Are we sharing just to many photos online these days?

When you think about it, most photographers I know have multiple accounts that they upload photos too: Facebook, Twitter, G+, Flickr, 500px, and the list goes on. Photographers are uploading massive amounts of photos to these sites that have iffy privacy policies, plus there is really no way to protect your photos. Then when you look at it one step further, the types of photos that are getting uploaded astounds me. It's like you showing up to a job with your portfolio, you wouldn't show up with ALL your photos, you would only have your best. Same thing can be said with uploading images online. Why upload all them and not have control over them. Why not just upload your best in small sizes. When someone searches for you, they find your best and not all your 200 shots of your dog cleaning her self during your last family gathering.

It's almost as if people are fixated on quantity and not quality any more. Just my 2 cents from observations.

Maybe the following is an answer to your question:

"My solicitude, that importance of photography will disappear cause less people do photos,
has been modified to the solicitude that importance of photography will disappear
cause more and more people do photos."

I find the amount of photos uploaded can sometimes be mysteriously correlated to experience x)
Sometimes.

I think uploading frequently shouldn't be a problem. You try something new with a new subject and you get excited about it, so you show the world. It gets annoying when people broadcast 200 photos of the same thing though. And I used to be horrible like that too. Maybe not with uploading every shot, but I would show a few too many and people would just get bored. (You need to find the point where people are probably saying "OK I'm bored now, time to go look at something else")

Sometimes it is genuinely hard to choose just a few though. And that's okay, it's good to be proud of your work, especially when you're like me because no matter what it looks like you'll end up hating it in a few months anyway Enjoy the pride while it lasts.

I'd say maybe 5-10% of my pictures ever see the light of day and even less than that is something I'd put in a portfolio. But that's just me. I take a ton of shots and most suck in my opinion. Someone who thinks more highly of their work might either not take as many shots in the first place or view more as worthy of showing the world.

I agree it'd get boring to show everything, but at the same time I think there's a desire to show diversity in ones work. Yes, you can photograph a subject like this, but you can also photograph it like THAT too. So if you prefer THAT to this, then oh man I am totally your photographer... if that makes sense.

I respectfully disagree with quite a bit of that.

The biggest distinction is that of amateur vs. pro. Lets ignore amateurs that thank any crappy cellphone snap is worth sharing.

Leilanee wrote: I find the amount of photos uploaded can sometimes be mysteriously correlated to experience x)
Sometimes.

I think uploading frequently shouldn't be a problem.

Frequently isn't a problem; too much at a time is. If you believe FB then small, regular posts do you more good for reach.

You try something new with a new subject and you get excited about it, so you show the world. It gets annoying when people broadcast 200 photos of the same thing though. And I used to be horrible like that too. Maybe not with uploading every shot, but I would show a few too many and people would just get bored. (You need to find the point where people are probably saying "OK I'm bored now, time to go look at something else")

No, you need to be brutally honest with yourself and cull mercilessly. Show your best. But not more than 1 version of anything. You may be excited, but that doesn't mean anyone else will be. Find a mentor to keep you grounded.

Sometimes it is genuinely hard to choose just a few though. And that's okay, it's good to be proud of your work, especially when you're like me because no matter what it looks like you'll end up hating it in a few months anyway Enjoy the pride while it lasts.

Um, no. Be proud of your best. Yes, as you grow and improve you'll look back and see how far you've come. But your prior work should still be good enough to have been shared. You can just see now how it could be improved, even with just editing.

Be ruthless with yourself. If you can't find someone else (not your mother) and ask them. Enter contests; that will bring you down real fast.

Here we go! I think it's annoying when people upload photos that should have been considered a waste of a shutter click, let alone littering the web. And there are plenty of people uploading this rubbish.

Camera Diva wrote: Here we go! I think it's annoying when people upload photos that should have been considered a waste of a shutter click, let alone littering the web. And there are plenty of people uploading this rubbish.

Please do not beat around the bush like that, tell us how you really feel.
I have stated it many times that while digital is a boon for many of us, it is also a curse, in that it like the old days when people would have you looking at snaps of their last vacation, or family gathering. The worst were the people with slide projectors, and crappy snapshots. Now you can share those crappy snaps with the whole world, and what is the worst part is that everyone is. It has diluted the quality photography to a great extent, and also made it where the general public cannot see the difference anymore. Back in the good old film days only the best was ever seen in any mass publication, now even the mass publications use the flotsam which is not helping matters any. I believe that eventually quality is going by the wayside for the most part, except for those of us who are serious, but we too are disappearing as well. We are not the majority on this or many other photography forums. Also we are not the majority when it comes to equipment profits, and we never have been. It has always been the general publics buying of the cheap cameras that has made our equipment stay at a reasonable price. Sad but true that people taking crappy snapshots keeps the companies profitable.

