Author Topic: no such thing as "professional photographers" (Read 11470 times)

gillian vann · « **on:** May 22, 2013, 00:00 »

CEO of Yahoo announces there's no such thing anymore as professional photographers.
oh wow, how is she at qualified to announce this?
and argh, holding such a high global position.

http://gigaom.com/2013/05/20/flickr-gets-revamp-with-1-tb-of-storage-space-free-and-yahoo-gets-new-nyc-office/

falstafff · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:06 »

Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #2 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:13 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:06

Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

The traditional definition of a professional photographer is someone who makes more than half of their income from photography. That has included us since 2005, and probably a whole bunch of other people here.

falstafff · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:22 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 01:13

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:06
Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

The traditional definition of a professional photographer is someone who makes more than half of their income from photography. That has included us since 2005, and probably a whole bunch of other people here.

Yes thats the traditional definition but as much as we all wish to be labelled pros. In the world of stock? I doubt it.

rubyroo · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:32 »

Some good comments under the article. Hopefully it'll spread like wildfire and she'll be forced to apologise and admit that she didn't know what she was talking about.

What an incredibly idiotic thing to say to the photographic community. Especially when it insults and alienates the very people most likely to pay the extra fee for the ad-free version. It truly beggars belief.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2013, 01:57 »

cue Xanox!

I think Yahoo should concentrate on its own business - they really are on the way out

Travelling-light · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:16 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:22

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 01:13
Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:06
Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

The traditional definition of a professional photographer is someone who makes more than half of their income from photography. That has included us since 2005, and probably a whole bunch of other people here.

Yes thats the traditional definition but as much as we all wish to be labelled pros. In the world of stock? I doubt it.

Speak for yourself, sonny.

Imagenomad · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:26 »

There are an awful lot of "professional photographers" who use Flickr as part of their nowadays all-important Social Media branding and SEO. I'm not sure yet how this will affect them. Getting into bed with Tumblr may actually improve things for them, in spite of what that clueless wonder Mayer said.

On the other hand, if visitors to the site get buried in crappy image cruft after the Flickr re-design, it may be counter-productive. But it may not. Too early to tell.

1TB storage is nice but I don't trust any of these corporations anymore, especially when they unilaterally change my T&C without consulting me. So what rights will they start asserting over my images that they kindly host?

Actually, at the moment, I'm having a big downer on corporations - software houses, tech companies, factory agriculture, energy producers, all seem to be in league with governments to fleece us, the general population - search the interwebz for Ag-Gag for a recent example of "buying" legislation and of course there's the recent new orphan works copyright legislation in the UK. I wonder who that will ultimately benefit? They're all different cheeks of the same corporate fascist 4rse.

JPSDK · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:39 »

Professional photographers?

Does it matter? There is also a lot of doctors that are not doctors and and search machines that are actually hiding machines.

So what? the whole world is a fraud egnima.

And to stay in the context: Doesnt matter if the photographers are professional, because the customers arent professional either and image quality is not so important as relevancy and availability.

falstafff · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:50 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 02:16

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:22
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 01:13
Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:06
Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

The traditional definition of a professional photographer is someone who makes more than half of their income from photography. That has included us since 2005, and probably a whole bunch of other people here.

Yes thats the traditional definition but as much as we all wish to be labelled pros. In the world of stock? I doubt it.

Speak for yourself, sonny.

Jim actually. He, he.

Imagenomad · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:58 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 02:50

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 02:16
Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:22
Quote from: Travelling-light on May 22, 2013, 01:13
Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:06
Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

The traditional definition of a professional photographer is someone who makes more than half of their income from photography. That has included us since 2005, and probably a whole bunch of other people here.

Yes thats the traditional definition but as much as we all wish to be labelled pros. In the world of stock? I doubt it.

Speak for yourself, sonny.

Jim actually. He, he.

Perry · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:06 »

Wow... I thought I was a professional photographer... Now I really need to find out where my money comes from - it can't be photography!

JPSDK · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:10 »

Actually Perry, it isnt.
You distribute digital files in form of images. Keywords combined with titles and colours. Content.

You can only sell it because they appear in a context.

Also a camara is a smart machine that superfast can map a lot of info into a frame.

