Hmm, time to dump flickr and finally build my own website?

droj said:
The proportion of crap isn't related to whether an account is called 'pro' or not - being badged 'pro' is just something that's bought, it's not curated in any way. Tom, Dick and Mavis can be a 'pro' on Flickr.
Click to expand...

.... Exactly! I know someone who has the 'Pro' status on Flickr and who frequently uploads what looks like his whole camera card contents without any culling and the standard of his photography is all very low indeed. He just occasionally captures a very good photo. He shoots on Nikon D-SLR and so his image quality is usually ok but.

This doesn't really matter because I don't have to view his Flickr pages but I know him personally and I get curious and hopeful he might improve but I'm not holding my breath.

I used to think that the 'Pro' status on Flickr meant you were a working professional but clearly that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
I used to subscribe to the pro on there but when you got 1tb of storage free it was easy to dump it . The weird thing is when a I had a “pro” account I rolled up just under 300 explored photos ,since then not a one ??? Or could it be I was blacklisted due to getting wound up by there CEO Melissa Meyer when she changed everything and I sent her a p.m telling her I thought she was a c*** , oh well s*** appens :exit::exit:
 
the black fox said:
If you have been using Flickr since day one , your whole photography journey is on there . I doubt that within the time period given anyone will be able to find a free alternative . So basically if you wish to preserve your history you got to pay ,they have us by the b*****ks and are squeezing hard .

I use it not only as a display case but as a time line , I.e I can look back on there to see what month /week a species appeared in previous years to save wasted journeys etc or to go back and pull out a old shot to illustrate a modern post . There is no alternative the money will have to be found in my case ,once most of the moaners have thought it out they will come to the same conclusion , it’s simply a case of pay up or shut up , but wish I had shares in smugmug
Click to expand...

.... Exactly that! [highlit in bold]

Plus by creating Albums (which are non-destructive to your timeline) you can focus on particular subjects and share helpful links - Someone on TP was recently asking how the Canon EOS M5 performed with EF lenses mounted and I was able to post a link for them to my 'EOS M5' Album to judge for themselves. Same with how a Canon 2x Extender performs on their 500mm prime etc and I have even learnt that I use the 2x on that lens about twice as much as without for my best pictures.

And, you don't have to display in the time order of shooting if you prefer otherwise. You have various options to organise your images.

I haven't seen another hosting website which has Flickr's high standard of display. Instagram and Flickr (I use both) are so different that I don't think it is relevant to compare them with each other. Just as Facebook, Instagram (owned by Facebook) and Twatter are different from each other - I really dislike Twatter!

I don't sell my pictures and so am strictly an amateur but I still want to show my best work for others to enjoy as well as myself and to monitor my own progress. Flickr to me is a portfolio.

I use Adblock Plus on my Apple Safari internet browser and so I don't see any adverts anywhere when viewing anything online on my desktop or laptop.

I think I better check my total number of posted images and seriously consider going 'Pro' on Flickr.

The alternative is creating my own pages on squarespace which is the only one I like the style of but wouldn't that cost a lot more than a Flickr Pro subscription?
 
Last edited:
I have around 5k on there, I was pro for a few years but except for stats I found it point less. I'll need to down load a few of my very early stuff but most of it is backed up. I won't be going pro, they can go forth and multiply.
 
Musicman said:
Unlimited photos for free accounts was introduced only in May 2013.
Click to expand...
It makes you wonder if this "rise" has been in the pipe line for a few years eh?

In reality $49.99 equates to £38.38p

Reading back through this thread there are some good arguments on both sides.
I was surprised to see that I had just short of 2,500 images at present,
I quit Flicker pro as my subscription is due this month, I'll wait and see what they do, (if anything) to entice me back ....

