Guy you are by no means my worst nightmare nor any less a photographer for choosing not to pursue online services or technologies as outlined in this post. Everyone has their comfort zone and every photographer has different photographic goals. Strangely most of the people that I know that pride themselves on not being online are those that work in IT as a profession. Whether or not this backlash is because of their daily exposure to the online environment I’m not sure, but it sure seems as though that is the case.

I think where I’m going with my post, that isn’t addressed in your response (tongue-in-cheek or not), is to focus on increasing efficiency and awareness. For most online tools I’m sure you could trace back their roots to an offline equivalent, but their benefit almost always fall back to speed, efficiency and time saving. If you choose to walk or ride a bike versus driving a car you’re accomplishing the same task, but are you making the most of your time to do everything you want? The same question holds true for using these tools and even the editing software you choose to use

To go right back at you… why bother with a camera when you can bring canvas, paints and brushes? You’re still able to enjoy the outdoors, capture a scene as seen and can do so in a time frame that is much slower. I know you shoot film and digital and I know you put your work online. It’s your prerogative how far you embrace that digital technology and leverage the tools available to you. The question I would pose is what do you want out of your photographic efforts and how are you going to engage people to achieve that? If engaging an audience of viewers isn’t a priority then ignore these recommendations. If engaging an audience is necessary to achieve your goals then its in your best interest to explore current trends.

Funny thing Guy is that not everyone was on board with computers and Photoshop several years ago and many still are not. Has that choice helped further the endeavors of those photographers? Most would say no. The question I pose to you and anyone else in a similar mindset on this topic, “Are the choices you’re choosing helping to further your photographic endeavors?”

Now to clarify I’ve never said that these tools are essential merely invaluable. Even if you never choose to use these tools I do hope you explore their use. You’ll never know what you’re missing if you don’t take the time to look.

Guy actually I think you have one fatal flaw in your read of this… this isn’t about “blasting” out. It’s about keeping an eye open and listening for conversations. Whether you recognize it or not blogs are about conversations. Our exchange here is a perfect example of that. Every tool/technology I referenced in this post is highlighted as a way to extend the reach a photographer has to view and hear what is going on around them in real time.

“how much does context matter?”
Do you take a photo on a black wall differently than on a white wall? Do you take a photo in one gallery more seriously than another? To your earlier point… an image if effective strikes a nerve with a viewer. The environment or surroundings to that image can have an impact, but at its core if the image is of quality is should have the same effect on the viewer no matter what. It’s rather pretentious to think that because an image is in one location versus another that it is less worthy of ones viewing.

As for competition versus inspirational… this is a topic of discussion unto itself. This comes down to personal philosophy and maturation as an artist. But one shouldn’t confuse this with the effort to reach a new audience. Fishing where the fish are is not a reflection of artistic integrity… its a reflection of awareness of your surroundings and exposing others of varying background to your vision of the world.

Guy to be clear here we need to differentiate the issues… efficiency vs. branding. There are two different discussions intermingling.

The one recommendation that we seem to be centering around is using Flickr. The efficiency gain (that is still debatable)is the ease of placing photos online and essentially reaching out to new publishers and generating sales opportunities.

Using Flickr to reach out to others does not necessarily equate to an abandonment of brand development or brand placement. As an artist Flickr can just as easily be used to create a mini-portfolio as it can to create a weekend trip photo sharing set. The goals and purposes are different and clearly can impact the brand one develops for themselves. Again is Flickr for everyone no, but if you’re interested in developing an audience that would otherwise be unable to find you then it provides value. Does that offset the perception of deteriorating your brand? Don’t answer that yet.

Lets first address the idea that Flickr a low brow “Target” or “Wal-Mart” environment. Flickr is used by two key audience types:
1) Photo enthusiasts
2) Photo buyers
    a. consumers
    b. publishers

Photo enthusiasts have developed a passion for photography and are sharing images, looking to improve, networking with photographers they like, etc.

Photo buyers are often photo enthusiasts, who cover a lot of different demographics, that enjoy an image they view so much they want to buy a print.

Publishers have developed into an unintended audience of users at Flickr and are are creative agencies, papers, magazines, online publishers, manufacturers, etc.

So back to the concept of efficiency… Are these audience types at Flickr on your radar as you market and sell your photography? Is so how are you currently reaching your target audience? How much time and money do you spend to reach them? These are some what rhetorical quesitons. The $64,000 question is how much does that translate to lost time for you in the pursuit of your art or the pursuit of sales?

Now to the conversation of Brand…
Does Flickr diminish the Brand of an artist? This is really subjective and my personal opinion is…
yes if you solely rely on Flickr to market your work. If Flickr is used as an extension of your primary web marketing channel namely your web site then… no. When an individual views your Flickr profile they’ll be able to peg you, your brand and the quality they can expect from you as photographer based on what information you provide. Your profile is your easiest way to bridge people from the mega-directory of images that Flickr is, to the destination you’re aiming to get them to in the first place.

There are other creative ways to leverage Flickr to your advantage, but this reply was long enough as it is. I whole heartedly agree that developing, maintaining and protecting ones brand is key, but this is a different facet of the conversation that first started around efficiency.