Mini Rant - Please stop making your separate FB photography pages!

Fiona

sNarah wrote: »

Well, I did anticipate the thread with "mini-rant" therefore indicating that maybe it's a tad of an unwarranted complaint. For me, the main "issue" is finding the right balance between supporting my photog friends of FB - which accounts for at least 30% of my friends - and hiding them.

I know they need my, and others support, in order to have a successful business and come across as one on FB, but sometimes I just get fed up with them. And hiding them means I'll never get the updates, which I'm not interested in neither.

Have you ever raised this directly with your friends?

condra

There's two things I see people moaning about which don't bother me at all: Facebook photography pages, and noobs trying to make money.

If you're starting up a small photography business, it would be foolish to underestimate the immense power of Facebook for reaching new potential customers.

If you have an established photography business but refuse to use Facebook, you are not in a position to complain about a dwindling clientbase because you haven't taken the single easiest step in promoting your brand.

If you're a photography business and you're not shooting digital, editing your images on a computer, and promoting yourself with social media, you're a dinosaur.

Let noobs be noobs, even if their delusion gets under your skin. If someone has a separate Facebook page that you don't like, don't "like" it.

One other thing about the effect of "noobs" on the industry. Boo hoo if noobs are taking your business. Up your game, lower your prices, do what you have to do. With technological progress comes competition. Aren't you more than just a fancy camera?

Cheap technology, globalisation, and the internet have helped democratize so many industries such as music recording and distribution, creative writing, film making, journalism, broadcasting, photography, etc. This is awesome for more people than it sucks for.
Just like anyone can create music or animation on their computer now, the advent of dirt cheap DSLRs, combined with Facebook as a business tool makes it easy for anyone to try their hand at photography. Sure, there is more rubbish for customers to wade through, and more rubbish for businesses to compete with, but the cream still rises to the top.

As an emerging noob who is "Facebook savvy" and continually improving my photography, I look forward to taking business from anyone who thinks the high price they payed for their camera back in 2004 entitles them to a successful photography business without having to move with the times.

/rant, sorry

Daveysil15

Condra pretty much summed it up perfectly. Just follow and like the pages you're interested in. The thing is though, if you have hundreds of friends and you're always liking stuff, your timeline is going to get clogged up with a lot of crap anyway. I have just over a hundred friends on my personal page, and I have a seperate page for my photography.

I don't try to force my page on my friends or ask them to like it, and I don't post my photography stuff in my personal profile - I don't see the point. The only reason why I set up a fb page is because I can only upload 15 photos to my Model Mayhem profile, which is where I meet most of my clients. So I put a link for my fb page so any models who see my Model Mayhem profile can see the rest of my work.

brokenarms

This kind of reminds me when all the good Polish people came of the boat in the boom.
As a tradesman hearing the thoughts and feelings about this, it was a common misconception that they were destroying prices and they did not know what they where doing.

To a degree they were doing this. But the best trades carpenters, plumbers and brick layers did not bat an eyelid. It did not affect them.

The consumer DSLR man is the new immigrant by the looks of it. lol

Daveysil15

I remember hearing a quote a while back, I can't remember who said it but it went something like this: "The great thing about digital photography is that anybody can do it. The bad thing about digital photography is that anybody can do it."

Corkbah

pullandbang wrote: »

I'd have to disagree.

Not everyone who hammers a nail is a carpenter.
Not everyone who wires a plug is an electrician.

Any muppet can take a photograph but that does not make him/her a photographer.

genie_us wrote: »

I disagree too.

To say I'm a photographer, to me, implies that I'm informing someone that I have a certain level of knowledge and skill in photography.

Feck this, I've just decided, I am a photographer!

you are both entitled to disagree ( or change you mind mid-post ).

I would disagree with pullandbang on his examples - both of those trades the person must go through several years of apprenticeship and also must be registered with a governing body within the state....so not everyone can be a carpenter or electrician.

Photography is unregulated and anyone who has a camera and takes a photo can call themselves a photographer - it doesn't mean they are any good ...just means they can take a photo !! (good or bad)

humberklog

Corkbah wrote: »

you are both entitled to disagree ( or change you mind mid-post ).

I would disagree with pullandbang on his examples - both of those trades the person must go through several years of apprenticeship and also must be registered with a governing body within the state....so not everyone can be a carpenter or electrician.

Photography is unregulated and anyone who has a camera and takes a photo can call themselves a photographer - it doesn't mean they are any good ...just means they can take a photo !! (good or bad)

How about a person picking up a paint brush, dipping it into a blob of paint on the palet and applying it to canvas- all for the very first time: a painter?

There's a difference between "being into photography" and being a Photographer.

magicbastarder

humberklog wrote: »

There's a difference between "being into photography" and being a Photographer.

there's not (your use of the capital P put to one side for now). the term 'amateur photographer' is perfectly apt, and is a handy way of distinguishing from pros.

humberklog

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's not (your use of the capital P put to one side for now). the term 'amateur photographer' is perfectly apt, and is a handy way of distinguishing from pros.

I was gonna put it all in higher case...think I still will- PHOTOGRAPHER.


Would agree with Your post to a large extent all the SAME.

Corkbah

humberklog wrote: »

How about a person picking up a paint brush, dipping it into a blob of paint on the palet and applying it to canvas- all for the very first time: a painter?

There's a difference between "being into photography" and being a Photographer.

lol... to me that would be an artist !!

"being into photography" .... does that person still not take just photos - like a photographer ?

Daveysil15

Corkbah wrote: »

lol... to me that would be an artist !!

"being into photography" .... does that person still not take just photos - like a photographer ?

No more than someone who does boxing ... they'd still be a boxer - just not a professional. A person doesn't need to be in the same league as Manny Pacquiao to call themselves a boxer.

humberklog

Corkbah wrote: »

lol... to me that would be an artist !!

"being into photography" .... does that person still not take just photos - like a photographer ?

They do, just like a photographer. Just like.

I kinda like photography and put a bit of worth on a knowledgable person doing it, it does show.

I'm not a photographer but I do appreciate what they can do and the field they do it in.

My daughter's 9 and takes photos, when she does take photos I don't think she's a photographer. Nor does she.

condra

The way I see it, anyone can call themselves a photographer, but if you do, and your stuff sucks, you're gonna look like a moron.

I'm happy enough with the term "hobbyist photographer".

melekalikimaka

guys unless you have a degree in it, you're not a photographer


:cool:

condra

Ooh no you di'n't

Nerro

melekalikimaka wrote: »

guys unless you have a degree in it, you're not a photographer


:cool:

ok that comes from dictionary.....
"A photographer (from Greek φωτός (photos), meaning "light", and γράφω (graphos), meaning "written") is a person who takes photographs."
i take pictures it means i am a photographer.now lvl of skill is another story.

AnCatDubh

um, ok,...... for clarity, when did this thread change from "I hate my friends who spam my facebook feed (personal + page)"

to

"you are not really a photographer now are you"

DaireQuinlan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

um, ok,...... for clarity, when did this thread change from "I hate my friends who spam my facebook feed (personal + page)"

to

"you are not really a photographer now are you"

I'm waiting for the segue into "just what IS photography ?" and the inevitable decline into WON'T-SOMEONE-THINK-OF-THE-CHILDRENism.

Daveysil15

A person is still a photographer even if the photos they take are bad. If an incompetent driver loses control of a car and crashes into a tree, they're still a driver. The only difference is, the latter is not subjective.

amdgilmore

Being an artist, and being a photographer, is purely a matter of self-identification. The only question is whether your art is any good.

Who decides that, you ask?

Me. I decide. So you'd better be nice to me.

sNarah

This was a fun thread though