migrating flickr photos to google+?

My whole Flickr feed is an album inside Lightroom, so I just got a plugin for LR that supports Picasa, and I'm reexporting that. It's prone to crashing, tho.
 
shadowfox said:
Why? .......
Click to expand...

Well, it's a very fast interface, and it's more completely publically connected to some of my other professional stuff. So if I like it, I might switch.

I think what I am going to do for now it get rid of my short-lived "best of" tumblr blog and use g+ that way, as an archive of best photos.

Also, here's food for thought:
http://thomashawk.com/2011/08/flickr-is-dead.html
 
I'll take a closer look at g+ but starting point is: I'm not keen on google layout (all pictures stacked together on page). Yet I do not miss meetings either Yahoo or Google employees, in fact, they would have to offer me benefits to speak me to agree on meeting.

Flickr stuck in past? Not so long ago they reworked interface, adding lightbox. Probably I'm not so advanced user but they give almost anything I want with few exceptions but certainly I'm not considering move. Yet, I do not like google too much for being "too global, too everywhere" company.
 
Google has blown past Yahoo-flickr, facebook, and Apple, for that matter in so many ways, that it's not a bad idea to at least keep tabs on their photo service.
 
mabelsound said:
Have you looked at the G+ photos section? It is a serious competitor to flickr. The interface is really quite good.
Click to expand...

It could be the best looking site in the world, I don't think I would like to mix photo sharing with the typical social networking things. But that's just a personal thing because photo = hobby, social networking = business to me.

But I must admit that I'm curious. Is there a way to look at the photo site without registration?
 
Sure--here's the "Best of 2010" gallery I just posted.
https://plus.google.com/photos/117208918921043466005/albums/5640759395279548657

I have been using G+ very differently from, say, facebook. facebook I use to keep in touch with friends and family, period--I don't friend anyone whom I don't actually know. Whereas G+ I am keeping public--using it as kind of a microblog or enhanced version of twitter. It's an open forum on the work I and my peers do. (I mostly post about literature and writing.) And it's nice to think I could integrate my photography with that. Anyway, we'll see how it goes.
 
One thing I like is that when you click a photo and go into theater mode, or whatever it's called, you can arrow around super quick on the thumbnails, as if it's a native app. And the comments are visible without scrolling down, with the photo filling the browser window. You don't have to click through several pages to get to full size, either.

In addition, when people comment on the photos, the comments rise to the top of your G+ stream, too, so you can talk about the photos in either environment--the photo one or the social one.
 
but can you publish only to people in your circles? the thing that's great about flickr is groups. seeing stuff from people you don't know and publishing stuff to people you don't know.
 
Doesn't one give up exclusive rights on own images when uploading to google plus (similar to Facebook and twitter) ?
 
Last edited:
Nando said:
This article might be relevant to the discussion here:

http://www.photozz.com/fizz/18206468.aspx
Click to expand...

That's a scary article, if you don't know what the TOS really means. Same with Dropbox, Flickr, and other sites. They need these rights in order to let anyone see your pictures. To show someone your pictures, they need to create various different sized images (derivative works), permit them to move from server to server (distribute), grant these rights to their partners (Dropbox is hosted by Amazon, for instance, so Amazon needs to have the right to host your photos), etc.

It sounds scary, but these are the rights they need in order to merely function as they tell you they function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom