Does facebook cheapen or enhance the photographic industry?

[arthurking83]

......
Of course we see some pretty way out claims to greatness and equally disparate pricing structures from some compared to the mainstream photographic industry. Is it acceptable for them to do so?
Are those people who are using facebook as a convenient ( and currently free ) advertising board actually enhancing the spirit of competition and fair trade or are they devaluing the industry in general?

.....

Not sure of what you're trying to say but this is "The Business of Photography" forum and the question was "Does facebook cheapen or enhance the photographic industry?" Emotional claptrap or likes or dislikes has really nothing to do with the question. .....

I'm not entirely sure of how FB(or addons) can be used as a tool for locating and enlisiting potentially intelligent employees .. I just wished the bloke that pays my wage woudl use it to assess my 'supervisor'!

But I may be reading part your last comment correctly, Redgum .. likes and dislikes ... is that in FB terms?? Or is that a reference to norwest's (personal)likes/dislikes?

if it's in reference to FB like/dislikes ..... I think the cheapening of any product/industry/company is all about the likes system.

It seems you can be top of the pops if you like .. and it's just a matter of how deep your pockets are.
You pay another company to increase your likes ratings.
it seems that most people are duped by the power of the people, and not really the power or allure of the product.
That is, most folks tend to purchase something because 'everyone else likes it' .. or given a good rap by many others.

In many ways, this is understandable, but (in my view) in most respects it's convoluted thinking.
I always(99.9%) of the time purchase products based on a few reviews to see if the product is right for me!(it's that simple for me)

Do I want it, does it do for me what I want, does it operate or handle or display for me what and how I like for it to operate ... I couldn't give two hoots if the product is great because everyone else says so.
(to be honest in most instances I'm usually weary of those products in many ways .. but that's just me)

So we're back to the issue of likes on Facebook and why it cheapens the idea of advertising in any industry .. not just photography.

One operator can have the worst product and a massive advertising fund to start up a Facebook based biz and become more successful than the other gal with the much better product but with less nous on how to wisely spend their limited initial funds. The advertising guru will win the race initially because humans tend to have a herd mentality and just go with what everyone else is doing.
Then what happens, is that the advertising shonk(in the above hypothetical) makes an initial squillion in no time, and then purchases the rights to manufacture the better product form the hapless(hopeless) geek with no advertising ability. The advertising guru will always win out.

For the best product experience, you generally want to deal with the geeky/committed/anally retentive perfectionist with no idea on how to advertise!

It seems that people want an easier life and so we tend to gravitate towards easier ways to do things.
Some of those things can be browsing for products and services online, and FB may take over from the traditional idea of online shopping where you search out many businesses over a period of time.
you used to use search engines for that .. type in your keyword and make a list(possibly on pen and paper! ) and/or open a few relevant links to stuff that look promising.

So now we have facebook(and Amazon and other useless garbage websites that allows folks to upload ratings for the products in question).
And folks will then tend towards the easy way of searching online .. casting a digital dart equivalent based on the number of likes(or dislikes) .. or stars .... or thumbs ... or whatever's going to be the next rage.

[JayR]

People seem to be going off facebook a reasonable bit lately, what with the 'paid' announcements thing and several privacy scares, so I'd be very wary of investing anything in it beyond just having a presence.

I had set up a profile primarily for my DJing after it was apparent no one cared for myspace anymore, and it might not be going as inactive as myspace went, people are noticably deactivating their accounts.

[jagged angel]

I find the elitism displayed in this thread interesting. Facebook is the current social networking tool, and as such is an important way to reach people. In a few years, it will be something else. I agree with the person who said 'move with the times'... FB doesn't cheapen photography, it allows it to grow and reach into different areas of life. FB should be used (just like all other marketing tools) as only one part of a multi-pronged marketing strategy.

The only thing that actually cheapens photography is bad photographers.

[ricktas]

i reject that it is elitism, rather opinion. facebook is a brand and a tool. just like a camera. if somone chooses not to use fb then that has no more implication or reflection as to whether they are elitist than not choosing Canon does. someones choice and opinion in this thread being called elitist doesnt gel well with me. if not using fb makes one elitist then the world has changed more than i realised.

[Xenedis]

I find the elitism displayed in this thread interesting. Facebook is the current social networking tool, and as such is an important way to reach people. In a few years, it will be something else. I agree with the person who said 'move with the times'... FB doesn't cheapen photography, it allows it to grow and reach into different areas of life. FB should be used (just like all other marketing tools) as only one part of a multi-pronged marketing strategy.

The only thing that actually cheapens photography is bad photographers.

I agree with Rick's comment re elitism, and I also rebuke the notion that being absent from Facebook is a form of elitism.

I am not on Facebook, never have been, and don't wish to be. Facebook is only an important way to reach people if the person using it places importance on it. To me, it is not an important way to reach people; it is a solution to a problem I don't have.

I agree with you 100% that bad photographers cheapen photography, but Facebook, and the Internet in general, has allowed bad photographers and bad images to thrive far more than they could have done otherwise.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: in my opinion, Facebook is to photography what Justin Bieber is to music.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Choosing to be on FB is everyone's decision and I don't consider it elitism to elect not to be on it (heck I don't even have a smartphone!)
However, not doing something just because everyone else is doing it (as a main reason not to do it) could be self deprivation for self deprivation's sake (sometimes).
I'm talking about considerations like people outwardly not liking commercial radio stations because they're a pure indie music fan so if it's popular it's bad! people who won't watch a certain movie because it's popular and only watch what's in trak cinemas , etc etc. (I would love to say I HATE Gangnam style but the truth is, I find the guy's absolute taking the micky out of himself and his upbringing hilarious deep down)
So just to summarise my thoughts - it's fine if you choose not to do something (like FB), just examine your own reasons for the avoidance - you might be missing out on something you otherwise would enjoy
I think FB went down the wrong track with the paid promotions

[Xenedis]

I agree that avoiding something purely because it's in vogue is rather silly.

In my case I don't avoid Facebook because it's popular; I have various other reasons for opting not to be involved with it.

[arthurking83]

I find the elitism displayed in this thread interesting. Facebook is the current social networking tool, and as such is an important way to reach people. ......

LOL! I have no idea on what that means!!

Facebook is the current social networking tool???

So the other tools such as actually going out and meeting people no longer exists, or has been made either redundant or illegal or something??


Like Xenedis said, FB has answered calls to a problem that never existed. It's been marketed to infinity and people have fallen for that form of product.

This is not elitism .. it's called choice.

And If I've come across as elitist in any of my responses it's simply due to the fact that I actually prefer to interface with people in person. It gives you a better overall perspective of the people you are interfacing with .. rather than this virtual reality.

The importance of tools such as these for social networking is manufactured by marketing gurus. They tell you you need to do this or use this or purchase that and so forth ....

If this were not true, then the world would have never progressed to the point it has now, otherwise we'd all still be living in the stone age waiting for Facebook, the all important social networking tool to arrive and lift us out of the pit of social darkness!

1 million years of evolution and 10,000 years of civilization is proof that Facebook is not as important as people think it is!

... The only thing that actually cheapens photography is bad photographers.

this is true, and what Facebook does, is to assist in the rapid deployment of this situation with very little time for real analysis of the photographer.

Someone shoots to fame in an instant on FB with enormous numbers of positive hits on her apparently awesome photography skills.
And then months later when someone actually takes the time to review the images properly, it's then found out that this FB user was living the lie, and everyone was duped!

It's best to let the individual to conclude what to make of the system or the user base in this instance, but I do have my opinions of what it all means.

[Mark L]

I'm glad I had the chance to read the above AK.

And If I've come across as elitist in any of my responses it's simply due to the fact that I actually prefer to interface with people in person. It gives you a better overall perspective of the people you are interfacing with .. rather than this virtual reality.

If you're ever passing throw Mudgee, let me know so we can interface in person.
PS I don't play FB either.

[norwest]

And If I've come across as elitist in any of my responses it's simply due to the fact that I actually prefer to interface with people in person.

I do as well, as I'd imagine do most people, but as your regular use of this forum to 'interact' with both acquaintances and total strangers displays, your interaction preference doesn't prevent you from using the virtual world. Has it been suggested that we restrict our interaction to web based, only, btw?

It gives you a better overall perspective of the people you are interfacing with .. rather than this virtual reality.

Yes it does, of course, but just like this forum on which we all likely spend too much time 'interacting', interaction on a facebook page will not prevent anyone from also 'interacting' face to face.

[arthurking83]

I do as well, as I'd imagine do most people, but as your regular use of this forum to 'interact' with both acquaintances and total strangers displays, your interaction preference doesn't prevent you from using the virtual world. Has it been suggested that we restrict our interaction to web based, only, btw?.......

Y'know, last night I was going to reply to Mark's response with word to the effect of how ironic my reply was.
Using a virtual environment to proclaim my preference for real world interfacing, etc....
(but I got a case of the coughs, and I had to abandon the reply)

But my response was directly aimed at the quoted text by jagged angel about this fact that Fb is the current social networking tool.

The reality is that talking to actual people, going to parties, events, or traveling and and all those old fashioned types of human interaction .. are all social networking tools, but they've never really been described as such.
And now these younger folks seem to think that current methods are THE force de jour, or the only way that things are done, because that's all they seem to know.

Obviously that's not the case, and it needed pointing out as people have been socially networking for millennia prior to this Facebooking system.

I have no personal gripe against Fb myself, I simply don't feel a need to use it, nor do I believe that it will help me in any way.
I still think that Fb does propagate this notion of cheapened photography, due to this almost 'hysterical' fervor with which it seems to be used and praised by all and sundry that use the service.
And the checks and balances that usually apply in most other social networking tools of the past, don't seem to be present in Fb.

The end result is that it's easier to be be used for non genuine purposes by those that do this sort of thing, and the sheer volume and ease makes it hard to filter out these weeds.

A quality social networking photography site, be that in the form of a forum(such as this) or chat room, or online gallery/human interface site will have many forms of checks and balances to minimize the possibility that a lecherous charlatan will abuse the system.
The images posted will tend to be scrutinized more seriously by folks that have a higher level of interest in photography than a site such as Facebook will offer.

Facebook is for general purpose use, and seems to be everything to everyone. It has no real focus, for example on any particular topic or social interest as an interest group or forum will have.


Using Facebook for photography related exposure is something like the equivalent of Ken Duncan or Peter Lik hocking their wares at the local Sunday markets because traffic has slowed considerably at their galleries.
Those prints, no matter how good!.... are not going to command $10K a piece at the local ephemeral market as they would at one of the galleries.

Same deal with Fb .. while many photography specific aficionados will frequent the service, the majority of the praises will come from folks that just don't know enough about photography to critique and possibly not like a piece.
This cheapens photography considerably, as per the OP's original question.

[norwest]

A quality social networking photography site, be that in the form of a forum(such as this) or chat room, or online gallery/human interface site will have many forms of checks and balances to minimize the possibility that a lecherous charlatan will abuse the system.
The images posted will tend to be scrutinized more seriously by folks that have a higher level of interest in photography than a site such as Facebook will offer.

.

This I don't understand. My official website isn't for critical critique, it's for displaying work for the purpose of gaining work. My facebook page is a window to my website as well as a coffee shop for people to browse small samples of the latest work, talk about them and/or others and ask questions before using the multiple links to my website to browse a gallery in total.

If I want critique I'll post on a photographic forum. This is what I don't understand. Why would I want critical critique from potential clients and why would I try to gain clients on a photo critique forum?

How does one gain the claimed important critical critique said not to be available on facebook? The public do not critique work they simply decide what they do and do not like, regardless of where work might be displayed.

Facebook is for general purpose use, and seems to be everything to everyone. It has no real focus, for example on any particular topic or social interest as an interest group or forum will have.

Eh? This is getting silly. My facebook page is named identical to my website. It's a speciality photography page where my latest shot samples can be viewed, talked about and any questions answered regarding the shots and associated work. I know it has a very real focus on a particular topic.

Using Facebook for photography related exposure is something like the equivalent of Ken Duncan or Peter Lik hocking their wares at the local Sunday markets because traffic has slowed considerably at their galleries.
Those prints, no matter how good!.... are not going to command $10K a piece at the local ephemeral market as they would at one of the galleries.

http://www.facebook.com/kenduncanphotographer

http://www.facebook.com/PeterLik

Btw, I use both my website and the facebook page for exposure to gain client work, not to sell prints.

[jeffde]

I use FB advertising and i also use it for my wife's business and it gives me far better value for my $ than any other advertising i do (except my bridal fairs - but they are harder as well) - You can target your audience and control your spend - however i see alot of businessess including photographers who aren't targeting their audience.

In answer to the original post though - FB and all other social media is lessening the impact and the value of good photography - the likes a crap photo gets is crazy. However although FB uses photography - its not about photography - its about social interaction ...

[ApolloLXII]

I use Fb primarily for the purpose that it was intended, to connect with family and friends and for that purpose, it works very well as it is a much better option (in most instances) than a phone call or an e-mail. By using Fb, I have managed to find people that I used to go to school with and old acquaintances which would have been an extremely difficult task in the old days of snail mail and blind luck in happening to run into people. Like anything, Fb has it's advantages and disadvantages but I find that most opposition to using it stems from a lack of understanding how to use it properly and safely. The negative reports in the media put people off using it as well however, in my own experience of using it over the past 5 years, I've never had a bad experience. Also, like anything else, it's use is entirely optional but it cannot be denied that it can be a useful tool.

As far as enhancing or cheapening photography goes, that is for subjective debate. Yes, there are a lot of shonky photographers to be found on Fb but you can find shonky photographers elsewhere on the web too. It's just the fact that a page on Fb is free as opposed to a paid for website that makes them numerous. If I were to be looking to hire a photographer then Fb would be an absolute last resort because of that fact alone. People only resort to using the shonky brigade on Fb because they are too cheap to pay for an experienced professional. As the tried and tested saying goes, "You gets what you pays for".

[sonickel77]

There are a few art photographers locally who I follow on Facebook. I love being able to see their latest work as it's made, and to share my own photos with my social network. Whether that translates into sales for people I don't know, as for the time being I am a student/hobbyist, still learning, and I don't talk business with people.

Perhaps photography is becoming more accessible now, so it is cheapened as a whole; people think that anyone could do it. This is an issue that goes beyond Facebook entirely.

[ricktas]

Perhaps facebook is a reflection of life in general. We used to pick a career path and stick to it, for life. Many of our parents did. Now we swap and change career directions all the time, humans are treated as a commodity. Everything on the planet is valued by its monetary worth. Even things like our National Parks have their value calculated by how many people will visit them and how much money those people spend while doing so. We even have insurance that gives our actual life a monetary value. Our supermarkets have decreased the price of 'necessities' like milk, and we see that as a good thing, but ask the dairy farmers who are doing it tougher than they have in years. But how many of us buy the cheaper milk? EVERYTHING has become a value based on its $$ price, not its quality, uniqueness, intrinsic non-money related value. There is a big chasm between what something is valued$ at, and what it is worth. But for many they do not see this.

I do not think we can really look at FB in isolation, it is probably not the cause of the cheapening of the photographic industry, we are, cause we let it happen, and we also are part of the problem, constantly wanting the best deals on our camera gear, searching out the cheapest supplier of that new lens we want.

FB is just part of it, not the cause, or only source.

[I @ M]

The reality is that talking to actual people, going to parties, events, or traveling and and all those old fashioned types of human interaction .. are all social networking tools, but they've never really been described as such.
And now these younger folks seem to think that current methods are THE force de jour, or the only way that things are done, because that's all they seem to know.

Just so as I can force you to type a nice long wordy response on a forum in a virtual conversation instead of meeting someone in real time ------

Maybe, just maybe facebook has become an adjunct to the real social networking such as parties because isn't that how parties are arranged these days, simply post about your party on there and you are guaranteed a huge turn out and 5 minutes of fame in the media when lots of your friends attend your party and trash the neighbourhood.

But that is a another story not related to photography and facebook so I won't post it.

Funnily enogh, seeing as it is the 23rd day of the second month when I am due to log into my facebook account I find that I can't because I get a message saying that due to the fact that I am logging in from an unkown device in a country other than where my account is based they deem it a security threat and I have to answer all sorts of questions about what my great grandmothers maiden name was in order to access it.

Security ----- talk about the pot calling the kettle ------

Oh well, all to hard, how in the hell will I live without 30 second updates from all my friends detailing the important things in their lives such as cups of tea and broken fingernails.

[kalley]

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.

I agree with swiftly.
Facebook is just another tool that unfortunately whether we like it or not, is a way of advertising.

I have seen some awesome photo's on FB and I have seen some absolute shite ones.I think it of it is as bringing to people your value and redirecting them to your Website.

Give them enough of an interest to actualy visit your site where your can make a sale.

Free advertising at the moment, what's up?

Kevin

[Chris G]

To me facebook is just a tool / another means of networking & promoting your style of work, much like everything else out there with socializing along with other like minded people, much like here on the forums. You can love or hate it but fine line is, its a very powerful tool and I don't know about the rest of you guys here but if you knew the people I have the chance to talk to and get creative ideas and help from would probably make you think other wise.. And I'm not talking just nobody's either, I mean from people like Jasin Boland, Rob Williams, Robert Coppa & Scott Powick just to name a couple.. Facebook is now a photographer, mua and stylist breeding ground for both business and networking far greater than anything I have seen to date.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I've met and arranged some interesting people (photographers) through FB as well.
Just like my contacts on flickr, I feel quite privileged that if I travel to certain countries, there will be people now wanting to go shooting with us and give us some general advice.
Eyre peninsula was made all the more fun through meeting up with 2 local photographers through FB.

FB is not the only means by doing this but it's free and it has helped me personally to network to allow these possibilities. I'm not complaining! Cheapen the industry? Probably by dilution but like with anything, you can 'bend' it to suit your needs to a degree too