Twitter is the worst

I like it!

I look at everything. I dismiss a lot of it; I follow some of it.

Some of it is really, very good!

Quality always rises to the top

I'm an amateur with a DSLR lol,

My firsts shots with my DSLR went to flickr but now few shots later I'm much more critic about my photos and don't up nothing new.

Just when I get a good shot I'll up It.

Just about flickr I guess the app with auto upload isn't doing a good job, many family gatherings is going without any filter.

past 11/15 was mom's birthday, I got more than 30 shots and 7 photos went for a facebook album.

garyrhook wrote: I respectfully disagree with quite a bit of that.

The biggest distinction is that of amateur vs. pro. Lets ignore amateurs that thank any crappy cellphone snap is worth sharing.

Leilanee wrote: I find the amount of photos uploaded can sometimes be mysteriously correlated to experience x)
Sometimes.

I think uploading frequently shouldn't be a problem.

Frequently isn't a problem; too much at a time is. If you believe FB then small, regular posts do you more good for reach.

You try something new with a new subject and you get excited about it, so you show the world. It gets annoying when people broadcast 200 photos of the same thing though. And I used to be horrible like that too. Maybe not with uploading every shot, but I would show a few too many and people would just get bored. (You need to find the point where people are probably saying "OK I'm bored now, time to go look at something else")

No, you need to be brutally honest with yourself and cull mercilessly. Show your best. But not more than 1 version of anything. You may be excited, but that doesn't mean anyone else will be. Find a mentor to keep you grounded.

Sometimes it is genuinely hard to choose just a few though. And that's okay, it's good to be proud of your work, especially when you're like me because no matter what it looks like you'll end up hating it in a few months anyway Enjoy the pride while it lasts.

Um, no. Be proud of your best. Yes, as you grow and improve you'll look back and see how far you've come. But your prior work should still be good enough to have been shared. You can just see now how it could be improved, even with just editing.

Be ruthless with yourself. If you can't find someone else (not your mother) and ask them. Enter contests; that will bring you down real fast.

Contests are nothing more than popularity contests usually. Peter Lik got 3rd place in an Astrophotography contest internationally...and his shot wasn't even astrophotography.

Joves wrote: --snip--

Now you can share those crappy snaps with the whole world, and what is the worst part is that everyone is. It has diluted the quality photography to a great extent, and also made it where the general public cannot see the difference anymore.

.

..?? Seems to me that "quality" will still be recognized when compared to "crappy" photography. Not sure the thoughts of "the general public" are real important in defining "quality". Anyone can self-publish their 'great American novel' these days ...but that does not make it a good story. Not sure it prevents the true 'good stories' from being discovered.

.

Joves wrote: Back in the good old film days only the best was ever seen in any mass publication, now even the mass publications use the flotsam which is not helping matters any. I believe that eventually quality is going by the wayside for the most part, except for those of us who are serious, but we too are disappearing as well. We are not the majority on this or many other photography forums. Also we are not the majority when it comes to equipment profits, and we never have been. It has always been the general publics buying of the cheap cameras that has made our equipment stay at a reasonable price. Sad but true that people taking crappy snapshots keeps the companies profitable.

.

Oh for the "good old days" . . .when only "we" were good and everyone knew it.


...tom...

sleeper54 wrote:

Joves wrote: --snip--

Now you can share those crappy snaps with the whole world, and what is the worst part is that everyone is. It has diluted the quality photography to a great extent, and also made it where the general public cannot see the difference anymore.

.

..?? Seems to me that "quality" will still be recognized when compared to "crappy" photography. Not sure the thoughts of "the general public" are real important in defining "quality". Anyone can self-publish their 'great American novel' these days ...but that does not make it a good story. Not sure it prevents the true 'good stories' from being discovered.

.

Joves wrote: Back in the good old film days only the best was ever seen in any mass publication, now even the mass publications use the flotsam which is not helping matters any. I believe that eventually quality is going by the wayside for the most part, except for those of us who are serious, but we too are disappearing as well. We are not the majority on this or many other photography forums. Also we are not the majority when it comes to equipment profits, and we never have been. It has always been the general publics buying of the cheap cameras that has made our equipment stay at a reasonable price. Sad but true that people taking crappy snapshots keeps the companies profitable.

.

Oh for the "good old days" . . .when only "we" were good and everyone knew it.


...tom...

Hoss wrote: Twitter is the worst

Twitter shouldn't be a place for showcasing photography. Twitter is a place for brief mass communication. Snapshots and funny pictures, yes. Serious photography showcases, no.

That said, I think Twitter is amazing and one of the best social media marketing tools. My websites gets about 1/3 of its hits from Twitter.

"Are we sharing just to many photos online these days?"......
I say yes......or maybe no.