Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?

Reply
Thread Tools

how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?

 
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009

Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
will resort to 320x200 in the future.

Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
just interested in their resolution)
in this free account:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/

If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).

Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/...207dbf1e_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/...120f1b99_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/...00b9d200_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/...aff70fc8_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/...bf11705b_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...4f5f91a4_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/...9008cdf8_b.jpg


Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those ****in retards at
flickr?

To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
to be something like 1024x76?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
egbert_no_bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On Dec 23, 1:11*am, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
> will resort to 320x200 in the future.
>
> Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
> just interested in their resolution)
> in this free account:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/
>
> If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
> like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
> view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).
>
> Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/...9008cdf8_b.jpg
>
> Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those ****in retards at
> flickr?
>
> To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
> without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
> to be something like 1024x76?


getty gettey getit get-it


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
egbert_no_bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On Dec 23, 1:14*am, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "sobriquet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
> > will resort to 320x200 in the future.

>
> > Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
> > just interested in their resolution)
> > in this free account:

>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/

>
> > If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
> > like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
> > view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).

>
> > Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:

>
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/...207dbf1e_b.jpg
> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/...120f1b99_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/...00b9d200_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/...aff70fc8_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/...bf11705b_b.jpg
> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...4f5f91a4_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/...9008cdf8_b.jpg

>
> > Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those ****in retards at
> > flickr?

>
> > To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
> > without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
> > to be something like 1024x76?

>
> Surely, you can't be that ignorant.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


that link don't work

ground swallow come to mind here

 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On 23 dec, 02:14, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "sobriquet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
> > will resort to 320x200 in the future.

>
> > Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
> > just interested in their resolution)
> > in this free account:

>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/

>
> > If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
> > like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
> > view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).

>
> > Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:

>
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/...207dbf1e_b.jpg
> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/...120f1b99_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/...00b9d200_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/...aff70fc8_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/...bf11705b_b.jpg
> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...4f5f91a4_b.jpg
> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/...9008cdf8_b.jpg

>
> > Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those ****in retards at
> > flickr?

>
> > To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
> > without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
> > to be something like 1024x76?

>
> Surely, you can't be that ignorant.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -


I dunno.. I'm puzzled. I have a free account at flickr as well, but
people seem to be able to view my pictures at a high resolution (*).
So maybe it's because I published my pictures under a CC license..
dunno.
Or perhaps it's a new policy from flickr that has been enacted on new
accounts while preserving the high resolution pics on older accounts.

(*)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja/
 
Reply With Quote
 
egbert_no_bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On Dec 23, 1:21*am, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "egbert_no_bacon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > On Dec 23, 1:14 am, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> Surely, you can't be that ignorant.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> > that link don't work

>
> I didn't post any links.



N View profile
More options Dec 23, 1:14 am

Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
From: "N" <(E-Mail Removed)>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:14:58 +1100
Local: Wed, Dec 23 2009 1:14 am
Subject: Re: how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"sobriquet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


news:73b0acf1-
c7e7-46f1-8de3-6687a80e559f@o28g2000...oglegroups.com...


Surely, you can't be that ignorant.


---- the above is your own hand within anothers post as my reader
tells me, and others also will read





 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On 23 dec, 02:49, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "sobriquet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 dec, 02:14, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "sobriquet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> >> > Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
> >> > will resort to 320x200 in the future.

>
> >> > Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
> >> > just interested in their resolution)
> >> > in this free account:

>
> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/

>
> >> > If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
> >> > like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
> >> > view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).

>
> >> > Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:

>
> >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/...207dbf1e_b.jpg
> >> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/...120f1b99_b.jpg
> >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/...00b9d200_b.jpg
> >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/...aff70fc8_b.jpg
> >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/...bf11705b_b.jpg
> >> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/...4f5f91a4_b.jpg
> >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/...9008cdf8_b.jpg

>
> >> > Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those ****in retards at
> >> > flickr?

>
> >> > To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
> >> > without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
> >> > to be something like 1024x76?

>
> >> Surely, you can't be that ignorant.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht
> >> niet weergeven -

>
> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

>
> > I dunno.. I'm puzzled. I have a free account at flickr as well, but
> > people seem to be able to view my pictures at a high resolution (*).
> > So maybe it's because I published my pictures under a CC license..
> > dunno.
> > Or perhaps it's a new policy from flickr that has been enacted on new
> > accounts while preserving the high resolution pics on older accounts.

>
> > (*)
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja/

>
> It's in your account profile, privacy and permissions.


Maybe they have changed the default account settings then, because in
the past I've
created various accounts and often I didn't mess with the default
settings and it would
still present links to the high-res version of pictures on free
accounts.
 
Reply With Quote
 
egbert_no_bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On Dec 23, 1:47*am, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "egbert_no_bacon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 1:21 am, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "egbert_no_bacon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed)....

>
> >> > On Dec 23, 1:14 am, "N" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> >> Surely, you can't be that ignorant.- Hide quoted text -

>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -

>
> >> > that link don't work

>
> >> I didn't post any links.

>
> > N * *View profile
> > *More options Dec 23, 1:14 am

>
> > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> > From: "N" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:14:58 +1100
> > Local: Wed, Dec 23 2009 1:14 am
> > Subject: Re: how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?
> > Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
> > original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

>
> > "sobriquet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
> > news:73b0acf1-
> > (E-Mail Removed)...

>
> > Surely, you can't be that ignorant.

>
> > ---- the above is your own hand within anothers post as my reader
> > tells me, and others also will read

>
> If you want to find valid URLs in newspost headers, you're off your tree.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


are you saying, your post is invalid

 
Reply With Quote
 
NameHere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
>will resort to 320x200 in the future.


Maybe because most people have found that the only sure-fire method do deny
theft of their photography is by using small image sizes and high JPEG
compression ratios. There's no other more effective method. Digital
watermarks are easily removed. Digimark, for one, being the largest scam
ever perpetrated on the unintelligent masses. Often included as a default
on the worst of editors available. PhotoShop being the biggest loser
application to do ever so, perpetuated by just as big of ignorant loser of
all.

 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On 23 dec, 07:48, NameHere <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
> >will resort to 320x200 in the future.

>
> Maybe because most people have found that the only sure-fire method do deny
> theft of their photography is by using small image sizes and high JPEG
> compression ratios. There's no other more effective method. Digital
> watermarks are easily removed. Digimark, for one, being the largest scam
> ever perpetrated on the unintelligent masses. Often included as a default
> on the worst of editors available. PhotoShop being the biggest loser
> application to do ever so, perpetuated by just as big of ignorant loser of
> all.


People who think their photo's can get stolen on the web, have fallen
the propaganda
from the intellectual property mafia.

If you have seen this bitstring 00011101010111001110101, please
contact the police, as this bitstring has been stolen.. yeah right!
 
Reply With Quote
 
sobriquet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2009
On 23 dec, 09:40, sobriquet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> People who think their photo's can get stolen on the web, have fallen
> the propaganda
> from the intellectual property mafia.


... have fallen for the propaganda ..
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
[Flickr] Your upload has failed with the following message: Flickr Mail Python 0 01-20-2011 08:06 AM
CC photos (flickr) -- CC foto's (flickr) sobriquet Digital Photography 1 12-28-2009 02:52 AM
flickr url -> flickr account sobriquet Digital Photography 5 12-17-2009 06:22 PM



Advertisments