Photo "clutter" becoming a problem?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 12, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming dumping
    grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly in this
    article. I can't believe someone would take hundreds of photos and
    dump them online without reviewing them and paring them down to the
    better ones.

    The article mentions that earlier photographer was an elitist hobby.
    It was. In the 1980's seeing someone with a full SLR kit was not that
    common except at large events. But it wasn't elitist solely because
    of cost, it was because of the effort needed to do it properly, you
    had to be dedicated to get good results.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16483509
     
    RichA, Jan 12, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    MC Guest

    RichA wrote:

    > Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming dumping
    > grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly in this
    > article.



    That is why serious photographers should avoid these sites where their
    own images are concerned. No decent photographer worth his salt should
    even consider using them.


    > I can't believe someone would take hundreds of photos and
    > dump them online without reviewing them and paring them down to the
    > better ones.



    But that is the point. They are just that, "dumping grounds". Unless
    the sites charge per MB or per image they will always be used as such.


    > The article mentions that earlier photographer was an elitist hobby.
    > It was. In the 1980's seeing someone with a full SLR kit was not that
    > common except at large events. But it wasn't elitist solely because
    > of cost, it was because of the effort needed to do it properly, you
    > had to be dedicated to get good results.



    There are, indeed, too many who think owning "expensive" kit makes you
    a good photographer. In the "old" days, people would buy the correct
    camera/lenses to do the job. If an event photographer need an SLR with
    multiple lenses then that is what he/she would buy. If someone needed
    a camera for holiday snaps they would by a little 126/110/aps camera.
    Today, the technology allows anyone to "think" they can take excellent
    photos and the type of cameras, normally only available and affordable
    to the pros, can now be had by anyone. With technology also grows
    ignorance. If someone does not need to learn the fundamentals, in the
    belief the camera does it all for you, then is it any wonder that there
    is so much crap out there. However, you will never be able to fully
    homogenise those who can and those who can't and the cream will alway
    float to the top.

    MC
     
    MC, Jan 12, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Pablo Guest

    RichA escribió:

    > Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming dumping
    > grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly in this
    > article. I can't believe someone would take hundreds of photos and
    > dump them online without reviewing them and paring them down to the
    > better ones.


    Works for me.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Jan 12, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
    news:...
    > RichA wrote:
    >> I can't believe someone would take hundreds of photos and
    >> dump them online without reviewing them and paring them down to the
    >> better ones.

    >
    > Believe it.


    Pretty common, even standard practice for most on those sites from what I
    see.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jan 12, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:45:02 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming dumping
    : grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly in this
    : article. I can't believe someone would take hundreds of photos and
    : dump them online without reviewing them and paring them down to the
    : better ones.
    :
    : The article mentions that earlier photographer was an elitist hobby.
    : It was. In the 1980's seeing someone with a full SLR kit was not that
    : common except at large events. But it wasn't elitist solely because
    : of cost, it was because of the effort needed to do it properly, you
    : had to be dedicated to get good results.

    Translation: There are sites worth looking at and sites not worth looking at.
    The latter don't identify themselves as such, at least not intentionally.

    We knew all that already. Right?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 13, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Frank S" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If you are a /real/ photographer, you have someone else do it for you.


    Real photographers don't post at all on any of those sites.
    Or do you mean "/real/ photographers" get someone else to take their
    photo's?


    > you are probably busy writing another book, or readying one already
    > written, for publication.


    Only if you believe "real photographers" all write books instead of taking
    photo's.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jan 13, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Pablo Guest

    Trevor escribió:

    >
    > "Frank S" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> If you are a /real/ photographer, you have someone else do it for you.

    >
    > Real photographers don't post at all on any of those sites.


    You're confusing photographers with "professional" photographers.

    I used to go fishing a lot. I was quite good at it. I was never a
    professional, but I was an angler.

    I am a photographer ie; I take photos regularly, albeit terrible ones.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Jan 13, 2012
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital MC <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:


    >> Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming dumping
    >> grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly in this
    >> article.


    > That is why serious photographers should avoid these sites where their
    > own images are concerned. No decent photographer worth his salt should
    > even consider using them.


    That's like saying no serious writer would ever consider blogging
    because most blogging is rubbish.

    There are several published profressional photographers who have
    successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online tutorials,
    workshops, etc., which they later turn into books. There are some who
    became well known published professionals by doing that. There are
    some still doing that.

