Big changes coming with Flickr photos (https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/18051950/flickr-1000-photo-limit-free-accounts-changes-pro-subscription-smugmug): free accounts will be limited to 1000 photos, unless you pay $50 a year. I've got 12 years worth of stuff there. No way can I download and move it all.
Bastiches.
Uh oh, Eric Stuve...
Looks like there are 3 options: Free (1000 photos), Annual ($50) or Monthly ($6). I opted for the Annual option and got 30 percent off.
^ That's a doubling of the annual price. Had been $24.95.
Quote from: froggie on November 01, 2018, 01:02:22 PM
^ That's a doubling of the annual price. Had been $24.95.
Buying websites costs money </s>
Had a feeling this was coming, $50 isn't too bad for a full year considering how many photos I host on the site. Way better than the shit Photobucket was trying to pull.
I have between 200 and 300, but I know I'll eventually reach 1000. I might have to delete some of the not as good quality ones.
I have the ability to host photos on this forum, but I don't want to host thousands here (there are only a few hundred existing, by all users combined, right now).
Well, at least Fucker..Flickr has a free option. Photofuckit on the other hand...
With over 20k photos, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. I've been paying for pro now for a few years; guess I'll just fork over another $25...
Well, that's going to leave a mark...going to have to cull out about 14,000 photos from my collection. I hadn't paid for it since I paid for hosting for many years, but ended that after Flickr became so much more useful (and free), and I hadn't had much time for creating a website, anyhow.
Wikimedia Commons seems to have duplicated about 800 of them; I wonder if I can alert the bot to scoop up the rest.
Damn, what the hell, thank God I have back up files on my drive and SD Card. I guess it's time for me to upgrade to pro
LG-M327
Quote from: traffic light guy on November 01, 2018, 08:59:45 PM
Damn, what the hell, thank God I have back up files on my drive and SD Card. I guess it's time for me to upgrade to pro
And this is the point where I mention that it's a bad idea to solely rely on a hosting service for storage.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 01, 2018, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: traffic light guy on November 01, 2018, 08:59:45 PM
Damn, what the hell, thank God I have back up files on my drive and SD Card. I guess it's time for me to upgrade to pro
And this is the point where I mention that it's a bad idea to solely rely on a hosting service for storage.
I use my lap top and a hard drive, Flickr is the third backup.
Three places is good. I keep mine on two hard drives, one connected and one I keep in a safe, and the third is my Dropbox account. A bunch of my stuff is on Imgur, too, but I don't really count that as a backup.
I tried the new desktop uploader, but didn't like it. It wants to take all my photos and put them in a private album where I can decide which ones to share. I usually save my photos to CD and share the ones I want to share. I'm not sure I trust SmugMug/Flickr to keep my photos safe. And if I ever opt out of the Pro package, I'll have to download everything if I want to save them.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 01, 2018, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: traffic light guy on November 01, 2018, 08:59:45 PM
Damn, what the hell, thank God I have back up files on my drive and SD Card. I guess it's time for me to upgrade to pro
And this is the point where I mention that it's a bad idea to solely rely on a hosting service for storage.
Between the two portable hard drives, another home computer, and Google Photos...I'm okay. I'll weigh my options and might go back web hosting for just a little bit more per year.
But there's always those which probably never think twice about the scads of cell phone photos and videos they've taken over the years; whether they regret losing it is another matter. I always want to say...
"Who is still doing this?" after all the lessons learned, but not everyone thinks about backing up their important stuff, especially those who effectively have only a single device (typically, their phone).
Hell, I'm still annoyed by losing a mere 50-60 photos from a trip to Texas 7 years ago...don't try to move files while hurriedly getting into an airplane seat.
This is such bullshit. Greed gets in the way of the photography community again.
I think the thing that bothers me most about this is that I have received zero communication from Flickr about this change. No emails, no notifications on Flickr itself, nothing. It also bothers me that the grandfather clause on this is limited to "We'll give you a 30% discount on Flickr Pro for the first year! Buy anytime now through November 30!" They're planning on actively deleting photos to get existing users below the 1000-photo limit, and I assume users get no say in which photos are deleted.
I don't use Flickr to store photos; of the 2,579 photos I currently have on Flickr, the vast majority of them are also stored on my laptop. The primary reason I have my Flickr account is to be able to host photos to post them into this forum; I guess I'll have to search every one of my 1511 posts in here to figure out which photos I definitely want to save.
Quote from: US 89 on November 02, 2018, 09:41:35 AMI assume users get no say in which photos are deleted.
The 1000 most recent ones are kept.
Quote from: US 89 on November 02, 2018, 09:41:35 AM
This is such bullshit. Greed gets in the way of the photography community again.
I think the thing that bothers me most about this is that I have received zero communication from Flickr about this change. No emails, no notifications on Flickr itself, nothing. It also bothers me that the grandfather clause on this is limited to "We'll give you a 30% discount on Flickr Pro for the first year! Buy anytime now through November 30!" They're planning on actively deleting photos to get existing users below the 1000-photo limit, and I assume users get no say in which photos are deleted.
