Photography websites. Where are you posting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm using primarily 500px. It's hard to actually get noticed though, not necessarily the very best photos get actively seen. But I like the site.

The other one other than Flickr that I have an account is 1X. That site has a curator system which you must pass your image through before its allowed on the site. It's an artistic site, very very hard to get images on there but the general quality of images are pretty high. I haven't tried for a while but a couple if my images failed to get through. I should try again.

At least with 500px and sites like 1x, you can't simply right click and steal images.
 
Upvote 0
nightbreath said:
There's no way you can prevent copying and printing on internet. I'm familiar with dozen ways to protect your image and none of them work if someone is a professional in web-technologies.

That is likely true, just as it's true for cars, houses, etc. Security comes in layers and just because you can't stop the one guy who can get through five layers, that shouldn't mean you don't put up any security at all. My experience of people using my images is that they know nothing about rights. The Internet appears to them as a free-for-all. When confronted, they learn something, and they stop doing it. Personally, my only real concern is that I don't lose rights that way. For me, and I suspect most of us, our pictures are not likely to be stolen and used to fund a new yacht for some cyber crook.

That said, back to the topic at hand...

After trying a few different hosting sites beginning a few years ago, I finally dropped just about everything except Smugmug. As I've often said here I take pictures only to satisfy myself so I don't care if anyone else looks at them or likes or dislikes them. Neither Smugmug nor I provide any promotion. It costs around $60 per year to get a lot of options; costs vary with service level. I can copy-protect on a gallery basis. I can make galleries public or not. I can share images in various ways. An activist group asked me to take some pictures at an event recently so I created an unlisted gallery (anyone with the URL can see it) with no copy protection. They can view and take/use the images for whatever they like. In such a case, I relinquish copyright; it's like my contribution to their cause. They also have nothing that limits me -- no file size limitations that might affect me and no bandwidth restrictions. I can link an image here, for instance, and within a day or so have thousands of views on that image.

Once in a while I'll post something to Flickr, but I've never cared a lot for it. The real value seems to be in the various groups. For example, I get to see some great pictures of great architecture in the Louis Kahn group:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/louisikahn/

I don't have to contribute pictures to the group, but as a member I can contribute to conversations. If anyone is interested, by the way, I'm looking for pictures of the new Four Freedoms Park in New York City to be posted there. It was designed by Louis Kahn and just opened a few weeks ago. The photographic possibilities there seem awesome (a word I don't use as lightly as some). A lot of the groups I've seen at Flickr tend to have tens of thousands of members, some with hundreds of thousands of images -- so a lot of it seems real impersonal to me.

I've looked at, even participated in some of the more artsy sites -- Red Bubble, that 500 group that's been mentioned. I felt mainly lost and out of place there. Most photographers there are way out of my league.

For a while I contributed pictures and picture essays to the JPG Magazine site. It's largely amateurish in my opinion, and I didn't like the social media aspect of it -- a circle of "friends" all telling each other how magnificent their mostly mediocre images are. When management quashed something I published they did not like, we parted ways. The real loss for me was the ability to do photo essays, a form I like. I don't know anywhere else to do that.

Once in a while I'll post an image to FB if it helps some cause I'd like to advance. Most serious photographers I know don't like what FB does to their images (compression, etc.). For me, there's a lot to not like about FB.

Anyway, thanks for asking.
 
Upvote 0
If there is a club who really doesn't like facebook (for boat load of reasons) I'm in :)
They actively encouraging stealing photos. They even have a download button under the photos.
It's bad to post on it (fb owns all content) and it's bad not to (due to its size).
So I think the less bad is to be on it.
As others said before there are ways to take an image even if the right click is disabled but low res images with watermark can help a little.
Of course the wm takes away a bit but on the long run it worth it as it brought me more visitors to my main site.
 
Upvote 0
C

crasher8

Guest
Facebook is simple to lock down, however most folks don't take the time to figure it out. It's also popular and 'cool ' to hate on FB. You will find that there are strangers that are trying to friend you who you don't know and it may be due to your images. I check these folks pages out and it's usually a photo related thing.Just don't invite them in. Only be friends with people you actually know.Only share with friends. Upload medium to low rez with WM's. I love FB. It's an amazing way to stay in contact with friends from the past and out of town and share media. The security settings are not the most intuitive but they are there. Carry On (and shoot film)
 
Upvote 0
crasher8 said:
Facebook is simple to lock down, however most folks don't take the time to figure it out. It's also popular and 'cool ' to hate on FB.
Carry On (and shoot film)

Wow, you can lock down FB? Please teach us. MZ will love to hear it too. :)
I think it's more "cool" and popular to love fb than disliking it for its practices, TOS etc. but most folks don't take the time to read up on it or experiencing it.
The majority has the view of "If one can't see it, touch it, it's not there".

Carry on and don't cross the road if... wait.. what? :)
 
Upvote 0
C

crasher8

Guest
Wow, you can lock down FB? Please teach us. MZ will love to hear it too.
I think it's more "cool" and popular to love fb than disliking it for its practices, TOS etc. but most folks don't take the time to read up on it or experiencing it.
The majority has the view of "If one can't see it, touch it, it's not there".

Carry on and don't cross the road if... wait.. what?


Schooled again by someone smarter than me!
 
Upvote 0
Waterloo said:
Ellen Schmidtee said:
I find that facebook is a good place to post photos I want to share with family, friends, and bands I shoot, and.....

I've removed all my photos from facebook. I found it's too easy to steal from facebook and had issues with a "friend" who had copied some of my photos and posted them on her page and presented them as if she had taken them. All without my consent and no credit given. The security settings on my Photoshop.com albums are set to prevent copying and printing.

There's no way to secure photos posted on the web. One can always pull a copy of the photo out of the browser's cache, make a screenshot of the browser and crop the photo out of it, etc.
 
Upvote 0
Ellen Schmidtee said:
Waterloo said:
Ellen Schmidtee said:
I find that facebook is a good place to post photos I want to share with family, friends, and bands I shoot, and.....

I've removed all my photos from facebook. I found it's too easy to steal from facebook and had issues with a "friend" who had copied some of my photos and posted them on her page and presented them as if she had taken them. All without my consent and no credit given. The security settings on my Photoshop.com albums are set to prevent copying and printing.

There's no way to secure photos posted on the web. One can always pull a copy of the photo out of the browser's cache, make a screenshot of the browser and crop the photo out of it, etc.

True, it's a question of whether or not you do/how you watermark. A small signature can get cropped out, sure, but it's that much more work to 'steal'
 
Upvote 0
I've used zenfolio.com for years.

Maintaining ownership and sometimes limiting access was important since I shoot a lot of boy scouts, church and school events, etc. I don't want an image in the public domain (end up on a news story, cereal box or billboard) because I gave away the rights through a terms and agreements clause when I posted the images on a free site. Most public and free sites take the rights away from you when you post.

You can also restrict Google search access, add temporary watermarks, secure the galleries or pictures, use passwords, etc.
 
Upvote 0
Have account for years with Smugmug, but after experimenting using someone else computer in the near by city, and seeing my stats not reflecting the true counters, I have posted big watermarks and waiting to see any of my photos printed somewhere without permission.... maybe, I will get lucky...
And for the FB users, my God get to your senses...
 
Upvote 0
Sep 14, 2012
136
0
I use both 500px, and Flickr.

Both have positives and negatives. 500px generally looks nicer, and cleaner. However, 500px comments seem to be mostly made to get attention - and the down-vote system seems to be harming the ranking algorithm - since less good stuff seems to be marking it to the front page. Having said that the ranking algorithm still works far far better than Flickr's "explore".

Flickr is great for groups, storing full resolution copies of images (worst cast backups), private photos, and it has a great API for integration into other sites. The comments you get on Flickr are generally better, but it's harder to get noticed.

Also maybe this is just me, but 500px seems to favour colourful saturated images of landscapes and women, and cares less about more subtle "artistic" photos. Where as you can find groups for those kind of photos on Flickr fairly easily.

I've taken to using Flickr for general photo-sharing, and 500px for my better portfolio level images.
 
Upvote 0

shutterwideshut

IR and Long Exposure junkie
Oct 15, 2012
186
1
49
Southeast Asia
Area256 said:
I use both 500px, and Flickr.

Both have positives and negatives. 500px generally looks nicer, and cleaner. However, 500px comments seem to be mostly made to get attention - and the down-vote system seems to be harming the ranking algorithm - since less good stuff seems to be marking it to the front page. Having said that the ranking algorithm still works far far better than Flickr's "explore".

Flickr is great for groups, storing full resolution copies of images (worst cast backups), private photos, and it has a great API for integration into other sites. The comments you get on Flickr are generally better, but it's harder to get noticed.

Also maybe this is just me, but 500px seems to favour colourful saturated images of landscapes and women, and cares less about more subtle "artistic" photos. Where as you can find groups for those kind of photos on Flickr fairly easily.

I've taken to using Flickr for general photo-sharing, and 500px for my better portfolio level images.

+1 on that. Flickr is more wholesome but 500px is more presentable... Other photo sharing sites to consider are smugmug and pixoto.
 
Upvote 0
Tried various commercial sites over the years ... but was unhappy with the interaction, generally. So built my own site with help from a couple tech buddies (Me = low-tech :) ) and am now installing images as I get time. It includes some of my travel work from various places too, which can't happen as easily - or at all - in some sites.

Some images are very old scans of film or slides, some cropped and modified, some direct from camera... I'll add to this content over the next couple months. Pretty minimal at the moment.

Anyone wants a peek: www.billdelorey.com Any comments appreciated. You can also email us thru the site if you choose or have a question. It will eventually include photo tips, travel areas where we've been, and some other odd-ball things just to keep it interesting. We focus on wildlife habitat protection, and have several scientists overseeing our content, so we get it right.

FYI: Anyone with a small bit it IT knowledge can build a site - and cost is minimal. Just takes lots of time and patience. Doesn't need to become "fancy", the art and images are what makes it great. M44 :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.