• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I've found SmugMug to be remarkably good at serving properly sized images fast. The images are sharper and colored better than anywhere else I've hosted my photos. It's something that is very hard to market but is vastly important to a service that's dedicated to displaying photos. I'm glad they're applying their technology to Flickr. It's hugely important to photographers like me.

    • Sounds good, I’ve also started to upload a few more images to Flickr as well of late so be interesting to see how it pans out, but sounds promising.

    • Chris,

      I'm directing this to you because I don't have an email address for Don.

      In the footer for the Flickr blog, on the right side their is a legacy link that is broken. The Link says "Get Flickr App."

      That link currently takes one to a Yahoo "missing page" page.

      You may want to pass this information on to whomever at SmugMug (Flickr) would be responsible for resolving this.

    • Chris, do you have any insight into how the rollover to new limits will work? (re: this - )

      As in - I think I have slightly over 8k photos on Flickr, and while that collection can definitely use some pruning, it's not something that can be done in one sitting or even in 10, given that photography is currently somewhat on a back burner for me (that deserves a separate big post). When the deadline rolls over, will I lose something? Be unable to display anything other than the latest 1k photos? I'm not really concerned but would like to understand how it will work exactly :)

      P.S. I used to be a Pro member for quite some time, but then allowed the subscription to lapse as Flickr's star declined. I will definitely reconsider if I come back to photography in a more serious way and if Flickr prospers again as I hope it will.

    • The Flickr site now has a splash page with more information in place of the main page the first time you visit it.

      Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.

    • Thank for the heads up! I think I understand the decision making, even if the timeline seems to be a bit more aggressive than I'd have liked, and I'm especially confused about why the most important information about the deadlines (including active content deletion!) is in the fine print.

    • And back in the day, the free account had a 200 photo limit. I am not using the full 1 TB with only 2800 photos over there, but that's over the 1000 limit they are going to. still haven't decided to go pro.

    • I can already tell that there has been improvements. For example, the page that formerly allowed one to look at the most recent posts in the various Creative Commons licenses had been allowed to quit updating years ago, but its working now.

      I'm not sure but I thought that there was previously no link to the photo sizes page after Yahoo changed the photo display GUI but there definitely is a link now in the right bottom corner of the black background.

      I was also under the impression that the "You" menu used to have fewer items. The organizer is available from the "You" menu now.

      All in all, I think that SmugMug is already revitalizing Flickr's platform.

    • Now that's interesting, I currently have a non Pro Flickr Account and was going to start to post to it more regularly now the G+ is going to go, but now there’s a 1000 limit going to be imposed, unless I sign up for a Pro account. So thinking in print here (normal that would be allowed but you won't hear me from there)

      So what does this mean. Well I already have a web site with unlimited storage which I pay for, So I can live there, but currently little traffic though this year that’s more my fault as I let my blog slip, (note to self revive blog) I have galleries, and a blog and the last month or so I even added a page for upcoming workshop dates, really should have done that a lot earlier. I also have a paid Adobe Subscription which again has galleries which I haven’t used as yet. I’ve a free 500 PX account with restrictions in place, as well as several other social media accounts around the place, So do I really want to have an additional subscription account, (Forgot also have the Microsoft office subscription) So will a paid Flickr account give me something I’m missing?? I have 601 images upload to Flickr at present so a way to go yet, mind you my Lightroom catalogue is at 219886 images and growing, Or do I keep adding to Flickr and when I get to 1000 start to prune back, having a curated gallery there. That has its advantages as you remove what you believe to be your lesser images as you improve over the years. It goes to a project I do each year at the end of the year when I do a blog post on my top ten images each year and make sure it’s limited to only ten. A hard project but worth it as it forces you to critically review your images over the year and then you can reflect on who you have improved over time as you compare previous top tens, 

      For now I’ve got a way to go to get there the limit and I’ve been at Flickr since 2013 so not a decision I need to make this week, but certainly one to think about, Flickr has groups which are a bit like Google Plus’s Communities, Cake has topics so does Flickr fill a need that Cake can not yet? or do I spend more time on my own site, (I actually need to spend some time there.) So an interesting thought and something to think about, just what do I use Flickr for and want out of it, then the same can be asked about Cake, what do I want to get out of it, Which may just come down to sharing my knowledge with those that are interested and posting images along the way. Why do we gravitate to social media? Few questions here to play with.

    • This doesn’t add up

      I am reading this

      First, and most crucially, the free terabyte largely attracted members who were drawn by the free storage, not by engagement with other lovers of photography. This caused a significant tonal shift in our platform, away from the community interaction and exploration of shared interests that makes Flickr the best shared home for photographers in the world. 

      And then

      Lastly, we looked at our members and found a clear line between Free and Pro accounts: the overwhelming majority of Pros have more than 1,000 photos on Flickr, and more than 97% of Free members have fewer than 1,000. We believe we’ve landed on a fair and generous place to draw the line.

      So I am confused. The 1TB brought tons of people not really interested in photography but only 3% have over 1000 photos. So if these “1TB people” were not fully using the site, how did the quality of Flickr’s community change because of them? :)

      The truth imho (without being a very active user) is that the community features of Flickr have not changed for over 15 years. The 1TB thing wasn’t that important in why Flickr declined.

    • In my opinion, the reason that Flickr went downhill was because it was acquired by Yahoo in 2005.

      Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that this was the moment when it began to go downhill.

      Rather, the parent company Yahoo had problems during the second half of the last decade and its problems had an affect on many of the projects and subsidiaries of Yahoo.

      Part of the problem was caused by a decision to re-vamp the Flickr interface at a time when the parent company was having these problems. Another part of the problem pertained to launching initiatives and then canceling them.

      The 1 Terabyte offer was made AFTER most of these problems had already affected Flickr. It is true that this offer produced a large number of free account openings. It is also true that in spite of the fact that many new accounts were opened that few of these free accounts ever reached 1000 photographs.

      There also were accounts opened which had pictures but their purpose was advertisement or other non-photographic purposes. This is one of the problems that the new owners of Flickr have been working on resolving.

      The amount of content that is on Flickr requires a large on-going expenditure. I think that the 1000 photograph offer is reasonable even though it places a damper on the enthusiasm of feeling that one could store their amateur sized library on Flickr.

      I also think that those two paragraphs which you quoted are both correct.

    • I am very positive on the change. I'm a little late to this conversation as I'm just getting back into the swing of things after a week on the road shooting St. Louis to Fargo, ND, but I think that the single most important thing for Flickr is that it must be a viable business. In order to survive for decades into the future, it must be profitable and sustainable. It is not economically viable to give everyone a free terabyte of enterprise storage (and bandwidth). Especially when you give your most lucrative advertising targets (i.e. people with money) the opportunity to opt out of ads by paying, what you are left with are a ton of users without money, a lot of them overseas, or users that don't use the service enough to be shown enough ads to be profitable. Given the enormous cost of that storage/bandwidth it's the right decision to ensure the long-term viability of Flickr. Personally speaking I think $50/year for unlimited high res photo sharing is a GREAT deal and am happy to pay. I hope Flickr is able to get a lot of new Pro accounts out of this move. I wrote up more of my thoughts o this here:

    • It's a funny thing, my sons and wife bought Flickr but I'm not intimate with the details because no one wants dear old dad to backseat drive them. 😁

      But looking at it from a distance this is what it looks like to me: DropBox only gives away 2 GB free and Google Drive only 15. In both those cases, they have big upsides in what they can charge you.

      Flickr is the only service I can think of with anything like 1 TB. Google photos maybe, but your photos have to be limited to 16 megapixels. And the upside for Flickr is just $50/year. So I just don't see how the maths work without tighter limits on free storage.

      Even though 97% of customers don't store large amounts, the ones who do can store truly insane numbers of photos and rack up insane bandwidth charges. It would take a lot of $50 accounts to pay for one customer who exploits Flickr's free Terabyte to the max.

    • Yes, the 1TB thing was crazy silly and obviously unsustainable in the long run. But given that only 3% had more than 1000 photos, how much of a burden were this 3% ?? :)

      In any case , I hope these users will be informed by email on time. Deleting user content that you promised to store is bad karma for any company :)

    • I'm not sure it really is the 3% that are causing problems. It's all of the free users that have 999 gigabytes or more of empty space that's not being used. Up until January that space has to be allocated regardless of whether it is actually being used or not. So they've been wasting money on storage that has not and never will be used.

    • I'm worried about the broken links around the web that will result from deleted photos. I don't know if they can sense that and not delete the ones with traffic from external links? I dunno, those may be the ones they feel they need to delete because they cost monies. Hard problem. 😬

    • No, I meant gigabytes. Until the change is implemented, every user has a full terabyte allocated regardless of how many photos they have on the site. I don't have any stats, but I bet the majority of users probably use less than 1 GB. Once they move to the 1,000 photo limit things change. Then they could just look at available storage for the site as a whole and add space as needed to be pooled across the entire user base.

    • It's all of the free users that have 999 gigabytes or more of empty space that's not being used.

      Now I get what you wrote! I think it's quite certain they were not holding up empty disk drives ready to be filled in. The 1TB limit was just marketing talk, extremely few people ever used that much or even got close.