Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 1 Week Ago   #121
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,733
Vimeo did a thing like this last year. They limited the amount of uploads or space you can use with your free account. They never went ahead and started deleting your content but rather locked your account from making further uploads until you adhered to their new specs. I think that flickr would benefit from taking this approach.

Simply changing the rules and deleting user data is pretty aggressive. It's the first time that I've heard of something like this online.

They have had ads on free accounts for quite some time now. Free users were mostly fine with Flickr placing ads on their photos without getting any of the revenue unlike sites like Youtube. It would be nice for flickr to show some mutual respect in the way they handle their restructuring.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #122
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
... They [Vimeo] never went ahead and started deleting your content but rather locked your account from making further uploads until you adhered to their new specs. I think that flickr would benefit from taking this approach.
...
Iirc that’s how Flickr also used to work, once the pro subscription expired (prior the 1tb era they are now undoing).
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #123
coogee
Registered User
 
coogee is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 143


Testing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #124
Alberti
Registered User
 
Alberti's Avatar
 
Alberti is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Holland
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway 61 View Post
Flickr offering 1000 photos to free membership is very dishonest in my opinion.

With that, people having done a serious, careful and reasonable editing job and wanting to display a long-run photographic production thanks to very low-weight photos well sorted by albums and all in all representing a very, very, very thin hard drive storage space are punished because of all the full-res digital images storage others use Flickr for without any care (and which many of use don't mind the least bit : if I like a photo at Flickr, I don't mandatory want to see it at a size that will exceed my screen dimensions by 300%). If you consider that most of those XXL photos flooding the servers storage space are uploaded by people having disabled the downloading option (a trick which can be turned out very easily anyway), you get the idea of how idiotic some flickerites' behaviour can be.

The photo used as the new storage space count unit instead of a regular number of bytes count unit, like normal people would do, is a very stupid new policy.

This is not a matter of paying a moderate fee or still getting it for free. It's a matter of honest game rules. Here, they are not.
The high res uploads are in part due to the easy Lightroom coupling where you can export the files and they even are managed (changes passed on). yes, that upload is full res, I can't change that and I have always thought that Flickr would sell these images off to a well known [Calif.] photo selling site.
- and that that was their business model.
By the way, i think 1 TB space offered to 1 million users will in actual use not exceed 1% on average use.
__________________
Nil camera, sed usus (after an emblematic text)
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #125
bulevardi
Registered User
 
bulevardi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brussels
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by coogee View Post


Testing.
Another gnome lover !!!
Here's my FLICKR gnome gallery:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/buleva...57631596960456

__________________
http://users.telenet.be/bulevardi/ << 【insta~flickr】
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #126
bulevardi
Registered User
 
bulevardi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brussels
Posts: 146
Btw, I never have seen ads yet, on Flickr, even with my free account.
Where are they supposed to appear? Between your own photos in your gallery or in the Trending feed?
And on the mobile too...
Never had bugs. Unless, when using Flickr on the mobile version, my OS is going slower afterwards, and have to restart my device later on.

However, I always liked their way of messaging, the way of saying "hello" to the user, or showing the following when a downtime or something like this:

Bad, bad panda!

We’re aware of the problem and are fixing it.
Thanks for your patience.

__________________
http://users.telenet.be/bulevardi/ << 【insta~flickr】
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #127
Peter Wijninga
Registered User
 
Peter Wijninga's Avatar
 
Peter Wijninga is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,240
Quote:
Bad, bad panda!

We’re aware of the problem and are fixing it.
Thanks for your patience.
Internet etiquette equates the use of large fonts with shouting. So don't.

I've had a close look at alternative providers and I'll stick with a Pro Flickr account.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #128
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
Simply changing the rules and deleting user data is pretty aggressive.
Yes.

The tone of their informational message announcing the changes reads (to me) very passive-aggressive overall, and this ransom demand crosses into blatant active aggression. You do not treat customers this way in a business and survive.

I kept telling people complaining about Yahoo's handling of the site - benign neglect is better than the alternatives. I wish I could say it made me happy to say I told you so.

(Too bad though. It is the only social media I use; I use it as a portfolio so I have less than 100 photos on anyway, so the change doesn't affect me directly, but I hate to see this happening.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #129
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulevardi View Post
Btw, I never have seen ads yet, on Flickr, even with my free account.
No ads appear in my free account, another big advantage of the benign neglect under Yahoo.

But I don't expect that to remain the case.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #130
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberti View Post
The high res uploads are in part due to the easy Lightroom coupling where you can export the files and they even are managed (changes passed on). yes, that upload is full res, I can't change that and I have always thought that Flickr would sell these images off to a well known [Calif.] photo selling site.
- and that that was their business model.
By the way, i think 1 TB space offered to 1 million users will in actual use not exceed 1% on average use.
This fully makes sense and this is probably why the space storage unit at Flickr is now becoming the photo not the (mega, giga, tera)bytes any longer.
People like me having carefully downsized and "saved for the web" their black and white photos under full owner's copyright are now asked to pay to allow Flickr to go on with hosting full-res marketable images - mostly uploaded under CC copyright.

