5 ms·

One thing Flickr has going for it is photos aren't so closely tied to a user's identity. I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm n

by ANH 15y ago

One thing Flickr has going for it is photos aren't so closely tied to a user's identity. I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me. The article has it right, though, about Flickr's lack of updates. The most recent major change I've noticed was a year or two ago and, IMHO, it made the site worse.

Tomek_ 15y ago
Recent major change was the photo page redesign done this year no? (or was it last year?), and that redesign is good. About the 1st point: totally agree. I use flickr to look for a good pictures and from time to time to post some of mine that are reasonably OK - for me it's not, and never has been, a site to post photos from last night's bash or socialize with people, that's what Facebook is for (and maybe G+ will be someday in the future (but it won't come easy for them)). I also don't need the site to change every 6 months - if it works OK (and flickr works OK for me) then changing it is not really necessary (or at least, not that important).
bane 15y ago
"I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me." Absolutely agree. I'm a hobbyist travel photographer, so I end up with essentially two kinds of photos: photos of a place, where I try and form a nice composition, post process (crop, colors, balance, etc.) and then carefully catalog on flickr (for the former, I might take 20,000 photos during a week, and end up with a couple dozen really choice ones I want to keep in this way), and cheesy photos of me and my family at these places, mostly goofing off with statues or whatever. The semantics of the two kinds of photos couldn't be different. So I use FB and G+ for the latter, and flickr most definitely for my carefully curated former.
- brlewis 15y ago
  Google+ makes it easy to share some items with some circles, and other items with other circles.
  - bane 15y ago
    Yeah, but there's something different about doing it that way. I don't get to just put my stuff out there the same way for people to stumble on. I get between 20 to 100 views a day on my flickr page and I have absolutely no idea who it is. On occasion I'll get messaged by a travel guide or a competition or something that wants to use one of my photos or have me compete. I'm not sure I can replicate that in g+.
- brk 15y ago
  How can you possibly take 20,000 photos in a week? The math just doesn't work out, if you spent only 10 seconds composing a shot (and I'd argue it takes longer than that if you are a "photographer" and not a drive-by "snapshotter") that amounts to 8 hours per day of JUST picture taking, leaving no time to even move from location to location. Also, the average DSLR has a shutter life expectancy of around 100000-150000 cycles. I doubt you're replacing your camera body every 5 trips.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    "Oh, that's pretty, that would make a good picture..." click click click click click click When taking a picture has almost no cost, people take many pictures of the same thing and sort out the best of the bunch later.
  - fourspace 15y ago
    You're assuming he's only taking one exposure per scene. It's easy to take that many photos in only a few days, let alone a week. Hell, I can take 300 shots of my infant son playing around in about 15 minutes.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - modoc 15y ago
    It's really not that crazy. I know lots of photographers who went to Africa for a week and took 10k+ photos. I can take 500+ in about 30 minutes with an animated model if I'm doing more of "do your thing and I'll try to catch some good shots" versus "a carefully planned out set of poses".
  - bane 15y ago
    It's not that hard. You're assuming I'm only take one shot of a scene. It's really not that hard to take 3 or 4 a second in some cases. If I'm shooting a panorama, I might take 12 or 13 shots in ~10 seconds. I usually shoot more like 10,000-15,000 in a week, but I've gone closer to 20,000 in a couple cases. It's only 1500 photos a day for a 10,000 shot week. Which averages just a bit over 1 a minute for an 8 hour day (but who says I only spend 8 hours out and about?) but in truth, the shot times are more clumpy. For example, I shot about 30 photos in 2 minutes of Vasari's fresco inside the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore (the Duomo). I'll probably combine all those into one or two larger photos stitched up. Differently, walking up to the same Basilica along a street in Florence offered several very different compositions of the same street. In 5 minutes I was able to shoot 20 pretty decent shots, and probably 1 or 2 really good ones. That's 50 shots of the same building in a total of 7 minutes. Riding on local public transport often gives you views of lots of neat things, and only one or two seconds to shoot them. I'm not even counting the family photos I also took in the meantime. And yes, I'll actually probably start looking for a replacement camera body sometime next year. I shoot with a D60, so it's only about $400-450...trivial compared to the cost of 5 or 6 2- week trips overseas. My wife used to think I was crazy, but now years later, going over these old photo archives, we can remember in fantastic detail many of the great places we've traveled together.
pkulak 15y ago
Really? The whole reason I like Google+ is that I can share family photos with family and make other stuff public. I could never do that on Flickr.

by ANH 15y ago

Tomek_ 15y ago

Recent major change was the photo page redesign done this year no? (or was it last year?), and that redesign is good. About the 1st point: totally agree. I use flickr to look for a good pictures and from time to time to post some of mine that are reasonably OK - for me it's not, and never has been, a site to post photos from last night's bash or socialize with people, that's what Facebook is for (and maybe G+ will be someday in the future (but it won't come easy for them)). I also don't need the site to change every 6 months - if it works OK (and flickr works OK for me) then changing it is not really necessary (or at least, not that important).

bane 15y ago

"I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me." Absolutely agree. I'm a hobbyist travel photographer, so I end up with essentially two kinds of photos: photos of a place, where I try and form a nice composition, post process (crop, colors, balance, etc.) and then carefully catalog on flickr (for the former, I might take 20,000 photos during a week, and end up with a couple dozen really choice ones I want to keep in this way), and cheesy photos of me and my family at these places, mostly goofing off with statues or whatever. The semantics of the two kinds of photos couldn't be different. So I use FB and G+ for the latter, and flickr most definitely for my carefully curated former.

brlewis 15y ago
Google+ makes it easy to share some items with some circles, and other items with other circles.
- bane 15y ago
  Yeah, but there's something different about doing it that way. I don't get to just put my stuff out there the same way for people to stumble on. I get between 20 to 100 views a day on my flickr page and I have absolutely no idea who it is. On occasion I'll get messaged by a travel guide or a competition or something that wants to use one of my photos or have me compete. I'm not sure I can replicate that in g+.
brk 15y ago
How can you possibly take 20,000 photos in a week? The math just doesn't work out, if you spent only 10 seconds composing a shot (and I'd argue it takes longer than that if you are a "photographer" and not a drive-by "snapshotter") that amounts to 8 hours per day of JUST picture taking, leaving no time to even move from location to location. Also, the average DSLR has a shutter life expectancy of around 100000-150000 cycles. I doubt you're replacing your camera body every 5 trips.
- scott_s 15y ago
  "Oh, that's pretty, that would make a good picture..." click click click click click click When taking a picture has almost no cost, people take many pictures of the same thing and sort out the best of the bunch later.
- fourspace 15y ago
  You're assuming he's only taking one exposure per scene. It's easy to take that many photos in only a few days, let alone a week. Hell, I can take 300 shots of my infant son playing around in about 15 minutes.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- modoc 15y ago
  It's really not that crazy. I know lots of photographers who went to Africa for a week and took 10k+ photos. I can take 500+ in about 30 minutes with an animated model if I'm doing more of "do your thing and I'll try to catch some good shots" versus "a carefully planned out set of poses".
- bane 15y ago
  It's not that hard. You're assuming I'm only take one shot of a scene. It's really not that hard to take 3 or 4 a second in some cases. If I'm shooting a panorama, I might take 12 or 13 shots in ~10 seconds. I usually shoot more like 10,000-15,000 in a week, but I've gone closer to 20,000 in a couple cases. It's only 1500 photos a day for a 10,000 shot week. Which averages just a bit over 1 a minute for an 8 hour day (but who says I only spend 8 hours out and about?) but in truth, the shot times are more clumpy. For example, I shot about 30 photos in 2 minutes of Vasari's fresco inside the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore (the Duomo). I'll probably combine all those into one or two larger photos stitched up. Differently, walking up to the same Basilica along a street in Florence offered several very different compositions of the same street. In 5 minutes I was able to shoot 20 pretty decent shots, and probably 1 or 2 really good ones. That's 50 shots of the same building in a total of 7 minutes. Riding on local public transport often gives you views of lots of neat things, and only one or two seconds to shoot them. I'm not even counting the family photos I also took in the meantime. And yes, I'll actually probably start looking for a replacement camera body sometime next year. I shoot with a D60, so it's only about $400-450...trivial compared to the cost of 5 or 6 2- week trips overseas. My wife used to think I was crazy, but now years later, going over these old photo archives, we can remember in fantastic detail many of the great places we've traveled together.

pkulak 15y ago

Really? The whole reason I like Google+ is that I can share family photos with family and make other stuff public. I could never do that on Flickr.