General Photography Chat

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

It's pricey, yes, but selling my 5D + all of the money I get from licensing shots more than pays for the upgrade. I'm fortunate to be able to make a good amount of money from my shots.

i was looking at your recent uploads on flickr and i think youd take amazing shots in ny!

[Aleks]

whats up with flickr? cant save location, cant save title, cant save tags, wtf?!!?!

[ue]

^there's a help forum ON flickr you might have more luck...

[vid]

That happens to me occasionally. Just wait a few hours and it returns to normal.

[Doady]

Am I the only one that doesn't like Flickr? The glaring white background, the small photo size, annoying interface, lack of customization, the Yahoo! logo, the copyright infringements... For the same price ($25), I think my Zenfolio site looks better and gives me far more options. I am actually thinking of removing my Flickr site altogether, but I like the social aspect of Flickr.

[ue]

^If you really hate the white, there is flickriver (although you can't do as much).

I don't know what kind of customization you're talking about, but I'm quite content with what I get on Flickr with the Organizr. Compared to the service of other major photo sharing websites like Imageshack, Photobucket, and PBase, Flickr has little to no downtime and has unlimited uploads and bandwidth for just 25 bucks. I find it a pretty good deal. Imageshack is extremely unreliable and has loooots of downtime and is way less "customizable, Photobucket has limited bandwidth and only like 1gb of storage for the "pro" account, and PBase is similar.

I don't quite get what you're talking about with the small images, as there is that whole "All Sizes" button.

And no, you're not the only one not using Flickr, I just think the Flickrites congregate here. Flickr seems to focus more on hardcore photography than other websites which can just be family pictures or random clicks here and there, and this is where most of the hardcore photographers hang out on SSP.

EDIT: I just checked Photobucket, and it looks like the previous limits have been lifted...looks like enough complained. But I still prefer Flickr regardless.

[Doady]

^ Look at what I was able to do with my homepage on Zenfolio: http://davidngo.zenfolio.com/

I get to set almost every parameter of my entire site including font, colours, borders, layouts, content, which you can't do with Flickr. It is a work in progress but you get the idea.

My problem with Flickr is that when you click on a photo, it is 500 pixels wide max and you have to click again to see the largest size. On sites like Zenfolio and Smugmug the default size of the photo is based automatically on the size of the window of people's browser. Flickr is designed for 800x600 windows only. Even an antiquated site like Pbase accomodates larger sizes. It is a shame because there are great photos on Flickr and the white background and interface kind of ruins things, imo.

I guess people just like the unlimited space (and the social networking). Zenfolio is 2gb + an additional 1gb per year for $25, and unlimited space would cost $50. Pbase was about 300mb for $25 when I last used it. I never bothered with sites like Imageshack and Photobucket, they are full of ads and they don't seem to be catering to photographers that sites like Pbase and Flickr do.

[ue]

^The cost for unlimited usage is the biggest factor I think, then the congregation of serious photographers and the fact that more people are on it are secondary.

Seriously, though, I don't need to make my own photography website, which seems to be a great aspect of Zenfolio, and I'm sure most would agree with me. They want to be able to organize their photos, want uptime, want cheapness, want quality, decent interface, and enoughg people to see their photos. Checks to all that for Flickr, most do not want to get into the complicated process of designing a website (as nice as it would be).

Most websites have a white interface (but like I said there is flickriver), mind as well get used to it. Even this site's background is white (and the blue colors are not that dark). Youtube, Wikipedia, etc. are among other major websites with a white background. I find black backgrounds weird, because I am so used to the lighter colors.

This is my second time looking at your website, and it is probably just because I am used to other websites, but I don't like the interface of Zenfolio as much. Also, the base size is just the same size or even smaller than Flickr's, and you still have to click for large size, but at least you can also view original or medium or small or square if you allow it in your Flickr (or maybe I just haven't found that on Zenfolio, or you're blocking it for everyone but you).

[Doady]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

^The cost for unlimited usage is the biggest factor I think, then the congregation of serious photographers and the fact that more people are on it are secondary.

Seriously, though, I don't need to make my own photography website, which seems to be a great aspect of Zenfolio, and I'm sure most would agree with me. They want to be able to organize their photos, want uptime, want cheapness, want quality, decent interface, and enoughg people to see their photos. Checks to all that for Flickr, most do not want to get into the complicated process of designing a website (as nice as it would be).

Most websites have a white interface (but like I said there is flickriver), mind as well get used to it. Even this site's background is white (and the blue colors are not that dark). Youtube, Wikipedia, etc. are among other major websites with a white background. I find black backgrounds weird, because I am so used to the lighter colors.

The issue is not about not being to able to have a personal photography website on Flickr, because a Flickr photostream + sets + profile + etc is a personal photography website as well, isn't it? It just lacks some of the features that I like, that all. The thing with other sites is at least you have the option of customization, but you don't have to change anything if you don't want to.

I don't have a problem with all white backgrounds, only white backgrounds for photo sites. I just find it difficult to look at photos on a white computer screen, it is hard to explain. But who am I complain? Flickr is by far the most popular photography sharing website, so what do I know.

