Masochistic sharing

Instagram, Ello, Google+, August: it’s remarkable how photographers just love those services the most that make sharing photos most inconvenient. First you have to export from your DAM (where you enter all your titles, captions, keywords!) to a JPEG file, then manually upload, and type your title, caption, keywords/hashtag stuff again. As if embedded IPTC metadata doesn’t exist!

For Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and many other services, you can as least just export directly from Lightroom (with the help of 3rd party plugins). Including most of the metadata, or at least a portion of it that is useful.

Yes, I know that’s the way that everyone shares their photos on these services – but are you, as a photographer, everyone? Unlike the grainy cellphone snapshots of food and cats, good photography enriches those services with beautiful content. You’re contributing something that makes hanging out on these services worth the wile of other users. They want your uploads, your content, the community – why do they make it so difficult to contribute?

I think photographers are so used to get treated like shit by stock agencies, search engines (image search = come steal my photos!), park services and authorities in general (“you can’t make photos here!”), we just need to be treated shitty, to really feel like a photographer… 😛


3 thoughts on “Masochistic sharing

  1. If a service made it really really easy I think I might just get confused thinking there has to be something I’m missing? 😉

    G+ does read my meta data. To make up for that they added about 4 steps to posting a photo on G+ recently, so I guess that makes sense.


    1. The only metadata that G+ uses in a useful manner though is the caption. The title is ignored, and the keywords aren’t converted to hashtags when you share a photo. By NOW, this is probably WAY too photography-specific to ever see the light of day, but even back when G+ was THE network for photographers features that would have saved photographers time were sorely missing.


      1. True, it is just the caption (and shutter speed etc) but while the description might be useful, I wouldn’t want to have to delete 20+ keywords on each post. Then again, it would be simple to have a settings section to choose what data we want to import. I’VE written code that does that in the past, so I wouldn’t imagine it would have been hard for Google to implement. I suspect this is partly because the kind of stuff we want represents <1% of their users – even back in the photo heyday? We are just a bit too niche I guess. 🙂


Thoughts? Let me hear them.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.