facebook

thebaz

i have been using facebook more and more for photography , there is a new design out today, which i hate , really horrible in my mind for photography - just seams to be purely focussed for tagging - with a horrible white design - perhaps its time to return to flickr and pix and use facebook purely as a social medium , or forget it alltogether -pity

pete4130

Facebook is a social networking site, not a photo hosting site so I don't see what the moaning is for?

BlastedGlute

hahaha pure troll reply there pete

5uspect

Not to mention that they compress the living **** out of your images.

Fajitas!

thebaz wrote: »

i have been using facebook more and more for photography , there is a new design out today, which i hate , really horrible in my mind for photography - just seams to be purely focussed for tagging - with a horrible white design - perhaps its time to return to flickr and pix and use facebook purely as a social medium , or forget it alltogether -pity

Facebook IS a social network. It *is* purely focused on tagging and commenting and adding friends. It was never a portfolio website. It was never an image hosting website, that's what Flickr, et al, are for.

pete4130

BlastedGlute wrote: »

hahaha pure troll reply there pete

Not at all. It's a social networking site, not a photo sharing site. Do you try to social network on flickr to the same extent? Sure FB has "photo pages". People I've been to uni with that now work as "photographers" have them and their pages are terrible, their images are terrible and somehow they keep getting work through them.

It's appealing to the masses to easily be able to look at some FB photo page and give it a "like" and the photog gets all their friends, and their friends friends to "like" it and they get x amount of followers and deem themselves as good/experienced/valued as a photographer. Most of these people only have a FB page as their main outlet for business and advertising. It's unprofessional and cr@p tbh (not directed at baz, in general). Real photographers will have a good, dedicated website and it makes sense for them to have a FB page to get out there and link it back to their real site. That aspect makes sense if their website is good and their work is up to par with their claims.

For someone to moan about FB not having a photo display/hosting layout they aren't happy with, is a weak complaint. It isn't what it isn't.

So no, not pure troll. If I wanted a photographer and they sent me a FB link I'd be walking away straight away unless the images were stunning or they had an external site I could link to, rather than fanboy/friends raving about the (usually generic {not aimed at Baz}) photos.

FB is so accessible to so many people who don't have a clue about anything to do with photography, so what gets liked on some FB photo page means little to nothing in reality.

thebaz

pete4130 wrote: »

Facebook is a social networking site, not a photo hosting site so I don't see what the moaning is for?

just wanted a good ****ing moan - got my anger out on the football field , thankfully for all associated with me

humberklog

thebaz wrote: »

just wanted a good ****ing moan - got my anger out on the football field , thankfully for all associated with me

Humberklog "likes" thebaz's de-stressing methods.


Humberklog's dipping Swiss chocolate swirls into a piping hot cup of tea.

m-i-m-m-

M-i-m-m- like's humblerklogs's comment on thebaz's status.

5uspect

Luv u hun xxx

BlastedGlute

pete4130 wrote: »

So no, not pure troll.

Ah but it is your right but its still funny. your funny. smelling.

on that note!

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-announces-easier-better-faster-cleaner-photos/3077]

Does this mean less compression on images? It just says a bigger size, but why would I want to see a bigger version of an image they will just compress the **** out of?

thebaz

looking at it again , the new white design really is truly awfull

goods

+1 the white display is crap,. and the photos are tiny, any way to revert back to the black display ?

BlastedGlute

I quite like it, the quality is better for sure! Google+ still looks much better!

Sabre Man

I find Google+ much better than Facebook for photographies.

challengemaster

I'm surprised anyone actually puts photos on facebook what with the whole copyright issues...

Adriatic

Google+ is fantastic for photos and it acts like a blog too.

humberklog

challengemaster wrote: »

I'm surprised anyone actually puts photos on facebook what with the whole copyright issues...

I'd like to see the photos of the omelettes. The omelettes who everyone that is about to make one puts up on their pages saying that they're about to make an omelette. Facebook and Twitter is full of people about to make omelettes. Pics or GTFO!!