Sharing Your Photos Online, What Site Is Best For You?

Sharing Your Photos Online, What Site Is Best For You?

I have always had a love for the visual arts. As a kid I constantly was shooting and editing snowboard and skateboard videos with friends, as I grew older I got more and more into photography. In June of 2007 I purchased my first DSLR to start shooting hardcore punk rock shows, and soon after made a Flickr to share my work with the rest of the world. 5 years and some change later Flickr seems to be on the decline, and I am left wondering, "what now?"

The internet is the strongest promotional tool we have at our disposal. A virtual unknown photographer can rise from nothing in their small rural town in the middle of Kansas, to being a super star in the photo world. Now I am not saying that just posting your photos to the internet is going to get you fame, or better yet work, but it has definitely turned us into a world community of photographers.

When I started posting my work to the internet there wasn't much for social networks. I had a Myspace to promote myself, Facebook was just for my friends, and then I had a Flickr, which was like a hustling and bustling online metropolis of photographers. Now the tides are turning, 500px is the new kid on the block and it seems less and less people are using Flickr these days. After some deep thought on the matter I decided to weigh out the pros and cons of several photo sharing sites to figure out what is best for me. I took a look at Flickr, 500px, Facebook, Tumblr, and Instagram. I know there are more out there, but these seem to be the biggest contenders at the moment. Also before anyone mentions Google+, I have heard great things about it, but when I asked 10 random people via text if they use Google+, 6 said "no," 3 said, "wait that's still around?" and 1 said, "what's that?" With those answers I figured as great as Google+ might be, it wasn't worth the research time for this piece. I also tried to get an invite for the new Myspace, because it is supposed to cater more to creatives, but unfortunately I couldn't swing one. So without further adieu, here goes the journey.

Pros: One of my favorite features of Flickr are the groups. I learned so much about off camera lighting just from hanging around in the strobist group back in "the day." Flickr also has some powerful search options, not only can you search for keywords, but you can search for groups, you can search for photos from specific camera models, date, time frame, CC or copyrighted photos and so much more. Flickr also tends to attract more people who post news and entertainment related photographs, which is mighty helpful for media outlets looking for pictures from specific events. A few years ago Flickr teamed up with Getty images, allowing members to sell some of their photos through the world famous stock agency. Also if you have a paid account with Flickr you get access to some pretty powerful statistic tools which are not only fun to look through, but also incredibly helpful and insightful.
Cons: Once upon a time Flickr looked awesome, but as the web grows and evolves, Flickr seems to have been stuck in time. In 5 years I haven't seen any major changes to Flickr at all other than how photos from my contacts are displayed. I know the methodology "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but Flickr is showing it's age and well, it might be time for them to shake things up a bit. The comments on Flickr, while at times can be insightful, are often atrocious. For some reason so many users of Flickr find it necessary to present "awards" via comments, and these "awards" are normally reminiscent of the spinning, sparkling gif images 14 year old girls adorned their Myspace profiles with in the early 2000's. The ability to embed images into comments coupled with Flickrs dated interface makes for a horrible viewing experience at times, and really messes with the ability to have conversations of any substance. As of late Flickrs activity seems to be dwindling, many people I once followed on Flickr have disappeared, and many groups I once frequented have turned into e-ghost towns.

Pros: The first thing one notices about 500px is it's interface. The pictures are large and the interface is very sleek. They give you a lot of options when uploading photos to add every detail you could think of to the photo. You tend to get immediate interaction on your photos from the 500px community when you upload them. They have a personal store option, allowing you to sell prints of your photos. This is an awesome feature. There is also a pretty straight forward voting feature allowing people to "Like" your photo, giving it more or less "pulse" as they call it. 500px also has paid accounts, much like Flickr, which give you more uploads, unlimited sets, advanced statistics, portfolio pages, and more.
Cons: For a free account you are only allowed 10 uploads per week, for me this isn't much of a big deal now, but at a point in time when I was shooting 2+ shows a week with 4+ bands on a show, this would not have worked out for me at all. The interaction you get from the community soon after uploading your images seems to fade out really quickly. Today I uploaded some photos to my account, of the 9 I uploaded, 3 became "popular" according to 500px. My email was going nuts with notifications on the images for about 2 hours, and now roughly 9 hours later everything is silent again. So I would say the interaction on your photos is fleeting at best. Searching on 500px is alright, but compared to the complex search options on Flickr, it is pretty depressing. The biggest downfall for me though is the lack of groups. I would love to be able to join and post to groups on 500px more specific to my photographic interests, and to network and discover other photographers with similar interests. 500px really needs to implement groups.

Pros: Everyone uses Facebook. Ok well maybe not EVERYONE, but I mean my parents, my uncles and aunts, my cousins, even my 10 year old sister, they all have Facebook accounts. Having a Facebook these days is about as common as owning a cell phone, and because of that, posting to Facebook is a good call for pushing your work to the masses. Facebook also allows people to create groups, and I belong to a few groups (including our own Fstoppers group) filled with helpful and insightful photographers. Being able to network with people is a great feature of Facebook. Fan pages are another big selling point for Facebook. Originally if I wanted people to see my work on FB I had to be friends with them, but thanks to the addition of fan pages now anyone, anywhere can follow my work I choose to post to Facebook.
Cons: PHOTO QUALITY. Seriously, for the largest social networking site on Earth which boasts to host more than 10,000x times the amount of photos in the library of congress, you would think they could do a little bit better. I check "high quality" on my photo uploads there, and it still looks like Facebook has swallowed my photos and then puked them back out for me. I know this might just be something that photographers notice, and the average viewer won't, but on the flip side if I am trying to appeal to possible creative directors or clients or anyone really, I am always praying that they click the link for my portfolio which I add in the description of every photo I upload now. Facebook isn't a dedicated image sharing website, so it definitely lacks search features like other dedicated sites have. They have incorporated statistics into fan pages now, but they don't even scratch the surface of what Flickr does. Finally my biggest gripe with FB is their constant quest to steal every dollar from my pocket. Once upon a time my images were seen by most of my fans. Now when I post if I even want to reach a decent percentage of them I have to fork some money over to Mr. Zuckerberg and friends in hopes that it pays off in the end.

Pros: Well Tumblr isn't a dedicated photo sharing website either, in fact it is a "micro-blogging" service. With that being said, I would make an educated guess and say 85-90% of their posts are photos. Tumblr is a great place to host a blog, especially for photographers who don't want to actually blog. Tumblr allows you to upload 1-10 photos at a time in a post and write a caption below. You can then tag your posts just like your could on Flickr or 500px and people can search tags. The one great feature about Tumblr is that it allows other Tumblr users to follow your blog, and unlike Facebook, anything I post to my Tumblr will show up on my followers feed. Now if your post garners enough attention your post can possibly end up on the Tumblr spotlight. The spotlight rotates a couple posts for a day or so on the sidebar of Tumblr, so odds are at some point or another anyone logging into Tumblr that day might see your post. Let me put this into perspective for you, my girlfriend posted a photo we shot together to her Tumblr. It quickly gained attention from her followers, of which she only had around 200 at the time, and it made it onto the Tumblr spotlight. 24 hours later she went from having around 200 followers to over 8,000. Now every time she posts over 8,000 people are exposed to her work. Tumblr allows people to "reblog" your posts, but Tumblr makes sure you always remain credited, so if 1 person reblogs one of your photos, it is now shown to everyone who follows them. This is a great way to spread your work around quickly.
Cons: When I first joined Tumblr, it was loaded with little kids who just had "curated" blogs in which they went on reblogging sprees but it felt like no one was ever actually looking at your stuff, just liking and reblogging and moving on. Over the last year or so I have discovered more and more awesome photographers through Tumblr, but it has definitely taken some time for people to come around to the service. If someone follows thousands of people, odds are their feed is updating so often that unless they log in the moment after you make a post, your post might just get lost in the annals of their feed. There is no definitive way on Tumblr to check up on your favorite Tumblrs other than going directly to their page. If Tumblr implemented some sort of list system it could really help out with this. Tumblr isn't a dedicated photo sharing site, so organizing your photos into sets or groups is near impossible, although you could create a specific tag for specific photos, and then create a link which would just load those specific photos when clicked, but that's a little over the average web users head. Tumblr is definitely a nice place to post your work and to host a simple blog, but as far as being your primary source for image sharing, you might want to look elsewhere.

