Where Do You Share?

CallibCarver · Oct 20, 2016

I'm curious where everyone shares their work, outside of TPF?

I personally like 500px, especially over Flickr. One I'll be honest I'm not a huge Yahoo person and Flickr lost its allure long ago. 500px has a lot more creative pieces on it or at least pieces that I'm more into. I also have my blogs and of course the normal social media channels, like Facebook. But I prefer 500px over them all.

There is of course Instagram, which for me isn't a huge thing. But it is a valuable tool non the less, and one I don't miss out on. As well as VSCO.

What about you?

Advanced Photo · Oct 20, 2016

At home, with family.
At home with friends.
At shows and exhibitions and sales. (for sale only)
At fairs and other events. (for sale only)

AceCo55 · Oct 21, 2016

my website
local clubrooms (sports)
local newspapers

Vtec44 · Oct 21, 2016

My website (I get a decent amount of hits).
My Instagram (I have a small group of followers).
My business Facebook page (that has been kind of dead since they changed the algorithm).
My personal Facebook page (that's a bit better but still dead).
I also get published on various industry blogs .

Fred von den Berg · Oct 21, 2016

My wife and daughter get to see most of my photos and I occasionally show a small group of friends and acquaintances selected prints.

TPF is the only place online that I share photos.

KenC · Oct 21, 2016

A photo critique meet-up group, a camera club, and an arts center photo group - all in person, not online.

ashleykaryl · Oct 27, 2016

As little as possible online and only small images. I'm working on plans to start producing and hopefully selling fine art prints, but once an image goes online you have absolutely no control over it. At least a small image provides less room for abuse.

A few years ago I saw a seller on eBay who was offering large poster sized prints of famous people and it didn't take a genius to work out he wasn't the photographer. He was challenged about this and claimed all the images were in the public domain because they were on the internet. It's nonsense of course, but if photographers and others hadn't been uploading large Jpegs he couldn't have done it. Sadly I suspect he was making more money out of the images than the original photographers.

As for Instagram, this is worth a read A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000

vintagesnaps · Oct 27, 2016

I show them to people I want to show them to. I've done submissions to juried exhibits and if accepted, printed, matted, framed & shipped them off wherever so my photos are traveling more than I am! lol

If I was trying to find customers I'd probably do more learning on how to show work online but I don't really need to do that, so... I have taken an occasional webinar on copyright, and how to use social media, etc., thru ASMP (free even to nonmembers) to at least stay somewhat informed.

Read the Terms on sites you're considering - like 500px which isn't a US company. You might have agreed to Terms that allow the site to use your photos. I read the Terms on Instagram - deal breaker for me.

Advanced Photo · Oct 27, 2016

Agree, never post any image you are not comfortable donating for free. Tiny, heavily watermarked images are ok to some extent, but even that can give someone the idea to reproduce the image that they might have never though of on their own and cut into your ability to sell your own image.
Then again, most of the images on social sites are not worth stealing anyways. lol

ashleykaryl · Oct 27, 2016

One thing I really hate is the way that meta data is automatically stripped from images when uploaded to Twitter or Facebook. Short of plastering a huge watermark on all your images, the moment you upload to those sites all trace of source contact information is gone. I read something once about Facebook being able to use your uploaded profile images for advertising, simply because you "liked" something.

Advanced Photo · Oct 27, 2016

ashleykaryl said:
One thing I really hate is the way that meta data is automatically stripped from images when uploaded to Twitter or Facebook. Short of plastering a huge watermark on all your images, the moment you upload to those sites all trace of source contact information is gone. I read something once about Facebook being able to use your uploaded profile images for advertising, simply because you "liked" something.

I think the name of the site you are referring to is "Farcebook"

vintagesnaps · Oct 27, 2016

I remember that situation in the Washington Post article. Seems one thing to cut pictures out of a magazine that had already been published and the photographer already paid, and another thing to take people's photos posted online somewhere.

Terms might cover usage on a site but as the article talks about, that won't cover photos taken and used by someone elsewhere. Might be questionable on ethics but not necessarily illegal.

Vtec44 · Oct 27, 2016

vintagesnaps said:
I remember that situation in the Washington Post article. Seems one thing to cut pictures out of a magazine that had already been published and the photographer already paid, and another thing to take people's photos posted online somewhere.

Terms might cover usage on a site but as the article talks about, that won't cover photos taken and used by someone elsewhere. Might be questionable on ethics but not necessarily illegal.

Yep, same thing could have happened if someone took a screen shot of your website and sell that screen shot for 90k.

ashleykaryl · Oct 27, 2016

I once shot an image for a beauty editorial in Italy that was printed on the front cover of a magazine. A couple years later I was walking past a pharmacy and saw the same image being used as a shop window display, packaging and more. Later on I found the company had been running full page adverts in magazines for their cosmetics products. They literally scanned it from the magazine cover.

Suffice it to say that if something is published, somebody, somewhere will be tempted to use it without permission and often in ways you may not like. The problem with the internet is that this practice has multiplied on an outrageous scale and 90% of the time it is entirely deliberate.

I know a stock photographer with his own agency who gave up trying to sell his images a few years ago. Instead he deliberately releases them into the internet now and waits for a companies to use them commercially without permission, which happens without fail. He then goes after them with claims for copyright infringement. It's an unusual business model for sure but in the current climate of "sharing" that is his most effective means of earning income from the images.