Flickr

[damien.murphy]

Don't browse it too often, but I actually like Explore - it exposes me to a whole bunch of different aesthetics I might not normally consider. I don't expect an algorithm to find the images with the best content on flickr, so perhaps I'm not as offended as others seem to be by all things Explore.

I don't use flickr too much (to date), but perhaps a lot of peoples issues would be sorted out flickr had something like an editors choice daily pool, which highlighted some of the best photographic work on flickr.

 

[Peter^]

Explore breakdown:
Girls - the Internet likes pretty girls

Which is demonstrated here in the holy halls of RFF. A thumbnail in gallery with a prettygirl on it will always get a lot of clicks.

 

[dogbunny]

different strokes

different strokes

They are rife with technical issues: blurry, poorly exposed, focus is off, etc.

Oddly, some of my favorite pictures contain the above mentioned photog faux pas, and there are plenty of technically perfect pictures that bore me to tears. I wouldn't take it too seriously, my most viewed pic on flickr is only so because it's tagged with the word 'cat'.

 

[igi]

You (the OP) obviously forgot that most pictures taken are utilitarian in nature, not an artistic project

 

[goamules]

People shoot pictures of what they like. People on flickr view what they like. A small portion are "artistes", worried about saturation, out of focus, poor composition, or the dreadful demise of what they thought should be a site that only allowed high art. In other words, 95% of the world enjoys what they are shooting and seeing. They aren't even aware that experts declare it bad or dull.

I use it for storage, and to image link.

 

[willie_901]

Based on this thread I guess I should be happy 22 of my 39 Flickr photos that made it to Explore have been dropped as their algorithm has evolved. And, that my last Expored phot was in 2009.

Anyway, I noticed most of the drops happened when Flickr made geotagging an important part of the criterea.

Like most popularity contests, you have to work hard at promoting yourself and doing what other people like rather than what you like.

High School never ends.

 

[Cron]

sometimes I visit "explore of the day", normally I just take a look at my contact's pictures and some groups, sometimes I leave a comment ...

 

[dogbunny]

Based on this thread I guess I should be happy 22 of my 39 Flickr photos that made it to Explore have been dropped as their algorithm has evolved. And, that my last Expored phot was in 2009.

Anyway, I noticed most of the drops happened when Flickr made geotagging an important part of the criterea.

Like most popularity contests, you have to work hard at promoting yourself and doing what other people like rather than what you like.

High School never ends.

Yep, call it flickr or RFF, or buttcheese.com It's all the same. 😛

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Mistaking flickr for a "photography site" is like mistaking Facebook for a "chat room site", or The Sun's website for a "site for journalism".

Some people post some of their portfolio on flickr, just like some people have a business front on Facebook. That some people do something and mistaking the whole for them is really where "the problem" is.

Explore used to be a good barometer, and in the past few years it's just been gamed, like most anything else -- Google searches, for example. Not knowing how to make a good Google search does not make Google garbage, it just makes garbage very evident and one must learn how to filter through.

Take the W/NW threads, for example. There is a lot of image noise in those; some people have more common sense than others as far as the number of images per post, the size of the posts, adherence to theme, etc. It doesn't make it "utter garbage".

Without a heavy hand, democracy rules, and it becomes its own tyranny. No democratic system is perfect, and one must remain vigilant, otherwise you just become dismissive. Making the system even worserer (so to speakerer).

 

[Peter_wrote:]

am i the only one here, who likes flickr?

of course it is not a curated gallery!

you have to choose for yourself, what you wanna watch. so a reason for me not to use it, would be that there is just 100% crap.
but there are indeed a lot of passionated good photographers, who put their stuff on flickr.

i dont watch the explored photos, because i have recognised, that in generally they don't hit my taste.

but i follow the photostreams of my contacts. so its an easy way to see their work without going to a lot of different personal websites.
i also like to watch the favorites of them and to explore to me new photographers.
with flickr i also avoid flash, which is so happily used on many personal photo websites.

so i think its a well programmed site, with some nice features and not too much advertisement.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm wondering what the alternative to Flickr is for the people that don't use it, or use it for "cloud" storage or consider it a dumping ground?

Flickr was meant to be a "photo sharing site", just like Picasa. Given its Groups it became its own monster, but it still remains a photo sharing site. Any photo sharing site is an alternative to flickr for doing just that.

It is not "cloud storage" (there's another term that gets mangled/misunderstood), anymore than Facebook would be "cloud storage" (neither are).

There's 500px, for example, which is geared only towards photography and has some social-media-based rating algorithms, but it hasn't lost its focus (at least not yet because no corporation has bought them out and stripped its soul and made it fit into something it wasn't meant to be, like Yahoo did with Flickr). It has "free" (limited) space, and it has subscription-based unlimited-with-caveats space accounts.

 

[Bingley]

am i the only one here, who likes flickr?

of course it is not a curated gallery!

you have to choose for yourself, what you wanna watch. so a reason for me not to use it, would be that there is just 100% crap.
but there are indeed a lot of passionated good photographers, who put their stuff on flickr.

i dont watch the explored photos, because i have recognised, that in generally they don't hit my taste.

but i follow the photostreams of my contacts. so its an easy way to see their work without going to a lot of different personal websites.
i also like to watch the favorites of them and to explore to me new photographers.
with flickr i also avoid flash, which is so happily used on many personal photo websites.

so i think its a well programmed site, with some nice features and not too much advertisement.

+1. I use flickr the same way. There are ad hoc communities of photographers on flickr who follow and comment on each others work - not all that different than RFF, except the thumbnails on flickr are larger and easier to see. A lot of my flickr contacts are also members here (but not all). Frankly, I think flickr is what you make it.

 

[mdarnton]

I don't find the photography on Flickr to be any worse than any other location. It has a broader spectrum of types of photography, but in general these days anyone who owns a camera thinks they're a photographer, and that isn't just a Flickr situation.

 

[Sanders McNew]

[snip]
I have to agree with Elliott Erwitt when he said that he doesn't like digital photography because it made photography accessible to the masses, therefore diluted the quality of photography.

Elliott Erwitt be damned: No one gets to decide that
photography remain the province of the self-annointed
Talented Ones. Photography is expression. Like it or
not, the digital age has democratized all forms of
expression. Publishing, music, photography, thought,
all avenues are now open to all.

The people in this thread castigate Flickr for being an
unfiltered stream of collective self-expression. I
cherish it for exactly that reason.

www.flickr.com/sandersnyc

 

[Bingley]

I should also add that there are numerous curated groups on flickr, some of which are quite selective, if not downright picky, in terms of photos the administrators will accept, the number of photos one can post, content and technique restrictions, etc.

There are also many groups for photographers with shared interests in subject matter and technique. I've seen a lot of good photos in these groups.

 

[shadowfox]

Don't complain about flickr if you are not willing to use searching filters and tags.
You know it's a massive database of photos.
You know that good photos are not found in the majority.

And good luck finding a better alternative; I've tried, and unless I want to make that my day job, I gave up.

Btw, I agree, Explore is a waste of time. But *a lot* of people like to waste time. If you don't, ignore it.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

While I recognize that there's a lot of photos to filter through on "explore", it doesn't turn me off from "exploring" via flickriver. I know what to expect from explore, but more importantly, I know what interests me, but that doesn't mean others are interested in the same thing. Most of my friends on Flickr don't put up any serious photographs. It's merely, as someone mentioned before, a cloud to store photographs on, most of which aren't serious to begin with. In fact, none of them are "serious" photographers to begin with. Not even close! As for me, when I "explore", I'm NOT looking for "shots" but rather consistant photographers. When I open photographs in a new tab to examine the quality of their photostream and find something pleasing and fresh to my eyes, it makes the hunt worth it. This is why I stick with Flickr rather than 500px (which in my eyes looks all the same). There are a bunch of GREAT photographers out there, most of which are overlooked.

 

[MCTuomey]

Pics of pretty people will always get clicks. Flickr's no exception, how could it be?

I like my flickr contacts, have met some talented folks whose comments I value, will continue to use it.

Our planet is a dumping ground, doesn't mean parts of it aren't beautiful.

 

[mdarnton]

I like to follow out the people I like--look at what they like, and then look at that person's stuff, etc. It's a good way to find new people. You can stay wide of the junk that way, too.

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Other than here, flickr is the only place I post photos. I don't shoot professionally and it's a good, easy, and quick way for me to display some work. I've also "met" and met (in person) several folks whose work I admire and it's an easy way to follow them.

The one thing I don't understand is photostreams with thousands and thousands of photos in them. Does anyone look through ALL of them? I've limited myself to the free account which caps me at 200 images. As I add images, I delete others. Deciding which photos to delete is an interesting process. I have my favorites which sometimes don't get the response I expect them to, and other images that get more reactions than I would expect. Ultimately, I decide what stays or goes, but I do find this feedback valuable as I try to evaluate my own work and find ways I'd like to improve it.

Having said all that, one of my flickr contacts has 26,568 photos in his stream as of today. In his case, I don't see that number as excessive. He travels to many vintage car and motorcycle shows and his photostream filled with fantastic, clear photos of many rare and classic vehicles. It's a great online resource.

Oh, and obviously I've never been Explored and most likely never will be. I'm fine with that.