Comment by puttycat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by puttycat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

About a decade ago I used to have a Flickr account, and the fact that Flickr was a website originally built for desktop screens gave every photo its right space and size, embedded in a relaxing UI, without erratic scrolling and liking (Flick's "like" functionality was never as addictive as Instagram's).

I also used to have a Lomo film camera which I would take everywhere. I really liked the film developing process, having to wait for the photos (digital cameras we already prevalent of course), then uploading them to Flickr, always also printing the photos, knowing that they would remain somewhere even if the website would be taken down some day. The Flickr account is still active, and from time to time I like to visit it, and each time I'm surprised that the website still exists and that their interface is still pleasent and relaxing to use, despite recent redesigns.

People dismissing these memories as nostalgia ignore the fact that smartphones had a profound impact on the way everything behaves. Instagram is not simply a "mobile Flickr", it's something profoundly different.

Instagram could be use as a “snapshot” of the real thing. If I were a photographer I would use it to hook folks into browsing the full version on my website (and buy prints if they’d like).

The fact is, with huge DPI densities of photos the best way to view something is a very high quality print at scale.

Real life > Flickr > Instagram (in terms of visual quality). The limitations of canvas form factor is a huge damper on visual arts. A square canvas is VERY different than a rectangular one, or a hexagonal one.

But the humble square is perfect for instant grammification.

I'm a photographer on the side and I doubt many people end up on my site from Instagram: the funnel is just too awkward. I mostly found selling prints to be a bit of a waste of time - high touch, low return. Instead, I focus almost entirely on government entities or reasonably sized operators who will commission projects. I've had more commissioned projects than I've ever sold prints, and the former pay x0 times as much and are far more fun and interesting. But where your first point works is that in that mode, you don't need a lot of people visiting your site and getting in touch, you just need the few, right people.

Met a photographer the other day who said he sold about three prints a week, with a margin per print of $150 (after framing, shipping, etc). A day rate for a commissioned job is likely to be $1-2k.

Flickr and their ilk is where you meet other photographers. Instagram is where you get in front of people with photography budgets, IMO.

I don't think many are putting squares on Instagram - it's almost all 4x5 in the main feed or 9x16 in Stories. Whatever fills more of the screen, at least in my industry.

However, I shoot a lot of panoramas^ and resent that Instagram is such a terrible place to show them!

^ https://serio.com.au/show/panoramas/

Those Panoramas are gorgeous.

Have you tried 360 photography / meshing? It may allow for those gorgeous long image to fit on mobile better, not really sure. I've been toying with pannellum[1] , and displaying 360 mesh's, its fairly good on mobile. [2]

1: https://pannellum.org/ 2: https://transistor-man.com/Panorama/ashland_reservoir-9-2021...

Thank you.

No, never tried it. Some people split panoramas into multiple photos that people then swipe through, but that's awkward if the initial shot doesn't hold its own when viewed in isolation. Another option is rendering it out as a panning video, which I could try but haven't yet bothered.

However, my work increasingly shifts from photos towards video as that's where the demand/money appears to be. So I shoot loads of panoramas and then they just sit there unless someone licenses them.

Hey, so many beautiful pics on your site! Really nice work.

..then I clicked on your name here.. you have 9 websites/businesses?! Arggh! How do you manage that?

Thanks!

Not very well. For a long time, I struggled to focus on one thing, and eventually gave in to just do everything I wanted to do. There are definitely pros and cons, and I certainly neglect many of my projects. But it's making for an interesting life.

That sounds awesome! Best wishes. I hope to read your blog/book about that one day. Or see the documentary. p.s. Hi from Sydney.

Flying a drone and taking photos seems very disconnected to photography for me. But that's just me. The photos are great however. But it feels like a "photographer" who also just uses their phone.

Seems like a pretty arbitrary line to draw, especially phone vs camera. Modern cameras have software assisting too. Strikes me as gatekeeping, but you're welcome to your opinion.

I had two jobs last year shooting video for my country's national tourism authority - I shot half with my phone, and half with a tiny gimbal camera (Osmo Pocket) that uses the phone as the monitor/display/interface. I got paid, got two holidays, and the content went out to several million people. I'm perfectly OK with being someone who (amongst multiple cameras, four drones, etc) "also just uses their phone". :)

Don't worry. I'm definitely on the fence with this.

I am not the kind of anti-software purist. But I am definitely against fake elements in a photo, which there are more than plenty in Instagram and other photo sharing platforms.

>A square canvas is VERY different than a rectangular one

I agree and I'm very much used to a ~35mm aspect ratio. That said, medium format film (120/220) was usually approximately square so it's not an objectively "bad" aspect ratio.

Instagram has stopped using square dimensions for a long time. In fact if you want to lose followers, you should maintain your photography dimensions and scale. If you don't post in "iPhone portrait" mode, you will soon disappear from the algorithm.

Photography isn't about image quality.

Photography is more than just about image quality, but image quality matters a lot. In fact there are entire subfields in photography devoted to it.

I have spent months 15 years ago browsing Flickr tags. Beautiful.

I take most of my photos with a real camera. I'd love to share them on Instagram but Instagram has no UI whereby you can upload photos on the web; you have to transfer the photos to your phone first. Which is asinine.

Or at least that's the way it was a few years ago when I looked into IG and gave up on it. Maybe it's changed, but it clearly doesn't cater to people with real cameras.

Not an Instagram user myself, but a trick I've picked up regarding Instagram on the desktop: Go to the developer tools of your browser and select a mobile view (in the responsive view options) – and there you are, on the mobile skin, including upload.

Note: Uploads through this method will be reduced in quality, SUBSTANTIALLY compared to those uploaded on phones. The entire workflow of Instagram for PC is inferior from an objective quality point of view.

IG was never made for photography, they never presented it as it should be.

FYI you can upload via the web now. Not that I’m encouraging you to use IG. I’m trying to use it less

How? The only method I'm aware of is using the browser's developer tools to spoof being a mobile device.

It's a new feature (few months old). Look for the + icon in top nav. https://twitter.com/MattNavarra/status/1408068652495097862/p...

You can use Later to schedule and ease that process, in a way. I tried it for a while and there were benefits. Likely to work if you are posting from a catalogue of folio shots and not time-sensitive shots pertaining to particular outings you've had.

> real camera

The camera obscura or one of the horrible modern DSLRs? \s

Always love when people that don't get modern tech start with the gate keeping. iPhone produce better pictures by themselves than 90% of all the "real camera" people with their $5000 Canons.

> iPhone produce better pictures by themselves

Have I missed some new feature? My iPhone just sits on the table until I pick it up and do something with it.

Modern phones are very capable cameras. I always have mine with me and, especially in non-challenging conditions (light/focal length/etc.) one can take very good photos with it. I use it a lot. But it's ludicrous to suggest that it's more capable than purpose built devices with much bigger sensors and much bigger lenses.

(That said, if you're someone who shoots with a DSLR on full auto and never has taken your kit lens off the camera, you should probably just stick with your phone. It's easier.)

Not even closer... anybody can try to zoom a photo made with a phone and see the blurred mess in saturated tones "fixed for you" by the machine. Definition is a joke by comparison.

Is just a toy added to a phone. Not more, not less.

You are objectively wrong. Ironic and wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com