Perry · « **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:21 »

Yes, but about 2/3 of my income comes from commissioned work

(Only 1/3 from (micro)stock)

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:30 »

How can you take that seriously. Aren't they just a bunch of Yahoos?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:41 »

There never was any such thing as a professional photographer. To be a profession there would have to be a regulatory body that governed entrance into the business and ensured standards of proficiency (and behaviour) were met by practitioners.

I don't know of anywhere in the world where you have to be licensed by a professional association before you are allowed to practise photography.

Perry · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:51 »

pro·fes·sion·al
[pruh-fesh-uh-nl]
adjective
1.
following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
.... ... ... ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professional

falstafff · « **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:56 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 22, 2013, 03:41

There never was any such thing as a professional photographer. To be a profession there would have to be a regulatory body that governed entrance into the business and ensured standards of proficiency (and behaviour) were met by practitioners.

I don't know of anywhere in the world where you have to be licensed by a professional association before you are allowed to practise photography.

True indeed. The closest thing was the AFAEP in England. Association of fashion and editorial photographers where you had to send in proof of dozens of assignments to become a member. It was never a type of registration or certificate for professionals though.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2013, 04:43 »

Quote from: Perry on May 22, 2013, 03:51

pro·fes·sion·al
[pruh-fesh-uh-nl]
adjective
1.
following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.
.... ... ... ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professional

So it's just another word for "work" or "job" by that definition. Not a label that indicates any level of ability or is worth getting excited about, then.
Another candidate for a "professional body" is the Royal Photographic Society, which has exams for Members and Fellows. If you hire a Fellow of the RPS you can be pretty sure you will have a good job done.

The funniest thing about this coffee-cup-sized storm is that at the root of it is the fact that Flickr's "professionals" are being stripped of the title they paid a web-hosting service to acquire. Who wouldn't be mad at the thought that they can no longer become professional by dropping twenty bucks into Flickr's account?

Excuse me while I get my PhD in photography by sending off a cheque to London University in Kabul.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2013, 04:54 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 22, 2013, 01:32

What an incredibly idiotic thing to say to the photographic community. Especially when it insults and alienates the very people most likely to pay the extra fee for the ad-free version. It truly beggars belief.

I don't think they're interested in the people who currently pay. It seems that they want me to take up the Free version before August 30th - the 'free' button is very prominent both in the link from the informing email and when I visited the site after the change.
Either they average more than ?$25? per person from ads or they have a nefarious scheme. Or both.

OM · « **Reply #20 on:** May 22, 2013, 05:55 »

Off topic but did anyone else notice this bit of the article:

Quote

Flickr is getting three big updates. All users will get 1 terabyte of photo storage for free. The site’s interface is also being redesigned to focus on full-resolution photos — both in photo browsing and in search — rather than words and links. Users will be able to share the full-resolution photos by email, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Tumblr.

Well, if that doesn't encourage theft, I don't know what will!

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #21 on:** May 22, 2013, 06:12 »

Quote from: gillian on May 22, 2013, 00:00

CEO of Yahoo announces there's no such thing anymore as professional photographers.
oh wow, how is she at qualified to announce this?
and argh, holding such a high global position.

http://gigaom.com/2013/05/20/flickr-gets-revamp-with-1-tb-of-storage-space-free-and-yahoo-gets-new-nyc-office/

Doesn't surprise me that something like this would come from the captain of a directionless antiquated sinking ship.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 22, 2013, 07:19 »

I had a pro account on Flikker but due to their atrocious and ignorant customer service I've let it expire and stopped using Flikker actively. Its a bunch of Yahoos (thank you Leo) at Flikker.

So if there are no PRO photographers, why call it a PRO account? Yer woman needs to sort her lingo.

I never liked Yahoo for their aggressive marketing tactics (vendor lock in) and always trying to install adware, spyware and other crap on my PC, and ever since I had to deal with the Flikker customer service, I hate them even more.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 22, 2013, 07:37 »

aspp · « **Reply #24 on:** May 22, 2013, 07:46 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 22, 2013, 06:12

Doesn't surprise me that something like this would come from the captain of a directionless antiquated sinking ship.

Though still remarkably profitable and with a rising share of search. Yahoo seems to have rebounded.

I think we often forget just how much reach Yahoo has into the lives of many people. In other news see if you can guess what was the hottest tech stock of 2012. If you don't know the answer, I think you will be surprised. Answer here.

OM · « **Reply #25 on:** May 22, 2013, 08:15 »

Gotta luv Wall Street and what they do with stock prices.......AOL net $22 million on more than half a billion of revenues and the stock price triples in a year. Market cap nearly $3 billion giving a p/e of 135.
And in the last 2 years they had an infinite p/e cuz they made losses.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #26 on:** May 22, 2013, 09:53 »

professional |prəˈfe sh ənl|
adjective
1 [ attrib. ] of, relating to, or connected with a profession : young professional people | the professional schools of Yale and Harvard.
2 (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime : a professional boxer.

I don't think some half-baked CEO can change the definition of a word.

Xanox · « **Reply #27 on:** May 22, 2013, 10:44 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 01:06

Well there isnt really. Unless you turn to the world of commissioned photography. I do not think uploading to micros or other stock sources counts as being true pro photography.

as long as you pay all your bills just with earning from photo sales you're indeed a pro photographer.

of course there are pros earning 1000$ per month and pros earning 10 millions per year but that's not the point.

even the lamest wedding photographer is a pro if he can live just with that.

Xanox · « **Reply #28 on:** May 22, 2013, 10:53 »

Marissa Mayer will end up like Carly Fiorina or Carol Bartz .. booted out from angry shareholders or even fired with a phone call ...

she's the latest in a string of failed CEOs at Yahoo, the company itself isnt even sure about what's his core business now and this should give you a hint about what they have in store, it will be all about M&As, smoke and mirrors, just as AOL does, it's the same Ponzi scheme seen a million times on Nasdaq.

and indeed their stock value will rise quickly, Mayer will be praised for the great results, but nobody will remind you it came at the cost of wasting billions, i mean real money not stocks, even the Tumblr guy wanted to be paid in US$ not in yahoo stocks which says it all !

that's a very bad sign from any perspective, if he believed the stock value of Yahoo would go up why opting for cash ?

let's face it, there's no difference from today's yahoo and the old Tripod, Lycos, Geocities, Hotmail, Ask.com .. we're in the middle of yet another web 2.0 bubble.

the only and i mean ONLY solid social media company around is ... drumroll ... LINKEDIN !!

Xanox · « **Reply #29 on:** May 22, 2013, 11:15 »

Quote from: gillian on May 22, 2013, 00:00

CEO of Yahoo announces there's no such thing anymore as professional photographers.
oh wow, how is she at qualified to announce this?
and argh, holding such a high global position.

after all she had to leave google because they had no plans to further her career, which in business-speak is a polite way to say they had enough of her BS and told her to find another job elsewhere.

i've no idea either about what she's exactly qualified for.
not a single google product has been launched by her nor she made a name for herself attached to a successful google service and all she's doing at yahoo so far is collecting PR fiascos and alienating her own employess with draconian rules against working from home.

her position is not even high nor global considering how bad Yahoo is performing now compared to the past, by all means it's a small company with no vision and no solid business model, all mouth and no trousers.

why not allowing Flickrs to sell their images as stock for instance, what about prints and upsells for everybody, wow there would be soooo many ways to monetize Flickr but they dont ! and now they've even removed the Pro accounts because they think advertising is where the money is ... Flickr as a gigantic "google images" with ads sticked all over the place and pages that take forever to load.

all i can read around is an army of angry Flickrs leaving in droves and same for the Tumblrs moving to wordpress and rightly so.

and i fell Yahoo's grand plan is just started, they could pretty much buy the NYT now that they've set up offices in their building or even CNN or the whole AOL or who knows, they're in full frenzy now and drinking champagne and this smells of web 2.0 bubble from a mile away.

falstafff · « **Reply #30 on:** May 22, 2013, 13:07 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 22, 2013, 11:15

Quote from: gillian on May 22, 2013, 00:00
CEO of Yahoo announces there's no such thing anymore as professional photographers.
oh wow, how is she at qualified to announce this?
and argh, holding such a high global position.

after all she had to leave google because they had no plans to further her career, which in business-speak is a polite way to say they had enough of her BS and told her to find another job elsewhere.

i've no idea either about what she's exactly qualified for.
not a single google product has been launched by her nor she made a name for herself attached to a successful google service and all she's doing at yahoo so far is collecting PR fiascos and alienating her own employess with draconian rules against working from home.

her position is not even high nor global considering how bad Yahoo is performing now compared to the past, by all means it's a small company with no vision and no solid business model, all mouth and no trousers.

why not allowing Flickrs to sell their images as stock for instance, what about prints and upsells for everybody, wow there would be soooo many ways to monetize Flickr but they dont ! and now they've even removed the Pro accounts because they think advertising is where the money is ... Flickr as a gigantic "google images" with ads sticked all over the place and pages that take forever to load.

all i can read around is an army of angry Flickrs leaving in droves and same for the Tumblrs moving to wordpress and rightly so.

and i fell Yahoo's grand plan is just started, they could pretty much buy the NYT now that they've set up offices in their building or even CNN or the whole AOL or who knows, they're in full frenzy now and drinking champagne and this smells of web 2.0 bubble from a mile away.