This is my second time looking at your website, and it is probably just because I am used to other websites, but I don't like the interface of Zenfolio as much. Also, the base size is just the same size or even smaller than Flickr's, and you still have to click for large size, but at least you can also view original or medium or small or square if you allow it in your Flickr (or maybe I just haven't found that on Zenfolio, or you're blocking it for everyone but you).

The default photo size on photo pages on Zenfolio is scaled to browser window size, so it usually should be bigger than the default for Flickr, but sometimes it isn't. If you want an even bigger size than the browser, Zenfolio doesn't provide a way to access them conveniently, unfortunately. Flickr is better in this way.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

^The cost for unlimited usage is the biggest factor I think, then the congregation of serious photographers and the fact that more people are on it are secondary.

Seriously, though, I don't need to make my own photography website, which seems to be a great aspect of Zenfolio, and I'm sure most would agree with me. They want to be able to organize their photos, want uptime, want cheapness, want quality, decent interface, and enoughg people to see their photos. Checks to all that for Flickr, most do not want to get into the complicated process of designing a website (as nice as it would be).

Most websites have a white interface (but like I said there is flickriver), mind as well get used to it. Even this site's background is white (and the blue colors are not that dark). Youtube, Wikipedia, etc. are among other major websites with a white background. I find black backgrounds weird, because I am so used to the lighter colors.

This is my second time looking at your website, and it is probably just because I am used to other websites, but I don't like the interface of Zenfolio as much. Also, the base size is just the same size or even smaller than Flickr's, and you still have to click for large size, but at least you can also view original or medium or small or square if you allow it in your Flickr (or maybe I just haven't found that on Zenfolio, or you're blocking it for everyone but you).

If most would agree with you, you'll have to put me on the side of the minority. The only thing flickr has over any other photo sharing site, is its social networking which creates a strong sense of community.

That community and the ability to join groups is why I left Picasa for Flickr. I took a quick peek at Zenfolio and really liked what I saw. The Gallery view isn't any bigger, but if you enlarge one photo you can view the next/previous photos at same size.

I can see myself utilizing both sites some day.

[ue]

^I am guessing most would because they don't have the time or the talent or the need to customize every inch of their website, just like with some other site accounts.

Also, I've been nearing 2000 uploads now, unless something that blows my mind comes up, and still has a good deal for unlimited usage, I am not reuploading all that! That's insane. If you have 100 or 200 pictures, fine.

There's also the aspect of the "social" side, where people will be more likely to actually see your pics, there's the groups, flickrmail, etc. etc. That I think we all agree on.

[vid]

I can see people using a service like Zenfolio to showcase their better work, if they're trying to make money off of their photos. (It includes the option to buy them on that page.) It's more of a business front than Flickr, which is a more community based photography forum. I do think Flickr should have background colour options and other options to customize pages to make them more personal, and it is probably on their to-do list, but providing a stable service seems to be a higher priority for them.

If I had a better camera and higher quality photos I would definitely get a Zenfolio account and try to sell them. (I usually just let people use them on a creative commons licence.) As it is, Flickr suits my needs just fine.

[Aleks]

FUCKING FUCK FUCKING FLICKR!

its acting stupid. ive tried ie, firefox, flock, chrome, safari! wtf!

[Fusey]

Why issue are you having? It's working fine for me (I'm using Chrome).

[Aleks]

i cant delete comments, add comments, remove notifications in the 'recent activities' bar, edit names, edit description, add tags, add to groups, add to my location.

so basically everything except uploading pictures. anyways, i have to buy a pro account soon cause my 200 free pictures are up

[vid]

Have you tried contacting Flickr staff about it?

[ue]

Well...did you ever think, I dunno, maybe it's your computer in some way? Because I've never ever had that problem...ever. And I've never heard of anyone else having that problem. I actually find it odd, because Flickr seems to work efficiently and with no downtime (except sometimes it's slow).

And you have an unlimited amount of "free" pictures, it's just you can't do anything with them and they are not visible on your photostream. But in your photothreads, and also in searches, they will still appear.

[Aleks]

contacting flickr was gonna be my next option, and it seems like i will.

yeahhh, i dont really know. i already knew about the pictures, but theres no point in uploading them if no one can see them. plus its a great excuse to get that pro account ive been crying about for months. i just dont get it, flickr is only weird at night but in the daytime its fine. i used to think it was my internet, but every other page loads just fine, then my browser, but flickr acted weird too. who knows.

anyways, im moving a little fast with this, but i'm gonna save money for the 70-300vr. I wanna get it before may so i can take it to NY with me. ahhh well, im just one of those 'want' people i guess :babyeat:

[hammersklavier]

Flickr's 200-photo limit is kinda ridiculous. My Picasa has something like 350 pictures on it right now and I'm only using about 20% of my storage space.

Anys, I only use flickr for looking at n00dz...or uploading them (if I could get any girls to model for me).

[ue]

Yes, but Flickr is 100% unlimited if you pay for pro. Picasa isn't last time I checked. In fact, doesn't Picasa only allow you a certain number of images (like 1000 or 1gb or something?) and that's it?