Alternatives to Flickr

[Murchu]

Unfortunately my flickr renewal got paid on last May 12th - unless would I have downgraded/deleted my account right away. The new one is just ugly and yes, now my pictures are on a site which is after Instagram/FB/Google+ and the like. Duh.

There is still flickriver as for having friends looking at my photos through a +/- classy background, but flickr on its own is now over for me.

Apparently you may be able to get a pro-rata refund on your unused membership. Not sure if this is true or not, just saw it mentioned somewhere I can't remember right now.

 

[willie_901]

Your Content & Flickr

Your Content & Flickr

These TOSes are nothing like the Instagram debacle.

In the future, If they change, then all you have to do is delete your account before the new TOS goes into effect. I can't imagine how this is an issue.

For the sake of clarity, Flickr is a Yahoo Service.


9. CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO! SERVICES

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

a. With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

b. With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

 

[Highway 61]

Apparently you may be able to get a pro-rata refund on your unused membership. Not sure if this is true or not, just saw it mentioned somewhere I can't remember right now.

Well I just downgraded my account and yes according to what they said I should get a pro-rata refund on my PayPal account (for more than 95% of the $24.95 paid price due to the renewal date) in a few days. If this works out well I'll report it here so that we all know it works.

FWIW I have uploaded 593 photos so far and since I never uploaded hi-res photos (not so fool...) but 800x600 (135) or 800x800 (MF) "saved for the Web" scans only, I am using 0.017% of my "new" 1TB storage capacity... 😀

 

[maddoc]

I have a pro-account at Flickr so keep my unlimited space (no 1TB limitation) pro-account for US$24 something ... other than that pbase is great 🙂

 

[mackigator]

I'm keeping my pro account for now; Flickr is trying, it will be interesting to see where it goes. Pro users have unlimmited space and no ads, and are supposedly grandfathered in.

Flickr still has some of the best granular copyright and audience-filtering controls. As a free place to host images I think it is a good "buy."

If you are interested in attracting an audience, take a hard look at Google Plus - it handles photos quite well. Though Google has forced it on the world, it seems to be taking root. The advantage that Google + has over Flickr is its ability to influence search results and to put your photo directly in front of an influencer, once you build up your circles.

I suspect many on Tumblr will respond negatively to the coming of more ad units on that site - so there are possible defections there as well.

Clark

 

[ZeissFan]

A real alternative is to get a URL and create your own site. You'll need some basic HTML skills and an FTP program at the minimum.

 

[Murchu]

FWIW I have uploaded 593 photos so far and since I never uploaded hi-res photos (not so fool...) but 800x600 (135) or 800x800 (MF) "saved for the Web" scans only, I am using 0.017% of my "new" 1TB storage capacity... 😀

Think most who take photography anything more than casually are probably the same. The 1tb thing is very telling about the users Flickr is aiming for, imo.

 

[aeturnum]

Think most who take photography anything more than casually are probably the same. The 1tb thing is very telling about the users Flickr is aiming for, imo.

1TB for photos seems like Gmail's original 1GB for email offer. (Almost) no one uses up the space, but it sounds good. I've seen pro photographers complaining that 1TB isn't enough (one of them was at ~85,000 photos). Hell, the space used to be unlimited - 100TB if you wanted, but everyone is talking about it like they increased the limit. Good marketing copy.

I don't take photography casually and I upload everything at the highest resolution possible. Why would you want to hold back any available detail?

 

[cz23]

There are so many options for hosting photos, but just a few that offer community like Flickr. I think that's the first thing you have to decide. How you feel about it will narrow your alternatives considerably either way.

I use Zenfolio, but added pro Flickr in April, hoping for greater visibility. But I really dislike the new design, especially what they've done with collections. I'll likely not stay.

John

 

[kbg32]

.....I upload everything at the highest resolution possible. Why would you want to hold back any available detail?

Why full res? 800 pixel length on the longest side is quite adequate.

 

[regularchickens]

I'm looking through these threads trying to identify features that would make an attractive alternative to users fleeing flickr. So far, I'm seeing these as the defining elements:

- small images
- oodles of negative space
- lots of room for text
- total control over copyright
- no social features
- easy access to stats
- interfaces involving lots of clicking

If those things are what you want, there's never been a better time to set up your own hosting for your images. Set up WordPress with a photo-friendly theme and you're on your way.

 

[aeturnum]

Why full res? 800 pixel length on the longest side is quite adequate.

I certainly don't think so. Given that most monitors are at least 1080p wide these days, I don't see the point of uploading lower than ~1680px on the long side. Beyond that, I've already got one WQHD monitor (2560 x 1400) and the big tablets generally have a similar resolution. Given that resolution, you'd want to have at least 1400 on the short edge, and whatever resolution you can manage on the large.

Beyond the desire to display photos at 1:1 on common displays, there's the fact that displays have been getting higher and higher resolution for years. In 10 years, displays will have even more pixels.

In any case, there is no reason to upload anything but the highest resolution for the photo. The idea of X pixels on a side being adequate seems totally alien to me. Why would you cut resolution? You can always get a smaller version if you want it.

There are people who are concerned about photo theft, but as I'm not a professional, I've never been worried about that.

 

[Lauffray]

Beyond that, I've already got one WQHD monitor (2560 x 1400) and the big tablets generally have a similar resolution.

Doesn't mean everyone else does too, I'm a web developer and it's a mistake I commonly make too

 

[aeturnum]

Doesn't mean everyone else does too, I'm a web developer and it's a mistake I commonly make too

Not now, but going into the future certainly. The UI can always scale the image down, it can't scale it up.

 

[Highway 61]

There are people who are concerned about photo theft, but as I'm not a professional, I've never been worried about that.

I'm not a professional either but photo theft happened to me several times and it was very unpleasant.

I see flickr as a photo sharing platform, so uploading light web-sized-saved copies of the original files makes sense.

 

[btgc]

I certainly don't think so. Given that most monitors are at least 1080p wide these days, I don't see the point of uploading lower than ~1680px on the long side.

Being a man with features of man, I don't see the need to use all of them just because I can.

I post 400x600 and that's it. Bigger size wouldn't make them any better.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not a professional either but photo theft happened to me several times and it was very unpleasant.. . .

The real fun would be if someone took a picture of yours and misused or even miscaptioned it: "Whore waiting on street corner" for a girl waiting for a lift home.

Cheers,

R.

 

[erik]

Being a man with features of man, I don't see the need to use all of them just because I can.

I post 400x600 and that's it. Bigger size wouldn't make them any better.

My favorite post in ages. nice quote!

 

[johannielscom]

Interesting, this pixel talk. Ahem.


But, anybody got any good alternatives for Flickr?


😀

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I certainly don't think so. Given that most monitors are at least 1080p wide these days, I don't see the point of uploading lower than ~1680px on the long side.

That explains the barrage of immense image posts in the W/NW. This is a really bad attitude to have towards inline images. A lot of legacy monitors, laptops, and network infrastructure out there.