To Flickr? Not To Flickr?
I have noticed that many of my fellows Dreamstimes members maintain active Flickr sites. I've enjoyed looking through those, and have gotten lots of great inspiration from the photos.
I'm wrestling with the idea of creating my own Flickr site. I see a couple pros, and a couple cons.
On the positive side, I can see that sharing photos is (almost) always satisfying. Once the shots are on Flickr, it's no work at all to get them to clients, family, friends. . .
I have a sense that Flickr offers a lot of community features, too, many ways to find photographers with similar interests.
Finally, unless I'm wrong, it's free.
On the other hand:
I use Apple's Aperture and my .mac account to create and share web galleries. I'm pretty happy with the integration between Aperture and the web galleries. Publishing is simple, the images are high quality (or at least as high quality as I can make them!). The galleries are semi-public in that they are open to all, but their addresses are just about impossible to stumble across accidentally.
But Aperture has no community features, and .mac does cost $99/year (not to mention the cost of Aperture itself).
And, specific method of web-sharing aside, I'm puzzled by the impact of web availability on sales. If images are available publicly, does that inspire viewers to hustle over to Dreamstimes to purchase? Or does it inspire people to just download from Flickr (or wherever) and thus undercut sales?
As always, I am eager to hear from others on this. What has your experience been, pro and/or con? Any comments would be appreciated!
Photo credits: Charles Sichel-outcalt.
- Secret of Image Selection! Crossed 300 images
- What are calls-to-action for users in a site?
- How to make a football photo outside of the stadium
- How to Photograph Coffee for Instagram Posts - Pro Tips
- Creating Calls-to-Action that Work
- Tour of Slovenia in Lendava
- Baling Hay In The Summer
- Understanding the Stock Industry and What Buyers Are Looking For