Trevorma wrote:
The thing is the thought that exposure = success at some point is flawed. If your work is good (and assuming a magazine wants to use the image there must be some good work being done by the OP) then you will get your recognition without sacrificing morals, or giving in to the big business abusing little photographer.....
Morals... There is no right or wrong that way. You\'re not a bad person -- or even dumb or whatnot -- for giving away all your images. Purely how you see the world.
Of course I am not in favor of letting others profit off my images, or to take credit for my work. (but even if you didn\'t care -- and on some levels, I don\'t... so what?)
I never said exposure had to equate to success. It could... but not necessarily. It certainly can help.
Take youtube for example. Lots of folks let youtube profit off of them via advertisements so that they could share their work with the world. Sure... could\'ve built their own website, hosted their own videos... but the exposure chances were nowhere near what youtube could offer. For them the move made sense.
Same here with some of our images. (albeit on a much smaller scale)
Sure, good work gets noticed. To be noticed it must be seen.
I want to get a website up soon with some of my work. I don\'t know that I\'ll ever aspire to be a pro, but I would like to share my work with the world. There are some images I\'d gladly share with a website that wants to display my photography if they link back to my website. (so long as they don\'t directly sell or market the photograph outside its originally intended use)
Mar 13, 2012 at 04:09 PM
Previous versions of Derek Weston's message #10436493 « Flickr request to use a photo »
