Flickr - worth the cost?

ProG77

ProG77

Messages
637
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

Just realised that I'm on the free version of Flickr and to go PRO would cost £60 a year. Question I have is, is it worth the cost or are there cheaper, but equally good alternatives out there? I'm already paying £10/month for the 20GB Creative Cloud plan but feel 20GB is fairly limited. I know in the grand scheme of things, £5/month for Flickr isn't huge, but with Adobe, Flickr, iCloud Storage (£7/month for the 2TB plan), Apple Music, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc etc, these things keep adding up!

Thanks.
PS. If anyone has any discount codes for Flickr PRO, please feel free to share :)
 
Last edited:
I hate subscription models and try to avoid them. I prefer a one-off payment. They're creeping in though, I have a couple of cycling related ones, the creative cloud plan you have and netflix.

What would you get for pro? You get 1000 photos on the free one, and you could use cloud storage to keep the rest of your photos.

Do you have microsoft office? There are often deals for it at renewal time and you get 1 TB of storage, which would be cheaper than your icloud plan.
 
It's only worth it if you make heavy use of it. I only use a small part of what they offer and, for me, it REALLY isn't worth it.
 
ProG77 said:
Interesting. I might take out the monthly one (£6.99) and cancel after a couple of months and see if they offer me an incentive to stay!
Click to expand...
It's worth a try!

In the past I've not got an instant reduction, but got an offer a month or two after cancelling. ;)
 
Depends what you want out of it.
Do you want storage or just a way of displaying your photos for others to see?
I used to pay for Flickr Pro but stopped a few years ago when they put the price up, so I reduced my account below the 1000 threshold.

Flickr have just announced changes to the free and pro accounts as well, which limits what can be uploaded to free accounts (blocking "moderate" and "restricted" photos) and stops free accounts sharing more than 20 photos privately (ie if you wanted to have a family photo album just available to family members).

Flickr is owned by SmugMug and they have a different way of allowing photo sharing. Their basic plan is $90 per year, so around £65-70.
By comparison the basic Squarespace plan is £120 per year.
The difference is though that both these options give you a website of your own rather than existing within a bigger social media space.

Didn't the Adobe photography plan give a discount on Flickr Pro?
 
ABTog said:
Depends what you want out of it.
Do you want storage or just a way of displaying your photos for others to see?
I used to pay for Flickr Pro but stopped a few years ago when they put the price up, so I reduced my account below the 1000 threshold.

Flickr have just announced changes to the free and pro accounts as well, which limits what can be uploaded to free accounts (blocking "moderate" and "restricted" photos) and stops free accounts sharing more than 20 photos privately (ie if you wanted to have a family photo album just available to family members).

Flickr is owned by SmugMug and they have a different way of allowing photo sharing. Their basic plan is $90 per year, so around £65-70.
By comparison the basic Squarespace plan is £120 per year.
The difference is though that both these options give you a website of your own rather than existing within a bigger social media space.

Didn't the Adobe photography plan give a discount on Flickr Pro?
Click to expand...
Adobe photography plan includes a website via the ‘portfolio’ app so no need for smugmug/squarespace/zenfolio. I can’t remember if there is a Flickr discount via the Adobe photography plan.
 
Has anyone else received an email from Flickr outlining changes to the free membership? If I remember the email correctly free users will be restricted to a maximum of 50 "private" images, which feels like a drive to get more people to sign up for Pro membership.
 
Bristolian said:
Has anyone else received an email from Flickr outlining changes to the free membership? If I remember the email correctly free users will be restricted to a maximum of 50 "private" images, which feels like a drive to get more people to sign up for Pro membership.
Click to expand...
Yep got that email too.
 