This is why I have no interest at obeying and paying. I will remove myself what I want to be removed to get under the 1,000 photos limit, won't upload anything else, and ite missa est.

Of course I fully understand that some of the posters here will want to continue with Flickr, and pay the $50 fee a year.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #131
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway 61 View Post
... are now asked to pay to allow Flickr to go on with hosting full-res marketable images - mostly uploaded under CC copyright.
I don't think the default copyright is Creative Commons. If you want it to be CC you have to state so explicitly. Otherwise, as far as I am aware, unless we explicitly opt out of our copyright, we retain full copyright for photos we upload to Flickr. We don't even have to put a copyright notice, it belongs to us by default, at least in U.S. law. Am I wrong?

And no, Flickr can't sell our photos. That would violate our copyright on them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #132
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga View Post
My main issue with Instagram is that it is owned by Facebook.
Exactly. Spot on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #133
bulevardi
Registered User
 
bulevardi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brussels
Posts: 146
What are your thoughts about "500px" as alternative?

I'm personally not so satisfied from them.
__________________
http://users.telenet.be/bulevardi/ << 【insta~flickr】
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #134
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
Iirc that’s how Flickr also used to work, once the pro subscription expired (prior the 1tb era they are now undoing).
The way it used to be, the free limit was pretty small. I think 200 photos. If you paid for Pro, there was no limit. If you let Pro expire, the limit returned to just 200 photos, but no photos were ever deleted. Everything came back if you re-upped for pro.

The wording of this new policy scares me. It makes it sound like this time, they ARE going to be deleting photos. Something they haven't done in the past.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #135
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
The wording of this new policy scares me. It makes it sound like this time, they ARE going to be deleting photos. Something they haven't done in the past.
And why wouldn't they. Maintaining storage costs money. It's like clearing out your temp directory. All of a sudden, you don't need a new hard drive.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #136
phrons
Registered User
 
phrons is offline
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 57
Are we sure active accounts will be affected?

Maybe this will just be limited to accounts that have been inactive for a couple of years?
__________________
https://www.instagram.com/phrons/?hl=en

Instagram is my main outlet for my photos, if you are interested in seeing more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #137
Peter Jennings
Registered User
 
Peter Jennings's Avatar
 
Peter Jennings is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 517
https://blog.flickr.net/en/2018/11/0...s-1000-photos/

It’s all laid out in the blog post. SmugMug bought the thing and the changes they’re making are what they think is necessary to keep the place viable. Personally, I don’t understand all the Sturm und Drang.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #138
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,529
Since I've had a pro account on Flickr since 2009, all I read out of this is that my annual fee is being doubled. Which isn't terrible; it's still a bargain. Whatever else they offer as gimmes with the new setup is just another plus that I may or may not take advantage of.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #139
maigo
Registered User
 
maigo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 164
For the technically minded, this is an interesting Flickr code blog post from Jan 2017 that shares how they optimized their stored images to avoid adding any additional storage space through the 2016 year.

http://code.flickr.net/2017/01/05/a-...ithout-a-byte/

I wonder how these storage engineers felt when they learned of the Smugmug plans to delete billions of images...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #140
coogee
Registered User
 
coogee is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulevardi View Post
Another gnome lover !!!
Here's my FLICKR gnome gallery:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/buleva...57631596960456

A lovely collection
Thanks for sharing them

Quote:
Originally Posted by maigo View Post
For the technically minded, this is an interesting Flickr code blog post from Jan 2017 that shares how they optimized their stored images to avoid adding any additional storage space through the 2016 year.

http://code.flickr.net/2017/01/05/a-...ithout-a-byte/

I wonder how these storage engineers felt when they learned of the Smugmug plans to delete billions of images...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks. Interesting stuff. The use of lossless compression with high CPU overheads and so on. None of it sounds much like something Ansel Adams would have said(!) I hope someone over there is a photographer :O
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #141
phrons
Registered User
 
phrons is offline
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 57
So under $40 for unlimited storage and a possible adobe discount?

Whats the adobe discount, does anyone know?

It is pretty cheap for unlimited storage. The only thing is that it will compress your files (a problem if you shoot digitally).

If I was a professional I wouldnt be using flickr. As my main backup, but only as a way to share photos. Even then it's a small price to pay for your business.

So with my further investigation, $36 a year with an annual payment for unlimited storage is affordable and actually cheap.

