Finishing off 2012

Reviewing my New Year's Resolutions on this blog,  I think I've managed to stick to them.  Just about.

1.) Project SGR 366 is complete - we managed to get a photo of Samuel every day of his first year.  On ONE day, we relied on Emma, his childminder, to take a photo of the wee man, but other than that, either Lou or I took a pic, either with the DSLR or with a camera phone.

2.) Take more film - I have shot off a few rolls this year, but not enough.  Being that I work in the Wharf now, I intend to take more in 2013.

3.) Carry on writing this blog - well, since the Resolution post, I've posted three times more.  That'll do. More next year, I hope.  If anyone's interested.

4.) Learn more about Photoshop/Lightroom - Project SGR 366 has helped me to be a lot quicker when using Lightroom, but I haven't had the time to sit and learn more about Photoshop.

5.) Print more photos - when I get a little time (probably tomorrow, when I'm off work again), I'll put together a few albums of SGR...

Merry Christmas, everyone!

D

SGR, wondering why Daddy has a huge white flashing umbrella next to him.

Instagram: Commercial FAIL

I'm really disappointed in Instagram.  And Facebook.  But it gives a second bite of the cherry to Flickr, if they're smart about it.

Sunset on the Isle of Wight, taken from my Instagram photo stream

Flickr was started as a small photo-sharing community in 2004 and was bought by Yahoo in 2005.  But Yahoo missed a trick in my opinion - with the backing of the then biggest search engine, it should've been what Facebook became.  But Yahoo didn't pour enough money and effort into it and it trundled along with other photo- and video-sharing websites popping up around it stealing their market share.

The recent news about Instagram changing their terms and conditions so that companies can use your photos without paying you a penny has rattled a number of photo-sharers.  It's annoying, but it's not unreasonable by Instagram - after all, you're using their server space and service for free, potentially showcasing your work to millions around the world.

But it doesn't seem right that Instagram (Facebook) can make money from YOUR photos and YOUR effort without acknowledging that you are the artist.

They could have been a lot smarter about how they use people's photographs.  Perhaps Instagram could've said that they would act as an intermediary on your behalf with companies who want to pay to use your photos in their adverts.  The model could have been that Instagram assess what a fair price would be for your photo to appear in an ad campaign that could reach a few million people, get your agreement to use the photo in the first place, then turn around and give you a percentage.  They make money; you make money; you get the kudos for your photo appearing in an ad campaign; and the company uses the photo in the knowledge that it has all been done in agreement with all parties concerned.  Job done.

Instead, they've damaged their reputation by saying "ner ner - we've got your photos and you won't get ANYTHING."

So I hope people move away from Instagram - or that Instagram revokes these new terms of use and thinks about a win-win situation for the people who have basically given them a business.