Opinion: Say “no” to free photo hosting?

[MartinL]

SmugMug, Zen Folio, PBase, and other high quality sites cost from mid $20s per year to two or three times that. I think it’s worth the price. I often check out someone’s Flickr, but there’s no way to predict whether I’ll get the basic freebie version with frustrating navigation, ads, or small size photos.


Some Big Caveats: There are great galleries on Flickr where photographers have carefully edited/selected and thoughtfully grouped their photos. There are poorly designed galleries in paid sites that have little to offer. Possibly the most annoying are professional sites with agonizing bells and whistles and babbling brooks.🙂 Of course, it's easy to tell others how to spend their money, but it seems that given the costs and time that most people put into their photos, it's a matter of diverting some of one's photo dollars to making our efforts more pleasing and accessible to others.

 

[dmr]

I'm still toying with the idea of getting my own site for a small gallery.

Flickr and the rest, in my not so humble opinion, are bloated and overloaded.

I just want a small gallery.

A friend has been helping me test some gallery software, but I haven't gone as far as to set up my own site.

My primary on-line gallery is, in fact, here, and it does about everything I want it to do.

 

[Tuolumne]

I've tried a number of gallery sites, by no means all. The best, most responsive so far is SmugMug. I use the pro edition so I can sell photos, but I've sold very little. It's just as good for just displaying your work, though. www.citylightsphoto.com No bells and whistles. Just photos.

/T

 

[user237428934]

SmugMug, Zen Folio, PBase, and other high quality sites cost from mid $20s per year to two or three times that. I think it’s worth the price. I often check out someone’s Flickr, but there’s no way to predict whether I’ll get the basic freebie version with frustrating navigation, ads, or small size photos.


Some Big Caveats: There are great galleries on Flickr where photographers have carefully edited/selected and thoughtfully grouped their photos. There are poorly designed galleries in paid sites that have little to offer. Possibly the most annoying are professional sites with agonizing bells and whistles and babbling brooks.🙂 Of course, it's easy to tell others how to spend their money, but it seems that given the costs and time that most people put into their photos, it's a matter of diverting some of one's photo dollars to making our efforts more pleasing and accessible to others.

If you are feeling better when you pay: just buy the flickr pro account and it's not a free site anymore 😉

 

[peripatetic]

Flickr (pro) + Cooliris for browsing is very groovy.

 

[btgc]

I've got paid flickr account because it hasn't limitations on uploads per day and total number of pictures. Probably there are better sites (and sure they are, in some aspects), though so far I'm satisfied with flickr.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

FLickr has been slow and had a lot of "Hiccups" lately. Seems after they added Video, it seems response time slowed down a lot.

 

[DougFord]

I say 'yes' to free photo hosting.
For me, posting small sized versions of my pics on a google blog template works and it meets my requirements.
Larger versions are hosted on photobucket for posting here in the nw threads. Use what works for you. I do.

 

[MartinL]

In my ideal site the viewer would have quick and intuitive control in getting to screen-filling photos. And then, returning to the index pages. This would include fast uploads and a minimum number of navigation clicks. The site would be as "efficient" for first-time viewers as it is for those already familiar with the workflow peculiar to the site.

When I view someone's gallery, I don't like giving up "control" to slideshows and I don't like the ever-present thumbs popping up (as If I was going to study these mini pics and decide what I wanted to see.)

I came within seconds of switching to SmugMug because it had excellent features and great access to customizing ideas. Then I realized that I wanted fewer, not more features (and for me, distractions), and was willing to learn a little html on a more primitive site to get closer to a look that I wanted.

I can't compare the free and pro-versions of Flickr, and if the pro version puts it in the league of the fee-based sites, that's great. From what I've seen
the fee-based sites are generally more professional, more pleasing, more navigable than the free ones.

I'll admit to having an attitude difference (or at least, expectation) when I see a link to Flickr and/or a link to SmugMug (for example.)

 

[MartinL]

I say 'yes' to free photo hosting.
For me, posting small sized versions of my pics on a google blog template works and it meets my requirements.
Larger versions are hosted on photobucket for posting here in the nw threads. Use what works for you. I do.

Doug,
I really like your photos. I'd like 'em better bigger.

 

[DougFord]

Doug,
I really like your photos. I'd like 'em better bigger.

Thank you sir.
But if you like’em better bigger than you’d like’em even better’er bigger’er ? 🙄 😀

 

[mgd711]

I'm not a fan of Flickr. I did have a paid account but have not renewed it. I used to use pBase but that was about 5 years ago. Back then it was a good service but I hae no experience off it now. I did look at Zenfolio, it had most of the features I wanted but in the end I settled on PhotoShelter.

There is a tendency (on my part) to take people more seriously if they have a paid solution.

 

[5:00 PM]

Picasa Web Albums is BEAUTIFULLY integrated with Picasa 3 and has some of the least onerous Terms of Service language I've found. I'd gladly pay for it but the first GB is free and I don't need anywhere near that much space.