    The British Copyright Library is by definition a dumping ground of
    everything published on paper. It's also an invaluable much used
    resource for serious writers.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 13, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    MC Guest

    Chris Malcolm wrote:

    > In rec.photo.digital MC <> wrote:
    > > RichA wrote:

    >
    > >> Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming

    > dumping >> grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly
    > in this >> article.
    >
    > > That is why serious photographers should avoid these sites where
    > > their own images are concerned. No decent photographer worth his
    > > salt should even consider using them.

    >
    > That's like saying no serious writer would ever consider blogging
    > because most blogging is rubbish.



    They are not using the blog to produce their next novel, though.


    > There are several published profressional photographers who have
    > successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online tutorials,
    > workshops, etc., which they later turn into books. There are some who
    > became well known published professionals by doing that. There are
    > some still doing that.



    Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work. This
    is the point I am making.


    > The British Copyright Library is by definition a dumping ground of
    > everything published on paper. It's also an invaluable much used
    > resource for serious writers.



    "Published" is the keyword. The British Copyright Library does not
    contain EVERYTHING on paper though, does it?

    MC
     
    MC, Jan 13, 2012
    #9
  10. "MC" <> writes:

    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online tutorials,
    >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books. There are some who
    >> became well known published professionals by doing that. There are
    >> some still doing that.

    >
    >
    > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work. This
    > is the point I am making.
    >


    That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list who
    use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer orders
    too.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 13, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    MC Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > "MC" <> writes:
    >
    > > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > >
    > >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    > >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online

    > tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
    > There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
    > doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
    > >
    > >
    > > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    > > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
    > > This is the point I am making.
    > >

    >
    > That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
    > who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
    > orders too.


    I did say "worth their salt". :eek:)

    MC
     
    MC, Jan 13, 2012
    #11
  12. "MC" <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >> "MC" <> writes:
    >>
    >> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    >> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online

    >> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
    >> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
    >> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    >> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
    >> > This is the point I am making.
    >> >

    >>
    >> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
    >> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
    >> orders too.

    >
    > I did say "worth their salt". :eek:)


    True.

    So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 13, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:05:28 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <>
    wrote:

    >"MC" <> writes:
    >
    >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >>
    >>> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    >>> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online tutorials,
    >>> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books. There are some who
    >>> became well known published professionals by doing that. There are
    >>> some still doing that.

    >>
    >>
    >> Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    >> using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work. This
    >> is the point I am making.
    >>

    >
    >That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list who
    >use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer orders
    >too.


    As a user of SmugMug, though not a professional, I object to SmugMug
    being grouped with Flickr as a showcase.

    Flickr is a photo host primarily used by people who want both exposure
    and (usually undeserved) excessive praise for their photos. For most
    users, it seems that the exchange of inane compliments is more
    important than anything else.

    It is possible to leave a comment on a photo linked to a SmugMug
    linked photo, but it's rather uncommon. Certainly, there's no
    pressure to compliment my photo so I will compliment your photo. I'm
    not sure, but I think only the SmugMug site owner sees the comments.

    I regularly follow the Digital Grin forums, so I regularly view
    SmugMug hosted photos. Digital Grin is hosted by SmugMug, so most of
    the links in DG are to SmugMug-hosted photos. However, a link to any
    photo host can be used in DG forums.

    This is not a knock on Flickr, by the way. For some people, it works
    just fine and they get out of it what they want with a photo host. I
    would be surprised, though, to find many professional photographers
    using Flickr unless they use Flickr just for their own family
    snapshots. Even professional photographers have families and
    relatives that they want to send the current snaps to.

    SmugMug has three levels of membership: Basic, Power, and Pro. A
    Basic membership (which I have) allows me to disable the ability of
    others to buy my photographs. I wouldn't be compensated if someone
    would purchase an image of mine if that feature wasn't disabled. If I
    had a Pro membership, I could set the prices and be compensated.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 13, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >"MC" <> writes:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>> "MC" <> writes:
    >>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    >>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
    >>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
    >>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
    >>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    >>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
    >>> > This is the point I am making.
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
    >>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
    >>> orders too.

    >>
    >> I did say "worth their salt". :eek:)

    >
    >True.
    >
    >So now we're back into the land of value judgments.



    Or back in the land of circular arguments.

    It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
    will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
    images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
    everything in between.

    Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
    variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
    site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
    ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
    snapshots appear on the screen.
     
    Bruce, Jan 13, 2012
    #14
  15. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>"MC" <> writes:
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>>> "MC" <> writes:
    >>>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >>>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    >>>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
    >>>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
    >>>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
    >>>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
    >>>> >
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    >>>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
    >>>> > This is the point I am making.
    >>>> >
    >>>>
    >>>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
    >>>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
    >>>> orders too.
    >>>
    >>> I did say "worth their salt". :eek:)

    >>
    >>True.
    >>
    >>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

    >
    >
    > Or back in the land of circular arguments.
    >
    > It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
    > will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
    > images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
    > everything in between.


    Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.

    In practice, they differ. :)

    Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
    any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
    free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
    that reason.

    > Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
    > variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
    > site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
    > ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
    > snapshots appear on the screen.


    I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
    find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such. Sure, there's junk too,
    and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
    events I was at or some such. I probably take sane search strategies
    for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 13, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> writes:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

    >>
    >> Or back in the land of circular arguments.
    >>
    >> It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
    >> will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
    >> images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
    >> everything in between.

    >
    >Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.
    >
    >In practice, they differ. :)
    >
    >Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
    >any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
    >free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
    >that reason.



    I can only guess at the proportions in the categories such as
    outstanding/excellent/good/mediocre/bad/appalling/SI, but experience
    shows that they are all (except the SI) represented to some extent or
    other. But I conceded that you may have a point about free accounts.


    >> Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
    >> variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
    >> site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
    >> ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
    >> snapshots appear on the screen.

    >
    >I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
    >find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such. Sure, there's junk too,
    >and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
    >events I was at or some such. I probably take sane search strategies
    >for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.



    I mostly ignore the junk, but even there you can find the occasional
    gem, perhaps something that someone snapped almost by accident, and it
    just happened to work. It's the converse to putting a lot of effort
    into lighting, composition and exposure only to find that the result
    is a disappointment.

    The important thing about using Flickr is not to complain about the
    junk. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jan 13, 2012
    #16
  17. In rec.photo.digital MC <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:


    >> In rec.photo.digital MC <> wrote:
    >> > RichA wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Are free, cheap photosites like Flickr and Facebook becoming

    >> dumping >> grounds for mediocrity en masse? They mention it briefly
    >> in this >> article.
    >>
    >> > That is why serious photographers should avoid these sites where
    >> > their own images are concerned. No decent photographer worth his
    >> > salt should even consider using them.

    >>
    >> That's like saying no serious writer would ever consider blogging
    >> because most blogging is rubbish.


    > They are not using the blog to produce their next novel, though.


    Blogging not really a suitable format in which to develop a novel. But
    it could for other kinds of serious writing, and is used for that
    purpose. It allows the development of drafts in something akin to a
    on-line tutorial or seminar series.

    >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online tutorials,
    >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books. There are some who
    >> became well known published professionals by doing that. There are
    >> some still doing that.


    > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photographic work. This
    > is the point I am making.


    Showcasing is only one of the possible uses of Flickr
    etc.. Photographic writers have used Flickr etc to develop
    photographic tutorial materials which are later published in book
    form. Photography students like me use Flickr to find people who are
    masters of a certain technique and willing to discuss how they do it.
    I find that works very well.

    >> The British Copyright Library is by definition a dumping ground of
    >> everything published on paper. It's also an invaluable much used
    >> resource for serious writers.


    > "Published" is the keyword. The British Copyright Library does not
    > contain EVERYTHING on paper though, does it?


    The point of web-based knowledge sources is that they do contain
    everything. Which means that from your point of view the web is chock
    full of complete nonsense and therefore no serious writer would ever
    use it to publish any of their work, partly because nobody would ever
    be able to find it. But what Google et al have pointed out is that the
    totally undiscriminating dumping ground of the web can be an extremely
    useful educational resource given good searching methods. Consequently
    the web, despite being the most comprehensive and undiscriminationg
    dumping ground ever devised, is also both a very useful library and a
    very useful publishing medium.

    The same goes for Flickr etc. Like the web, they are what you make of
    them.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 15, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, says...
    >
    > Bruce <> writes:
    >
    > > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > >>"MC" <> writes:
    > >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > >>>> "MC" <> writes:
    > >>>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > >>>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    > >>>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
    > >>>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
    > >>>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
    > >>>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.
    > >>>> >
    > >>>> >
    > >>>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    > >>>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
    > >>>> > This is the point I am making.
    > >>>> >
    > >>>>
    > >>>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
    > >>>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
    > >>>> orders too.
    > >>>
    > >>> I did say "worth their salt". :eek:)
    > >>
    > >>True.
    > >>
    > >>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

    > >
    > >
    > > Or back in the land of circular arguments.
    > >
    > > It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
    > > will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
    > > images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
    > > everything in between.

    >
    > Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.
    >
    > In practice, they differ. :)
    >
    > Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
    > any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
    > free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
    > that reason.


    Check again. Flickr's free accounts offer unlimited storage. What they
    limit is the number of images displayed and the amount of data that can
    be uploaded in a single month.

    > > Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
    > > variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
    > > site. The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
    > > ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
    > > snapshots appear on the screen.

    >
    > I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
    > find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such. Sure, there's junk too,
    > and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
    > events I was at or some such. I probably take sane search strategies
    > for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 18, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Jan 18, 1:30 pm, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > In article <>, says...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Bruce <> writes:

    >
    > > > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > > >>"MC" <> writes:
    > > >>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > > >>>> "MC" <> writes:
    > > >>>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > > >>>> >> There are several published profressional photographers who have
    > > >>>> >> successfully used such photosharing sites to develop online
    > > >>>> tutorials, >> workshops, etc., which they later turn into books.
    > > >>>> There are some who >> became well known published professionals by
    > > >>>> doing that. There are >> some still doing that.

    >
    > > >>>> > Again, any pro photographer worth their salt would not be seen dead
    > > >>>> > using flickr type sites to showcase their own photogaphic work.
    > > >>>> > This is the point I am making.

    >
    > > >>>> That's simply untrue; I know several professionals on a mailing list
    > > >>>> who use SmugMug for their professional web presence, and for customer
    > > >>>> orders too.

    >
    > > >>> I did say "worth their salt".  :eek:)

    >
    > > >>True.

    >
    > > >>So now we're back into the land of value judgments.

    >
    > > > Or back in the land of circular arguments.

    >
    > > > It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
    > > > will make use of it to store images.  Some people will store great
    > > > images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
    > > > everything in between.

    >
    > > Theory is great.  In theory, theory in practice are the same.

    >
    > > In practice, they differ.  :)

    >
    > > Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
    > > any wide dumping of big collections.  In fact, you may find that the
    > > free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
    > > that reason.

    >
    > Check again.  Flickr's free accounts offer unlimited storage.  What they
    > limit is the number of images displayed and the amount of data that can
    > be uploaded in a single month.


    Yes, you can display the last 200 images uploaded, and as you say
    there's a limit on
    the amount you can upload each month with a free account 100MB.
    I'm at 186 at the moment.


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > > Inevitably, someone browsing Flickr is likely to find a significant
    > > > variation in the artistic ability of those keeping their shots on that
    > > > site.  The answer is more intelligent browsing, or to develop the
    > > > ability to move on (and not complain) when someone's mediocre
    > > > snapshots appear on the screen.

    >
    > > I'm always surprised at the extremely high quality of photos I mostly
    > > find on Flickr, photo.net, SmugMug, and such.  Sure, there's junk too,
    > > and I sometimes find that if I'm looking for other people's photos from
    > > events I was at or some such.  I probably take sane search strategies
    > > for granted, and lots of people don't understand how to do them.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 18, 2012
    #19
  20. "J. Clarke" <> writes:

    > In article <>, says...
    >>
    >> Bruce <> writes:


    >> > It seems to me that, as long as Flickr offers free storage, people
    >> > will make use of it to store images. Some people will store great
    >> > images, some will store mediocre snapshots, and there will be
    >> > everything in between.

    >>
    >> Theory is great. In theory, theory in practice are the same.
    >>
    >> In practice, they differ. :)
    >>
    >> Flickr's free accounts offer so little storage they're not useful for
    >> any wide dumping of big collections. In fact, you may find that the
    >> free accounts have a HIGHER proportion of carefully-selected albums for
    >> that reason.

    >
    > Check again. Flickr's free accounts offer unlimited storage. What they
    > limit is the number of images displayed and the amount of data that can
    > be uploaded in a single month.


    If you can't get it back, it's not "stored" there in any sense that
    matters to me. And the limits are so harsh that I can't upload even my
    edited-down albums from events. The free account really can't
    effectively be used as a dumping ground due to the limits.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 18, 2012
    #20
    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. Ron P

    Cookie and clutter clean up

    Ron P, Apr 12, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    598
    Ron P
    Apr 13, 2006
  2. Zippo

    clutter on my hard drive...help!!..

    Zippo, Dec 8, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    549
    JohnF
    Dec 10, 2004
  3. OurCompGuy

    10 Tips on Computer Clutter Clean Up

    OurCompGuy, Jan 3, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    364
    Chet39
    Jan 4, 2007
  4. Herbie

    AD Controlling Creative Clutter" Sale Ends Tomorrow

    Herbie, Jan 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    386
    Herbie
    Jan 13, 2008
  5. Rich
    Replies:
    136
    Views:
    2,354
    Chris Malcolm
    Feb 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page