how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Dec 23, 2009.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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/2656/4206508593_27207dbf1e_b.jpg
    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4207261728_34120f1b99_b.jpg
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/4201461918_eb00b9d200_b.jpg
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4200703475_a0aff70fc8_b.jpg
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4199974717_2bbf11705b_b.jpg
    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4200723768_1c4f5f91a4_b.jpg
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg


    Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin 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 1024x768)?
     
    sobriquet, Dec 23, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Dec 23, 1:11 am, sobriquet <> 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...c.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg
    >
    > Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin 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 1024x768)?


    getty gettey getit get-it
     
    egbert_no_bacon, Dec 23, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Dec 23, 1:14 am, "N" <> wrote:
    > "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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/2656/4206508593_27207dbf1e_b.jpg
    > >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4207261728_34120f1b99_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/4201461918_eb00b9d200_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4200703475_a0aff70fc8_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4199974717_2bbf11705b_b.jpg
    > >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4200723768_1c4f5f91a4_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg

    >
    > > Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin 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 1024x768)?

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


    that link don't work

    ground swallow come to mind here
     
    egbert_no_bacon, Dec 23, 2009
    #3
  4. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On 23 dec, 02:14, "N" <> wrote:
    > "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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/2656/4206508593_27207dbf1e_b.jpg
    > >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4207261728_34120f1b99_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/4201461918_eb00b9d200_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4200703475_a0aff70fc8_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4199974717_2bbf11705b_b.jpg
    > >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4200723768_1c4f5f91a4_b.jpg
    > >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg

    >
    > > Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin 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 1024x768)?

    >
    > 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/
     
    sobriquet, Dec 23, 2009
    #4
  5. On Dec 23, 1:21 am, "N" <> wrote:
    > "egbert_no_bacon" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Dec 23, 1:14 am, "N" <> 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" <>
    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" <> wrote in message


    news:73b0acf1-
    ...


    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
     
    egbert_no_bacon, Dec 23, 2009
    #5
  6. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On 23 dec, 02:49, "N" <> wrote:
    > "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 23 dec, 02:14, "N" <> wrote:
    > >> "sobriquet" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:...

    >
    > >> > 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/2656/4206508593_27207dbf1e_b.jpg
    > >> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4207261728_34120f1b99_b.jpg
    > >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/4201461918_eb00b9d200_b.jpg
    > >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4200703475_a0aff70fc8_b.jpg
    > >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4199974717_2bbf11705b_b.jpg
    > >> >http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4200723768_1c4f5f91a4_b.jpg
    > >> >http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg

    >
    > >> > Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin 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 1024x768)?

    >
    > >> 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.
     
    sobriquet, Dec 23, 2009
    #6
  7. On Dec 23, 1:47 am, "N" <> wrote:
    > "egbert_no_bacon" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Dec 23, 1:21 am, "N" <> wrote:
    > >> "egbert_no_bacon" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:....

    >
    > >> > On Dec 23, 1:14 am, "N" <> 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" <>
    > > 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" <> wrote in message

    >
    > > news:73b0acf1-
    > > ...

    >
    > > 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
     
    egbert_no_bacon, Dec 23, 2009
    #7
  8. sobriquet

    NameHere Guest

    On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <>
    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.
     
    NameHere, Dec 23, 2009
    #8
  9. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On 23 dec, 07:48, NameHere <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <>
    > 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!
     
    sobriquet, Dec 23, 2009
    #9
  10. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On 23 dec, 09:40, sobriquet <> 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 ..
     
    sobriquet, Dec 23, 2009
    #10
  11. sobriquet

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: |GG| Re: how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?

    sobriquet wrote:
    > On 23 dec, 02:14, "N" <> wrote:
    >> "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> 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/2656/4206508593_27207dbf1e_b.jpg


    Ha, easy way to hack through that. Gotta give them credit for being able
    to do tricks like that. Lots of plug-ins for flickr. Btw, flickr has
    always made it painful to view full size images, the best way I found is
    to view as a slide show. Hit the pause button, turn on info in the
    upper-right, make it full screen and use the arrow keys to scroll
    through the galleries or jump ahead by clicking thumbs in the film strip
    below. This works for accessing the full size images in the linked gallery.


    >>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4207261728_34120f1b99_b.jpg
    >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/4201461918_eb00b9d200_b.jpg
    >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4200703475_a0aff70fc8_b.jpg
    >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4199974717_2bbf11705b_b.jpg
    >>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4200723768_1c4f5f91a4_b.jpg
    >>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg
    >>> Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin 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 1024x768)?


    It's always been 500 px max for the opening page for me.

    > 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.


    Or it could be an expired paid account. BTW I've got a paid account and
    don't have any option to turn off "all sizes"
    http://www.flickr.com/account?tab=privacy
    other than only uploading 500px max so yeah, it must be a built in
    limitation of some sort. Similarly, if you exceed the 200 shots for the
    free account, the old pics don't get erased, and they still show in
    searches, just not in your photostream directly. Flickr is super
    annoying in many ways but it's also quite amazingly useful.


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



    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 26, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sobriquet

    flickr url -> flickr account

    sobriquet, Dec 14, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,342
    sobriquet
    Dec 17, 2009
  2. sobriquet

    CC photos (flickr) -- CC foto's (flickr)

    sobriquet, Dec 25, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    513
    sobriquet
    Dec 28, 2009
  3. dorayme

    Re: Why does the iPhone take such crappy photos?

    dorayme, Jul 6, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    231
    PeterN
    Jul 10, 2013
  4. J. Clarke

    Re: Why does the iPhone take such crappy photos?

    J. Clarke, Jul 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    142
    nospam
    Jul 9, 2013
  5. Tony Cooper

    Re: Why does the iPhone take such crappy photos?

    Tony Cooper, Jul 8, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    151
    Whisky-dave
    Jul 10, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page