51–60 of 102 posts
No photographer will take Google+ seriously as long as uploading an artistic nude could result in your entire Google account being disabled.
The whole photo-sharing space is ripe for a massive disruptor. Photographers and enthusiasts have been drifting away from Flickr for ages, but up until now there's been no offering that's really a suitable full replacement. On the one side you have sites like SmugMug, which has an awesome API, detailed controls over your images... but is devoid of any of the social features Flickr users have grown to love (and loathe…
It's ripe for multiple disruptors. Photos are a communication medium that serves multiple purposes, just as words do. Some photos are your portfolio. Others are your memories. They call for different interactions. Flickr, Smugmug and 500px are very portfolio-oriented. Snapjoy and my site (OurDoings) are very memory-oriented. Facebook and Google+ are social-oriented. They're great for sharing what you did yesterday, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me." Absolutely agree. I'm a hobbyist travel photographer, so I end up with essentially two kinds of photos: photos of a place, where I try and form a nice composition, post process (crop, colors, bal…
How can you possibly take 20,000 photos in a week? The math just doesn't work out, if you spent only 10 seconds composing a shot (and I'd argue it takes longer than that if you are a "photographer" and not a drive-by "snapshotter") that amounts to 8 hours per day of JUST picture taking, leaving no time to even move from location to location. Also, the average DSLR has a shutter life expectancy of around 100000-150000…
Thomas Hawk has a long history of enthusiasm and rage; if his normal pattern holds expect to see him lambasting Google for not adding his pet (absolutely essential) feature in six months or so. This latest enthusiasm has me puzzled though. I mean Google+ looks like it's great for sharing photos of limited interest that aren't necessarily public. But it doesn't strike me as a good place to present your art to the worl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's ripe for multiple disruptors. Photos are a communication medium that serves multiple purposes, just as words do. Some photos are your portfolio. Others are your memories. They call for different interactions. Flickr, Smugmug and 500px are very portfolio-oriented. Snapjoy and my site (OurDoings) are very memory-oriented. Facebook and Google+ are social-oriented. They're great for sharing what you did yesterday, b…
Isn't it currently google+ for recent history automagically archived in picasaweb for nostalgia
All this is true of Facebook as well, and I think it's by design. Nostalgia is often a solitary activity. What social networks want is interaction, so they're going to steer you toward whatever's been uploaded/commented on most recently. Interaction is what grows social network usage.
I'm a weekend photographer and I recently became a paying Flickr user. For my simple use-case of uploading files and sending off the URL to a couple of friends per email Flickr is the perfect service.
The only answer I can say myself is that PicasaWeb uses the ugliest possible lossy compression settings on all photos it displays.
The whole photo-sharing space is ripe for a massive disruptor. Photographers and enthusiasts have been drifting away from Flickr for ages, but up until now there's been no offering that's really a suitable full replacement. On the one side you have sites like SmugMug, which has an awesome API, detailed controls over your images... but is devoid of any of the social features Flickr users have grown to love (and loathe…
Flickr is beyond irritating at times. I uploaded duplicate photos by mistake on Flickr and had to go through hundreds of photos one by one deleting them. There's no option to delete duplicates based on file name or file name/creation date etc. because Flickr has basically been dormant from a development standpoint for years.
And yes, you can delete all the photo at the same time using organizer, or you can use the API to write your own delete method.
Yahoo, which once held great promise, seems to have become the company that buys things and fails with them. Some examples off the top of my head: Konfabulator (Yahoo Widgets), Geocites, Delicious, Flickr, Broadcast.com. Heck, they don't even provide their own search results anymore. Can anyone think of something that Yahoo has bought that has flourished under them?
Thomas Hawk has a long history of enthusiasm and rage; if his normal pattern holds expect to see him lambasting Google for not adding his pet (absolutely essential) feature in six months or so. This latest enthusiasm has me puzzled though. I mean Google+ looks like it's great for sharing photos of limited interest that aren't necessarily public. But it doesn't strike me as a good place to present your art to the worl…
a bit heavy on the google influence in the article.... I don't feel like G+ is at all geared to photographers. Flickr has tons of features/tools that seem natural to many but are key to managing photos, making sets, organizing etc. The meta data alone you can associate with flickr photos is incredible. G+ can make a photo set in the same way Facebook can, not really same target/point.
He makes some good points about the interface stagnation and community excitement (even my own Flickr account has grown weedy and sparse over the years.) However, it was off-putting to see so much, I don't know, what seemed like personal vitriol next to evaluations of the service itself.