Bristolian said:
Has anyone else received an email from Flickr outlining changes to the free membership? If I remember the email correctly free users will be restricted to a maximum of 50 "private" images, which feels like a drive to get more people to sign up for Pro membership.
Click to expand...
I received the email. To be honest I can see their point as Flickr is supposed to be a photo sharing community. If users store lots of photos that are set to private that only a few close contacts can see it goes against what they are trying to do. If people want to store private family photos etc there are now plenty of other cloud based storage options where you can manage access to them or even social media with the right access restrictions. In the past there wasn’t as many other options for storing private photos and giving other family members access to them. I guess it a gentle nudge to either remove them or pay for pro membership. Either way probably win win for smugmug.
 
rob-nikon said:
I received the email. To be honest I can see their point as Flickr is supposed to be a photo sharing community. If users store lots of photos that are set to private that only a few close contacts can see it goes against what they are trying to do. If people want to store private family photos etc there are now plenty of other cloud based storage options where you can manage access to them or even social media with the right access restrictions. In the past there wasn’t as many other options for storing private photos and giving other family members access to them. I guess it a gentle nudge to either remove them or pay for pro membership. Either way probably win win for smugmug.
Click to expand...

Hi Rob, I kinda see your point but I don't want my images to be visible to all and sundry but would rather share them with the people I want to. You can only do that on Flickr by setting the images as private and then sending links out to the favoured ones. If I wanted the world to see my photos I'd sign up for facebook or pinterest and all the rest of those anti-social media platforms.
 
the black fox said:
And I bet you’ll moan when they go out of business to
Click to expand...
No not really, I hardly use them these days; will take me ages to even notice... The value proposition is really not that great now; by doubling prices they will lose their last paying customers.
 
Bristolian said:
Hi Rob, I kinda see your point but I don't want my images to be visible to all and sundry but would rather share them with the people I want to. You can only do that on Flickr by setting the images as private and then sending links out to the favoured ones. If I wanted the world to see my photos I'd sign up for facebook or pinterest and all the rest of those anti-social media platforms.
Click to expand...
I do get your point in the way you use flickr but I guess it may not be the way Flickr see themselves. TBH I’d say this is another roll of the dice by Flickr to gain ground back which they’ve lost. If flickr is still around in 1-2 years I’d be surprised.

Interesting point if you’re sharing photos on Facebook from you own profile rather than a public ‘photography’ page you can set who can see them. You don’t have to share everything as public posts on Facebook as there are privacy sharing controls in place for each post. You can share as much or as little as you like with whoever you like. Facebook may work in the way you like to share photos and stop you needing to send out messages with individual links to people.

I’ve attached a screenshot of the post privacy settings below:

6C0F32BC-B668-473F-B66D-1AF34B78C1F5.jpeg
I’m not a massive fan of Facebook in the social way as it can as you say be antisocial but it can have its benefits especially if you manage/keep your ‘friends’ list up to date and only share with certain people. I guess you make it what you want it to be. The same goes for Flickr
 
I signed up again and returned to Flickr. I was motivated by the two free months of Adobe CC but when I tried to claim it Adobe said it has expired. I raised it via twitter and they said they had approached Adobe for a new offer. A little disappointed to be honest, it still remains on there as an offer too.
 
I do ,use the FREE version and once I get close to the 1,000 image limit I delete the last 3 or 4 pages , Also there are plenty of other free hosting sites to avail yourself of:)

I use IMGUR sometimes free with no limits on amount of images

Les
 
These things are only ever worth it if you consider that you are serious enough.
 
Lez325 said:
I do ,use the FREE version and once I get close to the 1,000 image limit I delete the last 3 or 4 pages , Also there are plenty of other free hosting sites to avail yourself of:)

I use IMGUR sometimes free with no limits on amount of images

Les
Click to expand...
I think they have introduced a new smaller limit?

David
 
Don't Google do image hosting as well ?
 
I used to love Flickr, with their upload everything and anything model, then they brought in a storage cap, and now it’s a photo cap. I understand that As a business they have to make money, however, unfortunately we have had it good for far too long with the likes of Facebook and various other social media platforms offering us something for free in exchange for our data.

it would be interesting if they offered an add supported service, or if they offered Flickr pro which could handle large video too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top