MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Flickr  (Read 4845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 22, 2007, 17:19 »
0
So ... who here uses Flickr?


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2007, 17:32 »
0
not me

« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2007, 17:43 »
0
Nor me.

What would one use it for?

Okay ... so your family and friends and sometimes complete strangers can see your photos online. But does anyone sell through Flickr, or gain a reputation from having photos on there?

« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2007, 18:06 »
0
Not me either.  I use pBase.

« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2007, 18:07 »
0
What would one use it for? Are you kidding?

Does anyone sell anything?
You betcha. There are many, many Flickr users who have garnished jobs just because they're on Flickr. One high-profile amateur recently landed a job from Toyota, shooting the newly remodeled Prius. I've landed a few jobs from it (the most lucrative was $1000 for a wedding, where I merely hand over the RAW images to the groom). Flickr users are contacted all the time about selling their shots. My girlfriend makes $100 or so every few months without do anything!

Do you gain a reputation for being there?
You sure do. You will naturally attract good photographers if you upload only your best stuff. None of my family or friends regularly visit my stream, and I get at least 150 visitors to it a day. I let them know that I sell my images and provide a link to SS, which makes the potential for referrals outstanding - there are millions of Flickr users!


Flickr can be a very good marketing tool. If you're not there, then perhaps you should be. It's free, afterall.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 18:14 by sharply_done »

eendicott

« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2007, 21:29 »
0
So let me get this straight.  I've spent between $15,000 and $20,000 USD in gear alone (not to mention the time and effort required to make the images) and you want me to submit to a site to give away images for free so I can get a job shooting a wedding for $1,000...and give away my digital negatives when my competition is shooting the very same weddings for at least $1,500?

I thought the micros were bad.  Sheeesh.

I'll leave it to the millions of Flickr users and take my losses elsewhere.  I have enough problems with my agent trying to give images of other contributors away.

No Thanks.

« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2007, 23:11 »
0
Sorry, eendicott, but you don't have it straight at all.

I didn't say that you or anyone else should give away photos on Flickr. I said that Flickr can be used as an effective marketing tool (as you know, the photo biz is all about marketing).

About the $1000 wedding: How could I pass that up? $1000 for taking a thousand shots or so, with no quality control, post-processing, printing, or binding involved? Very easy money, to be sure - I wish all jobs were like this. It's been a few years since I did a wedding - I'm a commercial shooter, not a portrait or wedding shooter - and I'm looking forward to having a blast doing it.

As for the $15k-to-$20k in equipment: Nothing new there - we've all spent at least that much. It's part of the cost of doing business, and complaining about it or even bringing it up is completely irrelevant.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 23:14 by sharply_done »

« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2007, 01:21 »
0

... the most lucrative was $1000 for a wedding, where I merely hand over the RAW images to the groom ...


So some guy, before his wedding, waded through all the dross on Flickr ('cos there's a lot of that, diluting the few good images), found your work, and contacted you out of the blue with the offer of $1000 just for pushing the button.

Wow!


« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2007, 01:27 »
0
Bateleur: Nope, that's not what happened at all. He posted a question to one of the groups I'm a member of, and I responded favorably. It helped that I'm a professional, was able to provide him with a link to my portfolio site, and zipped him off a few wedding sample shots. Took about five minutes work to secure the job.

« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2007, 01:34 »
0
Sounds like it's worth investigating ... but what's to stop people stealing your images? As far as I can see, none of them are watermarked.

« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2007, 01:40 »
0
Thievery can be a problem, which is why I post only low res versions of my shots (typically 900x600 px). Some people watermark everything they post.

And yes, it's definitely worth investigating - as I'm trying to explain, if you approach it correctly it can open doors, and other revenue streams, for you. Dunno why people here seem to be against it. Seems they'd rather flail away at LO or StockXpert ...

« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2007, 01:55 »
0
Well, since you're on the topic sharply_done, I believe in the concept of social networks. You're exactly right- they can give you exposure. But on the comment of flailing at LuckyOliver, I'll have to disagree. We are actively working with our photographers to build their presence.

As our site continues to grow, I believe that our contributors will gain more than just a check in the mail from us.

« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2007, 02:32 »
0
bryan: It seems to me that people here are interested solely in getting a cheque. The general consensus seems to be "Social networks ... why bother?" Stock site attempts at it (e.g. iStock's "Creative Network") aren't broadly understood, or well implemented for that matter.

Good luck with your site. Perhaps I will become a member some day ...

eendicott

« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2007, 08:54 »
0
Sorry, eendicott, but you don't have it straight at all.

I didn't say that you or anyone else should give away photos on Flickr. I said that Flickr can be used as an effective marketing tool (as you know, the photo biz is all about marketing).

About the $1000 wedding: How could I pass that up? $1000 for taking a thousand shots or so, with no quality control, post-processing, printing, or binding involved? Very easy money, to be sure - I wish all jobs were like this. It's been a few years since I did a wedding - I'm a commercial shooter, not a portrait or wedding shooter - and I'm looking forward to having a blast doing it.

As for the $15k-to-$20k in equipment: Nothing new there - we've all spent at least that much. It's part of the cost of doing business, and complaining about it or even bringing it up is completely irrelevant.

Maybe I view things differently but to me, a business is a business.  Before engaging on any project, a person should know what his/her cost of doing business is, what the risks are, what the variable costs are, etc., etc., etc.  Cost of equipment and payment for your time have everything to do with business and should always be considered - it isn't irrelevant.  Would you work at your day job for free just because you enjoy it?

I agree social networking is important but giving away the photos that you create so that someone can underpay you to do something just doesn't make sense to me.  I'll stoop to the level of the micros to try to make a few dollars on volume, but I'm not going to cheapen myself or those around me by giving my stuff away - I like my competitor's work and have  too much respect for them to do that. 

There are other, more effective ways to network.  There is a lot to be said about the crowd you run with (or network with) who will promote you and your work in a more favorable way.  There's even a teacher in town here that if you want to shoot weddings, and you take his class, he'll give you a referral for a $1,500 wedding.

Then again, I make the same argument every time a friend wants me to shoot their wedding or a relative's wedding for free.  I have no problem giving a friend a discount but my time, and my business, is worth a lot more than a pat on the back.

« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2007, 10:01 »
0
It seems to me that people here are interested solely in getting a cheque.

Nope!
Stephen the checks for me are only the byproducts of my investments, which may not be the most productive, but correspond to an art of living I aspire to which is broader than only receiving financial gains.

digiology

« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2007, 12:07 »
0
I certainly am not doing this for the money.

I donate images to morguefile.com. Some editorial, some because I am too lazy to remove logos and such. I do not color correct or even rotate. (leave that up to the end user). Its my way of giving back to the community and I receive great feedback from all over the world.

« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2007, 12:20 »
0

... I donate images to morguefile.com ...


Hey! Never heard of that site before. Interesting. I've just checked it and I'm tempted to send some in rejects.

But what a pity that they don't require that the photographer is credited when images are used. It costs nothing and would be a little thank-you to the person who took, owns, and donated the image.

« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2007, 09:04 »
0
Having found the place, I e-mailed the administration at Morguefile asking why they didn't request that the photographer is credited (if s/he wants to be) and I got the following reply ...

Well the concept of morguefile is that its a collection of images that you would use as reference and here its more specific to things you would do in retouching or game development. Its not the best / artistic photo of a strawberry / baseball / piece of rug. Its just so someone can use it and its a greater collection for everyone to contribute to (not necessarily photographers). We are looking for not good photos that you wouldn't care about being credited. You know- what does a crane look like or where can I get a swatch of red hair to fix a photo.

That being said I am developing a portfolio side to the site that is not free images and you will be able to put whatever restriction / license you like. It will be a few months so stay tuned.

« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2007, 15:30 »
0

... I donate images to morguefile.com ...



Hey! Never heard of that site before. Interesting. I've just checked it and I'm tempted to send some in rejects.

But what a pity that they don't require that the photographer is credited when images are used. It costs nothing and would be a little thank-you to the person who took, owns, and donated the image.


Hey, why don't you donate them to the Wikipedia. It will certainly be much more usefull than sending them to any other image bank sites. And you'll also get a lot of exposure (10th most popular site in the world!) for your works. I've already sent to them some animal pics, including one that became a "Wikipedia Photo of the Day" image. If you wan't to take a look at them here are the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pseudalopex_culpaeus.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euphractus_sexcinctus2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cariama_cristata.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tapirus_terrestris.jpg


You can increase even more the exposure if you include a link of your site in the photo's description section...

Best
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 19:13 by Photosgraphis »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3639 Views
Last post November 02, 2006, 07:52
by FunkMaster5
27 Replies
8600 Views
Last post August 19, 2008, 11:56
by Bateleur
13 Replies
4456 Views
Last post January 29, 2009, 22:36
by jeffclow
17 Replies
7462 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 00:36
by madelaide
18 Replies
6762 Views
Last post January 24, 2009, 10:40
by stock shooter

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results