Where do you publish your photos online?

[David Murphy]

Where I live the Internet service providers are government sanctioned monopolies - they don't want either competition or reasonable prices (i.e. they don't want real capitalism - which I adore btw)!

No you haven't. Most of the internet was built and is owned by private companies. That's why you pay your local phone or cable company to connect you to the net in the form of DSL, cable internet, FiOS, or Dial-up. As for the content on the net, including services like Flickr, it costs the producers of that content money to write the software and support the millions of users on it as well as paying someone to host it. As a photographer you ought to know better than to demand that the creators of intellectual property should give it free.

As for whether its worth the $25 for Flickr Pro, you have to decide if photography is that important to you. For me its the second most important thing in my life (after my son) and well worth every penny of the $240 a year I pay for hosting my own website.

 

[David Murphy]

And by the way, the entire communications infrastructure in the USA was initially provided by a government sanctioned monopoly called AT&T - payed for by entrapped rate payers for about 100 years (who were told it was necessary and good for them). Many of you are too young to remember that. Maybe that's why I'm an Internet/telecom cynic - my trust level is low.

Anyway, Photobucket still seems to work and is free. I have dual core iMac coming in and perhaps it will run Flash (etc.) with enough speed to make it bearable.

 

[wgerrard]

Bob: I see Flickr as an "everyman's" photo gallery. I don't expect or want every photo to hold to some arbitrary quality standard.

David: I'm older than you are. I think it might be a stretch to argue that AT&T built the "entire communications infrastructure" of the U.S. And, whatever else, much of that infrastructure is pretty irrelevant to the modern internet.

Chris: I'm with you 100%, especially on the IP issues. But, most cable TV and internet companies do, in fact, have local monopolies in the U.S. I know you know that. I believe these monopolies should be compelled to allow others to, in effect, share the wire, or lose the monopoly.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Bob: I see Flickr as an "everyman's" photo gallery. I don't expect or want every photo to hold to some arbitrary quality standard.

David: I'm older than you are. I think it might be a stretch to argue that AT&T built the "entire communications infrastructure" of the U.S. And, whatever else, much of that infrastructure is pretty irrelevant to the modern internet.

Chris: I'm with you 100%, especially on the IP issues. But, most cable TV and internet companies do, in fact, have local monopolies in the U.S. I know you know that. I believe these monopolies should be compelled to allow others to, in effect, share the wire, or lose the monopoly.

My father is retired from Verizon, which is the landline phone company (not just cellphones) in much of Indiana. Verizon had to share its line with other companies that had no infrastructure or investment at all...so the monopoly is gone...deregulation of the phone industry forced that. There's a reason utilities have monopolies. To deliver their service, be it electricity, phone lines, gas lines, water lines, or cable TV, they have to run wires or pipes through people's property. A lot of landowners dislike the fact that government forces them to allow utilities to have a right of way on their land. Can you imagine how upset they'd be if there were 5 phone companies, 3 electric companies, 6 gas companies and 4 cable TV companies all wanting to bury lines or erect poles on their land?

Because internet and cable TV can both be delivered by phone companies, cable companies, and satellite providers these utilities have a lot more real competition than the electric, gas, and water utilities do.

 

[wgerrard]

A lot of landowners dislike the fact that government forces them to allow utilities to have a right of way on their land. Can you imagine how upset they'd be if there were 5 phone companies, 3 electric companies, 6 gas companies and 4 cable TV companies all wanting to bury lines or erect poles on their land?

Absolutely. That's one reason I want the people who own the lines to be compelled to allow other providers to use them to carry their signals and packets.

Because internet and cable TV can both be delivered by phone companies, cable companies, and satellite providers these utilities have a lot more real competition than the electric, gas, and water utilities do.

True, or at least the potential for competition is there. Don't know about Indiana, but around here Time Warner cable has competition for internet connectivity from AT&T (DSL), and a wireless provider. They don't serve great swaths of the population, though, so if you want broadband, you almost always buy it from Time Warner, which, in fact, is the only provider permitted to operate a cable franchise in the municipalities it serves here.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Here in Ft. Wayne, which is a midsize city, you can get phone service from Verizon, Comcast, or one of several cellphone companies. You can get TV from Comcast, Verizon, Dish Network, and Direct TV. You can get internet from Verizon or Comcast. There's much less choice in small towns and even less in rural areas.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Absolutely. That's one reason I want the people who own the lines to be compelled to allow other providers to use them to carry their signals and packets. <snip>.

The FCC rules have permitted exactly what you want since 1985. You should familiarize yourself with the term CLEC or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. It is a thriving industry providing much competition for the communications companies you think own the lines. FWIW, the vast part of our nationwide communications infrastructure is not owned by who I suspect you think owns it.

 

[wgerrard]

The FCC rules have permitted exactly what you want since 1985. You should familiarize yourself with the term CLEC or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier.

I'm aware of CLEC's. But, they aren't happening around here.

FWIW, the vast part of our nationwide communications infrastructure is not owned by who I suspect you think owns it.

And who do you suspect I think owns it? 🙂

I think communications is one of those industries that better meets consumer demands if it is a monopoly or is dominated by a small cartel. That also means government needs to regulate it and watch it like a hawk because it won't be susceptible to the usual constraints of the market.

But, providing content on the net is more publishing than communications. I want to keep that as open as possible. In my town, that means compelling Time Warner to allow other content providers and ISP's to push packets on TW's infrastructure.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I'm aware of CLEC's. But, they aren't happening around here.



And who do you suspect I think owns it? 🙂

I think communications is one of those industries that better meets consumer demands if it is a monopoly or is dominated by a small cartel. That also means government needs to regulate it and watch it like a hawk because it won't be susceptible to the usual constraints of the market.

But, providing content on the net is more publishing than communications. I want to keep that as open as possible. In my town, that means compelling Time Warner to allow other content providers and ISP's to push packets on TW's infrastructure.

Bill I am surprised that you do not have CLEC's competing in your area. We have some 5-8 here in central FL competing. Don't know where you live though. If you line costs are in the $300 per month range (i.e. not residential) they are aggressive.

Also in FL any company can lay TV / internet cable on any right of way and compete with the incumbent. If Cox wanted to lay a competitive cable to my house and compete with TWC/Brighthouse, they could do so. Currently I can choose to get my TV as well as internet service from the "phone company" Century Link (formerly Embarq, formerly Sprint) as well as TWC/Brighthouse. Of couse, I can also get my local phone service from TWC/Brighthouse as well as Century Link. So everyone has some form of competitor for all communications service.

For long distance transmission, everything has merged with packets of data, both voice and internet, being carried simultaneously over all the network. And the long distance network or cloud is a separate business from local service. Many companies own pieces of the network. And the entire network carries packets for all the local service companies. Your AT&T long distance call may be routed over fiber owned by TWC and your TV signal may be routed over fiber owned by Verizon. There is no telling how many companies will handle upload of this message or your reading it.

Apologies to the OP for sidetracking the question of where you do post your photos on line.

 

[hellomikmik]

i was ok with flickr until i wanted to upgrade my account, no way to do it without credit card, they say you can do it with paypal account but you can't. looks like flickr + paypal desperately want to know how much money i have in bank (not much 🙂)

anyway, i believe only in prints

 

[wlewisiii]

I used Flickr for awhile but loathed it. A poke in the eye with a sharp stick would be better than Flickr

I currently use Picassaweb http://picasaweb.google.com/wlewisiii

I have considered Smugmug but can't afford it.

William

 

[darkkavenger]

Hi,

I use flickr as the main place to publish photos, however the shots I consider as worthy end up on my new own website (link in signature) as I've been asked several times if I sell prints. I used to host on deviantart but I left for an array of reasons (loss of interest, slowness, growing up etc..).

Flickr suits me pretty well for day to day use, it's plain and simple and has the tools one needs, and since I'm neither Koudelka nor Capa Flickr is just perfect to quickly send, tag and publish!

Edit: Picasa too, for privatefamily shots.

 

[Renzsu]

Flickr as a somewhat selective imagedump and a portfolio site hosted by Cargo Collective (very easy to setup, slick minimal skins/themes, integrated CMS, 6Gb hosting space).

 

[darkkavenger]

Flickr as a somewhat selective imagedump and a portfolio site hosted by Cargo Collective (very easy to setup, slick minimal skins/themes, integrated CMS, 6Gb hosting space).

You've got some pretty stunning photos, the portraits are amazing, and I love the expression of that lady in NYC metro 🙂

 

[Arvay]

mainly at photo.net
it's cheaper than flickr and it is NOT a reincarnation of facebook
flickr to do something quick, free acc.

 

[steveyork]

Flickr is very easy to use. The posts of B&W tend to be a tad dark though.

 

[taskoni]

I voted RFF. I only want to share with you guys!

Same here!

Regards,
b.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Ease of use and fastness brought me to flickr (started years ago with but left pbase - not easy, not fast). pity but in this respect flickr also works for me better than rff

 

[Shane]

I have both a flickr account and my own website. I also post to forums sometimes.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I have a website for my work, though this is due a redesign and a complete update of images. For my personal photos RFF was the only gallery I used up until a week or so ago. I found Zenfolio and have been using their 14 day free trial, I'm really very impressed with what you can get for your budget and intend to keep it once the trial is up.

I found that I was putting personal images onto my commercial site and blurring the distinction of the sites original purpose. Now I can have a dedicated site for my personal pictures that appears very similar to my own website but have a delineation between the two.

I am on Flickr too but mostly just so I can view, and easily find again, the work of some of my favourite photographers. I've always found Flickr too orientated, or perhaps I should say some of the people there, around the 'collecting' of comments and badges than the presentation of the images. Just a personal feeling but enough to put me off plunging in fully.