and they say they are seeing the quality of the average image coming into their shops ‘decline’ over time. Part of the reason for this is that it’s now easy for basically anyone to start Posting photos on social media sites and gain a following…usually a following that gushes over pretty much anything you put up. With that sort of feedback, many photographers have little incentive to invest in any sort of improvement, so they continue to Post mediocre photos for their adoring fans.
I also hear you on the difference between people’s social media and real world personas. I shot with a photographer once who continually picked my brain on how and why I did things ‘my’ way…only to find my answers almost verbatim on ‘her’ social media Posts in response questions from her fans. She also Posted photos of my gear collection, leaving the impression (she never made outright claims) that it was all her gear, which only served to further enhance her credibility.
Will some average and/or mediocre photographers gain widespread acceptance/fame via social media? Sure they will. Will potential clients seek out ‘good enough’ images in an effort to save money? Sure they will. Will professionals have to keep raising the bar to stand out? Sure they will.
However, none of these things are truly new to photography. Working professionals (in any field) have always faced pressures to improve, and they have either adapted or found other vocations.
Thankfully you and your work are representative of the sort of photographer and work that I aspire to, and we know that you are successful because of your work, not simply because you happen to market well.
Cheers.
Hi Scott
My mentor has said to me for years, “It’s all in the marketing. There are a lot of great photographers that can’t make a living, and there are a lot of average photographers that are very successful. So yes it is the old question, but the marketing aside…is the popularity contest and those new to photography perhaps not knowing the difference in this new era.
I think I heard about the person you are describing and it happens more often than people realize.
I really loved your comments! stated with such wisdom. Thank you for the compliments on my work. I try hard to find the balance in marketing – it is hard because you need to let people know you have to offer but on the other hand the self promoting is tiring and difficult at times… that is why a lot of artist sit quietly and create and don’t make it their vocation.
I believe the art of photography will continue to produce exceptional artists. The truly dedicated and inspired photographers will always push themselves to do even better and won’t settle for the accolades of the casual passers by online. One of the downsides to social media is that so many mediocre and amateur photographers are able to get their work in front of such a larger audience who are willing to call their work great, when it may not be in reality so exceptional. The tools that are available to these amateur photographers to create a decent image without the actual skill and talent of a true photographer, are not going away though. The social networks that are available to the amateur, are available to the advanced and professional photographer also. So it would lead me to conclude that instead of this being viewed as a negative, the professionals are going to need to educate themselves and become proficient in this skill of marketing and self promotion as well. It ultimately is no different than two photographers from 100 years ago of matched skill… The one who didn’t just sit back and wait for someone to find him/her, but repeatedly showed their work to the local editor in their geographical region, or sent it by post to publishers, was the one who typically got published. Their competitor of equal skill who didn’t make this same effort was the one left unnoticed and unpublished. Social media is a powerful and invaluable tool in today’s marketing world… to not use it to it’s maximum potential for self promotion of your work because it is abused by some, would be like saying we shouldn’t use digital photography because people can manipulate it in ways they couldn’t with film. Those who cheat their way to the top are eventually always found out to be frauds… even if the general public praises them as masters of the art of photography, at the end of the day all they have won is a popularity contest, and we all know… popularity doesn’t pay any bills. The moral of the story? Adapt to the changing conditions or get left behind!
Hello Nathaniel
You comments are well stated. I think it is great that everyone is able to share their photography especially new and amateur photographers. This is a great way to connect with like minded people and get feed back on their work. The problem is a lot of times they are not getting honest feed back. This can be misleading and someone that is not quite at the level they should be may take risks to transition into trying to make a living at it much sooner than they should. The other problem is when a person knows their work is average and is running a popularity contest thinking if I can fool enough people they will build an audience and sell to them… if they are selling their work to them, my hats off to them!!.. if they are selling information in an area they have no credibility in, then that seems to cross an ethical boundary for me. I want to encourage anyone passionate about photography to share it and use the tools available to get yourself to the next level, but do it with integrity for the purity of the art itself.
Social media is a great tool and should be used by the professionals, however a lot of professionals are so busy doing their jobs and meeting deadlines that they don’t all have the time to invest in begin the most popular…as many others do….But I agree with you %100, you must flow with the changes or you will get left behind.
When I first got invited to G+, I was very active. I was interacting with some great photographers and even more impressively I had access to Pros I admire such as yourself and Moose Peterson that even 2 years ago I never dreamed of having. I immediately rearranged my circles, I created a “Pros” circle to make sure I didn’t miss any of the inspiration and information they were passing down the line. A “beginners” circle to help others that requested it which simply dried up and they got frustrated or bored, and a “don’t miss” circle for the people posting consistent and inspirational work I didn’t want to miss. Then the popularity contests began and the cliques developed. The posts were yet another photo of themselves, or another soft out of focus flower with a poem. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but the real photographic creativity waned among the people I was following. I am far from a pro, but I know enough to help beginners get moving in the right direction, but even they were drowned out by the popularity seekers who apparently have WAY more time than most people to take and post photos.
Shortly after I joined G+ I also joined up with a local group of photographer of all ages and skill levels. I think I have learned more going out with them than I had since I started taking photos as a kid. This also allowed me to spend more time out taking photos and less time talking about taking photos which I was spending far to much time doing. I now use G+ more as a an access tool by continuing to follow the pros I admire, a social tool to keep in touch with a few fellow wildlife photographers, but much less as a daily source of inspiration or learning. I’ve reverted back to following specific blogs for those things to avoid the photographic “noise” you have to wade through to fine the gems on G+ now. Maybe I just need to review my circles again. I still spend time there, but it can be measured in minutes a day now instead of hours.
Michael Lawson
Amen!! I wish most of the people using social media did so for he very reasons you stated. My hats off to you! and I hope everyone takes the time to read through your comment. It was so well stated I have nothing to add but I feel the same way.
Wow Piper, great discussion topic that could go on for quite a while. I too have been wondering about the “value added” for the time I have invested in Facebook and Google+; on the one hand, access to some great photographers, known and unknown, is a plus. However, there is sometimes, an overwhelming flow of visual information and you just have to let some of it go. I do think the really good photography gets noticed, but its clear that the issue of self promotion and popularity is a driving force. It seems more and more people tend to be followers rather than leaders.. so when they see someone with thousands of “followers”; they jump on that train… perhaps they like the photography, but I think they also do not want to be “left out” of the group. So, does marketing and self promotion trump talent, sometimes… and not just in photography; but also in other endeavors such as music, dance, etc. Just look at TV these days; American Idol, Duets, America’s Got Talent, Dancing with the Stars, etc. It seems our society has reduced almost everything to a reality show and a popularity contest… Which leads me to my bottom line here… we cannot easily change the nature of social media, so we best figure out how to survive and thrive. I think the secret is to not look at social media as an end, but rather as a means to drive interest in your work, and to drive people to your website, studio, classes, tours or whatever. To do that, we must find some way to be noticed above the din… and I think that once you get past the obvious need for talent and good work, a lot of what gets you noticed is to give a bit of yourself as well, enter the dialogue, thank them for comments when you can, open up a bit, let folks see who you are as well as what you do so they feel a kinship with you as an individual.. and not just with a portfolio of pretty pictures.
Hi Gary
THanks for dropping in and commenting. I think you and I may have touched base on this topic before. I guess we have to give FB more credit these days… because of the way it is set up I never saw it as a popularity contest and feel I really have a great community there. With twitter there did seem to be a bit of a contest to see who could get the most followers. When I first started with Google + I loved the idea of circles -for example I have a circle of female photographs I admire and I could easily and quickly take a look at what they were doing. However, over a rather short period of time it seemed that there were so many whose motivation was to gain popularity like a high school contest… not using it for self promotion and marketing.. but to comment and post just to get the most followers and be in the most circles.. this started to really turn me off and I found myself on there less…. as when I was on there is started to feel more like a contest than a community…. and I was wondering if others felt this way.
Piper, thanks for the reply to my comment… and yes, I agree that many of these sights fall victim to the popularity contest phenomena… Sort of reminds me of that scene from the movie Shrek… where the donkey (Eddie Murphy) is jumping up and down in the crowd of forrest critters yelling “Pick Me, Pick Me”…. Hope I gave you cause for a smile today! In your case, you need not worry about the popularity contest or those that play that game…… your work speaks well for you and your talent…..
Gary, you made me laugh out loud and I may have to use that in a post!! Thanks for the laughs as now I have to get back to a daunting day of finishing the final edits on the ebook. Through this experience I think I prefer to spend more time with my community here with a discussion like this than on social media if time is short and I have to chose one over the other. THank you for your final comment..I am not so worried about the effect it can have on my business so to speak but that it makes me feel less inclined to participate and that is not good either.
Have a wonderful weekend.
I’m a boat builder and an amateur photographer with 4000 G+ followers….interesting photos never quite in focus or properly exposed (just to set the record straight). I discovered dozens of amazing wildlife photogaphers with G+ so I can’t complain. But there does seem to be a bit too much narcissistic emphasis on who’s following who.
It’s all too easy to add someone’s suggested circle, and suddenly end up following dozens of mediocre photographers (like myself?). I’ve gained a lot from social image sharing. But there does need to be a better global rating mechanism.
Thanks for sharing Colin. As a passionate female photographer I can be on the sensitive side.. I mean how can you be passionate and not be somewhat sensitive…. so at times I wonder if I am alone in my opinion… with so many people in the world I guess that may be impossible but I am glad I posted this.
Great topic Piper! I don’t condone anybody ripping off another photographers work or technique and representing it as their own, thats not right in any circumstance. Reading the thread there are a lot of comments about mediocre or poor photographers and I think we have to ask ourselves who is the appropriate judge? It is easy to criticize others for lack of technique or competence in their work but if their pictures are popular more power to them. Social media has created a lot of new photographers and made their work available to a broad audience and I think that has to be a good thing.
Hi Andy
I think by your first comment you have read through some of the comments. I don’t think people who were commenting meant to come across negatively about mediocre photographers…and I think the better phrase is amateur or beginner… It can be hard to communicate in writing because we don’t get to see ones expression or hear their tone. I think the comments were mostly in reference to being mislead or being misleading. I have actually been surprised by the quality and respect of the comments as I knew I may have touched a nerve and may have had some very emotional responses. I am touched to have such a quality community here on my blog. All though some may have gotten off track, which is what makes for even more great discussion, the overall comments were direct towards the way social media is being used by some for very self serving ways beyond the integrity of self promotion. The positives aside -meeting great people and inspiring photographers-what I think social media should be- is that I found if a lot of people were really honest, they would say they post and comment for the sole purpose of popularity and alternative motives… this just seemed to become very transparent in Google + more that any of the other social media sites… and I was wondering if others were also seeing this or was it my own hang up….
I always think using all the tools one has available is smart business but it is how one uses those tools that can be questionable or that will make me greatly admire them.
You are right, it is hard to imply the right tone in a blog response. Rather than being critical I am trying to convey the point that beauty or value is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes we lose sight of that and focus on ‘technical’ competence. As an example I attended a class with a top local commercial photographer whose standards were so high I swear I could not tell the difference between one picture and the next but it was clear he wasn’t satisfied and believed the first one was inferior. Do we sometimes get hung up with perceived quality versus how the average population view and value the work? What is good enough?
Hi Andy
I did not think you were being critical, I thought you may have seen some of the other comments as critical. We get way to hung up on perceived quality as well as gear…….
Photograph your passion, photograph what inspires you, use the camera as an excuse to explore new places, share your vision with the world, and remember- It does not have to be new, it has to be you!
Have a wonderful weekend.
There is no doubt we as photographers look at our photos differently than the “average population” as you stated. I have a photo of some clouds over a lake that was one of my first HDR experiments. The scene itself is pleasant, but I handheld the bracketed shots and even printed 8×10 I can see some pixelation in the image and it drives me mad. However, a friend of mine just had to have a print to hang in her new house she loved it so much. The technical side that bugs me is irrelevant and not noticible to her (even when I pointed out what bugged me), and when viewed from a reasonable distance it is a pleasing image I guess. An opposite example of that would be some Chickadee shots I have that I spend hours in front of the perches I set up in order to get a few good poses in sharp focus that I am happy with. To the average person it’s just another Chickadee, to me it’s the product of hours of devotion and I love the feather detail, the pose, the background, and consider it one of my best images.
To tie this back into social media, I think the problems lie when the popularity contests overlook both of those process. Instead of offering advice to improve a beginner in HDR, or admiring a shot that took hours of dedication to get, it’s all cooked down to how many “likes” we get, which is a relatively meaningless stat. There are people who like photos as a simple acknowledgment that you posted something, and has nothing to do if the image truly speaks to them in some wayt. There are others who roam just to criticize every image even if the poster didn’t ask for an opinion (an import difference between displaying your work on a social network and asking for a critique) usually invoking the name “Ansel Adams” as they do so. Also, so many people get so bent out of shape when they get a real critique, it’s hard for people who actually want an honest opinion to get one, the people who’s opinion I trust are all gun-shy or afraid of loosing followers and all you get now is a like and “Nice Capture”.
I have not tried to sell my work yet, and I’m not sure I want to take my hobby in that direction, so I don’t use social media for marketing. I try to use it to share, inspire others, give support to beginners, and generally gauge if my work is improving over time. You ask “What is good enough” and I think the problem is that it isn’t something any one else should answer for another person. It depends on what you want out of it. For me, if a shot is better than one I took previously and enjoyed, it’s “good enough” for me. Might not be great, but good enough to share and then improve upon again.
Michael, I am smiling as I read your example, I know that scenario too well! I used to post on Flickr and my goal was to get as many likes as possible and that soon became meaningless. I completely agree, in contrast getting constructive meaningful feedback would be incredibly valuable. I’m still wrestling to figure that out.
As to what is good enough, you’ve nailed it for me. Thank you!
I agree with you about the popularity of some new photographers on Google +. What has surprised me is the new attitudes they bring to photography. They openly invite others to download and use their photos for free. At the Google + conference Trey Ratcliffe said something like he puts very little thought or effort into the photo capture, the images are useless until the magic that all happens in Photoshop. I think I saw Moose Peterson have a heart attack in the background. It all makes me think, which is good. But it also worries me that a whole new generation of photographers may be listening to the wrong people and photography may suffer as a result. As for me, I quit following most of those guys just because I didn’t see any real soulful photography going on. It’s all about HDR, etc. Google + hasn’t seen much input from the likes of Joe McNally or Arte Wolfe, or David Duchemin. They post a little, but are not really engaged.
Great issue to bring up Piper!
I consider myself an advanced amateur who threw together a website to be able to share my work with friends and family. Once I joined FB/Twitter/G+ I got a huge rush from having a much wider audience for my images. This led to two things for me. First (and more importantly) I developed a core group of photographers (both pro & hobbyist) that I was able to interact with and learn/teach from/to. These folks were and are so valuable to me because they will give honest feedback on my work without the risk of offending. That is a HUGE plus!
The other thing was that I grew an audience – the ego side of me started to focus on teh “numbers” and for a while I was driven my my count of followers or a rating on 500px. Those 10,000 G+ followers made me feel I was “special”, but then I noticed that my posts got minimal traction there because most of those 10,000 followers were following a zillion others and never saw what I shared in the 1st place. As such, a huge potential audience yielded minimal in depth relationships. This is not a slap at G+, as I could devote more time there to developing relationships, but I find that keeping up with 3 or 4 social media streams is so time consuming that it would interfere with my real life relationships if I were to dedicate several hours daily to social media.
In short I feel most of the support we get from social media in the way of number of “likes” or fans is pretty “soft” – it is really up to each of us to build and cultivate the gardens of our online relationships. That’s where the value comes in for me as I am not trying to “sell” myself as mich as I am looking to make friends and find ways to improve my imagery.
THANKS Piper – you’re an inspiration!
Haven’t read all the comments so maybe someone has touched on this, maybe not.
This idea that ‘good enough’ is all that’s required now isn’t just pertinent to photographers who are popular on social media; and yes, social media is largely a popularity contest, but it’s also pertinent in the area of stock photography. The advent of the web and the ability to host images online has led to the creation of the microstock market. Buyers can now pay a few dollars for something that’s ‘good enough’ and don’t have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for something that’s really good. It has hurt the incomes of a lot of photographers who used to make a good portion of their livings from stock.
But back to the idea of social media being a popularity contest, take a closer look at who is following or fanning or circling these ‘popular’ photographers – and to be fair some of them are exceptionally good – and you’ll find that, in a lot of cases, it’s other photographers. It’s not necessarily buyers of prints or stock images. I operate two websites; my main photography site and a second, newer one that’s a travel information site. If you check my fan or follower base it’s fairly small. There are a couple reasons for that. One, the endeavour is still fairly new. Two, I’m targeting a small and specific audience. But third, and most importantly, I’m not part of the ‘in group’. In the travel website game you’ll find a lot of operators of these sites who have huge social media followings but these followings aren’t readers of their websites, the followings are made of up other travel bloggers. It’s almost like a virtual support group. I prefer my follower base to grow organically and be made up of people who are actually interested in what I’m doing so I’m not out shilling and begging for people to Like or Follow or Circle.
That brings us to another aspect of social media that clouds how real it is. You see it all the time on Facebook. ‘The person who gets the most of their friends to Like my Page in the next 3 days will get a free print.’ Is that a real follower base? No. But I also think most people are scared to put their presence on social media and have it sit there without much activity or many followers. They think it looks bad and means they’re not good. Photographers, by and large, are a pretty egotistical group and large egos tend to be quite fragile. I’ll take my 138 Facebook fans and 319 Twitter followers because they’re real. They found my profile on their own and made the decision to hit the Like/Follow button on their own. Would I like more people to jump on board? Sure. But I’ll let it happen organically.
So back to your original premise, Piper – Yes, social media is largely a popularity contest and I, for one, am quite content not being one of the ‘cool kids’.
Hi Piper,
Interesting topic. I’ve tried to read all the comments…have a slightly different point to make…don’t think anyone has mentioned this but I may have missed it.
I am not very active on Google+ but something I have noticed a lot on facebook is people who are not very serious about photography are making “artist” pages for their photography. They get all their friends to “like” the page and each time they post a photo there is a built-in audience to tell them how great they are. What concerns me about this is that there is no “real” measure of success involved. Because of their fan base they think they are good photographers so don’t make the effort to learn or grow to become better photographers. This is the extreme case but I think to some degree it can happen even to professional photographers. I worry that too much “fan” support can create an artificial reality that doesn’t do anyone any good. That’s my two cents worth!
p.s. I will pm you on facebook regarding another topic.
What a great question, i do think you make,or bring to the forefront some food for thought! I would agree that some folks, are in a popularity contests.This social media era is here to stay, and will only grow, because he world wants everything like “NOW”. so i don’t see this disappearing, however solid photographers like yourself, and aspiring folks like myself; will consider the source, and the quality of posted and shared works. Going forward i can determine is this a popularity contest, or a true peer review, and recognize the value of their work. so the social media,is a helpful networking tool, helps folks see your work, that otherwise would never have met you, however if has a caveat/double sword that you mention above. Best of the Day to ya…. I really would welcome a real site with no politics, and true peer reviews… nature scapes, BPN, etc do offer some of that, however politics seems to always creep back in. Indeed, 500 pix is no better, as they have a dislike button, and no one over there will own their dislike vote etc,, so it’s perhaps more of a feel good site! I personally have no problem, sharing with a photographer, why i dislike something in a constructive way.. as we both can learn… it’s a process, and a journey… beats the best day ever in nuclear medicine cardiology!!! Cheerio!!…
The thing we must remember is that our time should be very valuable. We have to ask ourselves what is it we want social media to do for us. From a business side Social Media is a good tool to connect to your fans, clients and for advertising your work. It should be used as a business tool and like anything in business this tool has to be a benefit to you. It can’t hold you back or make your work flow harder, don’t rush to join a social media site until you have understood what you want out of it and if the people your actually targeting are on that site.
From a personal side we can use it for close friends and family (the same group you would actually see in person at some point in the year) or you want it for interaction with like minded people. Personally I would not have personal life overlapping too much with the business life
This is just based on thoughts and observation and I don’t have any hard facts, but i have found that all these sites 500px, google+, flickr , 1x .com and 72dpi etc etc you come across the same people. So do we have to be on all these sites and if not what would we miss?
If we are looking for inspiration then we don’t need to follow thousands or even hundreds of photographers as in the days before social media people still found inspiring works, its just a case of managing the information and stripping out all the crud and noise and being left with the information that makes our life happier, easier and enriched.
In real life you can’t be everywhere all the time and interact with everyone all the time so are we being brainwashed into thinking we must network with as many people as possible, scared that if something goes by we are missing out. Sometimes it’s good to let things go by as it helps clear the mind and gives us time to be alone with our own thoughts and ideas.
Hey Piper, I just read your blog. Great question. I guess don’t find this a ” new culture” I follow those who art I like or inspires me. I have for years. I don’t look at how many followers they have, but judge purely by ” what does their art do for me” Or if they are very informative. E.G .Trey Ratcliff admits there are far better photographers out there than he but yet I find his posts educational, so I follow. I have discovered many hidden gems via g+ and flickr, many who have no website, never submitted something to be published and are just submitting work to share or receive feedback. Unfortunately, I have also discovered those who have been published and won a few awards, aren’t so fantastic. As for the photographers that you mention that haven’t been published, don’t have a contract or etc, more power to them. If I haven’t booked a workshop with them or purchased their ebook, I haven’t invested anything with them. I say go do your thing! Having a website, a contract or winning awards does not make you a great photographer.
Wow Angela- you really bring to light what I am talking about. I have such admiration for photographers who have help shape the way we see the world – Steve McCurry – Art Wolfe- Annie Leibovitz – and so many others. I still like living in a world where we have our hero’s that we respect and admire and strive to be like. Excelling at your craft and not falsely misrepresenting yourself for the sake of being popular. We are going down a scary path as we accept mediocracy for popularity and money. I see it happening at every level in western society. There is nothing wrong with enjoying the hobby of photography and sharing what you enjoy with others, but when I see someone share a circle that says “Worlds best photographers on Google+” and they have Art wolfe in the circle next to a photographer that has just shared some pretty images…. it sends a strong and sad message as to where we are headed in the western world…..
I’ve spent quite a bit of time at Google plus. I have seen so many wonderful photographers who seem to have invested lots of time and energy perfecting their craft who don’t get many comments or plus ones. Then there are others who are well known, mainly by name or popularity that get hundreds of plus 1’s and many many comments on a photo that I think doesn’t deserve it. I have started following one particular circle for that reason. I am just an amateur trying to learn from others by viewing work that I aspire to. People should be more honest about the quality of work over there and not buy into the popularity issues.