Pros: Instagram is instantaneous. Much like Tumblr, people follow you, and as you update your IG it pushes directly to your followers feeds. Instagram allows you to tag other users as well as hash tag your images which allows for better networking and some halfway decent searching. I think the best feature of Instagram though is that it allows you to push whatever you post directly to Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Flickr, and Foursquare. This ability in and of itself is huge if you are spread across a number of social networks like I am. Instagram also just released web profiles, and while you still cannot post from a computer, you can at least easily share your profile with friends across the web.
Cons: Instagram only allows you to post from a mobile device, and this is a big pain in the butt. Furthermore it crops and crunches your photos to a 612x612 pixel square. You can use third party apps to "frame" your photos so they don't get cropped into a square by IG, but you can't do anything to prevent it from scaling your image overall to 612x612. Instagram also places an emphasis on preset filters, and while no one says you have to use them, a big complaint from people who oppose IG is that everyone's photos look the same due to these filters. I will often post photos I took on my DSLR to my IG to help promote new work, but getting them to my iPhone from my computer isn't really the easiest thing. Just like Tumblr, Instagram in my opinion is a nice tool to help promote your work, but as for an image sharing service for everything you do, I would probably look elsewhere.

So what's the outcome? Well I think if you are looking for a place to host your image libraries and interact with other photographers Flickr is your best choice (although the user base seems to be dwindling) with 500px pulling up a close second. Facebook is good for hosting your stuff and reaching out to people, but if you are concerned over hosting high quality images, look to Flickr or 500px, but Facebook will make your photos look like... Well their quality will look bad. Tumblr and Instagram are great promotion tools but probably not the end all be all for most people looking for a good image sharing service. Although in the end I think using a combination of these services is a great idea for any photographer looking to get their work in front of more people, especially since all of them are free, or have free options.

Log in or register to post comments

Google Plus is trying to reach out to photographers, and has some interesting traction in that regard. The myriad special interest groups, however, are no small feather in the cap of Flickr. Night shots on film in the city? Canon EOS users adapting Nikon lenses? Flickr's there for you.

 I'll have to take a look into Google+, but given the time I had and the length this article was shaping up to be already, coupled with the responses I got about Google+, I had to pass. Thanks for the insight though!

 Dont listen to the boo boys, G+ is HUGE with photographers. It's a thriving community, the only downside is the circles can be quite clicky with only recognised names getting most of the traction.

"...Flickr is showing it’s age and well, it might be time for them to shake things up a bit."

I can never understand the concept of change for changes sake. Why, just because it doesn't look "cool"? Every time a website  changes to do so, they usually mess most things up. Not always, but usually.

It works. Stop worrying about it.

 Businesses need to evolve to keep up with the times. The number one complaint I hear from people who bailed on Flickr to 500px is that it just doesn't look as nice. Let's be real here, you are displaying your photos online, you want them to look the best they can, this is why people are liking 500px over Flickr. I don't disagree with you, it works, but it just doesn't look as good as some other alternatives out there, and because of that they are losing business. Their loss of business only bothers me because at a time Flickr was THE place to go for photography stuff, but now people are so spread out, it's kind of a bummer from a networking standpoint.

im assuming your writing this from a computer powered by a 486 Pentium on a 15" CRT monitor, while rifling though thousands of Cd's at a tower records that no longer exists after you traveled back in time to the mid 90's.  business goes to those who can satisfy a clienteles endless needs for the best cost.  if you are a flikr or a facebook that relies entirely on advertising dollars, your only task in life is to keep people coming back.  facebook, unlike flikr, could care less about photo quality, because they just need speed, and a layout that entices people to constantly check back. flikr is photos. if you dont improve your interface like 500px, or your quality like google+, you will become a tower records. your income will fall short, people will be let go, you'll be unable to support your servers, every photo will become extinct. so, we dont change for for the sake of change. we change to be better, and to be prepared for what may come. and if you still are weary of change, come meet me at borders and we can talk about it

I have tried them all but found more feedback and more interaction with a more local crowd. Our local newspaper had a photo posting section that became very popular and was even made better as the newspapers photo editor hosted photo walks with the members and we became more or less a group. Well paper threatened to take down the site to switch to a more so called mobile friendly platform and fired the photo editor. I then created a site using the same Photo sharing software ( named it for Virginia Photographers Gallery and its coming up on a its first 1 yr birthday and we are making a little progress. I brought on one of the popular mods from the papers site and he has been creating some photo contests. Long and short of it using the larger sites I just felt the feedback and interaction was non existent. So I would suggest looking into local/state type photo sharing options.

