Well you know what they're like. Everyone has one. I think some have more than one, actually. Whatever.
As more and more of the traditional media gets decimated by the internet it seems as though the best place we have for information about whatever topic interests you ... is the ... internet. cnn, cnbc, the big newspapers ... they're all owned by giant corporations that pick and choose what they want "us" the mindless consumers to read. Television is a complete waste. Magazines are advertiser-centric and fast becoming as irrelevant as their newspaper cousins. We can't tell the difference between editorial and advertorial any longer. Even photojournalism is pr-machine-generated and pretty much dead.
Besides Vanity Fair and a couple cinematography magazines I don't subscribe to much anymore. In fact, even ol' PDN has gone to the wayside for me. I can find much better information on the 'net. Yes, I'm capitalizing. Please don't have a heart attack. I think I'm even punctuating.
I've never really tried to publicize my blog on my own. Uber's (RIP) execs did a bit through a couple camera give-aways. That's about it. I know who my readers are for the most part. They like that I say it like it is and that's totally good with me. I'm actually a working photographer who doesn't have to use his blog to supplement his income. Yeah, there's a B&H link but I don't think the commissions are enough to finance my monthly coffee budget. If publicizing your blog by posting a link to your wall on Facebook is considered publicizing, then, yes, I guess I do that, too.
When I want "real information" I talk to my friends who get the equipment way before anyone else because of the outlets and wire services they work for/contract with. When I wanted to use a Mark IV I asked friends to borrow them. When I have a question as to how something is related to something else I make a phone call.
Not everyone is a working photographer -- defined as making more than 80% of one's income by photography. Sadly, that also means the random-ass "boulevard portrait photographers" are also considered "working photographers" even though they haven't changed their lighting schemes since they "got them from their dad." Most interested in photography can't call someone who's won a Pulitzer. They don't have contacts who have tested "this or that" for the last month on a REAL ASSIGNMENT, not just walking through some park in Toronto. It's also helpful to know that a certain wire service was contemplating switching systems. I bought one of the bodies to make sure I knew everything about them in anticipation of the switch. When the actual switch happened and I got a whole new system I was way better prepared. Funny than within the last year another switch happened but I didn't switch. I mention names when I can. ;) I can't this time.
Photo aficionados also have forums for information. Thing is about forums is that they're filled with theorists rather than those who practice. I'm generalizing, of course, but I wouldn't rely on what I see posted in forums especially given 90% of the galleries I see associated with the posters. They're more interested in their "comment count" than anything else. And, honestly, I know zero working shooters who either post in forums nor get information they need from forums. The working shooters I know are very busy and I can totally see how "other types of working pros" could have time. Our genre ... no.
No, my friends are not paps. For the clearly uneducated or misinformed not everyone who shoots primarily editorial entertainment in Los Angeles and New York City are paps. If you live in Wisconsin and are wholly irrelevant in the real photo world, then, yes, you could probably make that mistake.
I look at like 4 sites regularly and about 8 photo-related sites semi-regularly. For whatever reason I found that monitoring many more through RSS just became too much. Of the content I regularly read I wondered what other's thought, too. Made a couple of phone calls to people who pageviews are life and death and found out that Alexa's pretty good, Quantcast, too and also Compete. Of these three I found that the publicly available states given by Compete were pretty good. I would suggest signing up for their free service to get a couple more stats.
I'm not really reviewing popular online photo sites, I'm just going to give what I think of them. Some I think more about than others. To provide some baseline, though, I checked each of them through Compete.com. I also provided other sites that whilst I'm not "reviewing them" but putting them in the list for a sense of scale.
Google (Compete Rank# 1) - 143,648,839 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Flickr (Compete Rank# 36) - 20,272,058 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
BBC.co.uk (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 6,486,545 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
People.com (Compete Rank# 196) - 5,656,047 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Reuters.com (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 5,404,486 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
PC World (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 4,349,261 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Gawker (Compete Rank# 383) - 3,653,909 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
AP (Compete Rank# 748) - 2,142,180 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
deviantART (Compete Rank# 373) - 1,570,019 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Canon.com (Compete Rank UNRATED) - 1,201,776 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Photo.net (Compete Rank# 1,911) - 960,995 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
MacWorld (Compete Rank# 2293) - 809,129 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
DPReview (Compete Rank# 3,151) - 603,692 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
US News & World Report (Compete Rank# UNRANKED) - 593,338 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
GettyImages.com (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 468,731 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Kenrockwell.com (Compete Rank# 8,848) - 225,836 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Luminous-Landscape (Compete Rank# 15,810) - 135,851 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Popular Photography (Compete Rank# UNRANKED) - 103,861 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Shutterbug (Compete Rank# UNRANKED) - 50,946 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
RobGalbraith.com (Compete Rank# 52,924) - 39,917 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
FStoppers.com (Compete Rank# 54,167) - 38,944 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
PDN Online (Compete Rank# 55,956) - 37,576 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Rangefinder Forum (Compete Rank# 69,485) - 29,672 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Canon Rumors (Compete Rank# 69,684) - 29,597 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
MagnumPhotos.com (Compete Rank# 70,562) - 29,183 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Philip Bloom's Blog (Compete Rank# 74,613) - 27,418 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
LeicaCamera.com (Compete Rank# 89,166) - 22,249 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
TOP (Compete Rank# UNRATED) - 19,335 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
APhotoEditor.com (Compete Rank# 139,957) - 13,324 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
SteveHuffPhoto.com (Compete Rank# 165,553) - 10,949 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Vincent Laforet Blog (Compete Rank# 172,639) - 10,430 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
l-camera-forum.com (Compete Rank# 245,086) - 6,920 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
LeicaRumors.com (Compete Rank# 331,373) - 4,865 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
DigiLloyd.com (Compete Rank# 349,203) - 4,581 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
Overgaard.dk (Compete Rank# UNRATED) - 2,660 Compete Unique Visitors (Unknown Date)
ReidReviews (Compete Rank# 1,330,478) - 976 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010
(when unrated last monthly page views used for order)
I know that there are other sites that do web statistic compilations, however, I wanted to use the same service for every search term to maintain some kind of consistency. I also know that certain websites use proprietary programs and services to accurately compute their own statistics. I just used these for my own edification to give some scale.
The above rankings are pretty interesting, though. Clearly, a place where people at least post PHOTOS rather than their amazing theorizations is more popular than forums. That's cool. A weekly from the United States is more popular than true news-gathering organizations. Scary for sure. DPReview is more popular than one of the oldest best regarded weekly news mags. Less scary for me than the fact the wires were beat out by people.com. I think it's funny that the two paid reviews (digilloyd and reidreviews) sites are so unpopular. Longtime APhotoEditor.com is barely more popular than upstart Steve Huff. The LuminousLandscape guys must be pissed that KenRockwell is almost twice as big as they are. I laughed the hardest at that actually. TOP didn't surprise me that they only got 19K. Rockwell's numbers are better than PopPhoto. I doubt they're as pissed as the Luminous guys. It's gotta kill TOP that pedestrian Rockwell is does more than 10 times their numbers. An upstart like CanonRumors doing almost as much traffic as longtime RangeFinderForum? Really? LeicaRumors being irrelevant is pretty much par for the course. DSLR-centric sites aren't doing the numbers of their still counterparts. I thought they'd be bigger.
Would also appear to me that given audience size a site's popularity is affected by how much they post. Further, I think that the more gear-centric your site is ... the more popular you are. It's no surprise that sites that center on Canon and Nikon are way more popular than any other brands.
I don't spend a lot of time on every one of those sites but ... I'll give my opinion about some. I mean ... I'm entitled as much as the most over-posting troll on a forum, too, right? We'll start with the top of the list:
Flickr (Affiliation: None except for having account there)
When this site first came around I thought it was just another "hosting site" like photobucket or the nefarious imageshack.us. Now, since they redid how we can browse photos, I really like their site. I don't post a lot there yet I usually meet pretty nice people. I still think I see more talented work on deviantART, though.
Gawker (Affiliation: None)
It's one of the first sites I check after waking up. The have a cadre of young writers grabbing traditional media by the short ones. It's not Huffington-rehash. If any of you wonder what style of writing I like, go there and check out some posts.
deviantART (Affiliation: Friends with C.E.O., have account, admin of group)
It's always seemed to me that the people here are less gear-centric and more art-motivated than other sites. Some of the most talented people I've met all over the world I met through this site. I've helped younger photographers from this site get syndication gigs and jobs more than any other site i've frequented.
