Hello, world: Social networking for photographers

A skeptic's view.

I do feel that there is something to be gained from an online presence, no matter how small or large. Every photographer working today has to engage to some degree with blogs, online competitions, or other means of presenting work to the online photographic community.

On the other hand, I also feel there is perhaps too much emphasis being made of the influence of these social networking platforms.

For instance, how does the number of Flickr or Twitter friends actually denote good concepts, skills, or talent of an individual photographer? Does exposure on "influential" blog 'X' or 'Y' or 'Z' really mean that there is something special; or it is simply a reflex action by a daisy chain of loosely connected bloggers?

Frankly, I do not believe either have much bearing on the overall quality of a photographer's work. These platforms are used by many young savvy photographers to simply generate buzz, while making up for deficiencies in the work itself.

In the greater scheme of things, photography blogs are still in their nascency (and utterly faddish.) Therefore, are we witnessing a form of photographic social-networking popularity contest, that is based more on an illusion, than reality?

Perhaps, I'm just a skeptical person, but I think too much emphasis on blogs and social networking (within photography) actually devalues the medium, and delivers fairly predictable results. In the end, it seems to be the realm of the the impressionable online viewer, versus the role of a photographer who gains intimate knowledge and understanding of their industry, and most importantly, craft from hands-on experience.

Photography Should Be Seen

One of the things that was drilled into us at University was that it didn't matter how many people looked at your flickr photos/twitter feed etc because they were 'the wrong kind of people'. The people who wouldn't commission you. Who didn't have enough of photographic education to appreciate your work?

This always smelled a little bit like BS.

Surely part of the joy of being a photographer is having your work out there to be seen by as many people as possible.

Completely agree with David Axelbank, number of social media friends doesn't mean you your good. But it does mean that people are seeing your work. Thats gotta to be a plus.

Social media is a good tool for marketing, but it also a good tool for getting your work out there.

Photography Should Be Seen

One of the things that was drilled into us at University was that it didn't matter how many people looked at your flickr photos/twitter feed etc because they were 'the wrong kind of people'. The people who wouldn't commission you. Who didn't have enough of photographic education to appreciate your work?

This always smelled a little bit like BS.

Surely part of the joy of being a photographer is having your work out there to be seen by as many people as possible.

Completely agree with David Axelbank, number of social media friends doesn't mean you your good. But it does mean that people are seeing your work. Thats gotta to be a plus.

Social media is a good tool for marketing, but it also a good tool for getting your work out there.

I agree with Skeptic but also...

I agree with Skeptic but also I have another point to make. Many of the most creative people I know are not natural PR/Marketing people, nor are they particularly interested in talking about themselves. I know this is no argument - it's just an observation.

Let's get real

In the end it all comes down to timing & personality. In other words: KARMA.

No amount of wanking or networking [as its usually called] is going to make up for that. That's not to say that having this exposure is a bad thing - its just not going to change the fact that ~5% of the people calling themselves photographers these days is going to get ~95% of the work. And by work I mean high-end adverts & editorial[which is diminishing every second]. Everything else is pretty much boring. Who's got time for that?