Cagey75 said:
who's next? TP?
Click to expand...
It'll never happen :)
 
the black fox said:
I used to subscribe to the pro on there but when you got 1tb of storage free it was easy to dump it . The weird thing is when a I had a “pro” account I rolled up just under 300 explored photos ,since then not a one ??? Or could it be I was blacklisted due to getting wound up by there CEO Melissa Meyer when she changed everything and I sent her a p.m telling her I thought she was a c*** , oh well s*** appens :exit::exit:
Click to expand...

....

Calling someone a c***, especially a woman, who is in power is surely guaranteed to lose you any favour towards you she may have had! :D Very funny though! Try calling her an aubergine-loving vegan next time - It might get you banned [re Waitrose case].

Even though I don't have Pro status I have had 23 of my photos selected by Explore between March 2016 and September 2018. Whether I am living in my own strange bubble or not, I am quite proud of that.

My Explore album : https://www.flickr.com/photos/114775606@N07/sets/72157686132840835/with/45008226732/

So far I have only loaded about 500 images and Flickr states "0% of 1TB". I get so busy taking photos and processing them that I am a bit slow keeping up with myself.
 
Last edited:
The best thing is, pro users get superior/priority support, .... all those free users having issues downloading their images come the new year, i wouldn't want to be 1. Them and 2. The support guys at Smug Mug ... that's going to be a s*** job for sure.

User: Where are my images?
SmugMugSupport: We deleted them!
- epic twitter rants and viral news posts ensue of, "Flickr deleted precious photos of my now deceased daughter" et el
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
.... Exactly that! [highlit in bold]

Plus by creating Albums (which are non-destructive to your timeline) you can focus on particular subjects and share helpful links - Someone on TP was recently asking how the Canon EOS M5 performed with EF lenses mounted and I was able to post a link for them to judge for themselves. Same with how a Canon 2x Extender performs on their 500mm prime etc and I have even learnt that I use the 2x on that lens about twice as much as without for my best pictures.

........

The alternative is creating my own pages on squarespace which is the only one I like the style of but wouldn't that cost a lot more than a Flickr Pro subscription?
Click to expand...

I do like the features on Flickr and have been a paid subscriber, but when they put up the fee last month, I decided not to renew. I do like the ability to have a record of my images, rather than just a curated collection on a website, but it's not a complete record anyway as I only have 2000 ish photos on there.

As for Explore, it's gone downhill in the quality of it's content, (buses in a depot taken with a point and shoot, great) and I have had 46 photos "explored" but only 1 in the past year or so.

One thing I have been using Flickr for in the past few years is a 52 Week photo challenge, which operates via a Flickr group. The challenges have been good and I've learnt alot through them, but with the change in cost, the limit on free accounts and where I am now with photography, I might not use Flickr for much longer.

As for Squarespace, I'm currently evaluating it for a website, so I may go with that, but it's not a replacement for Flickr in anyway. I am on Instagram though and I do get way more interaction on there than Flickr these days.
 
Another positive about Flickr relates directly to Talk Photography in that those of us who aren't paranoid about publishing their camera settings etc are able to post full information and high quality display of our work for discussion.

Is there another site which hosts so smoothly and fluidly? - I don't think so.

Flickr is definitely for serious photographers whether amateur or professional offline.
 
Cobra said:
You ( and others) do realise that you all have free space right here?
Although slightly more complicated to use than flicker ( I think),

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...o-and-insert-an-image-from-your-tp-gallery.8/
Click to expand...

.... Yes but online forum gallery systems are invariably more complicated to use and they are never very elegant in their presentation, although I appreciate that their primary function is to host images to their own forum discussions.

Also, I don't think you can host from such a gallery to other sites whereas you can of course do so from Flickr. Even to Facebook.
 
RedRobin said:
Also, I don't think you can host from such a gallery to other sites whereas you can of course do so from Flickr. Even to Facebook.
Click to expand...
I agree, as above I also find it "clunky"
But to your other point

Capture.JPG

But as noted via the previous quote people wishing only to share via TP its useful and free
 
Last edited:
I stopped my subscription to Pro over a year ago and am still shown as such, as I’m unsure what benefits it really gives. Maybe I should have kept quiet about that ...
 
I can't really see the issue people have with the changes - who really has 1000 portfolio level pictures? Flickr has needed investment for some time, hopefully there's updates to get it back on track
 
Scirocco_09 said:
who really has 1000 portfolio level pictures?
Click to expand...
Quite! But it's the age of digital - proliferation, proliferation, proliferation. Meanwhile, people may be starving just round the corner. A world of strange contrasts.
 
This is a quandry. My initial response will probably be to cull my pics to under a 1000. This isn't a bad thing as I'd intended to do this for a while anyway.
I had a pro account briefly before the 1Tb came along. Whilst I'm not in a rush to go back to it it might well be the best option. Flickr is mature, easy to use and above all popular.
I don't care about support or explore, it's nice to have your pics selected but it is not any indicator of quality.
I created a website more out of interest than anything but really can't be bothered with it a lot of the time. Also for anyone that is a hobbyist it is very unlikely your pics will get the same amount of exposure from one as they do on Flickr.
So at the moment I think it's better the devil you know.
 
droj said:
That's history, Toni. Our concern is now!
Click to expand...

And that's my point - Ipernity looks like Flickr when it sucked. Now. While I appreciate they have worked to maintain the community & site, it appears that spending money on web development isn't part of the plan.
 
mickledore said:
it's easier just to use the Upload a File option.
Click to expand...
True enough, but you'd be surprised how many people can't / don't know how to do it ( ref rtms)
There also used to be a 3 "attached" image limit in one post, but I think that may have been abandoned now.
 
Cobra said:
True enough, but you'd be surprised how many people can't / don't know how to do it ( ref rtms)
There also used to be a 3 "attached" image limit in one post, but I think that may have been abandoned now.
Click to expand...
I thought the limit was 6? Not that I can see the need for that other than in classifieds. Just make 2 posts!!!
 
Last edited:
FWIW, IDT $50/yr is excessive by any means... but for not much more money you can get your own domain/server and do anything you want with it. For me, I already have domain/server space I pay for and a flick'r pro account would be just more money going out for no real need.
And I don't expect it will stay at $50 for long, nor do I expect it to be the only change long term... especially if this really reduces their user base/market.
 
Cobra said:
I've just tested it
8 "hosted off site" images
5 attached from a device

Not sure about the TP gallery
Click to expand...
Something odd going on here, my man.
I can't see any images in this thread, but the email notification of your post has a load of cuddly tiggers!

Have you been playing with your green badge?
 
mickledore said:
Something odd going on here, my man.
Click to expand...
Yep that was the test I just ran ..
I didn't really think you wanted to see 8 cuddly Tigers so they are now in pussy cat heaven (y)
 
I think I'll be sticking with the free Flickr account for now as I've got just over 100 pics on there so it'll be a while before I reach the 1000 limit. I have a basic SmugMug account that I set up a while back when Flickr kept going down which I prefer. My only issue with it is that when you link a picture from SmugMug to here you just get the text link and not an image
 
Cagey75 said:
who's next? TP? would you stick around on here if they started charging a few quid a week?
Click to expand...
I didn't realise TP gave you free storage, cheers for the heads up Ill look into it (y)
 
I've been reading the thread on this over at the Flickr Support Forum where the CEO has been answering questions and clarifying the position. The claim is that 1000 photo limit will impact less than 3% of the current Flickr free account user base. Also, the CEO has commented that many of that 3% consume a huge amount of storage and have much of their collection set to private contributing nothing to the Flickr community. So it sounds like people are effectively using it as free back-up storage. If this is all true, (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), I can understand the change.
 
I've tried using the forum upload option (ie in a post, not the Gallery) and there was a size limit, I couldn't upload the full res-image, so had to waste time re-sizing the images just for a forum post. But if it was something I was already uploading to Flickr, then the work was already done and I could just copy the nicely produced BBCode to get the right size image.