Photo.net (Affiliation: None)
Working Photographer: UNK
Never paid much attention because it seemed as though the most frequently posted subject was landscape. Landscape bores me.
DPReview (Affiliation: None)
Working Photographers: They say so; I doubt it.
How many people actually reading DPReview would actually buy a Leaf back? Zero. Why do they even mention anything beyond point and shoots? Isn't that what their editor knows best? How they scammed their way into the numbers that they have is seriously one of the biggest mysteries of the internet. I mean how the hell did their editor ever get a book deal with this gallery? So if your editor-in-chief is the best, what does that say about the rest of them?
Some of the worst photos ever made with an M9 were made by their "founder." A founder whose bio's first line is "... has been in the internet business for about 15 years." Um, really? The first line should be "... has been a photographer..." The "honorable genre of test photo" on this site brings photography on the internet to a new/old low.
Why anyone would EVER get information from this site is BEYOND me. The content is the most pedestrian that one could ever want to see.
Well, ya' know, pedestrian but with the occasional mention of us$40K gear none of their readers could ever afford or have a use for. Their audience is the point-and-shoot crowd evidenced by the content their editor is known for producing. Funny thing is that the point-and-shoot crowd would be better served going to Rockwell's site.
KenRockwell (Affiliation: None except for being i-acquaintances)
Working Photographer: UNK
Back in the day I made fun of Ken; he called me a paparazzi, which I told him was the plural of paparazzo and he corrected it even though I told him he had no idea what he was talking about. Again, anyone really in the non-consumer photo world knows there is a difference between "pap work" and entertainment editorial. Bygones. Thing is about Ken is that his information is pretty good. He doesn't claim to have been some ex-professor of photography or edited a failed photo magazine. He's a regular guy who loves photography and tells it like it is. What's funny is that in a photo-centric world his numbers are trumped only by Photo.net. Ken knows his audience. He also doesn't try to talk to the "pro audience" some others THINK they have but, in fact, it's dubious if they do. I find those kinds of sites rather pretentious. Ken's definitely not pretentious.
Honestly, there hasn't been much I've read on Ken's site that wasn't pretty close to the truth. Good for Ken and his numbers that trump so so many others.
Luminous-Landscape (Affiliation: Have an account I've used for lurking probably won't for long)
Working Photographer: I'm sure in their minds they are.
With more page views than both Pop Photo and Shutterbug I'd kind of expect better content than the I-use-a-view-camera-and-know-more-than-you-do guys. Was so funny to see whatever his name is put out some 5dm2 video pretty soon after Vincent Laforet did. It was so baneful and visually painful to watch it was laughable. Yeah!!!! Jump on the D-SLR bandwagon! That will get you page views.
In Hollywood there are actors-with-a-capital-A, clearly, in photography sites there are photographers-with-a-capital-P. These would be them. If you don't use a Leaf back or some nice 8x10 velvia to make your landscapes; you're way beneath us. There's also some of the I-can-afford-to-shoot-in-Antartica-because-I'm-a-retired-engineer-and-it's-closer-than-you'll-get-to-shooting-for-Nat-friggin'-Geo in this site, too.
The reason I learned about it was because of a painfully bad M9 review. Not that they said anything bad about the camera but ... because the photos were banal. Then again, I'm sure the audience wouldn't know a "fresh look" to save their lives. I have a feeling this is where many learn the "noble genre of test photos."
If you want to see another landscape photo, go here, this is your place.
RobGalbraith.com (Affiliation: None)
Working Photographer: YES
Seems as though there was better content back in the day than there is now. Also seems like now it's just regurgitation of other site's information and links to "best of" galleries by Reuters.
Thing is ... this guy is an actual working photographer so it's easier to believe the information on his site. It's practical and not theoretical. I used to look at his CF memory card comparisons when I cared about that information. Now, dunno ... I guess I just look to look because it used to be worthwhile.
FStoppers.com (Affiliation: None)
I first found this site because of a viral video circulated on FB a while back. That video was seen 440,000+ times. Marketing lesson: Don't ever underestimate the viral video to pimp your site's numbers.
Honestly, I had no idea South Carolina had a fashion industry. I kinda thought that there needed to be a fashion industry to be called a fashion photographer. Makes sense, right? When I went to the FStoppers youtube page it looked like the iPhone video has over forty times the loads/plays than anything else they've posted.
I think it's cool that a site that has roughly half original content does twice the numbers of TOP. ;) I'm surprised compete ranks them higher than their HD-SLR God Bloom. Odd.
Neither of the authors have style that jumps out and says look at me but they look like competent commercial photographers for sure. Surely, their opinions are better than those who either a) have never been hired or b) haven't been hired in 20+ years. Surely.
PDN Online (Affiliation: Subscriber and been mentioned a couple times)
I'm actually surprised that their rank is so low. Emerging photographers would totally benefit by checking out even the before-the-pay-wall information. You'll find out what staffers make on average, what the stock sales industry is doing and what markets are doing instead of how ISO 1250 looks like on a G10 when you shoot your lawn furniture in the winter. I wonder when a better organized magazine is put together and distributed on something like the iPad will happen.
Rangefinder Forum (Affiliation: Owner is a friend)
Working Photographer: N/A
I was quite surprised that the numbers for this site are better than l-camera-forum and leica-camera. I think that hyphenated domain names are stupid (see: luminous-landscape). Anyway ... RFF is a great place to learn about rangefinders. Rangefinder photography? Honestly, not so much. Most of the people on this site don't photograph but they sure love to post. They don't like me much, either, I don't really care. If you don't have work to back up your opinion, you're nobody. Just FYI. You know who you are.
Seems to me that the least talented are actually the moderators for the most part. That is true, though, of almost any forum.
Canon Rumors (Affiliation: i-Acquaintance)
Working Photographer: YES
My opinions of "rumor sites" are pretty well-known to those who follow my blog or get my updates on Facebook. I haven't found ANY of them to be even mildly reliable. Having been involved in a project that required an inch thick NDA and watching certain forum posts by "rumor mongers" it was laughable how people who said "my really good source" were wrong every friggin' time. Laughable. Rumor sites are the result of rumor mogering on forums.
I'm quite surprised Canon Rumors gets such high numbers but ... the site's well done ... when there are "test photos" they're competent. In my correspondence with the guy he's genuinely nice and loves photography. I think he would have done better with a name not implying he's rumor-centric.
Philip Bloom's Blog (Affiliation: None)
Working Photographer/Videographer: YES
Seriously, there is NO ONE better at marketing himself on the web. I don't think ANYONE took the D-SLR to it's current heights after Vincent Laforet published Reverie better than Bloom. I will admit that I've definitely learned some technical things because of reading Bloom's blog. I'd say three things.
I don't think you'll learn much creatively there. Rather, if you need technical information, how to make a time lapse, how to use a motorized slider to make a moving time lapse or how a British accent and some nice visuals are a way to make yourself a force to be reckoned with ... Bloom's your guy.
I attended a Bloom-workshop to kinda "gauge things" as it were. Did I learn anything? No. Was it interesting? For sure. Watching a hundred fanboys gander at their God? Priceless for sure.
TOP (Affiliation: None)
Working Photographer: NO
"I never did take a workshop myself—I sort of skipped right from being a student into being a teacher..." My problem with sites like this is that, especially when you look at compete.com's numbers, it's really not that popular. I love that Ken's numbers are 10 times the size of TOP's. I don't think Ken's provenance is anywhere close to what these guys have. When I read the editor's history all I could think was the high school quarterback who used to be pretty good and then ... the majors ... well ... ya' know the rest of the story.
Ol' pedestrian Ken with an audience that kills them 10 times over. Must make some curmudgeons not feel so fanciful. Sites like this have a little squadron of "regulars" who tow the line and make the head curmudgeon happy.
At least Ken shows his work. It's very hard for me -- as it is for a lot of who email me -- to take someone's opinion, whether it's a poster on a forum or a "publisher" of a popular blog, who doesn't show their work. Seriously, so the fuck what your work is on neg. Scan it. A lot of us scan our work. Put it out there. Let people comment. Don't be afraid.
Is it that you don't think you HAVE to show your work because of some sense of entitlement? Let's see some of the work you did after you were a student or when you were a teacher! How about after that?
When I was primarily working for magazines I worked with writers who could do a bang-up story about cat food and the next day ... about high-end audio gear. Just because one is a good writer doesn't necessarily mean they're good at anything they write about.
Entitlement is a funny thing.