Got you!

Xanox · « **Reply #31 on:** May 22, 2013, 14:35 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 22, 2013, 13:07

Got you!

yeah, but my analysis is NOT a critic on Yahoo !

if i was risky enough i could even buy some Yahoo stock now as i'm sure it's going up at least as long as the market will believe their BS before the final implosion.

i mean .. as a comparison FB makes a net gain of around 1$ per user per year ... these numbers are even below scratching the bottom of the barrel in advertising terms but since they've such a huge volume it's in the order of billions of $.

it's a business, no matter if it looks shady, it's indeed shady and not based on solid foundations, but for some time it's going to be profitable.

they will never attract the attention of conservative investors like warren buffett but for there's indeed money to be made for them and for their risky investors.

in 2001 i was already convinced Yahoo would implode and was sure companies like ebay and amazon would survive instead.

it's taking a long time but guess what, amazon is here to stay and so is ebay, they're selling real things, not hot air like FB or advertising space like yahoo and google.

google, that's a whole different story, but yahoo's days are numbered, i mean it's already a joke of a company compared with its market value of 3-4 yrs ago.

merissa mayer boasting to be the new CEO of such a company is in fact a big downgrade compared to her previous position in google, no matter if she makes more money now, even a random VP at google is worth the nr.1 in yahoo or AOL.

stockastic · « **Reply #32 on:** May 22, 2013, 18:35 »

She buys a company that makes money from professional photographers. Then makes a public statement about how there are no longer any professionals.

Short this stock.

Xanox · « **Reply #33 on:** May 23, 2013, 00:47 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 22, 2013, 18:35

Short this stock.

not yet.
more M&A will come soon, probably about music, social, maps, and e-commerce.

rubyroo · « **Reply #34 on:** May 24, 2013, 02:25 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 22, 2013, 18:35

She buys a company that makes money from professional photographers. Then makes a public statement about how there are no longer any professionals.

That is so succinct, and perfect.

Gunter Nezhoda · « **Reply #35 on:** May 24, 2013, 11:12 »

There's really no such thing as CEO's anymore, everybody has a business on the Internet now

gillian vann · « **Reply #36 on:** May 24, 2013, 18:29 »

^ ah, that is brilliant, thank you. I was searching for a clever analogy and that is wonderful.

Xanox · « **Reply #37 on:** May 25, 2013, 00:13 »

well, it's not far from truth, there's plenty of dic-ks who sell some cr-ap on Ebay from time to time and then claim to be "e-business experts" and self employed entrepreneurs !

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** May 25, 2013, 03:46 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 22, 2013, 11:15

and now they've even removed the Pro accounts because they think advertising is where the money is ...

<Pedant mode> They haven't currently removed Pro accounts. They seem to be 'encouraging' Pros to move to the free version, but are still promising the 'old' pro benefits of unlimited storage, stats and the clincher for me, no ads.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #39 on:** May 25, 2013, 03:55 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 22, 2013, 18:35

She buys a company that makes money from professional photographers. Then makes a public statement about how there are no longer any professionals.

Short this stock.

What exactly do you mean by professional photographers? I may be behind the times but I thought Flickr was a social media picture hosting service for enthusiasts while anybody serious about online hosting for business purposes was at Photoshelter.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** May 25, 2013, 03:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 25, 2013, 03:55

Quote from: stockastic on May 22, 2013, 18:35
She buys a company that makes money from professional photographers. Then makes a public statement about how there are no longer any professionals.

Short this stock.

What exactly do you mean by professional photographers? I may be behind the times but I thought Flickr was a social media picture hosting service for enthusiasts.

That absolutely is what Flickr has been about until now.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: no such thing as "professional photographers" (Read 11470 times)

rubyroo

Leo Blanchette

Poncke v2

aspp

rubyroo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors