Flickr

[RobDickinson]

Smugmug bought Flickr a while ago, now we see part of the plan going forward.

Pro increases to $50 a year.

Free accounts limited to 1000 photos and they are going to delete any extra.

There's very little added to make pro more attractive just a huge fk you to their existing free community.

I won't have my photos held hostage to pay them every year so I'll be deleting them all shifting elsewhere.

Sadly this will break every photo link I've used in forums etc.

[DibblyDobbler]

What are you looking at as an alternative Rob?

[RobDickinson]

DibblyDobbler said:

What are you looking at as an alternative Rob?

No idea. Might self host. I have my own server already just need to find decent gallery software

[Lemming Train]

RobDickinson said:

Smugmug bought Flickr a while ago, now we see part of the plan going forward.

Pro increases to $50 a year.

Free accounts limited to 1000 photos and they are going to delete any extra.

There's very little added to make pro more attractive just a huge fk you to their existing free community.

I won't have my photos held hostage to pay them every year so I'll be deleting them all shifting elsewhere.

Sadly this will break every photo link I've used in forums etc.

Good luck finding somewhere to host 1000+ hi-res photos for $50 per year that also allow hotlink embedding in forums etc. $50 per year for that is a bargain. Maybe Instagram would be better for you with their tiny 1024 px pics that they compress to look like they were taken with a Nokia phone from 1995. Free too.

[RobDickinson]

Doesn't Smugmug offer that for less right now?

[MGJ2]

Lemming Train said:

Good luck finding somewhere to host 1000+ hi-res photos for $50 per year that also allow hotlink embedding in forums etc. $50 per year for that is a bargain. Maybe Instagram would be better for you with their tiny 1024 px pics that they compress to look like they were taken with a Nokia phone from 1995. Free too.

For me it is not about the annual fee but about how they attract you with the free uploading and then suddenly start charging you. So for me it will be bye-bye flickr.

[Hub]

Annoying, but didn't it used to be like that? Yahoo narrowed the gap between pro and free to the extent that I stopped paying for pro! I could cope with the odd ad and not getting the full stats.

Edited by Hub on Thursday 1st November 19:03

[RobDickinson]

Yep the ball breaker is that rather than just stop you from uploading more they will actively delete your photos.

As for similar services, Google photos, 500px etc all would provide similar service for free.

[Lemming Train]

MGJ2 said:

Lemming Train said:

Good luck finding somewhere to host 1000+ hi-res photos for $50 per year that also allow hotlink embedding in forums etc. $50 per year for that is a bargain. Maybe Instagram would be better for you with their tiny 1024 px pics that they compress to look like they were taken with a Nokia phone from 1995. Free too.

For me it is not about the annual fee but about how they attract you with the free uploading and then suddenly start charging you. So for me it will be bye-bye flickr.

Maybe you have a short memory? Flickr was paid subscription for their Pro package many moons ago before they binned it and it became free for all. Clearly the free model didn't work which is not hard to understand when you consider the bandwidth costs alone from people hotlink embedding umpteen 5 MB photos in high-traffic forums, then there are the storage costs on top of that. It was not sustainable and never will be, same as we've seen with Photobucket.

As for self-hosting, sure, go for it. Do let us know how that works out for you with cost wise with your 1000 photos embedded in various forums threads .

[RobDickinson]

I already pay for a webserver for many other reasons, have had for years, I have stupid amounts of storage and bandwidth so that won't be a problem.

Online storage is very very cheap if you need more too.

[Lemming Train]

RobDickinson said:

Yep the ball breaker is that rather than just stop you from uploading more they will actively delete your photos.

As for similar services, Google photos, 500px etc all would provide similar service for free.

You won't be embedding your photos in forum threads with Google photos and 500px is $48 per year.

[Allanv]

I have a Vmware host so will self host my photos, even though they are private it will make sense with 12TB of storage

DNS is also sorted/

[RobDickinson]

Lemming Train said:

You won't be embedding your photos in forum threads with Google photos and 500px is $48 per year.

500px 20 free uploads a week would be fine for me.

[RobDickinson]

https://chevereto.com/free looks great

looks like it has an Api i can use to upload, and use the flickr api to download so that should b quick.

[Lemming Train]

RobDickinson said:

Lemming Train said:

You won't be embedding your photos in forum threads with Google photos and 500px is $48 per year.

500px 20 free uploads a week would be fine for me.

Limit is 7 per week, not 20. But whatever, you have your self-hosting solution sorted so this discussion is moot.

[noell35]

£4 a month? Not a lot really is it? Maybe check down the back of the sofa

[RobDickinson]

noell35 said:

£4 a month? Not a lot really is it? Maybe check down the back of the sofa

Sure its not much but what does it offer me?

The only thing pro offers me I was ever interested in was the advanced stats and I refused to pay for that when it was $24.99 because its not worth it.

[RobDickinson]

I'm assuming chevereto is multi user if so I'll add account creation link on here for PH uses

[noell35]

RobDickinson said:

noell35 said:

£4 a month? Not a lot really is it? Maybe check down the back of the sofa

Sure its not much but what does it offer me?

The only thing pro offers me I was ever interested in was the advanced stats and I refused to pay for that when it was $24.99 because its not worth it.

I don't know tbh. I did pay the $24, in fact I thought I still was but I can't think for the life of me why I did it given that I'm certainly not a pro! Must have had some reason at the time

[silobass]

It's a bit of a shame to have to pay for something that was previously free but I don't think we should expect these things for free - they do cost money for someone to host.

I'm always hearing from photographers about not working for free, not doing shoots and giving away photos. I don't see this as any different, just a different model.

Surely as a pro, $50 per year is nothing, especially as you can offset it against your business making it even cheaper.