1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sharing pictures

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Roger Hicks, Jun 24, 2014.

  1. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    In many cases, isn't "sharing pictures" just a euphemism for "cluttering up the internet"? There are two simple questions to ask yourself. First, how many other people are likely to be interested? Second, why?

    Sure, "sharing" has warm, fuzzy, kind overtones. "Shoving rubbish in people's faces" doesn't. No wonder unscrupulous camera manufacturers use the former.

    How do you decide what to "share"? And with whom?


  2. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    Well, for sure, I don't ask your opinion first. :eek:
    What a jaded attitude to what most photographers (yes, I'm guessing, so don't nag) consider a harmless pastime! The world of the intense, dedicated, single-minded professional is not one most photographers (I come across) inhabit. There's room for both. Respect for both is due, with some understanding of the modern world thrown in.
    What do I share? Precious little in here, since most vocal contributors to the Forum don't seem to go near the Galleries often and 'ratings' mean little to me anyway.
    If I want an opinion on some image which is important to me at that time, I will ask someone in whose judgement I trust. Otherwise, it's as much a "Hello out there, I'm still alive", message to whoever cares.
  3. George W Johnson

    George W Johnson Well-Known Member

    Do you mean sharing others images? Then yes I do, when I think they're exceptional. I think it's good to encourage talent by showing others what I think. Some people respect me and my opinions so they trust that when I suggest they check someone else's work they know they can trust that I wouldn't waste their time with rubbish.

    I've made some good online photography mates by finding work that's been shared and by others sharing my work. I've even made the odd sale here and there from people being shown my work.

    So yes I do think it's worthwhile when it's done selectively.
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear George,

    Thar was my point, basically. Think before you "share".


  5. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Kate,

    "Jaded" is a very good word for it, because "jaded" is what you become when you see too much of something. Do I want to see your good pictures? Yes. Do I want to see 48 pictures of your cat? No.

    Highlight: That was the question: is it harmless? Those who "share" endless stuff would do well to reflect that if they were a bit more selective in what they "shared" they might frighten off fewer people.

    As for the "intense, dedicated, single-minded professional", I'd prefer to substitute the intense, dedicated artist.


  6. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    I think that Roger's viewpoint is perhaps based upon "unsolicited" or "directionless" sharing.

    However, photographs are shared - using the internet - for many serious and legitimate purposes.

    Just two examples - my camera club has a closed Facebook page and a private Flickr page. We use those for internal club purposes, including critique, competitions and (yes) simply sharing ideas, achievements, successes, failures for discussion with fellow members.

    The second example is even more specialised - I participate in a number of groups where photographers, models, MUAs, etc. come together in collaborative mode for mutual benefit. One of the reasons that models and MUAs give their time and talent freely is to build their portfolios at low cost. Photographers participate to obtain photographs for competitions, exhibitions and other non-profit purposes. We use a number of private Facebook pages (along with Dropbox) to share images from those shoots so that anyone involved can download the low-res versions for their own web-pages or request hi-res versions for print use.
  7. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    .....and let's not forget that most photographic magazines, including AP to an increasing extent, obtain photographs to fill their pages by "culling" them from those that they encourage readers to "share" on their websites.
  8. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    You're forgetting that the vast majority of pictures uploaded online are taken and posted by people with no interest in 'photography' whatsoever. Even amongst those cats who express a preference, the majority of images posted online are at best the visual equivalent of muzak, at worse visual noise. There is a some fantastic images out there but you have to wade through hell of a lot of dross to find it.

    i share very little online. I need to update my online portfolios to showcase my latest work. Because I supply a couple of picture libraries who exclusivity clauses I can't post a lot of what I shoot as images so I'm working on creating a portfolio slideshow video to post. I occasionally post snaps I've taken with my phone on Instagram just for fun.
  9. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    I haven't 'forgotten' the situation you outline above, I just see it differently.
    Live and let live.
    Those people may not be concerned about the quality of the pictures they upload, but so what? They are not competing with or against you, they just take advantage of available methods of communications.
    I see you have two links on your signature here... so you share what you post with anyone who wants to look at it.
  10. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    The "so what" is that they're adding to the noise. Just as audible noise pollution is an issue so is photographic noise pollution. I curate a Street Photography group on Flickr. I use the term "curate" very loosely. I can't remember when the last time an image was submitted that wasn't average or below and it's impossible to seek out worthy images because of the sheer numbers of poor quality images tagged "street photography."

    The links below my signature are so old that the domain name for the blog has lapsed and I can't remember when the last time I upload a picture to Flickr.
  11. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    It was. Targeted sharing is one thing. It is quite another to pump out rubbish to the world at large because you are too self-centred, too stupid or too lazy to realize that no-one really wants to see your cat (unless it's a brilliant picture).


  12. George W Johnson

    George W Johnson Well-Known Member

    If Facebook, Twitter and Flickr all suddenly stopped allowing pictures of people's cats the internet would be like a motorway at 2am on Sunday morning! :D
  13. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    Can't say that I have ever seen a picture of a cat on the internet.

    Correct me if I am wrong - but don't you have to "follow" or "befriend" (I think those are the terms) someone on the internet before you see the photographs they post?

    I have never been conscious of the rubbish you say is being pumped out - but, then, I have never looked.
  14. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    You obviously have a proper life!!

    If you want to see cats (or even more dogs) just look in our own appraisal gallery.

    I have some sympathy with Roger's point and agree that selectivity is everything. I share/show my family snaps to the family. I share/show my more interesting Natural History pictures to a small like minded group and very occasionally share/show one here but they generate so little interest that it's barely worth the bother.

    I also share/show to organizations that ask me to speak to them but as I won't travel far and I've pretty well 'done' the nearby ones that's dying out.

    Sometimes I even try to share/show at major exhibitions with a modicum of success but my heart isn't in that side of things so it's rare. Sometimes, but very rarely, I enter my club's competitions.

  15. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    Alternatively, they're friendly, intelligent, bright people who share their cat pictures with the rest of the world. You know, some people take cats so seriously, they have entire systems built around them...

  16. Sphinx

    Sphinx Well-Known Member

    Other than using (one of) my cat(s) as an avatar I dont share a huge amount of cat pictures (only one of my cats is any good around a camera - the other 2 pull faces, look away, blink, or do anything possible to avoid being photographed decently)

    Since joining here I started a flickr account - I do not put every image from it up for appraisal or anything and I am well aware that many are not quite up to perfect quality. However to me it is a record and visual statement of myself. People can see what catches my eye and possibly get an idea of how I view the world (no I am not obsessed with squirrels I simply find them a challenging subject and enjoy trying to photograph them). The pictures on there are all the ones that "spoke" to me - some with pride at taking them others because of memories, others just do.

    Its like the old job interview question, or even worse dating site "how would you describe yourself" - well I would now say to someone if you are interested take a look at my flickr - it probably reveals more than I want but at the same time if someone looks and dislikes then we are probably not going to get on whereas if they like we probably will get on.

    OK as yet is is far from a complete view of me (every time I see a car to photograph I am driving) but that will change over time.
  17. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    As defined by who?
    I thought photography/art was subjective?
  18. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    By whom? Anyone who wants to. There are lots of picture that no-one in their right mind would define as brilliant after a nanosecond's thought. And even if you think there's one brilliant cat picture in the 48, CHOOSE IT. Don't saddle the rest of us with the other 47.


  19. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    But why would I look at your flickr to begin with? And might it not be that someone might be a witty, charming raconteur and a bloody awful photographer? Or a tedious nerd who has a good eye for a picture but has no other redeeming qualities?


  20. Sphinx

    Sphinx Well-Known Member

    I did put if someone asked me to tell them about myself.

    I do not go around sending my flickr to everyone - it appears in my signature here and on one other non photographic forum where a lot of people seem to like my pictures and kept asking me to post them.

    It is possible to share without forcing down peoples throat - flickr is there if people ask - and a couple of people on flickr have favourited pictures - I dont know how they found them but they liked them - but they had to go and look for them.

    I am not a witty, charming raconteur, and I hope I am not a bloody awful photographer - for me personally it is a way of showing people my view of the world which I have long accepted is different from most peoples (my inability to be charming and witty with words is clearly demonstrated from this attempt to explain using words). Other people will use it differently - I cannot answer from their perspective.

    Oh and tedious nerds with only one redeeming feature are still lovable - no I am not one but I do live with a nerd who I do not consider tedious in the least although my eyes may glaze over as I listen to in depth stuff I have no need for.

Share This Page