Comments on: The Google Way — and How It Devalues Photography

By: Talbert McMullin

Talbert McMullin — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:53:21 +0000

Now we know that Google and WalMart have some things in common...and I do not mean something good.

By: Jagdish Agarwal

Jagdish Agarwal — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:09:02 +0000

Google also allows competetors to use their name as keywords, for example, you search for getty and shutterstock comes up as sponsored link?

Is this correct?

By: Joeri El Hazimi

Joeri El Hazimi — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:26:30 +0000

I partially agree with your opinion on this. But can this not be compared to the digital revolution in photography? A lot of photographers were afraid of the fact that a lot of would be photographers would 'contaminate' photography by producing a lot of photographs, not looking at the quality. In the end, quality will be spotted and the current professional photographers need te be more creative in selling their work and not being driven by the fear of loosing customers or potential customers. Good photographers will be spotted and if companies want to use stock photographs which everybody already has seen on Google images, it will be their choice for being mediocre...

Let it happen act by delivering the same quality and things will turn in favor of the pro´s and those who take photography serious.

By: Sean Cayton

Sean Cayton — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:02:54 +0000

Your last paragraph hits it squarely on the head. You have to create something special in order for consumers of photography to really want it.

Today, more than ever, something special means developing a niche, focusing on presentation and marketing it to the right segment of buyers.

As much as we would like to place blame for the fall of traditional methods of selling photography keep in mind the level of empowerment the internet has offered each individual photographer to sell themselves in a niche they love without the aid of a third party.

Your post reminds me of a great essay on the the internet by Kevin Kelly. It's not Google, it's the internet that values quantity over quality. Kelly makes this point brilliantly here:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php

By: ian campbell

ian campbell — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:48:40 +0000

One of the reasons why I gave up a lot of photography -- the quality no longer matters, and the price no longer justifies the time spent. When I croak, my kids can sell the negative files off as a historical archive, and that may be the only use they now have...

By: Rick Hanzlik

Rick Hanzlik — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:35:06 +0000

I agree. These days anyone with a dslr can set themselves up as a professional photographer no matter how good or bad they are.And someone is there to buy what they produce no matter the quality.