What? Not sure where you got that idea, but Facebook was never a good choice for photographers to showcase their work in isolation from other noise, or for people to browse photos in specific categories and collections.
The social part makes it all "oh, I was there too it was such a nice day, are you coming to my party next week?".... I'm guessing that's FB. Facebook = happysnap. Instagram = happiersnap.
This article is from 2012, and is off the mark. Flickr is still up and running, even if crammed with ads sending uBlock into a frenzy.
If anything, photographic collections and studies don't have the appeal they once had due to the trillions of images we see everywhere now. The eyesore of over-sharpened, over-saturated, too high dynamic ranged retina candy. Good photography now is back in the galleries where it should be...IMHO, the image resting on a print not emitting any light of its own. No blinding pixels, and hopefully matte paper, no glass.
>What? Not sure where you got that idea, but Facebook was never a good choice for photographers to showcase their work in isolation from other noise, or for people to browse photos in specific categories and collections.
What the parent says is that this, even if true, the above is totally irrelevant.
There's not much of a market for "photographers to showcase their work in isolation from other noise" or for "people to browse photos in specific categories and collections".
What there's actually a huge user base for that can be turned into ad money is casually sharing photos AMONG other stuff, with friends and relatives. Which is what Facebook offers.
This killed Flickr, except in the way you describe -- which nobody (as in: few millions of people) cares about.
Not everything is about aiming for the lowest common denominator with the most profitable market. Random funny pics and cheeseburgers will always be greater markets, but that is irrelevant.
When you invest in camera gear then study or explore photography, you will gravitate away from junk food image sharing platforms, and instead find places dedicated to skills, techniques and themed photography showcases and resources.
Nobody killed Flickr. It could use some interface and feature improvements, and probably some new administrators or project teams, but it's still there doing what it does. For what it's worth, I was never a big fan of Flickr due to the lack of control over how your gallery page could look and function.
>Not everything is about aiming for the lowest common denominator with the most profitable market.
No, but Facebook level businesses are.
>Random funny pics and cheeseburgers will always be greater markets, but that is irrelevant.
And so is Flickr in the context of the grandparent's comment.
>Nobody killed Flickr. It could use some interface and feature improvements, and probably some new administrators or project teams, but it's still there doing what it does.
Killing for a social medium, even more so a business-run social medium, is not about not being able to do "what it does".
It's about being unable to monetize it, it losing mind-share, people moving away, the action getting elsewhere etc.
The social part makes it all "oh, I was there too it was such a nice day, are you coming to my party next week?".... I'm guessing that's FB. Facebook = happysnap. Instagram = happiersnap.
This article is from 2012, and is off the mark. Flickr is still up and running, even if crammed with ads sending uBlock into a frenzy.
If anything, photographic collections and studies don't have the appeal they once had due to the trillions of images we see everywhere now. The eyesore of over-sharpened, over-saturated, too high dynamic ranged retina candy. Good photography now is back in the galleries where it should be...IMHO, the image resting on a print not emitting any light of its own. No blinding pixels, and hopefully matte paper, no glass.