Another funny thing is having an ad for buffalo hides with a naked baby posing and then an ad for "joyful nudes." Just sayin'.
APhotoEditor.com (Affiliation: None)
Working Photographer: N/A
I like this guy's real world perspective. He doesn't theorize. He's been in the world of which he writes.
SteveHuffPhoto.com (Affiliation: A mention and he's an iAcquaintance)
According to compete.com this site has better numbers than THE leica forum and both paid review sites? I'm not sure the compete-laforet numbers are wholly correct, tho. Not bad for someone who's only had stats since late last year. I hope a guy like this overtakes something like the alter of entitlement.
Okay. There's one thing. There's this unboxing video. Why do this? Who started this phenomenon? Unboxing videos should stay something you keep to yourself. They really make me want to die. Why would anyone want to watch such a thing?
Unlike others who depend upon contributors for relevance, Steve's blog has a few very competent contributors who don't just shoot banal landscapes. You don't need an internationally known PJ to have good content.
Each of his reviews contains really nice original photographs. "The honorable genre of the test photo" can also be a good photo; it doesn't have to be of a tree or of an ill-composed dog photo.
I can attest this guy isn't an FB-Overposter and doesn't really market like so many others I know. You know who you are. You can call me "closed" and I can quietly think of you as a spammer.
I'd check out Steve's site to see what he thinks. I mean ... he's better than any of the PAID review sites. Okay, that is unless you like pedestrian wedding photography or landscape that anyone taking a Rockwell-led workshop could do.
One last thing: Quoting leicarumors.com ... you're better than that, man. ;) way better.
Vincent Laforet Blog (Affiliation: None)
Working Photographer: Duh
I've never thanked him but when I saw Reverie it unlocked something in me. I should thank him. Prior to seeing what the 5dm2 could do -- even with auto-aperture other bullshit Canon didn't forsee being a big deal -- I'd always wanted to do something in motion. The thought of deep-focus bullshit video cameras did not pique my interest. Seeing Reverie did.
There's no other photographer in the D-SLR fad-world that inspired me more. Vincent's still photography is beyond belief as well.
If you want to see what's REALLY going on with D-SLR's, go to his blog. I have no idea how compete does it's numbers but I'm going to suspect that his blog's/site's numbers are a somewhere north of where they're reported. They have to be. Then again, Vincent doesn't overpost. He doesn't seem to be quite the social network/media whore that most are.
Why is that? He's a real working photographer/cinematographer. He doesn't have time. He's not trying to sell every product under the sun or fill his calendar doing workshops ... he's working ... in the real world. I'd suspect his workshop would kill it over most of the others who are popular D-SLR workshoppers.
Always looking forward to seeing what he's doing next.
In the words of Robert Rodriguez: "You don't have to be technical; you can learn technical. Technical people, though, aren't creative. That's where creatives win every time." Impressing the fanboys is one thing ... impressing agency clients is quite another. ;)
l-camera-forum.com (Affiliation: Have an account where I've posted 106 times in over five years)
The best thing I learned here was from some guy who posted about what to do about the hood for the Noctilux from the 80's. The hood design sucked. Homeboy suggested buying a B+W hood and a step up ring.
Otherwise ... well ... this is another place where the number of posts you have gives you streed cred. You'll also find many entries of the "noble genre of the test photo" and find posters from the "paid reviewer genre." Those hawking workshops like to post in places like this as well.
The one other thing that this site has over others is disposable income. I don't know for sure but I'll bet the demographics for this site kick some major ass. Thing is ... just owning a Leica doesn't mean anything more than "you own a Leica."
LeicaRumors.com (Affiliation: Referenced on site)
Although I'm sure they have better numbers than me, when I look at this site i ask myself "is this what happens when you just buy a domain and regurgitate information that you see on forums?"
Indeed. I remember talking to this guy on FB and asking him if he owned a Leica. He said he had a D-Lux. In as much as I love myself some D-Lux sometimes ... um ... does that really qualify you to provide original content to a blog about Leica? I mean, really?
In as much as I should have been nicer to whatever his name is when he told me he was "getting an M9" and I said "cool, let me see the photos you make with it."
I never got a response ... ya' know ... like the one I did from Craig at CanonRumors.
There really is no difference between a site like LeicaRumors and a celebrity regurgitation site ... but not like the 2nd regurgitation ... like the 8th. This isn't just sloppy seconds. This is just sloppy.
No one should quote this site. Under any circumstances. Perhaps I could change my mind if I ever got to a) know the guy's real name (why hide behind an alias, mate) and b) see his work. Something tells me, though, that never happens. Besides, the guy published one of my private photos on FB. Loser. Go get your own content.
Overgaard.dk (Affiliation: Referenced a couple times, infrequent contrib here and friend)
Working Photographer: YES
Finding stats with Alexa, compete or quantcast was difficult for Thorsten's Leica Compendium site. I'm sure he'll correct me with some stats for his alter to the God of Leica.
If you want to know anything Leica, this is probably a pretty good place to start. If I ever wonder if a certain lens exists, I search here. Somehow this Dane sniffs out anything Leica.
Thorsten's also one of the best at marketing himself through social networks and commenting. He's referenced in a book as he described on FB "Interesting book for any photographers and other artists wanting to use internet and social media to create network and reach their goals. I'm in it as a case, written by Lindsay Adler." You can find the book here.
The Paid Review Sites of Reid and DigiLloyd (Affiliation: None, thank God!)
Working Photographers: I'd be so surprised
If you want to learn how to shoot boring landscapes, see the luminous guys. Unless you buy a video you can probably find everything you need for free. If you want to see what nice wedding work looks like, look at some of Steve's stuff. You don't need to pay for it. How homeboy can base a subscriber-based review rooted in wedding work ... well ... I guess someone would want to pay for it. Funny 'cause I just looked at Steve's stuff again and immediately looked at Seans: Steve kicks Sean's ass in the wedding genre in one post.
I know that both of these guys would make the argument "Magazines charge for reviews." Yeah, well, I doubt either of you shoot for magazines. I'm shocked with all of the great information out there that these sites could get subscribers. The compete.com numbers are very interesting. I think.
Wonder who would need to hire someone to do photo consulting?
I wrote this because, honestly, I just wondered myself which sites were more popular (according to compete.com, of course) than others. In so many ways I was pretty shocked; in other ways I wasn't.
It's also interesting -- even based upon my own private stats -- that whenever you post about gear your stats spike. It's not interesting, actually, it's sad. Seems as though people want something that can possibly make them a better photographer yet they default back to gear fanboy. There are so many priests of gear that have no problem finding a alter boys and a flock.
If you want to make better photos, look at better photos. You're not going to get any better by talking ad naseum about gear on forums or making comments on blogs. Won't happen. You can get more popular with other gear-loving time lapsers by making endless comments, though. This has been proved time and again.
You get better at photography by making more and better photos.
Find content-centric sites for information. Guys who do original content that isn't the same over and over again -- unless they like to shoot a theme, of course -- are much better to watch than guys who have opinions and then try to support their opinion by allowing great contributors to post. Never get your information from regurgitation sites. You're better off lurking a forum than reading those. You're getting the same information. Regurgitation sites are probably started mostly by the same guys that write "first post" when commenting on a popular blog.
Frequent sites written by guys who put there work out there for you to see. If you respect their work, you can respect their opinion.
I wish a lot of my talented friends would blog. Because they're staffers and can't or because they're too busy and it's not going to make them any more money ... they don't. In fact, they probably think I'm the overposting self-promoter. Over-posting about gear, visiting forums and claiming to know this or that is proven to make you more popular for sure.
Thing is ... I've had about the same readers when I started journaling (the precursor of blogs) at dA that I do today. I'm cool with that. I've been able to get a couple web properties to give away a Leica M7 and lens, a Canon 5D and a lens and a nice Bessa and lens to a lucky kid in Amsterdam, Berlin and, um, Russia, I think. Can half of the big number guys say they've done anything like that? I'll post it if they have. What I like about the readers I have is that they're all good photographers and want information that isn't some theorization. I work in the real world and beyond a BH Photo ad bump they get real information based on my real world observations of the gear I use day in and day out for some of the biggest clients/brands known to man.
I guess that's why one could probably tell I'm biased towards guys who actually work as photographers.
Well ... that's the way I see the web in terms of photo-centric sites. I know I'll take a lot of flack and get messages from friends-of-friends saying "so-and-so is really pissed you said that." Well ... so what. If any of you post your work and think I should change my opinion because of your practical work instead of your theories, please let me know when you post it.
Cheers!
-C