500px and google+ only. Putting yourself on facebook is embarassing, flickr is the walmart of photosharing (ok if you're into that kinda thing), instagram is for hipsters and 15 year old girls, and like no one uses I cant comment on that.

 Not putting yourself on Facebook to promote your photography/business is a pretty poor judgement call considering it is the largest social networking website on Earth.

The stigma that Instagram is for hipsters and 15 y/o girls is ridiculous. I follow plenty of well established professionals on IG.

No one uses Tumblr? Well aside from getting my last paying gig thanks to someone spotting some stuff on Tumblr, I follow a bunch of professional and amateur photographers on there who post often. Elizabeth Weinberg, Jake Stangel, Day 19, JUCO Photo, Julian Berman, Mike Lerner, Tim Navis, Dave Hill and so many more. It definitely appeals to a younger crowd, but the number of amazing photographers on there is growing daily.

I've been using Flickr since its inception.  99% of my business comes from Flickr, from folks who love the Instagram images I post there.  I've got a Facebook page, purely from peer pressure, but to date I have received zero business from it.  My current photography website is a Tumblr page...lots of interaction, although somewhat restricted.  Doesn't bother me, because most of my business comes from Flickr anyway.  Don't discount just how popular Instagram images are with the Design industry!  I sold over $25,000 last year in Instagram someone out there obviously likes it!

Panoramio for landscape...

Google+ is one of the biggest scenes in online photo sharing today.  Photo sharing is more than just a place to host photos -- community is a huge part.  They are probably at the forefront there.

People keep saying this, so I definitely will be going to check it out today.

I totally agree. The awesome thing about Google+ is that Google is always updating and tweaking to make it an even better place to be. Images look great there. I'm a big fan of 500 also. It felt so good to no renew my Flickr account. They have added no value to it's members in YEARS. They don't care about the user one bit because if they did they would at least show some changes or add value to their paying subs! Great work on the article.

 This is true if you fit into one of the niche' categories or are a "well known" photographer but it is so hard to figure out how to use G+. I have been there since it started and still can't figure it. I am not sayin' it isn't great, just that it is not as simply as so many have made it out to be.

Flickr is still super powerful tool, and I go there daily. 500px is great, its beautiful, but they still need to go a long way to get to the #1 spot Flickr went to in the past.  
Facebook for me is the main place to promote my work these days. But Im not sure for how long... it seems like Facebook are trying to make it harder and harder to connect with fans. 

Can everyone just get over Instagram already? Instagram is the photographic mosquito in your face you can never seem to swat...

Real nice article, but like allot of people I would like to have the opinion on Google+.Facebook it's a real popular network, but they destroy the photos, I see some real nice photos on Facebook, that looks that they have not lost much quality but my photos became real bad on Facebook.If someone could help about how to upload photos and they keep ok quality I would love, because my photos they became real real bad.

I'm going to need to spend some time in Google+ to really give it a worthy write up. Be expecting something soon.

Flickr:I joined Flickr last year to share my photos of the final Space Shuttle launch and landing. I upgraded to the Pro account to have more images visible. I like the community of the groups; I joined some film related groups and equipment specific groups (Canon A-1) since that's what I use and I want to learn and share.

Facebook:I joined Facebook, kicking and screaming this year, because it seems that some of the awesome photography gear contests require a Facebook account. I've uploaded a few photos to Facebook, primarily to Shaw Air Force Base Shawfest Air Show and to the GEICO Skytypers. But Flickr has more photos than Facebook. It's primarily because of their "what you post is ours" policy.

Instagram:Forgetaboutit! I'm not interested in distorting my images from craps sake. I'm not into lomography or iPhoneography. I would say that my photography style is more photojournalism. I used some expired film because that was what was loaded in my camera and in the camera bag. I was not happy with the results, but it was USC's first NCAA Baseball Championship, so it is history. I do use B&W contrast filters because I'm only using B&W film this year, but Ansel Adams also used B&W filters.

I'm on several social media networks, not all photography related: LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Google+, Meetup, and DigitalRev. I don't need to join more social networks that I need to maintain.

Missing:Google+:I joined Google+ this year. Photographer Scott Kelby created Google+ event for his Fifth Annual Worldwide Photo Walk for participants to post their pictures from the photowalk. He also used it for the Photowalk Leader competition. This was my first time as a leader and also as a participant.

ViewBug:Primarily contest related, but there is a social ascpect to it.

I agree with this article but i've found the best place to share photos with a great response rate is Focussion. The whole idea is based on feedback. I've been with flickr for years and got 2 response. Flickr is a good place to deposit your photos and have a client look at them and that's about it. I need feedback from my fellow photographers and i've found that on Focusion

And Facebook steals your pictures....
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacyand application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). 

What about Deviantart??

I've been using Deviantart for a couple years now. It has all the key features which have mentioned before. There are groups, you can tag, you can group your photos in separate galleries, you can add CC license to your photos and its possible to follow other artists. You can add a CSS look to your galleries and atricles. You can sell your stuff in many different ways (e.g. canvas). There is an option to 'like' (favorite) pictures and write a critique about them in a module made for this.
If you pay for premium membership you'll have a free portfolio site. But I think the free membership is quite satisfying as well.

500px and flickr are my 2 favorites!
Facebook its Ok because of the exposure... otherwise I am not a big fan of it.

500px and flickr are my 2 favorites!
Facebook its Ok because of the exposure... otherwise I am not a big fan of it.


Why would you use a service in which you loose ownership of your files. That is just silly.

So explain to me how having a million other photographers looking at my pictures makes me money?  Shouldn't an image sharing site be geared toward potential clients instead?  

Google+ may be big for photographers when trying to network with other photographers. If, however, you're trying to reach out and promote your photography to average consumers. The majority of the people I know, and the people they know may have a Google+ account, but they, like me, never use it. Most use Facebook and that's just something that needs to be accepted. I won't post photos directly on Facebook because of their questionable stance on intellectual property rights. What has worked well for me was starting my own website that automatically posts to my Facebook as a shared link when I post something new.

I'll say this again, if any of the 'newer' photo sharing sites like 500px or Google + incorporate a method to import all your images directly from Flickr, I would jump over in a heartbeat. For some photographers like myself that have thousands of images on one site, it's too much of a pain to migrate to something else and begin re uploading.

In fact, this is the only reason I remain with flickr.

I would argue that 500px and Google+ are geared towards 1000s of photos. People on Flickr tend to post a lot of average images where people on 500px and Google+ are only showing their very best work. Out of your 1000s of images I would suggest that you really only need to show 30-50 of these. Only the best.

You have a good point about migrating your images from flickr, but this app is highly regarded for its ability to download your photos with all metadata, tags, etc.  But I do agree with Craig about only posting your best work, it only takes one bad picture for me to loose interest with someone.

FS,  would love your opinion on Google+, Smugmug, PBase, and DigitalRev(set up similar to FB).
There's  another site I stumbled on a few months back but cannot remember the name and didn't think to bookmark, it had a lot of photo contest. 

I'm not going to state which service I like best, I use many of them, but I did want to throw out a workflow tip.  When using Instagram, I've found it easiest to couple it with Dropbox.  You can select images from your dropbox to publish on Instagram in one click.  So, export your final image to your Dropbox from you comp.  Then simply head to your phone and when you get to the camera or library option to select where your getting your images from... click Dropbox!  Done.  I've posted several of the screen shots from publications that way, quite simply actually.

What's your opinion about devianart?

If you have the time, it's also a great option, in my opinion.

500px... i like interface its simple and good looking, easy upload, better search engine and the main issue is that the 500px has very nice photo engine which is not distracting my pisc more (which i already disctract in PS =) )

Nice and clear article. One question what about Picasa? Looks also like a good possibility.