What Flickr does is create a search sub-set for photography outside the www world. Photographers who don’t need to grow their brand or business don’t need Flickr. Anybody who wants to grow their photo brand or business should use Flickr to help drive traffic back to their own site.

Very Pro indeed.

Jorge

A) Had a bunch of people tell you that your shallow depth of field, close up photos of some peoples faces and rusty pipes are “sick”
and
B) Thinks they take pretty pictures that are magazine worthy.

Why is it any skin off a photo editor’s nose to instantly bin a flickr link, when they get hundreds of submissions a week and maybe 50% of those submissions are from genuine pros with exceptional work?

Again, I believe Rob’s post is more about what is proper when submiting to magazines and agencies, rather than whether you personaly having a flickr page automatically means you’re an amateur (which I don’t believe is what he’s saying). I have a flickr page, a personal website and a book; I would NEVER send anyone I was trying to get hired by, a link to my flickr page, unless they explicitly asked for it (for whatever reason), which I can’t imagine ever happening.

I also agree that by dismissing flickr we (in some sense) dismiss the audience.

However, where I think we’re off is very obviously the act of growing an audience. And from my professional standpoint, the only audience I want to grow is my own.

And by that I mean I want to build an appropriate frame for my work that is easily distinguishable from other photographers. The audience WILL follow.

That is also why some of the photographers I mentioned don’t have a web site. They have much more impressive frames with a much greater and more influential audience.

What I really dislike about flickr? It’s clearly someone else’s frame, rather like a magazine is someone else’s frame.

If, on the other hand, I focus my energies on building my own frame and growing my own audience I will have better ’spent’ my efforts.

Those efforts do not go unrewarded, whether it’s through more deserving, better paying assignments by magazine editors or another kind cliente.

That is also why I suggested to Rob that he build his own frame. The payoff will be more than worth the headache.

The argument I would also make against using flickr is one of independence. Let’s promote a way that empowers professionals.

Don’t get me wrong, flickr is an important landmark in photography. It’s a connector and it gets people passionate about the subject. But there is also a massive fault line which (I hope) I’ve pointed out.

My bet is this: flickr will always cheapen my efforts, diminish my own audience (with its very specific profile) AND it will diminish my own artistic and economic independence.

I believe I’m capable of much more than flickr has to offer, whether the photo editor chooses my images or not. And so my efforts at growing my own also inoculate me from the inevitable let-down.

Thanks again for your insight here.

http://www.piclens.com

it’s Pretty far-out! forget the slideshow from flickr, everyone should download this to check out the finalist!

In any case, I’m not sure how valid a marketing strategy Flickr represents for most photographers. My impression is that it’s pretty time consuming to build a brand for yourself on there.

*Ignore this word. Should you feel any urge to angrily discuss business models relating to it, find a different thread. It may help to mentally replace the word with something less incendiary. Try ‘broomsnaggle.’

That one has to work with such people is part of the job description. The same goes for how to maximize the use of a website not intended for a certain kind of work (photo editor may come to mind), but to make efficient use of it. Doing Google searches can be rather frustrating in general, but after a while, one can master the way to avoid false hits — the same goes with flickr.

Having my own website is imperative, and I think this point is clear to most photographers. The problem seems to be that most websites come before the photographer is ready (to create a viable and useful layout), or the lack of ability to control the use of flash for easy navigation.

I checked artlimited.net, which caters to a less-social, higher-quality photo-sharing function. However, it is rather unwieldy and problematic to check it out and learn how to make the most of it. The taming of flickr comes from both sides, the photo editor (or photo-searcher), and the photographer, but there is no consensus on how should this be approached either.

Because of the time zone differences between Australia and a lot of my editorial clients I have no choice but to set up some sort of delivery service that they can download the images in RAW (which a lot of them are now asking for), it’s either that or stay up all night sending images.

The software that I am working on is Gallery2, it does have a RAW module called DCRaw, but the Gallery itself is a work in progress. I am trying to get it looking and feel as professional as possible so that editors like Rob feel comfortable viewing it and using it.

Mike Brown

Very interesting thread.

I agree that the right marketing materials are needed for the segment you are looking to get work in, as in Rome, well you know the saying …. I think from the reaction here this is experiment you are running is something that “pros” feel for most part valuable and certainly they respect your leadership.

However, I get the feeling in this line “It’s not that difficult to see why I would think you’re an amateur if you put your images on Flickr. That’s what it was created for and that’s who primarily uses it.” that you may be missing something of value. I would argue that by focusing on the “amateurs” and not the audience we will be overlooking a valuable and sustainable marketing opportunity. You own an audience.

This audience of “amateurs” are the same people who consume a photographer’s images in mass magazines. They are the audience. They are the consumers. The photo editors are gate keepers and curators. They are powerful filters but they are not in the case of mass magazines the audience. By perpetuating the stigma, we are keeping photographers from an audience, from the audience.

I think by not encouraging some kind of long term involvement in a photographer’s body of work that a site like Flickr can offer through the mass audience platform it provides, we diminish a fantastic opportunity to connect with the very people who consume the photographs. I am not sure if magazines can make it happen themselves they have a vested interest in their brand – not in establishing a long term connection with broadest possible audience and enhancing the value of the photographer as recognizable.

By dismissing the vernacular aesthetic of Flickr with the audience we dismiss “the audience”. I think photographers coming into the business over the next few years will have this in their DNA. A few top tier photographer’s will have other methods of direct to audience marketing. The more intimate an audience is with a photographer, the more valuable the photographer becomes to the properties that hire them.

I am not an editorial photographer but have learned much form the readers contribution here over the last few months. Thanks for this valuable resource.

Most working photographers are used to a certain level of rejection.

I submitted images to the promo. Should they not make the cut, it won’t ruin my life or career, and I will wonder how I might dazzle Rob on my next submission.

If I make it to the final select – then yes – It will be validating.

Then I will get back to work.

This sounds like a future post……

“You can’t possibly have seen any of the work submitted. There are hundreds in my inbox and hundreds on Flickr that no one but myself can see.”

Not quite so, Rob. All someone needs to do is go to your group, click on “members” and then see what any member might have just uploaded titled “www.mywebsite.com 1&2″ recently.

Someone should create a solution for photographers and photo editors and that’s another reason I wrote the post. Maybe Photoshelter will do it.

This reminds me — another feature that flickr (or some other service) would be wise to implement is more advanced support for RAW files. You could upload the RAW files for distribution along with whatever post-processing “settings” you want on it. (Much in the same way that bibble/et al. let you do non-destructive editing by applying “settings” on the RAW file).

There’s two ways to be fresh. I’ve never heard of you fresh and I’ve never seen that photo before fresh. I think photographers and buyers will get more out of this if they present unexpected work. I certainly won’t penalize Paolo for sending in his normal stuff but he’ll probably get a better reaction from buyers if it were something we’ve not seen before.

You can’t possibly have seen any of the work submitted. There are hundreds in my inbox and hundreds on Flickr that no one but myself can see.

Photographers enter contests to get more better paying clients. You just raise your prices a bit and suddenly you need to add a couple clients.

Plus people want their work validated. So they enter a contest.

Anyway this isn’t a contest. I may have to do one tho. I’ve got plenty of volunteers to make a great panel of judges.

interesting that you refer to it as a “contest”. i thought your initial post referred to it as a service to connect photo buyers with professional editorial photographers. to me, that’s quite a gap in definition (and feeling).

i can’t imagine that any established photographer would feel the need to enter if it’s a “contest”, especially if they’re already working regularly. if you think about it, what do they have to gain — they’re already working; they’re already connected; they only have a downside, if you call it a contest, and then the two images that they choose don’t meet your criteria of great and fresh.

the only ones that seem to have anything to gain are the guys on the way up, and by the images we’ve seen, would 90% of them meet your criteria of “back of the book assigment ready”?

contest seems really different from service. in feeling. is there a defined limit to how many would be selected?

and why “great and fresh”? paolo roversi been shooting the same 8×10 polaroid, one-second exposures for years now; if he submitted those, would those be considered stale?

even with these questions pending, it’s still a GREAT idea, and I’ll bet, in the end, it turns out great.

As a photo editor FTP can suck up valuable computer time waiting for the files to download (I used to make the associate photo editor download the photos so I could keep working) and at my last job our own FTP site was spotty and therefore worthless so CD’s/DVD’s/harddrive was the fastest method. Actually the best method was to get an email with the selects and a dvd with the whole take (not the whole shoot) the next day. Never underestimate the shitty IT departments at magazines. They’re the weak link in any solution.

Someone should create a solution for photographers and photo editors and that’s another reason I wrote the post. Maybe Photoshelter will do it.

The stigma exists and I’ve heard from a few photographers that don’t want to be associated with Flickr and will not submit images and that bugs me so I wanted to write the post to try and talk them into it but first I had to acknowledge my own bias. It’s not that difficult to see why I would think you’re an amateur if you put your images on Flickr. That’s what it was created for and that’s who primarily uses it. If I’m making an assignment it’s not just about finding someone who takes good pictures. I need a professional. That way I don’t spend two hours on the phone or email explaining what needs to happen. I can’t even begin to tell you all the things I take for granted when working with a professional. I wouldn’t even know where to start if I hired an amateur photographer. I’d probably need a four page list of instructions and highly detailed shot list.

The great thing about this contest is If I don’t select your image you can tell everyone what a moron I am. You also don’t have to pay an entry fee.

* if the goal for this collection is to hook up photo editors and photographers, would not it be equally useful, if not more useful, to take these submissions, but then also have rob haggart add in his own choices for quality editorial photographers, even if they did not submit? based on his new york city experience, i’m sure he’s met them all, or at least heard of them. what if matt mahurin, or any number of incredible editorial people did not submit; should not they be added, based on rob haggart’s experience?

* will this collection of photographers be displayed by city of residence, or by shooting style?

* i would also like to see an inverse/mirror list, which would be “which magazines are worth shooting for?”, along with their assignment rate, (and how long they take to pay). the list would be made up solely of magazines that use and display photography well, ie, Outside, Wired, Fast Company. it would be humorous to see magazines also “try out” for this rob collection, (and to see 70% of them rejected).

Aligning your marketing with a website that is used by hundred’s and thousands of photographers of all varying degree’s does not make you stand out. Yes it is easier and yes it is cheaper and when you are paying those huge overages per month I can see why that matters. I also think as poster #31 said it is a great tool for sharing images and showing new work. That said, when approaching new clients I think you would want to stand out from the crowd and not align yourself with them – How many times have you heard ‘your portfolio is only as good as your worst image in it’?. I think this trancends mediums and using a site that does host such a vast (and mostly amature) array of photography is just not the best approach.

I have as I mentioned found talent on Flickr and used their images. There is talent there and no one is saying there isn’t. But I went looking for it because all the usual sources came up dry.

Enjoy your Saturday!

David Alan Harvey:

http://tinyurl.com/2rx7ya

Annie Leibovitz:

http://tinyurl.com/2av3rm

Alex Webb:

http://tinyurl.com/32rvu2

(books, not website)

Sam Abell:

(Story, not website)

James Nachtwey:

http://tinyurl.com/3e3ycy

(For the record, it could be argued that, with most everyone on this list, and anyone else that’s reached a particular plateau, that the website either transfers to the rep, or to their agency. At some point, very well known people don’t need/use websites in the same way that lesser-known photographers do. In short, once you’ve got your own Wikipedia entry, let’s just say that the rules change somewhat).

Yes, but that’s exactly the point Rob is making! If you give Flickr as your point of contact, then you’re not helping to further the engagement. He’s looking for clues about commitment and reliability and pointing out that the world’s largest photo album doesn’t help in that regard because it is so easy to bung a few photos up for no cost and no effort and with no commitment. Sure he can tell whether the work is fit for purpose, but not whether the photographer is.

It’s the difference between eBay anonymity and a personal storefront. You can find out with effort who is who, which sellers are reliable and professional, but in an oversupplied world, it’s just poor sales psychology to expect a potential buyer to do the work.

What he hasn’t said anywhere is that Flickr is crap or that the work on it is crap, or that it’s of no relevance to pro’s, or that people won’t get work through it, or that it isn’t useful. Yet most of the arguments here address those issues instead, which just aren’t in the OP anywhere. That’s really rather funny, and I bet his next piece will be about pro’s not listening to the brief.

I am wondering a couple of things –

1. How many of those 850+ can seriously make it into the slideshow ?

2. What will the feeling be among those who don’t make the cut ?

As the “bar is high” we should probably not be expecting a huge slideshow – indeed surely a slideshow with more than a couple of hundred pictures in is going to put people off looking anyways. But what will the reaction be of those rejected ? Is Rob about to disgruntle 500 loyal readers ?

As AH has pointed out on “WTJackanory”, how embarrassing to enter and not get i picked…… I imagine AH can handle the rejection, but what of other photographers not so secure in their own talent, with no blog to hear their sighs ? When the show goes up and they are not there how will the rejected be able to cope with seeing the work that did make it – “How in the hell could that make it in ?!”

Are the cries of “Great idea, thanks Rob” about to turn sour ?

We sit and wait.

RDP