Flickr account changes announced

I recently use Flickr for hosting only. The good old days when discussions in groups were taking place is long gone in the group's I follow. Also, in some groups there are those people who think that all those 50 pictures they took today are interesting and spam the group I post in.
Turned to IG and I like it better. I follow the hastags I like and my pictures are reaching a wider audience.
 
Different use-cases for photo sites:
- Sharing, discussion, exchange, a continuous "feed" (everyone has to be there)
- Browsable site for clients and specific projects (controls on who can see what)
- Pro-level marketing site, probably also for delivery of images to clients (sell images?)
- Place to link to in posts (reliability, staying power)
- Backup storage for photos (big capacity)

Flickr failed for the first.

I use Flickr for the second. Whenever I want to point someone to a set of photos, I put them on Flickr. Sometimes open/searchable, sometimes closed so only the given URL gets you in.
 
I don't care for changes as long Flickr is free. There have been a lot of changes in the past. 1.000 pictures is a lot. In his long life Henri Cartier-Bresson published only 750 pictures.

Erik.
 
Flickr has been changing the UI and thingamajiggers here and there all the time, but rarely improves them. All sites do such things but Flickr always increase the quirkiness and reduce the smoothness. That kills it for me.
 
I was shocked to go into Flickr and see the news. I haven't figured out why, but I used to pay for a Pro account back when it was $20 bucks. Then one year about 2-3 years ago they went "free". Again, I didn't read the fine print but stopped paying. Nothing changed, I have tons of photos up there, going back a decade. All my pictures I post on forums, for sale ads, everything in about 5 hobbies are linked to my Flickr photos. So if it gets "turned off" like that other site did, all my content for a decade goes dark.

I guess they have me over a barrel. Which is what I figured would happen with the annual fee was mysteriously dropped a few years ago. (maybe I have less than 1000 photos, but that seems unlikely).
 
Erik van Straten said:
I don't care for changes as long Flickr is free. There have been a lot of changes in the past. 1.000 pictures is a lot. In his long life Henri Cartier-Bresson published only 750 pictures.

Erik.
Click to expand...

flickr was never about the "1000 best pictures of your life" it was a digital shoebox holding whatever the owner wanted to.

Not long ago flickr advertised 1TB free storage. (https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/...ree-accounts-changes-pro-subscription-smugmug)

Going from "1TB free" to "50$ for any image over 1000" sounds like the recipe for an epic business fail. Google photos has unlimited free storage and so does instagram.
 
"Going from "1TB free" to "50$ for any image over 1000" sounds like the recipe for an epic business fail. Google photos has unlimited free storage and so does instagram."

Yes, maybe Google photos is a good alternative, I'll have a look at that. But never Instagram as it is part of Facebook. I am very much against Facebook.

Erik.
 
Sure but Google is a photo depository, only. If and when the new Flickr owners make a concerted effort to revive the Flickr community, I'll consider paying a premium. In the meantime, it's probably best to consider hedging your bets and download your Flickr content to Google...just in case the double-double Flickr Pro account pricing gamble fails.
 
Google Photos is personal storage in cloud, for instance your Android phone might try to push photos into there. Its also part of Google Drive storage plan, so photos share same space with emails etc. Am paying 20eur/year for 100GB (free storage is 16GB iirc). There's no social aspect in any of this, which is great :)

Bille said:
Google photos has unlimited free storage and so does instagram.
Click to expand...

in both cases, free option means downsized resolution.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I don't care for changes as long Flickr is free. There have been a lot of changes in the past. 1.000 pictures is a lot. In his long life Henri Cartier-Bresson published only 750 pictures.
Click to expand...

I think that 1,000 photos is quite a low limit.

Erik, so far there are 912 photos at your main Flickr account. And you have uploaded a total of 1,591 photos if we add those of your five secondary Flickr accounts.

I never uploaded any digital photo to my Flickr account. Only film photos, carefully sorted by albums, themselves sorted by folders. Most of them being B&W photos (uploaded a dozen of my scanned slides only), home developed and scanned. All of them are uploaded at 800x600, "saved for the web".jpg, always weighting just under 300KB. All of them are also stored on two personal harddrives, and I have the negatives, of course.

Amateur photographer aged 51. Seriously started with photography when I was 14. Taking photos on a regular basis, but not frantically. No digital but for some seldom professional use.

FWIW, so far I have 1,413 photos on Flickr already, taken since 1981 and up to now. 413 photos over the limit already, so my free Flickr account is virtually DOA. I am just back from a nice trip to Chicago and I am developing and scanning : about thirty-fourty new photos are about to get uploaded during the upcoming month.

I am not interested at getting a "pro" account and can very well live without Flickr. This won't change much for me - I never used it as a "community", my photos aren't public and the very short list of people I "follow" are people I know in the flesh - the same for those "following" me.

I would never use anything which would be Facebook related either, so, no Instagram.

Flickr used as a social network with public photos and albums and hundreds of "followers" and "followed" is the best way to be a worldwide famous anonymous. To each his own.
 
If Flickr was used by book publishers, museums curators and galleries staff to discover the new genious of the contemporary photography who'd be too shy to promote themselves another way, we might have be told this already. Hey - might I have missed an episode of this soap ?
 
It theory it seems possible to have more than one account, each with a 1,000 limit. Just need a different email address, although I wonder if the Internet address of your router will give the game away.
Just imagine: one account for B&W, another for colour, or more if you care to subdivide, eg one for each of the film types used, HP5, FP4 etc.
 
There is a life outside Flickr as there is one outside Facebook.
Getting rid of spending time at posting photos on the Internet for nobody you know actually to look at them doesn't mean either getting rid of taking photos or getting rid of one's strong interest towards photography.
At the end of the day the $50 charge a year is not the key point.
 
Highway 61 said:
I beg to differ. I think that 1,000 photos is quite a low limit.

Erik, so far there are 912 photos at your main Flickr account. And you have uploaded a total of 1,591 photos if we add those of your five secondary Flickr accounts.

I never uploaded any digital photo to my Flickr account. Only film photos, carefully sorted by albums, themselves sorted by folders. Most of them being B&W photos (uploaded a dozen of my scanned slides only), home developed and scanned. All of them are uploaded at 800x600, "saved for the web".jpg, always weighting just under 3KB. All of them are also stored on two personal harddrives, and I have the negatives, of course.

Amateur photographer aged 51. Seriously started with photography when I was 14. Taking photos on a regular basis, but not frantically. No digital but for some seldom professional use.

FWIW, so far I have 1,413 photos on Flickr already, taken since 1981 and up to now. 413 photos over the limit already, so my free Flickr account is virtually DOA. I am just back from a nice trip to Chicago and I am developing and scanning : about thirty-fourty new photos are about to get uploaded during the upcoming month.

I am not interested at getting a "pro" account and can very well live without Flickr. This won't change much for me - I never used it as a "community", my photos aren't public and the very short list of people I "follow" are people I know in the flesh - the same for those "following" me.

I would never use anything which would be Facebook related either, so, no Instagram.

Flickr used as a social network with public photos and albums and hundreds of "followers" and "followed" is the best way to be a worldwide famous anonymous. To each his own.
Click to expand...
Begs the question why you have a Flickr account to begin with.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Begs the question why you have a Flickr account to begin with.
Click to expand...
To easily share my photos with actual friends also having a Flickr account for the same reasons, which means, a few people I also talk with, phone to, write to, listen to, have a drink with from time to time.

aizan said:
https://creativecommons.org/2018/11/01/flickr-2/

Creative Commons is working with Flickr to help protect images from getting deleted. Another example of how changes in image hosting sites really do have consequences.
Click to expand...

Very important point, thanks for this. Yet - not too sure whether the gamble of putting personal pieces of work under CC rights (which means, quite abandoning your own copy and use rights on your own work) just for Flickr not being able to delete them would be worth the risk. For public institutions managing actual common pictures collections (Library of Congress, etc) and NGO, for sure. But for individuals ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom