Flickr, am I missing something?

[treeman]

****Warning**** Work is boring me today so I thought I'd see if I can stir things up a bit and get a good debate going.

I'm not sure I understand the reason why people use Flickr. From what I've seen on here it appears to be a place where you put your photos for everyone else to see, then when someone sees them, likes it, and steals it, all hell breaks loose :shrug: Then everyone else on here comes out in sympathy and complains about how bad it is too.

If I left my wallet stacked with cash on the dashboard of my car, then complained when someone had inevitably, stolen it, would everyone be so sympathetic?

Please discuss...

 

[SteveTolcher]

****Warning**** Work is boring me today so I thought I'd see if I can stir things up a bit and get a good debate going.

I'm not sure I understand the reason why people use Flickr. From what I've seen on here it appears to be a place where you put your photos for everyone else to see, then when someone sees them, likes it, and steals it, all hell breaks loose :shrug: Then everyone else on here comes out in sympathy and complains about how bad it is too.

If I left my wallet stacked with cash on the dashboard of my car, then complained when someone had inevitably, stolen it, would everyone be so sympathetic?

Please discuss...

Flickr (and its use) does fascinate me. I sometimes love it, sometimes hate it

I'll wait for the more experienced users on the forum to discuss in depth.

I'll just sitback and watch if it's all the same to you

 

[-Rob-]

I can fully understand people getting upset with having their images stolen if they were originally uploaded to the internet with a view to making a profit from them. Total amateurs who have their images stolen and used by local papers for example are getting the advice of "send the an invoice for double the normal rate". Well the normal rate for an amateur is zero so if you double that then it's still zero.

On the other hand I can see why the pros get upset. They are there trying to sell their high quality images to make a living yet the clients are now getting their images for free from people prepared to give them away so it is costing the pros money. I can see why they get upset about it but the fact is there is nothing they can do about it.

Copyright infringement is wrong whatever the circumstances but some people do get too hung up about having other people use their images. Be flattered by it. Contact them to remind them it is your image, make the most of it but if you intention was not to make money out of it then why change that. Not everyone is out to make money from their hobby.

 

[matt_ttuk]

In my opinion it doesn't really matter where you post your images, you will at some point have your images stolen. For the majority of people I would say this is a risk you have to live with if you want people to see your images.

Matt

 

[Steve Smith]

In my opinion it doesn't really matter where you post your images, you will at some point have your images stolen.

Whilst it's easily possible, if you consider the millions of images hosted on such sites, then the likelyhood is similar to the chances of winning the lottery.

There's no point being paranoid about it. And the image sizes are not really big enough to do anything with commercially.


Steve.

 

[hashcake]

Anyone with commonsense will not upload a high resolution photo to flickr, that’s just asking to have the copyright infringed.
I think you’ll find that most pros are more annoyed with micro sites rather than the likes of flickr because this is where a lot of people will add high resolution photos in hope of making a few quid.
There are a lot of average photos on flickr that serve a purpose for the owner and nothing else.
Micro sites tend to be fussy on the quality of the photos they will accept so it makes sense that these sites annoy the pros.
Flickr does have its merits, for me it allows friends and family to have a look at my photos and also get some feedback from the public.
Anyone who grabs one of my photos is going to get a crap photo if they try and resize it.
I’ve allowed a couple of mine to be used for not profit and I don’t have a problem with it and I am sure most people don’t mind doing this.
However, if a company grabs a high resolution photo for commercial purpose then by rights, the owner of the photo should be entitled to payment regardless whether they are an amateur or a pro.

 

[Gonetae]

Flickr for me is mainly just a hosting service for me to put up pics that I want to post elsewhere or give links to folk. Most stuff I put up is pretty low res anyway (around 72dpi) and anything I'm bothered about people taking I stick a watermark or copyright on. I think it's a great service for what it is and as long as you take precautions no-one is going to be able to steal anything of any great quality for print from it.

Tommy.

 

[treeman]

I've absolutely no disagreement with copyright infringement at all, it's your image you should be payed/accredited for it etc.

But is there a major advantage to using Flickr that some pro's would feel the risk is worth taking? is it simply a tool for getting your images out there? Is Flickr trawled by ad agencies/art directors?

20 years ago, a lot of pro photography was about who you knew, the hardest part was getting to meet the agencies. Is Flickr the new person to know?

 

[CReid]

Simply put, any "pro" worth their salt wouldn't be using FlickR to host high res original images, simple as. For example I (I'm not a "pro" BTW) use it simply for image hosting and sharing images amongst friends and family, more importantly I use it as a source of inspiration...

Worried about image theft?? Don't tag your images.... There are 4 billion images in FlickR, it takes some luck and determination to find the images you're after in the first instance, let alone if they're not tagged!

TBH FlickR would be my last port of call to get my images "noticed", as stated before you have more chance at winning the lottery if you look at the numbers involved. I find it hard to believe that any agency etc would spend hours trawling FlickR on the off-chance...

Carl

 

[Mohain]

Flickr is a site that practically everyone who uses the internet knows about, so if you put your pictures on there and keyword them properly then there's a resonable chance that people who are looking for those types of images might find them. I do know of established pros who upload some shots from projects they are working on (not high res though).

Flickr is traweled by some ad agencies/art directors. I've sold an image via Flickr to a design agency and I've also sold an image via Deviant Art to a company in India for an advertising campaign in Korea and south Asia. So for me it's worth using Flickr and the like.

There's also a chance of getting into the Getty Images via Flickr, the biggest stock library in the world!

It's all about exposure I guess (not the shutter speed type)! Business has moved on a lot in the last 20 years

 

[Rob.Marsh]

I use Flickr to host images and share some with friends. I also use it as a form of back up to my images. You can choose wether to make the pics private or public, so my backup archive ones are marked private.

If you don't want images nicked from flikr, don't keyword em and keep em set to private.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I generally find flickr as valuable facility. Hosting with (IMO) some of the best optimisation available, the social interaction, groups etc.

I've met some good buddies through the groups and even had some bookings.

I use my flickr account as a dumping ground though, an archive of anything and everything taken with camera leaving my web pages for the 'polished' portfolio.

Image theft isn't really an issue for me, I upload and then disable downloading, all the images are 500px unless I post the link elsewhere.

The only element that occasionally crushes my grape is that some of the groups have immensely complacent moderators.
Example can be found in the comments here.

'Im behind my screen and keyboard, I can be arse to anyone without being lamped in the face '

Its the same breed of imbecile that you can find at the drop of a hat on any youtube comments box.

I used to add images to the strobist group but I haven't been bothered for some time now.
Within the group are some exceptional contributors that really make an effort to inform of how they go about lighting a shot, offering behind the scenes shots, diagrams and detailed blog guides but they get stung with complaints from idle morons who are too damn lazy to read or click a link.

Other than that, flickr is 'mazin.

 

[matt_ttuk]

TBH FlickR would be my last port of call to get my images "noticed", as stated before you have more chance at winning the lottery if you look at the numbers involved. I find it hard to believe that any agency etc would spend hours trawling FlickR on the off-chance...Carl

I know plenty of people that have got work or had photos published as a result of having photos on Flickr, out of interest which site would you use?

I would struggle to think of many places which have the mass audience of a site like Flickr.

Matt

 

[karmagarda]

I think you have to consider the fact that comparing putting your photos on flickr isn't quite like putting your wallet on your dashboard . Firstly, people put their photos on display to allow others to see them, create some exposure etc. You don't put your wallet on the dash so that people can see it.

For me flickr is more like having an unattended stall at the front of your house selling fruit and veg. And you put a bucket on the counter that says

"You can look, but if you take something please pay your money in the bucket thanks!"

This is quite a realistic comparison as I've heard of these stalls/selling points being used. And some neighbours used to take products without paying. The thing is, it's a mixture between deterioration of trust, and peoples lack of knowledge about copyright protection. I hadn't a clue about copyrights and value of photos until I got into photography myself. Using myself as an example, I had a website years back and I just grabbed images from the internet, because, quite frankly, I didn't KNOW I had to pay for them! I believed if they're on the web, they must be "public domain" etc.

When you know about this, it becomes quite like my main profession, software development. And I think there's 2 sides to this:

Software piracy is a serious issue, and is very hard combatted. I have got into a habit of paying for all of my software, and downloading all of my music legally, because I've become aware (with age) of all the legalities, costs, companies trying to make a living etc.

On the other side you have loads of shareware/freeware etc that makes it extremely difficult for someone like me to break into a market like this with a product of my own. I could develop something of a much higher standard than stuff that is out there, but when something is free, people will use it over the better products. It's only when you get serious about your industry/profession that you will look for quality over price. Perfect example is The Gimp vs CS(insert number here). I still use gimp for any photo editing, because I can't afford CS something or other. I am currently on a trial version of Lightroom so I am putting cash aside to purchase that when my trial runs out.

Now where was I... war or peace? :nuts:

 

[James Pardon]

I use it mainly to host photos on and a bit of a backup place for images, marking them as private. A friend of mine was contacted by Getty Images who found his image on flickr and it's now on a massive billboard on the side of my local BHS

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Simply put, any "pro" worth their salt wouldn't be using FlickR to host high res original images, simple as.

David Hobby

I think there a well over a million people out there that would testify that Mr Hobby is worth some salt at least.

'A real pro would never contributes to forums! A real pro wouldn't use flickr!'.... etc.

:thumbsdown:

TBH FlickR would be my last port of call to get my images "noticed", as stated before you have more chance at winning the lottery if you look at the numbers involved. I find it hard to believe that any agency etc would spend hours trawling FlickR on the off-chance...

Carl

Thing is Carl, as a fact they do. Getty even have there own integration with Flickr.

One thing that I really appreciate about Flickr and is also more or less irrefutable is that if your not getting much recognition or notification then your either not contributing enough (groups etc) or your photo's aren't that interesting.

 

[CReid]

I know plenty of people that have got work or had photos published as a result of having photos on Flickr, out of interest which site would you use?

I would struggle to think of many places which have the mass audience of a site like Flickr.

Matt

True about the mass audience but I've had more "bites" from other forums and especially the camera mag forums (both UK and international). I've made great friends on Flickr but made better contacts via other means. It also depends what you're trying to get noticed..... I'm guessing the wildlife guys have their own dedicated wildlife fora, as do the aviation, motorsport guys etc where you get a gathering of like minded individuals..

Carl

 

[CReid]

David Hobby

I think there a well over a million people out there that would testify that Mr Hobby is worth some salt at least.

I generally resent those kind statements:

'A real pro would never contributes to forums! A real pro wouldn't use flickr!'.

:thumbsdown:



Thing is Carl, as a fact they do. Getty even have there own integration with Flickr.

To clarify: I don't see why any pro would host high res images on FlickR that he's hoping to sell via other means.. Better?? I'm not knocking pros who use Flickr in the slightest...

I'm not sure where you got the highlighted quote from, don't put words into my mouth or posts please!

I'm aware of the Getty integration thanks...

Carl

 

[Tyke Tiler]

To clarify: I don't see why any pro would host high res images on FlickR that he's hoping to sell via other means.. Better??

Not better Carl, completely different:

Simply put, any "pro" worth their salt wouldn't be using FlickR to host high res original images, simple as.

I'm not sure where you got the highlighted quote from, don't put words into my mouth or posts please!

Ok, you've taken offence. My apologies but I'm not trying to put words into your posts, and the above is an example and not a quote if you look again.

I'm aware of the Getty integration thanks...

Well if your aware of the Getty's ties with Flickr then what exactly do you mean by the following section from your above post?

I find it hard to believe that any agency etc would spend hours trawling FlickR on the off-chance...

 

[treeman]

For me flickr is more like having an unattended stall at the front of your house selling fruit and veg. And you put a bucket on the counter that says....

Now that's an analogy I can relate to

Some interesting thought coming out of this, thanks folks.

 

[wombcorps]

I'm tempted to join flickr as I like the way people can comment on your pics. But I'd mainly use it for storage of pics for me to put on my blog, however! What would people reccomend omeone does to their pictures before uploading to a public site like flickr? i am going to add watermarks and not upload the best, hi quality versions. Am I better off using flickr or just buying some webspace and keeping my pics private except for me posting them on my website?

are there limits to how many pics you can have on flickr?

 

[Merc]

I've just got a contract to photograph Industrial lighting for a company. They approached me after seeing my Flickr page. There are definately pros and cons to it but if people can't see your work then they don't know you're there. Unless you "pay" for advertising???

 

[Steve Smith]

For me flickr is more like having an unattended stall at the front of your house selling fruit and veg. And you put a bucket on the counter that says

"You can look, but if you take something please pay your money in the bucket thanks!"

That is true if you host your full resolution pictures there but if you just use it to show off your images and only upload low resolution files, it's more like having an unattended stall and only putting out rotten fruit, broken toys, etc.

It's there and anyone can take it but it's not much use to anyone.


Steve.

 

[Mark.A]

I've recently stopped using Flickr to host my images and I've removed all my old ones. I've only been using it to host my images for posting here, etc. and I can use my own site for that. To me Flickr seems to be more of a glorified mutual appreciation society than a serious photography site. I mean, I've never had any worthwhile critique off Flickr and the only benefit I can see from using it is lots of pats on the back from people.

I can understand the attraction as some photographers may be insecure about their photography skills and feel the need to get reassurance, let's face it we all love it when someone likes our pics, but surely they'd be better getting proper critique and actually improving than just feeling good because somebody likes their images? Personally I'd rather have one comment saying that my images are good (or even improving) from one of the many great togs on here than a million 'WOW! Great capture' comments on Flickr.

FWIW - Out of all the top pro photographers that I know, the ones that I actually rate as being a step or three above and beyond the majority of us, none of them post their images on Flickr or any of the similar gallery sites. Food for thought?

 

[matt_ttuk]

I've recently stopped using Flickr to host my images and I've removed all my old ones. I've only been using it to host my images for posting here, etc. and I can use my own site for that.

Looks like you deleted all the images off your site too, or is it just me that sees nothing on your galley page.

Matt

 

[karmagarda]

That is true if you host your full resolution pictures there but if you just use it to show off your images and only upload low resolution files, it's more like having an unattended stall and only putting out rotten fruit, broken toys, etc.

It's there and anyone can take it but it's not much use to anyone.


Steve.

Some of those pesky neighbours don't care about the quality of the fruit though! A lot of websites will just rob the small verions off you and use them. I've had one of the smaller sizes of a photo stolen from my flickr and published to both a website and magazine. It was after I let that one pass I started to learn about copyright infringement etc. I inadvertently waivered my copyright on the image. Looking back I should have invoiced them, hindsight is a bee-atch eh!

 

[Mark.A]

Looks like you deleted all the images off your site too, or is it just me that sees nothing on your galley page.

Matt

Quite true, I have removed them. I have only recently decided to start targeting a specific area (product / food photography) and I want to reflect this in what I have displayed on my site. I don't have many product / food images of good enough standard yet (IMO) to start putting them up on my site but once I have a few decent ones I wil start to add them.

I'm in the middle of setting up a studio geared towards this type of photography and once I get it all sorted and can nail the stye of images that I'm after then it won't take me long to start filling my gallery up.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

To me Flickr seems to be more of a glorified mutual appreciation society than a serious photography site. I mean, I've never had any worthwhile critique off Flickr and the only benefit I can see from using it is lots of pats on the back from people.

I can understand the attraction as some photographers may be insecure about their photography skills.........

Whoever said that Flickr was a photo critique site? You can critique others images if you feel the need to but it's a host primarily with social features. It's about sharing & viewing images, globally.

You get out of it what you put in.

FWIW - Out of all the top pro photographers that I know, the ones that I actually rate as being a step or three above and beyond the majority of us, none of them post their images on Flickr or any of the similar gallery sites.

That's a little 'lah dee dah' isn't it? Is there any other detectable sentiment in there other than you think that anyone who posts on Flickr etc, is crap?

All I can say is your not looking hard enough, there's some seriously talented individuals who turn to places like Flickr, Deviant Art etc to share what they create.

Food for thought?

With a menu that bitter and narrow? Absolutely not.

 

[Daryl]

While I can agree and see all points of view on here. I would not use flicker except maybe to just link images. But no real need to.

I would never use a hosting site that lets people see who 'The Host' is.

It needs to blend with your website and be seemless. And should not advertise the host. It needs to be able to change the skins and text to custom blend to your main site.

Other wise it looks like cheap night at Dorothy's!!!

Deviant Art is a showcase site. I do have some Fantasy C.G.I. work on that....

 

[Mark.A]

Whoever said that Flickr was a photo critique site? You can critique others images if you feel the need to but it's a host primarily with social features. It's about sharing & viewing images, globally.

You get out of it what you put in.

I know Flickr isn't a critique site, but I wasn't saying that is was supposed to be. I just said it doesn't seem to be a 'serious' photography site. I mentioned critique because that's one of the benefits I get from using 'serious' photography sites, like this one.

I don't agree with the statement that you get out of it what you put in. I doubt very much that you'd start getting serious photography critique from people on there just because you started critiquing their images.

That's a little 'lah dee dah' isn't it? Is there any other detectable sentiment in there other than you think that anyone who posts on Flickr etc, is crap?

All I can say is your not looking hard enough, there's some seriously talented individuals who turn to places like Flickr, Deviant Art etc to share what they create.

Sorry if it came across that way but it wasn't intended to. I wasn't saying anything in particular about the people who do use Flickr, just stating what I'd observed about the top pro togs not using Flickr, etc. When I say the top pro togs I mean the ones that are earning a damn fine living from it and are at the top of their game.

I do look at the work on Flickr most days (and Deviant Art too from time to time) and I agree there is a lot of very good, creative talent out there.

With a menu that bitter and narrow? Absolutely not.

Sorry you feel that way Tomas. I certainly was not being bitter and I don't feel that I was being narrow minded either. All I did was notice that the top photographers don't use those sites and put it forward as a thought for discussion. If you see that as some kind of dig at Flickr users then I'm afraid you're reading more into what I said than there was.

 

[matt_ttuk]

I would guess the reason why the very top photographers don't use Flickr is little to do with the site itself and more to do with the fact that they don't need to advertise their images in that way any more.

Matt

 

[Splog]

I don't consider it to be a place for serious critique, however there are groups that will give critique with excellent help and advice, Stobist for example. As others have said it is a place to get your work noticed if that is what you want? or just use it for hosting / sharing. I have pm'd individuals about their shots asking for info and have always had good, honest and friendly replies.
I also really appreciate the diversity of photography on Flickr and find it very inspirational

If someone feels they don't get anything out of using Flickr then they should ask themselves what they are putting in There are thousands of exceptional photographers using it, with good reason!

also, I can see no problem with uploading full res images as these can be tagged as a private and the only way someone could get them is to know the actual url ..

 

[Chaz Photos]

Most stuff I put up is pretty low res anyway (around 72dpi)
Tommy.

I would like to point out to you that a image has NO dpi set, all it has is how many pix it has nothing more and nothing less, if its a 800x600 pix this it fixed.
dpi is only when you output it to a printer the 72dpi is your screen res

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I do look at the work on Flickr most days (and Deviant Art too from time to time) and I agree there is a lot of very good, creative talent out there.

Then what was your point again?

If you see that as some kind of dig at Flickr users then I'm afraid you're reading more into what I said than there was.

Sorry Mark, it just seems like you've been firing guns that you now, don't want to stick by.

If someone feels they don't get anything out of using Flickr then they should ask themselves what they are putting in There are thousands of exceptional photographers using it, with good reason!

Agreed.

I would guess the reason why the very top photographers don't use Flickr is little to do with the site itself and more to do with the fact that they don't need to advertise their images in that way any more.

Zack Arias still uses Flickr, albeit not as much recently but the fella travels just a wee bit these days.

 

[Mark.A]

Then what was your point again?

I wasn't making a point, just trying to add to the discussion. I think it was you that was trying to make some kind of point.

Sorry Mark, it just seems like you've been firing guns that you now, don't want to stick by.

I've not been firing any guns, though it seems you are certainly out to take pot shots at people.

I presume you mean I changed my tune from what I first said? Which just isn't true. AFAIK, there's nothing wrong with what I said and I still say the same thing now, you just seem to have read meaning into what I said that wasn't there.

Zack Arias still uses Flickr, albeit not as much recently but the fella travels just a wee bit these days.

Well there you go, I didn't know that. Though I've just looked and he hasn't posted an image on their since August 2008. Not exactly active but as you say I wouldn't expect him to have the time.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I wasn't making a point, just trying to add to the discussion. I think it was you that was trying to make some kind of point.

Yes. Indeed I am. There appears to be some bitterness toward Flickr:

To me Flickr seems to be more of a glorified mutual appreciation society than a serious photography site

I can understand the attraction as some photographers may be insecure about their photography skills and feel the need to get reassurance ...

FWIW - Out of all the top pro photographers that I know, the ones that I actually rate as being a step or three above and beyond the majority of us, none of them post their images on Flickr or any of the similar gallery sites.

and then moments later:

I do look at the work on Flickr most days (and Deviant Art too from time to time) and I agree there is a lot of very good, creative talent out there.

So while your thinking that I'm taking 'pot shots' at people, forgive me for being a little confused with the notable ambivalence and then questioning the integrity of such remarks

 

[mrtoad]

i use it for slide shows...and you can upload big photos

shuker 51P prototype #1 signed

 

[dod]

cleaned. stop it. The end

 

[dod]

I'm sure I said, the end

 

[Daysleeper40]

So getting back to the original point...

I just use it to share my shots and if someone gives helpful C&C thats great, but not really expected.

I like that a few of the other TP 52 people have added me and I get to see their other shots as well as their weekly 52 entry. I'd like to join some groups too to see what other people are up to and for a bit of inspiration.

None of my shots are worth taking but I don't think the wallet on dashboard thing is a very good analogy. More like displaying art in a shop window. You're increasing the risk of a break in if you display massively valuable pieces but it would still be wrong of someone to smash the window and grab them if you did. If they mean THAT MUCH to you then you'd keep them locked away out of public view and you take your chances if you don't... but that doesn't mean you can't be a bit miffed if they do get pinched :shrug: