2010-01-13

Quality Control (Part 3)

While I'm talking about "Quality Control" I can't resist to make a statement on the big flickr groups too. It's just too obvious that the big groups are - IMHO - not much more but a collection of average snapshots nowadays. Everyone just adds their stuff and the admins of those groups apparently have a very low (if any) standard for the quality of their group's content. Maybe my expectations are too high - when I look at a group called "The Forest" (over 50k photos!) I'd expect beautiful forest photos - and not blurry snapshots of people taking a walk in the woods (of course, beauty and art are the most arguable and subjective things to define. I just share mine for the sake of giving an example).

And then these flickr group admins and members run around and add a plethora of butt-ugly invitation badges and awards to photo comments (something like "OMG! This photo screams photographer! Add it to the scream of the photographer group! Now! Or we'll all die!!!" - I cannot decide if that is pathetic, awkward, hilarious, or all of it -- because if there's one thing that my photos never do is scream, and neither do I!).

I wonder: who's happy to contribute a good photo to a giant pool of mediocrity?!

And then there's the photos on flickr that are in something like 50 group pools - indecision? Maybe. For me, it only shows so very clearly the flickr group problem: I dare say that, for every photography situation, there are at least three groups on flickr. Maybe more, but the ones with 5 items and 1 member don't count. :-P People are looking for their audience - so they add one photo to something like 10 groups that all have the same topic.

For me, it's only logic to stay away from the big groups and pick small and strictly moderated groups. Not each of my submissions might be accepted, but that keeps the quality of the group high. It's just totally not worth to spend time browsing group collections of thousands of boring photos. There are so many wonderful photos on flickr, but most big groups are degenerating into a showcase of dilletant averageness. That's a pity.

One of the few groups that I find absolutely worth checking out: Fine Art Classic Black and White Landscape. So far, none of my photos has made it into the selection. And that's not a problem (but what is a problem is that it is impossible to find out if a photo has been rejected once it was submitted...).

If anyone can recommend noteworthy flickr groups just leave a comment. :-) Thanks!

3 comments:

  1. Flickr used to be awesome, until a bunch of people started to use it. It's no different than YouTube or Geocities or Blogger. Initially, good people come in, publish good content, and in time, people start to dump whatever they have.

    The problem with flickr now is that it's not so much that it is value based, but social based. What I mean by that is your photos will get ranked higher more easily IF you have a lot of friends. If you're Ansel Adams but have no friend, forget about getting noticed. A good picture does not speak for itself, anymore.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Kevin and yes, "social based" sounds like an excellent explanation! ...and the reason why I like the strictly moderated groups. :)
    ReplyDelete
  3. It is the case especially in the States, well, compared to Europe. I think.
    ReplyDelete