Flickr is dead...
Discussion
...apparently. This is according to Thomas Hawk though....
http://thomashawk.com/2011/08/flickr-is-dead.html
I do still use Flickr, but only so that I use the photos for posts on this site. In my mind the Explore photos have gone downhill massively, the social side is broken and the experience is tired (compared to Google+ and 500px).
On the flip side, I often discover amazing photos and photographers on Flickr especially since stumbling on the PH flickr users.
Personally though I have been and will increasingly use Google + for my web photos. I am not as bothered by the social side, photos and albums look great on it and it's very easy to share them with different groups. I "follow" Thomas Hawk, Trey Ratcliff and a few others on Google+ and other than a bit of photo spam from those two (albeit mostly good photos) it is a good experience.
Are any other Flickr users moving on? Is anyone else on Google+?
http://thomashawk.com/2011/08/flickr-is-dead.html
I do still use Flickr, but only so that I use the photos for posts on this site. In my mind the Explore photos have gone downhill massively, the social side is broken and the experience is tired (compared to Google+ and 500px).
On the flip side, I often discover amazing photos and photographers on Flickr especially since stumbling on the PH flickr users.
Personally though I have been and will increasingly use Google + for my web photos. I am not as bothered by the social side, photos and albums look great on it and it's very easy to share them with different groups. I "follow" Thomas Hawk, Trey Ratcliff and a few others on Google+ and other than a bit of photo spam from those two (albeit mostly good photos) it is a good experience.
Are any other Flickr users moving on? Is anyone else on Google+?
I still use Flickr to upload my photos as I have a lot on there. The one annoying thing is the logging in bit, can never remember my password/username (because its not the same as the display name) and its all linked to yahoo and so you have to fart on for months going round in circles just to get back on. Theres a zillion groups for the same kind of photos, the social aspect is gash too.
Then theres the annoyance of what seems to be prolific use of Flickr as a w
k bank for gays. I mean seriously. I take a lot of photos to do with swimming and surf lifesaving, so I do have photos on there of team mates in swim costumes/speedos/fast skins/surf kit etc etc male and female. Every time I check my Flickr thousands of dubious looking account names have favourited all my photos featuring male swimmers and when you click through to see their profiles you get a 18+ warning and then its full of east european boys posing for cameras or people who like to look at feet underwater, or pictures of young boys underwater looking like theyve been deliberately kept under.
So yeah for me its all gone pretty degenerate. Looking for a new place to put my photos when my membership runs out.
Then theres the annoyance of what seems to be prolific use of Flickr as a w
k bank for gays. I mean seriously. I take a lot of photos to do with swimming and surf lifesaving, so I do have photos on there of team mates in swim costumes/speedos/fast skins/surf kit etc etc male and female. Every time I check my Flickr thousands of dubious looking account names have favourited all my photos featuring male swimmers and when you click through to see their profiles you get a 18+ warning and then its full of east european boys posing for cameras or people who like to look at feet underwater, or pictures of young boys underwater looking like theyve been deliberately kept under.So yeah for me its all gone pretty degenerate. Looking for a new place to put my photos when my membership runs out.
baz7175 said:
Today Flickr gets the bashing, tomorrow it's someone else....do you base your own decisions on those made by others?
The way I see it, you choose to use whatever YOU want to, it aint half as much fun when someone else dictates what you should use!
Fair point, I put photos on Flickr every now and then. Facebook is better for sharing photos of friends with friends and I have used Picassa for years which has recently been absorbed into Google+. It now offers unlimted photo uploads (if under 2048×2048) so it's nearly ideal, just wish I could add photos from Google+ to posts on here (there probably is a way, I just don't know it).The way I see it, you choose to use whatever YOU want to, it aint half as much fun when someone else dictates what you should use!
The writer comes across as style obsessed, "flickr is so last week" is basically what he's saying.
What he hasn't explained is what is actually wrong with flickr in terms of its functionality.
I've just been playing with g+ and there is plenty of functionality that is missing:
geo location
tags
collections
searchable exif
etc. Maybe you can do this stuff, but I can't find it.
This is because g+ is just to throw a few photos for others to see, it is not a proper repository that provides the functionality flickr has, because its aimed at a different sort of user.
Its function vs form and this guy prefers form, personally I prefer function over form.
What he hasn't explained is what is actually wrong with flickr in terms of its functionality.
I've just been playing with g+ and there is plenty of functionality that is missing:
geo location
tags
collections
searchable exif
etc. Maybe you can do this stuff, but I can't find it.
This is because g+ is just to throw a few photos for others to see, it is not a proper repository that provides the functionality flickr has, because its aimed at a different sort of user.
Its function vs form and this guy prefers form, personally I prefer function over form.
roogi said:
Fair point, I put photos on Flickr every now and then. Facebook is better for sharing photos of friends with friends and I have used Picassa for years which has recently been absorbed into Google+. It now offers unlimted photo uploads (if under 2048×2048) so it's nearly ideal, just wish I could add photos from Google+ to posts on here (there probably is a way, I just don't know it).
FlickR isn't really for sharing photos with friends as far as I'm concerned where as facebook is. Facebook is aimed at a totally different market and certainly doesn't allow for quality uploads.It's like comparing FlickR video uploads to Vimeo. There is no contest. The sites that are being discussed are aimed at totally different markets.
I think the biggest difference between the two is the type of person who uses them. Flickr isn't a random photosharing site, in the sense of "here are some drunken photos of a night out", the vast majority of content is significantly more professional / serious amateur. So I think there will always be a place for the two types of site, as serious photographers won't tolerate the acres of junk that will inevitably appear on Google+ albums.
However he makes a very good point about the utter lack of development of Flickr over the last few years. It is very much stuck in the dial-up / slow broadband era where loading masses of content wasn't viable. The Google+ album looks great but lacks some of the pro functionality (e.g. EXIF etc).
There's a very simple reason for Flickr going downhill - Yahoo. I was gutted when they bought Flickr because as a business they seem to have no creative aspiration whatsoever. Google is made up of lots of people who care about user experience, creative excellence and so forth. I don't believe that's the case with Yahoo. Google is so wealthy that it can throw money at things and do them in an excellent way with little concern for individual profitability. They are quite unique in that regard.
However he makes a very good point about the utter lack of development of Flickr over the last few years. It is very much stuck in the dial-up / slow broadband era where loading masses of content wasn't viable. The Google+ album looks great but lacks some of the pro functionality (e.g. EXIF etc).
There's a very simple reason for Flickr going downhill - Yahoo. I was gutted when they bought Flickr because as a business they seem to have no creative aspiration whatsoever. Google is made up of lots of people who care about user experience, creative excellence and so forth. I don't believe that's the case with Yahoo. Google is so wealthy that it can throw money at things and do them in an excellent way with little concern for individual profitability. They are quite unique in that regard.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff