is it safe to post your photos on Facebook as advertisement ?

mdvaden wrote in post #11480596
I'd never look for a plumber there, nor doctor, nor a brake specialist. Definitely not where I'd look for in regards to a photographer.

I understand what you are getting at but I don't think the analogy is a good one. The professions you mentioned are for professionals that need to have some kind of certification for safety reasons. Finding a photographer or other artist on Facebook isn't going to cause the potential harm as if person's house got flooded, or a person was wrongly diagnosed, and if a car bolts through a busy city cause the brakes don't work.

Facebook is one of the most powerful forms of marketing and promotion for artists. Most photographers probably have a business of some sort and rely a lot on word of mouth communication of past clients recommending you to their friends, co-workers and family. With Facebook, it's easier, more powerful, and instant. You don't even need to hope your clients somehow find it amongst themselves to bring up their portrait session in a conversation. All that needs to happen is an acquaintance of a past client easily sees a photograph somewhere on the Facebook page. And if you are on facebook all that acquaintance needs to do is send a quick message to your past client, or click a few times and be on your page with all your details where they will instantly access more images that might inspire them to book a session.

rjx wrote in post #11482403
I understand what you are getting at but I don't think the analogy is a good one. The professions you mentioned are for professionals that need to have some kind of certification for safety reasons. Finding a photographer or other artist on Facebook isn't going to cause the potential harm as if person's house got flooded, or a person was wrongly diagnosed, and if a car bolts through a busy city cause the brakes don't work.

Facebook is one of the most powerful forms of marketing and promotion for artists. Most photographers probably have a business of some sort and rely a lot on word of mouth communication of past clients recommending you to their friends, co-workers and family. With Facebook, it's easier, more powerful, and instant. You don't even need to hope your clients somehow find it amongst themselves to bring up their portrait session in a conversation. All that needs to happen is an acquaintance of a past client easily sees a photograph somewhere on the Facebook page. And if you are on facebook all that acquaintance needs to do is send a quick message to your past client, or click a few times and be on your page with all your details where they will instantly access more images that might inspire them to book a session.

I'm obsolutely for facebook to, I'm not a professional so my opinion is probably less valid. I'm a student whos only just started to get some low paying jobs, only just got their business registered ect.. But look at all the successful photographer that do use and/or suggest using facebook (and other social networking).

Some examples I would use are John Keatley, Chase Jarvis, Zack Arias and Jeremy Cowart. Facebook may more or less useful to you depending on your target audience, these guys are more commercial photographers but I used them as examples because they are some of my favourites.

Billo78 wrote in post #11460583
Agreed. The paranoia that seems to exist here about people seeing our photos without paying for them is ridiculous. If you're not using Facebook to promote your business that you are missing out on the most powerful form of free marketing that's ever existed, it's basically word of mouth on crack. If the cost of that is a handful of people using your images as profile pics (when they probably wouldn't have bought them anyway) then only an idiot would consider than an unreasonable trade off.

On point.

I posted this in another thread but thought it's appropriate for here.

The PPA has an archived webinar about this topic:
Blog. Facebook. Twitter. The Trifecta of Online Viral Marketinghttp://www.ppa.com/educati​on-events/...keting_new.p​hp

This link is to a description, You need to be a member, and pay to view it.
It's close to 2hrs long and loaded with good information how facebook can be strong marketing.

Billo78 wrote in post #11460583
Agreed. The paranoia that seems to exist here about people seeing our photos without paying for them is ridiculous. If you're not using Facebook to promote your business that you are missing out on the most powerful form of free marketing that's ever existed, it's basically word of mouth on crack. If the cost of that is a handful of people using your images as profile pics (when they probably wouldn't have bought them anyway) then only an idiot would consider than an unreasonable trade off.

Pretty much agree. I think for many it's a subconscious feeling of, "They're mine and somebody took them!".

CallumPhoto wrote in post #11473443
A local musician said to me "i would rather be heard than paid" when we were talking about people downloading cds and all that, great words i think. But obviously you've gotta make a living so really I'm just saying I'd rather be paid but if there was never any money to be made there I'd rather my photos spread.

to be honest i'm kinda flattered when i see my images "stolen", just on a facebook sort of level.

...said the musician who has probably never been paid.

professional photographers need not watermark their images. photographers need be genuinely friendly and professional in their facebook dealings, and their names will get out there simply by specifically asking clients and friends to physically and visually put their name out there. (watermarks, to me, are obvious and obnoxious signs of paranoia--i tend not to view any images with watermarks because i think they are silly, and that goes for images posted anywhere online, including potn.)

i don't know any professional photographers. the only one i've come across via facebook is richmond, virginia-based photographer rick kidd--i'm not even friends with him, but since his very well done work keeps showing up in my facebook newsfeed i don't mind shilling for him right on potn.

sspellman wrote in post #11474035
Facebook is a great tool that should be embraced by every business. It is the best referal system in the world for family, portrait, and model clients. For the photographer, it is best if they watermark their images and request that they not be cropped or the the logo removed. I even provide model clients with a folder on the CD marked "Facebook". I get 5+ customer requests from FB every week and about 10% become clients.

-Scott

cdifoto wrote in post #11460419
Half the time my "watermark" gets cropped out, and nobody pays attention to it otherwise. What gets me work is people talking about the photo.

+1

"Oh my gosh these are so cute! Who took them!?"
"Kyle did! you should have him do yours!"

Done and done.

mdvaden wrote in post #11480596
I'd never look for a plumber there, nor doctor, nor a brake specialist. Definitely not where I'd look for in regards to a photographer.

Nobody really looks for anyone on facebook. It's more of a "stumble across" thing. You use a photographer because your friend used them, and you found out your friend used them because there are pictures of them on facebook or they "liked" that photographer's page.

Kind of like virtual word of mouth.

Jimbers wrote in post #11611732
professional photographers need not watermark their images. photographers need be genuinely friendly and professional in their facebook dealings, and their names will get out there simply by specifically asking clients and friends to physically and visually put their name out there. (watermarks, to me, are obvious and obnoxious signs of paranoia--i tend not to view any images with watermarks because i think they are silly, and that goes for images posted anywhere online, including potn.)

If you saw the watermark long enough for your brain to compute that it's an obvious and obnoxious sigh of paranoia, you've viewed the image.

I don't care for the big, all-encompassing watermark either but you can bet your donkey balls that my proofs (a proof being an unfinished preview image for the client only) have the biggest, ugliest, most vile drop shadow concoction imaginable plastered in repetition all over them (but not my name or that of my business ).

to me, viewing an image usually requires more than a passing glance. in other words, when i view an image, i study the image. i don't study images with watermarks/large signatures because i believe they are, generally speaking, the work of paranoid or obnoxious artists. i don't waste my time on the paranoid and obnoxious.

cdifoto wrote in post #11612493
If you saw the watermark long enough for your brain to compute that it's an obvious and obnoxious sigh of paranoia, you've viewed the image.

I don't care for the big, all-encompassing watermark either but you can bet your donkey balls that my proofs (a proof being an unfinished preview image for the client only) have the biggest, ugliest, most vile drop shadow concoction imaginable plastered in repetition all over them (but not my name or that of my business ).

Jimbers wrote in post #11611732
(watermarks, to me, are obvious and obnoxious signs of paranoia--i tend not to view any images with watermarks because i think they are silly, and that goes for images posted anywhere online, including potn.

Not paranoid-just experienced. I have had 3 model images stolen and used for adult advertising. When 2 more of my client images were stolen and used by a competitor, they asked me-why didn't you protect these images better?

and yet i just checked out your website and noticed no paranoid watermarks or obnoxious signatures on your gallery of photos, which also seems pretty secure to me as i could not easily copy and paste them. i guess you've adopted slightly better security measures after getting ripped off a few times.

sspellman wrote in post #11615034
Not paranoid-just experienced. I have had model 3 images stolen and used for adult advertising. When 2 more of my client images were stolen and used by a competitor, they asked me-why didn't you protect these images better?