What is so unfair? What am I missing?
__________________
https://www.instagram.com/phrons/?hl=en

Instagram is my main outlet for my photos, if you are interested in seeing more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #142
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is online now
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,116
Wonder how/if the net neutrality thing was a consideration in this deal? I once had a pro membership...it lapsed...nothing changed as far as I could tell...so I never reupped

I was just thinking I have less than a 1000 images on my account. If nothing really changes I most likely will not reupp.
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #143
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,437
This was just in the news https://www.dpreview.com/news/302323...-000-image-cap

Quote:
Flickr confirms it's sparing Creative Commons, non-profits from the new 1,000 image cap
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #144
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
So, thinking that individual users still wanting to have their photos hosted at Flickr under full owner's copyright will now have to pay to help the billions of photos uploaded under CC copyright - either by individuals or institutions - to be spared from the 1,000 images limit isn't totally a wrong way to see things.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #145
Peter Wijninga
Registered User
 
Peter Wijninga's Avatar
 
Peter Wijninga is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,240
No idea what this is about. Flickr is offering a reasonable deal...take it or leave it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #146
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga View Post
No idea what this is about. Flickr is offering a reasonable deal...take it or leave it.
I don't either. Smugmug's approach to keep Flickr alive seems completely reasonable and fair play. They're trying to fix the problems Yahoo created and with any luck they'll succeed. The price sounds reasonable and competitive so hopefully Flickr will stick around.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90262210...mmons-concerns
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #147
ASA 32
Registered User
 
ASA 32's Avatar
 
ASA 32 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Coastal Connecticut
Posts: 190
I just tried to share a photo, and got a blank page. And I'm a "Pro" member.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #148
Alberti
Registered User
 
Alberti's Avatar
 
Alberti is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Holland
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Perhaps the dissidents should get together and open a rival called slickr?

It has been known before for customers to club together and open a rival service/shop/whathaveyou...

Regards, David
That's going to cost us even more . .
My internet account offers me a hosting, but I have not been able to just dump pictures in a reasonable res 0,5k - 2K there - but I should have a look.

As far as I see it, Flickr should start with ads for the used equipment, add buy-now options to large retailers and add links to current offers of that lens/camera in the ads section of the big fleabay. And stop accepting photos without metadata (needing them for the ads) but offer the possibility to not broadcast/publicise those. That would be my preferred scenario, were I on the Board.
__________________
Nil camera, sed usus (after an emblematic text)
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #149
bulevardi
Registered User
 
bulevardi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brussels
Posts: 146
Let's talk Flickr again.

I always wondered if there is an algorithm behind Flickr such as Instagram has, which puts some photos on top, or longer visible, ... and how the algorithm works to get a better visibility.

There are people who always like to have more views, or likes or comments. For some, it's like a competition.

Personally, I use Flickr to host photos that I post on Forums (to discuss). It's nice to have comments/likes on Flickr, but not my main priority.
(there's as well some question marks about the value of these likes, as there are lots of people just scrolling and randomly liking photos, without caring or viewing it, just to get likes back in return)

Now... to get to the point.
I noticed, until a while ago (a year?), I had significantly more views/likes than when I post photos nowadays.
Even though I use the same ways of posting them, tagging them, placing them in the same groups, posting them on the same forums ...

Some people tell me (about Instagram) that your visibility grows faster when you have less followers than the people you follow.
Sometimes on Flickr you see people posting lousy photos that get so much likes/comments, pictures that anyone could have taken, there's apparently not much criticism.

I first thought that people with a PRO get priority or something, but it happens with free accounts too.
__________________
http://users.telenet.be/bulevardi/ << 【insta~flickr】
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #150
Scapevision
Registered User
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 439
I'm happy, now I can delete all the unnecessary crap I had posted on it. And with AdBlock I never ever seen any ads. Ain't paying. Suck it.
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #151
Scapevision
Registered User
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulevardi View Post
Let's talk Flickr again.

I always wondered if there is an algorithm behind Flickr such as Instagram has, which puts some photos on top, or longer visible, ... and how the algorithm works to get a better visibility.

There are people who always like to have more views, or likes or comments. For some, it's like a competition.

Personally, I use Flickr to host photos that I post on Forums (to discuss). It's nice to have comments/likes on Flickr, but not my main priority.
(there's as well some question marks about the value of these likes, as there are lots of people just scrolling and randomly liking photos, without caring or viewing it, just to get likes back in return)

Now... to get to the point.
I noticed, until a while ago (a year?), I had significantly more views/likes than when I post photos nowadays.
Even though I use the same ways of posting them, tagging them, placing them in the same groups, posting them on the same forums ...

Some people tell me (about Instagram) that your visibility grows faster when you have less followers than the people you follow.
Sometimes on Flickr you see people posting lousy photos that get so much likes/comments, pictures that anyone could have taken, there's apparently not much criticism.

I first thought that people with a PRO get priority or something, but it happens with free accounts too.
I think the only algorithm there is the fact that majority of its users suck as photographers. Can't tell a difference. Same as any online community.
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #152
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulevardi View Post
Let's talk Flickr again.

I always wondered if there is an algorithm behind Flickr such as Instagram has, which puts some photos on top, or longer visible, ... and how the algorithm works to get a better visibility.
The algorithm I observe is very simple. The feed shows me the photos posted by people I follow, newest first, in strict order of time of posting.

So there is no gaming it, which is good.

From my observations, Flickr is generally very anonymous (most of the interaction is just faving) but some of the people who get tons of faves and comments are ones who are good but also leave nice comments on other people's photos. They become a person to you so naturally you want to be encouraging back.

Someone who seldom faves others' pictures is less likely to get faved back. One has to be active at least a little. There are some fantastic photographers I follow who get hardly any likes - each time I come across one of them I can tell it is because they either follow nobody or like nobody.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #153
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by olifaunt View Post
There are some fantastic photographers I follow who get hardly any likes - each time I come across one of them I can tell it is because they either follow nobody or like nobody.
There are also photographers who get many likes, but who almost never give any, for instance Junku Nishimura.

The "like" thing on Flickr is its for me the least valued part of Flickr, especially because of the by olifaunt described aspect. As an indication of quality it is completely worthless.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #154
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scapevision View Post
I think the only algorithm there is the fact that majority of its users suck as photographers. Can't tell a difference. Same as any online community.
I can honestly say that flickr algorithm hasn't served me a single photo from a person that I would say he or she sucks as a photographer. In my experience, the number of photos from "recommended" photographers are quite low in number compared to the photos you get from the photographers you follow.

(my experience might not be very representative as I try to follow as little photographers as possible, I never post or subscribe to any of the groups and never leave any comments or faves)

edit: It just dawned on me that I might actually have a very poor taste and that it's possible that all of the very few flickr recommended photographers actually... suck. Which actually just shows that flickr's "recommended photographers" algorithm is quite good.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #155
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 40
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Since I've had a pro account on Flickr since 2009, all I read out of this is that my annual fee is being doubled. Which isn't terrible; it's still a bargain. Whatever else they offer as gimmes with the new setup is just another plus that I may or may not take advantage of.

G
I dont know. 50$ a year for the rest of your life - or more whenever they decide to - or they delete your images... uncool.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #156
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
There are also photographers who get many likes, but who almost never give any, for instance Junku Nishimura.

The "like" thing on Flickr is its for me the least valued part of Flickr, especially because of the by olifaunt described aspect. As an indication of quality it is completely worthless.
Moderated groups are for me the most valuable aspect of Flickr. Some of them are very well curated and of high quality, and it is difficult and (to me) valuable to get an image accepted.

Faves are less valuable, but I do find them valuable because I can be blind to the faults of my own images - most of the people who usually fave my stuff are good photographers I respect, so if I post an image that I think is good and get significantly fewer faves than I expected, it is sometimes a good reality check, and often I come see the problem with the image later. I feel my portfolio has improved a lot because of this. But one needs to take faves with a grain of salt - I do keep some images despite few faves, and I have removed some of my most-faved images because I felt they were clichés, so there is that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #157
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by olifaunt View Post
if I post an image that I think is good and get significantly fewer faves than I expected, it is sometimes a good reality check, and often I come see the problem with the image later. I feel my portfolio has improved a lot because of this. But one needs to take faves with a grain of salt - I do keep some images despite few faves, and I have removed some of my most-faved images because I felt they were clichés, so there is that.
The judgment of outsiders about a photo is impure. That's why photos of naked women get a lot of likes. The maker has to decide for himself whether a photo is good or not. If you are quickly bored with a photo that you have made then it is not good.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #158
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
The judgment of outsiders about a photo is impure. That's why photos of naked women get a lot of likes.
This could lead to a kind of funny syllogism...

Joking aside, the faves, the likes (and the emphatic comments from people coming out of the blue and/or suddenly wanting you to join a group they are admin of) are the poorest features of Flickr indeed.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #159
bulevardi
Registered User
 
bulevardi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brussels
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bille View Post
I dont know. 50$ a year for the rest of your life - or more whenever they decide to - or they delete your images... uncool.
Except the images... it sounds like a retirement savings plan !
__________________
http://users.telenet.be/bulevardi/ << 【insta~flickr】
  Reply With Quote

Old 5 Days Ago   #160
ruby.monkey
Registered User
 
ruby.monkey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Age: 48
Posts: 4,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bille View Post
I dont know. 50$ a year for the rest of your life - or more whenever they decide to - or they delete your images... uncool.
$50/year for as long as you consider it worth the money, and the freedom to move all your photos to another platform whenever you wish. Neither cool nor uncool.

Ultimately you're going to have to pay one way or another to have your photos on-line.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:22.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.