371–380 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in the same boat. Also, the narcissist in me will miss the stats feature.
I still have stats. Does something say they are being deleted?
This is pretty interesting to me as I've been spending the last month preparing my soon-to-be startup; (hopefully) a competitor to Flickr/500px: https://photographer.io Obviously I can't compete with that free space which they're giving out. Instead I'm going to stick to a lesser free plan and a sensible subscription price, and hope that people realise that I actually aim to make a profitable business out of it and s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
roughly, very roughly - 90%+ of the people on the 1 TB plan will likely use < 20 Gigabytes (at least over the next couple years), and probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes, whereas close to 100% of the people on the doublr plan will be using at least 1 Terabyte.
"probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes" I suspect you meant MEGAbytes ;-)
So far, the response from Flickr power users looks overwhelmingly negative: http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/
Most of that looks like the usual user complaining because an interface changed.
Pro user since ~2005 here. I don't mind change in general, but I think the change they made here is definitely for the worse. Art needs space to breathe, and what they've done here is the equivalent of a photographic gallery plastering all the exhibited images in a wall-to-wall collage.
That sort of in-your-face layout may work for something like Facebook or Instagram, but not for something that is (was) meant to be for more serious photography.
I hate this new layout. Artistic images need space, especially images that aren't meant to be place together. Otherwise their color would collide with each other and ruin the visual experience for them. If flickr wants to become a social network that features family photos maybe that's the right layout, but I think most of the pro users weren't paying $25 a year for that purpose. Flickr is no longer a valid place to…
500px.com seems more geared towards professional photographers, if you're looking for such an option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As per the new plans, there is no 300MB/month upload-limits on free-accounts.( please don't see Google search results, was that cached? ) Here are their newer plans -- Free-Accounts: + 1 Terabyte of photo and video storage + Upload photos of up to 200MB per photo + Upload 1080p HD videos of up to 1GB each + Video playback of up to 3 minutes each + Upload and download in full original quality Ad-Free accounts: (older…
Can anyone see a way to make the 1TB serve as the main storage space of all your photos? (and not just publicly displaying them). I'm tied into iPhoto on a very full SSD and am longing for a way out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel a betrayed, too. I really don't understand why the plan went up in price and has less features. I have the attitude that I want to store (indefinitely), search and link my photos without being visually distracted with ads or pagination limits. In 7 years of using Flickr, I've only uploaded about 30GB of photos mostly just for archival use. Only a small group of Flickr users curate more than 20k photos. Most of…
> So why did they go for storage instead of pumping the features with premium subscriptions 1TB is a meaningless promise. No one will use a full terabyte for a long time to come. I have about 1,400 photos on Flickr today, almost all of which were shot with a DSLR. Even if you were to consider file size of my current camera in RAW, that would come out to about 31GB total; Jpeg will be a lot smaller. So, they jettison…
Myself, I'll likely remain primarily on Flickr, simply for the community aspect - that's something which seems to remain imperceptible to the likes of Marissa Mayer, sad to say. I'm also on 500px, but there's no atmosphere there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to agree with you. I only post my "Art" photography on flickr and all the people I follow do the same. Seeing this huge mashup of all the varying styles and works together is really terrible. It's just not a nice way of presenting photography.
Works well for travel: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/ But poorly for featured photos with no relationship to one another. This set is generated based on Fickr's "Interestingness" algorithm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/sets/72157594261074270... The relative prominence of these machine selected photos is clearly not associated with artistic quality or visual impact. I would think Flickr of all sites h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel a betrayed, too. I really don't understand why the plan went up in price and has less features. I have the attitude that I want to store (indefinitely), search and link my photos without being visually distracted with ads or pagination limits. In 7 years of using Flickr, I've only uploaded about 30GB of photos mostly just for archival use. Only a small group of Flickr users curate more than 20k photos. Most of…
> So why did they go for storage instead of pumping the features with premium subscriptions 1TB is a meaningless promise. No one will use a full terabyte for a long time to come. I have about 1,400 photos on Flickr today, almost all of which were shot with a DSLR. Even if you were to consider file size of my current camera in RAW, that would come out to about 31GB total; Jpeg will be a lot smaller. So, they jettison…
