7 ms·

I hate this new layout. Artistic images need space, especially images that aren't meant to be place together. Otherwise their color would collide with each oth

I hate this new layout. Artistic images need space, especially images that aren't meant to be place together. Otherwise their color would collide with each other and ruin the visual experience for them. If flickr wants to become a social network that features family photos maybe that's the right layout, but I think most of the pro users weren't paying $25 a year for that purpose. Flickr is no longer a valid place to share pictures for photographers who care about their visual quality. That made me really sad today.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
Interesting. As a viewer, not an artist, I considered Flickr the biggest usability failure among the part of web that is actually used by people. I mean it. It was my worst photo-browsing experience ever (even lists of images on Wikimedia Commons are nicer). I never understood why people posted photos to this website or how it became popular. Could you, or anyone, share some thoughts of that? I am genuinely interested in how people who were more target-audience felt about Flickr.
- kailuowang 13y ago
  Have you seen pBase? That's what photographers used to have before flickr
Nagyman 13y ago
500px.com seems more geared towards professional photographers, if you're looking for such an option.
- ubercow13 13y ago
  I agree that the flickr redesign is horrible, but I don't think 500px is that much better. Photos are still too close together and have text and UI elements overlayed. It looks messy to me.
  - mattebb 13y ago
    500px also mechanically crops your images to square in the main listing, completely changing your compositions. This is a deal breaker for me.
namwen 13y ago
I have to agree with you. I only post my "Art" photography on flickr and all the people I follow do the same. Seeing this huge mashup of all the varying styles and works together is really terrible. It's just not a nice way of presenting photography.
- Terretta 13y ago
  Works well for travel: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/ But poorly for featured photos with no relationship to one another. This set is generated based on Fickr's "Interestingness" algorithm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/sets/72157594261074270/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/sets/72157594261074270... The relative prominence of these machine selected photos is clearly not associated with artistic quality or visual impact. I would think Flickr of all sites has enough data to do a visual impact based layout even on photos with zero views and no metadata. That would have really impressed me. Otherwise, these new masonry layouts are just trendiness mistakenly misallocating artistic emphasis.
  - nijk 13y ago
    Google+ photos have an automated "highlights" algorithm now, fwiw
fotoblur 13y ago
Too noisy I agree... fotoblur.com tries to do this by giving images lots of space.
usethis 13y ago
Completely agree, another example is the UI layered on top of a photo. UI and content should not be mixed, especially if that content is the key asset on the page and of the service.
oakaz 13y ago
Agree! I can't believe Yahoo doesn't have a professional creative team to work on this product. Flickr got screwed up by bunch of engineers who have no taste of aesthetics.

TeMPOraL 13y ago

Interesting. As a viewer, not an artist, I considered Flickr the biggest usability failure among the part of web that is actually used by people. I mean it. It was my worst photo-browsing experience ever (even lists of images on Wikimedia Commons are nicer). I never understood why people posted photos to this website or how it became popular. Could you, or anyone, share some thoughts of that? I am genuinely interested in how people who were more target-audience felt about Flickr.

kailuowang 13y ago
Have you seen pBase? That's what photographers used to have before flickr

Nagyman 13y ago

500px.com seems more geared towards professional photographers, if you're looking for such an option.

ubercow13 13y ago
I agree that the flickr redesign is horrible, but I don't think 500px is that much better. Photos are still too close together and have text and UI elements overlayed. It looks messy to me.
- mattebb 13y ago
  500px also mechanically crops your images to square in the main listing, completely changing your compositions. This is a deal breaker for me.

namwen 13y ago

I have to agree with you. I only post my "Art" photography on flickr and all the people I follow do the same. Seeing this huge mashup of all the varying styles and works together is really terrible. It's just not a nice way of presenting photography.

Terretta 13y ago
Works well for travel: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/ But poorly for featured photos with no relationship to one another. This set is generated based on Fickr's "Interestingness" algorithm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/sets/72157594261074270/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/sets/72157594261074270... The relative prominence of these machine selected photos is clearly not associated with artistic quality or visual impact. I would think Flickr of all sites has enough data to do a visual impact based layout even on photos with zero views and no metadata. That would have really impressed me. Otherwise, these new masonry layouts are just trendiness mistakenly misallocating artistic emphasis.
- nijk 13y ago
  Google+ photos have an automated "highlights" algorithm now, fwiw

fotoblur 13y ago

Too noisy I agree... fotoblur.com tries to do this by giving images lots of space.

usethis 13y ago

Completely agree, another example is the UI layered on top of a photo. UI and content should not be mixed, especially if that content is the key asset on the page and of the service.

oakaz 13y ago

Agree! I can't believe Yahoo doesn't have a professional creative team to work on this product. Flickr got screwed up by bunch of engineers who have no taste of aesthetics.