I have 2000 or so images on Flickr, only a few are set to private. One of my friends has 40,000 images on Flickr, all publicly available on his "pro" account, I think he doesn't do a lot of culling and just uploads large batches.
Both of us are over the 1000 limit, yet if we were free account holders, we'd both be penalised the same.

None of the "new" Flickr Pro features would convince me to keep my Pro subscription, I'd rather put that money into another more useful subscription because I don't use Flickr enough to justify keeping it.

I think part of the problem is that the new owners, SmugMug also have a paid-for photo hosting platform. So they want to lessen the appeal of the Flickr-free product and see if they can attract (push) users to their paid products, either Flickr Pro or SmugMug.
All SmugMug plans have unlimited photo and video uploads and a 20min max length on videos (more than Flickr Pro), and the cheapest plan is $3.99 /m ie $48 per year, just a smidge less than Flickr Pro.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
So it sounds like people are effectively using it as free back-up storage. If this is all true, (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), I can understand the change.
Click to expand...

Judging by the way people are frantically trying to download their stuff, it seems it could be the case

I have never cared how many views etc I get, it is just a place to store low res jpegs to link to TP etc
quite happy if they delete them, I have the better versions on hard drives
 
I looked into the actual figures today , I have been with Flickr virtually from the start and have in that time amassed over 7000 photos that I quiet often in wildlife go back to to get the date of when a migratory species arrived back . I also in that time have had just under 300 explores , and looking at my about account I have had over 7 million views of my photos , wow that’s even surprised me .
Anyway as I quit my pro account a few years back and am realistic enough to realise you get owt for nowt , I actually did the conversion rates , and please remember if your in the u.k the price is in dollars ...... so once converted to pounds shillings and pence it works out to the grand sum of just over £26 or 50p a bloody week and if your really altruistic it gives you 12 months grace to sort something else out ..
I also see a lot of I’m leaving because they put it up , but full price is a quid a week and your probably shooting with a few grands worth of kit and paying a tenner a month to process your raw files in lightroom cc ....
 
If your willing to wait a week or so before signing up and keep a eye on the Yankee mid term election results , if it goes against trump inc. then there’s a good chance the arse will fall out of the dollar , that will be the time to pounce
 
the black fox said:
I also see a lot of I’m leaving because they put it up , but full price is a quid a week and your probably shooting with a few grands worth of kit and paying a tenner a month to process your raw files in lightroom cc ....
Click to expand...

Indeed. The Pro cost is nothing in the grand scheme of (photography) things and if SmugMug are true to their word and invest in the platform then I don't see what the problem is.
 
the black fox said:
I looked into the actual figures today , I have been with Flickr virtually from the start and have in that time amassed over 7000 photos that I quiet often in wildlife go back to to get the date of when a migratory species arrived back . I also in that time have had just under 300 explores , and looking at my about account I have had over 7 million views of my photos , wow that’s even surprised me .
Anyway as I quit my pro account a few years back and am realistic enough to realise you get owt for nowt , I actually did the conversion rates , and please remember if your in the u.k the price is in dollars ...... so once converted to pounds shillings and pence it works out to the grand sum of just over £26 or 50p a bloody week and if your really altruistic it gives you 12 months grace to sort something else out ..
I also see a lot of I’m leaving because they put it up , but full price is a quid a week and your probably shooting with a few grands worth of kit and paying a tenner a month to process your raw files in lightroom cc ....
Click to expand...
Spot on Jeff. Trouble is you are talking to a generation that is used to having what it wants when it wants. And they don't believe they should pay for it...ever.
 
It's not a lot of money but that doesn't automatically make it value for money either.

I've got 1785 images on there resized for the web taking up 0.1% of that 1TB. Member since 2009.
I don't have anything private and I participate in the groups but then I also don't pay a penny or see any ads so I can see they'd want to change that ;)

I only use it as a photo diary as I have no commercial ambitions and I don't get thousands of views and favourites.
I'm still deciding if sharing my images on web forums is worth 50p a week, at the moment I'm not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top