Does facebook cheapen or enhance the photographic industry?

[JM Tran]

Facebook doesn't devalue the photographic industry. Bad photographers do.
Facebook just made it easy for them to get the word out.
Facebook is just another communication tool. It's stockmarket price probably just reflects the poor commercialisation of the entity.
Something that's great for communicating and sharing doesn't make it nevessarily great for generating revenue.
Its great for things like reaching old friends that U've lost touch with.

And the above post by Dave - is the best so far and sums it up nicely, especially the first line I highlighted.

Facebook is a great medium for me to interact more personally and regularly with my potential, current, and past clients - a more direct and quicker method than the usual emailing etc. I still run my website and separate travel blog too.

Most famous photographers/entity run some sort of facebook page and are able to interact a lot better and faster with their fans and clients.

Who cares what the shares value of Facebook is, it does not correlate or affect photography on Facebook at all. Bad/cheap photographers do.

Its 2012, get with the times, social media is here to stay and can be utilized very effectively if you know how to, and have the time for it.

[I @ M]

Facebook doesn't devalue the photographic industry. Bad photographers do.
Facebook just made it easy for them to get the word out.

I agree strongly with the fact that bad photographers devalue the industry enormously and going by your statement that facebook enables the bad photographers to get the word out does it not therefore follow that facebook are aiding and abetting that devaluation.

Facebook is just another communication tool. It's stockmarket price probably just reflects the poor commercialisation of the entity.
Something that's great for communicating and sharing doesn't make it nevessarily great for generating revenue.
Its great for things like reaching old friends that U've lost touch with.

Nobody can even really begin to argue that facebook is an enormously powerful communication tool and a very handy ( currently free ) advertising platform to reach the masses but by issuing shares they clearly have an intent to capitalise on the perceived worth of the business. To raise money from selling shares in a business usually means that the shares will rise in value and be a sought after commodity but at the current state of the market even one of the facebook co founders seems to be dumping huge amounts of stock at a loss. Somehow they have to get an income stream happening to prop up that slight hiccup and seeing as their only income stream comes from advertising one has to wonder when they will start charging for businesses to advertise on the site.
Going by the limited number of responses to the poll here it would appear that large number of people regard facebook as an extremely effective marketing tool yet few would actually pay to use that marketing service.

Maybe we could even suggest that the target market reached by the ( free ) advertisers are purely those who see any picture other than that of a pet cat taken with a .08 MP phone camera as purely awe inspiring and have a horrendous addiction to hitting the "like" or "follow" button but would never actually consider purchasing a photograph anyway.

[ricktas]

[arthurking83]

Facebook doesn't devalue the photographic industry. Bad photographers do.
.....

Whilst this is true, it's not just the 'bad photographers' of the environment that are the cause .. it's also the general population of the sociosphere that help to perpetuate the problem.

So while the problem is endemic to FB alone and may also be an issue on other sites(websites/blogs/forums/etc) or any other social specific outlets ... FB is a giant in the field and giants are always where fingers get pointed towards first.

The main issue is generally the like system, where a photographer (most likely bad) achieves this false sense of greatness, because their circle of friends can't take the time to critically analyse the photographic work.
So in effect facebook IS the cause as it's not (really)set up to be both a judging system and advertising space in a non partisan manner.

If there were a voting system in place where images are rated completely anonymously and those points or gradings went towards the photographers rating on the site then at least the idealistic notion of impartiality couldn't be a factor against it(facebook).

So while it's true that bad photographers give photography a bad rap, facebook exacerbates the issue by allowing that bad photographer to gain unwarranted high levels of status(in this case 'likes') or whatever the ratings are called.

If we switch to a forum based environment instead of FB) and this bad photographer starts posting images(the same bad images) to the site and there is a rating system for each image, due to the fact that on the forum this bad photographer isn't cushioned by a group of friends .. the ratings of those images will surely be lower.
If this were the case, then the problem surely must lie on facebook as it's causing a distortion of the reality.

Forums, which are also social based interfaces, tend to help any not so great photographers along their journey to greatness .. but not just blindly heap praise on them if the images aren't worthy.

[Xenedis]

Bad photographs and bad photographers have always existed.

Facebook has simply been a tool that has given those people far more exposure than they should have ever had, and in the process has deluded them into believing that they've got the right stuff.

The Internet in general has devalued photography, and fostered a societal expectation that images should be free, and that anyone who owns a camera is a photographer who can produce great shots.

Ironically, the Internet has also given exposure to masses of photographers out there who are great photographers with great images.

Double-edged sword and all.

[norwest]

But we don't use forums to sell business, only critique among like minded people. No viewer is able to give points to or critique shots on my official website, they can simply compare my shots with those on other websites and make up their mind. As can also be done on facebook or any other of the numerous free web based vehicles available to anyone and everyone.

I've decided there's only one way to combat the facebook 'OOOhs! Ahhhs! & Wows!' and that's to give them something on facebook to compare to the less than ordinary work and open up their eyes to the alternative. Even on facebook breaking into the local 'club' isn't easy and it won't happen overnight but it will happen.

[swifty]

I agree strongly with the fact that bad photographers devalue the industry enormously and going by your statement that facebook enables the bad photographers to get the word out does it not therefore follow that facebook are aiding and abetting that devaluation.

But then why stop there, the internet allows social networking such as facebook to exist therefore perhaps the internet is the real culprit.
If Facebook isn't top dog, whatever is will be blamed for devaluating photography.
But whatever's in the firing line, be it myspace a couple of years ago, facebook today or something else tomorrow, the common denominator will always be the bad photographer, the source of the bad photography.

Perhaps Xenedis has summed it up quite well in post #25. Ironically the great communication portal that is the internet might actually be the culprit

Nobody can even really begin to argue that facebook is an enormously powerful communication tool and a very handy ( currently free ) advertising platform to reach the masses but by issuing shares they clearly have an intent to capitalise on the perceived worth of the business. To raise money from selling shares in a business usually means that the shares will rise in value and be a sought after commodity but at the current state of the market even one of the facebook co founders seems to be dumping huge amounts of stock at a loss. Somehow they have to get an income stream happening to prop up that slight hiccup and seeing as their only income stream comes from advertising one has to wonder when they will start charging for businesses to advertise on the site.
Going by the limited number of responses to the poll here it would appear that large number of people regard facebook as an extremely effective marketing tool yet few would actually pay to use that marketing service.

Maybe we could even suggest that the target market reached by the ( free ) advertisers are purely those who see any picture other than that of a pet cat taken with a .08 MP phone camera as purely awe inspiring and have a horrendous addiction to hitting the "like" or "follow" button but would never actually consider purchasing a photograph anyway.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I don't see the connection between Facebook's stocks and what that has to do with devaluating photography. Unless you're suggesting charging money to weed out pretenders from the real pros will fix this but I somehow think FB's problems are a little more fundamental. I do agree FB has a huge problem on their hand re: income stream. The whole IPO was a farce but we're getting a bit far away from the topic at hand.

FB is what it is - a great way to communicate. Pros such as Jackie and Dylan understand and utilise it very well I believe. Some people don't and use it in a way to inflate their egos but how far will that carry them? If their message/photos/whatever is poor, they will always fall away whilst the cream rises to the top.

[pmack]

agree with xenedis.

Though my experience, I started a wordpress photoblog around 3 months ago, and had a total of about 10 followers, wooot!
I didn't want to make a facebook page because i didn't want to over spam my friends as i already posted each update on my own profile etc, though a few days ago i caved in, i want exposure!

And i'm thinking of cheapening myself even further by doing one of those competitions "Like and share this page, and win this lens of mine I don't want, etc" Oh dear...

[swifty]

Whilst this is true, it's not just the 'bad photographers' of the environment that are the cause .. it's also the general population of the sociosphere that help to perpetuate the problem.

So while the problem is endemic to FB alone and may also be an issue on other sites(websites/blogs/forums/etc) or any other social specific outlets ... FB is a giant in the field and giants are always where fingers get pointed towards first.

The main issue is generally the like system, where a photographer (most likely bad) achieves this false sense of greatness, because their circle of friends can't take the time to critically analyse the photographic work.
So in effect facebook IS the cause as it's not (really)set up to be both a judging system and advertising space in a non partisan manner.

If there were a voting system in place where images are rated completely anonymously and those points or gradings went towards the photographers rating on the site then at least the idealistic notion of impartiality couldn't be a factor against it(facebook).

So while it's true that bad photographers give photography a bad rap, facebook exacerbates the issue by allowing that bad photographer to gain unwarranted high levels of status(in this case 'likes') or whatever the ratings are called.

If we switch to a forum based environment instead of FB) and this bad photographer starts posting images(the same bad images) to the site and there is a rating system for each image, due to the fact that on the forum this bad photographer isn't cushioned by a group of friends .. the ratings of those images will surely be lower.
If this were the case, then the problem surely must lie on facebook as it's causing a distortion of the reality.

Forums, which are also social based interfaces, tend to help any not so great photographers along their journey to greatness .. but not just blindly heap praise on them if the images aren't worthy.

Part of FB's success is probably the simplistic nature of its rating system. A poke to get your attention (in the old days), a like to indicate your approval etc.
I don't disagree with many of your points and yes, FB probably never had photographers in mind in their development.
Its just taking the blame cos as you've said, its the giant and where the finger's pointed at.
It'll probably never be tailored for the improvement of photography nor should it IMO.
I really think its blown out of proportions. I don't see many (if any) top photographers complaining about the poor FB-only togs putting out crap. It doesn't affect their work and quite irrelevant to them I think.

[pmack]

FB probably never had photographers in mind in their development.

well perhaps not professionals, though i'm pretty sure it was set up as a social networking site with the main purpose of sharing photos?
So everyone is a photographer, i suppose you could say it was set up for the lowest common denominator type photographer.
And interestingly, when i tried to set up my page, i had a lot of trouble deciding which category to put it in, as there was no "photographer" of "photos" category. In the end I put it under Travel/Leisure, but every friend I've seen with a photography page seems to have it as something differe, a group, a place, an organisation, etc etc.

[JM Tran]

Let me tell you guys about my history with Facebook.

I had originally signed up with Facebook at the end of 2004, when it was still a university networking thing in Northern America between campuses - as I had a lot of friends in uni over there who persuaded me to so I can keep in touch with them easier. Back then it was very basic and it was more about writing on ppls walls and inboxing each other. There werent many photos around and you could only upload something like 30 per album max, and no advertisements whatsoever.

I took a few yrs off with the Australian Army, then made an new account in 2007 - it had grew worldwide by then and vastly different to the simplistic layout back then, now you can go up to 60 photos! You could create a fan page of some sort.

In 2010 - the max number of photos in the album went up to 200, and you could set up a separate business page with your personal page to advertise for businesses.

In 2012 - I have seen albums with around 900 photos in it, in 1 album. So FB has probably made it limitless now. They also changed the way business pages function to make it more efficient and effective, which it is!

So really, FB was and is never intended for just purely photo sharing - ppl use it because its fast and very efficient in loading times. I can also say the number of personal trainers/instructors on my FB - with over 2k friends - are on par with the number of professional and amateur photographers on my friends list too. But thats just me.

Im just curious to see if those who decry facebook and like to always list its 'negative' aspects, actually use Facebook on a regular basis, for a number of years, or like to assume that it is just bad juju from they way they perceive it?

I dont discourage ppl from making their own photography pages for fun or business, because I support and encourage creativity and art. If they are unsuccessful at it then so be it, its their problem not mine. I will not tell them you are devaluing the industry because your photos are bad. I just dont care about that. I do good work, and I will keep doing good work.

But the constant mention of the shares value of Facebook, and how it relates to devaluing the photography industry - is mystifying

[ricktas]

Something to consider. Facebook runs some serious compression on your photos when you upload them. I uploaded a photo the other day. I tend to only upload happy snap stuff to FB, as I do not have a FB photography page, cause I use FB to post rubbish, jokes, and keep in touch with friends interstate and overseas more than use it as a advertising medium. But I digress, the photo I uploaded was 198kb. Upon upload and display, I thinks to myself 'gee, that looks crap', to right click it and find it is now 19.4kb. So I try another, 204kb, comes in at 21.6kb once uploaded. Not long after realising this, a photographer friend posted a photo (lovely landscape) and his first post was 'what the hell happened ot my photo, it looks crap'. I pointed him to check the filesize and he was shocked.

With that sort of compression going on, I really am not a fan of FB as a place to put high quality photos. So FB may or may not cheapen the photography industry, but it sure as hell knows how to destroy my photo quality.

[Pobbs]

Did you upload it with the 'high quality' box ticked?

A photographer in the UK who has written a book uses FB as both a marketing tool and way to connect with his fans.

[Steve Axford]

I really can't understand what the fuss is about. Facebook is a great medium for communicating with friends and family and like minded people. That often involves pictures. Ausphotography is also a great medium for communication with friends and like minded people about photography. Both could be seen as degrading photography because neither of them is capable of displaying the photographs in it's full glory. But, do we really care? It's either Facebook, Ausphotography etc ----- or revert back to the dark ages of photoclubs and printed display only.
The latest thing is Instagram, which allows people to send their iphone pictures around for comment. It's even worse than facebook in terms of quality. But lots of people don't see quality as the most important thing. They see convenience as more important, and who can say they are wrong. Lots of young people are getting into photography because it is so easy to take a picture, post it, and have people talk about it; all while you're doing it. You get much closer to sharing the experience than we ever did. Think back to our youth (a long way fro some of us). We would take the photo and some weeks later we would get a print back from the lab which we could then post in an album and show to friends. Now we process them in a day or two and post them on the net. The kids take them, post them and talk about them as it happens. Sounds good to me. I do like quality, but I accept that that is a rarity and others don't always see it like I do.

[ricktas]

Did you upload it with the 'high quality' box ticked?

A photographer in the UK who has written a book uses FB as both a marketing tool and way to connect with his fans.

What High Quality Box? I have never seen that box and just looked now and I certainly do not have a HQ box during the upload process??

[ricktas]

Ignore that. Found it. You have to choose high quality when you create the Album, not when you upload the photo(s).

[norwest]

Something to consider. Facebook runs some serious compression on your photos when you upload them. I uploaded a photo the other day. I tend to only upload happy snap stuff to FB, as I do not have a FB photography page, cause I use FB to post rubbish, jokes, and keep in touch with friends interstate and overseas more than use it as a advertising medium. But I digress, the photo I uploaded was 198kb. Upon upload and display, I thinks to myself 'gee, that looks crap', to right click it and find it is now 19.4kb. So I try another, 204kb, comes in at 21.6kb once uploaded. Not long after realising this, a photographer friend posted a photo (lovely landscape) and his first post was 'what the hell happened ot my photo, it looks crap'. I pointed him to check the filesize and he was shocked.

With that sort of compression going on, I really am not a fan of FB as a place to put high quality photos. So FB may or may not cheapen the photography industry, but it sure as hell knows how to destroy my photo quality.

The degree of compression you mention is contrary to what I'm finding, but as Pobbs as mentioned, I ticked the box for high quality uploads.

And ignore this post after noticing your last comments.

[Pobbs]

Ignore that. Found it. You have to choose high quality when you create the Album, not when you upload the photo(s).

I must have ticked it when I created the album then because I have the option of high quality uploads for all my albums.

I didn't realise you had to tick it upon album creation because it's always there as an option for me.

[s1l3nt]

Dont think you need to tick it upon making the album, because i have the ability to check the box on each upload as is the case for Pobbs also.

I believe facebook has just allowed people to upload their "happy snaps" and have their egos boosted by family members who are "like" happy which just makes them upload more and more thinking they are a great photographers. This doesnt so devalue the photography industry in my opinion because most of these people never make it anywhere meaningful anyway

[neil70]

i have and use facebook all the time and find it a great way to keep in touch with people in my life.
When i had my first child 15 yrs ago we received some advertising including a free photo sitting for the family and a free 8" by 10" with the option to by others. we took up this offer from a professional studio photographer working from home and it ended up costing about $200.
Fast forward to today and how is this different to the face book protog offering a $50.00 sitting with a free print and an option to buy more. if the photos are good you will buy more.
facebook has just replace the mailout / flyer from yesterday making the marketing cheaper.