I agree with calling it bullshit. There's going to be dead links everywhere once this goes through, including here. Truly unfortunate.
While I agree it's unfortunate, I think the old mantra that you get what you pay for is still correct.
I've always paid for image hosting (and paid more per year that what Flickr charges for pro service). The perk of that is that I get my own FTP site and it's really easy to drag and drop photons into specific folders that I have created and can organize.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on November 02, 2018, 10:16:03 AM
While I agree it's unfortunate, I think the old mantra that you get what you pay for is still correct.
For sure. I have no problem with Flickr charging for their service. What I think is a dick move is deleting free users' images in excess of 1000. They're already hosting the images, so why can't they simply just leave the excess in place, and not allow those users to upload more images until they've dropped below the limit again?
I suppose that is a dick move, I can't argue with that.
I am kind of surprised though that people would feel comfortable enough uploading an image to a free web hosting service and then not keeping a local backup. It sounds like that is the case for a number of members here. I would never do that. I have (at least one) local backup of every image that I have taken, and would have never felt comfortable uploading a photo to a free web hosting service and felt confident that it would have been stored there in perpetuity.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on November 02, 2018, 10:30:47 AM
I am kind of surprised though that people would feel comfortable enough uploading an image to a free web hosting service and then not keeping a local backup. It sounds like that is the case for a number of members here. I would never do that. I have (at least one) local backup of every image that I have taken, and would have never felt comfortable uploading a photo to a free web hosting service and felt confident that it would have been stored there in perpetuity.
Especially after Photobucket. The deal with some of my Flickr photos is that while every single one of them has a local backup
somewhere, the location of that backup is not always convenient. I have some pictures from a 2010 trip to Seattle where the only local backup I have is an ancient laptop sitting in my parents' closet somewhere that seems unlikely to ever turn on again. I suppose I'll have to download those.
Stuff like this me glad that I keep all my pictures in my /home/vdeane/Pictures folder (which is regularly backed up to an external drive along with everything else in /home/vdeane), with the ones I want to share with the roadgeek community on my website's own photo gallery.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 01, 2018, 09:43:04 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 01, 2018, 09:37:51 PM
Quote from: traffic light guy on November 01, 2018, 08:59:45 PM
Damn, what the hell, thank God I have back up files on my drive and SD Card. I guess it's time for me to upgrade to pro
And this is the point where I mention that it's a bad idea to solely rely on a hosting service for storage.
I use my lap top and a hard drive, Flickr is the third backup.
I just use Flickr to share my photos with others. I user a laptop and an external drive for backup. Yeah, I'm gonna pay the extra for pro...
Quote from: formulanone on November 02, 2018, 09:38:01 AM
I'm still annoyed by losing a mere 50-60 photos from a trip to Texas 7 years ago...don't try to move files while hurriedly getting into an airplane seat.
My dad has always been into bicycles. Once, when I was growing up in the 90s, we saw two long-distance cyclists while driving on US-36 near where we lived in Atwood, KS. My dad offered to let them stay at our house that night. It turned out they were Dutch, and they were on an around-the-world cycling tour. They had even cycled across northern Africa, complete with government escorts across Libya and Algeria. My dad took a few pictures of them at our house and then later mailed them to Holland. After they got back home, they had all their film developed and found out that an airport X-ray machine had destroyed all their pictures (the guard at that airport had assured them that that particular machine
wouldn't destroy their film, so they trusted his word). That airport was on their return journey home, so it destroyed every picture they had taken. The pictures my dad mailed to them were literally the only pictures they had of their entire journey.
So, hey, at least it's not
that bad!
Quote from: formulanone on November 02, 2018, 09:38:01 AM
Hell, I'm still annoyed by losing a mere 50-60 photos from a trip to Texas 7 years ago...don't try to move files while hurriedly getting into an airplane seat.
Yah, I hear that, I have lost more than a few photos due to carelessness.
I once formatted a memory card that had a days worth of photos from San Antonio and Austin simply due to my own carelessness and getting the cards mixed up.
I also inadvertently ran over a memory card that had fallen out of my pocked that contained a whole bunch of beautiful night photos that I had taken from Hamilton a few years ago.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on November 02, 2018, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: formulanone on November 02, 2018, 09:38:01 AM
Hell, I'm still annoyed by losing a mere 50-60 photos from a trip to Texas 7 years ago...don't try to move files while hurriedly getting into an airplane seat.
Yah, I hear that, I have lost more than a few photos due to carelessness.
I once formatted a memory card that had a days worth of photos from San Antonio and Austin simply due to my own carelessness and getting the cards mixed up.
I also inadvertently ran over a memory card that had fallen out of my pocked that contained a whole bunch of beautiful night photos that I had taken from Hamilton a few years ago.
Had a hard drive crash back in 2014 which wiped out my photo hard copies. Fortunately at the time I wasn't really saving photos nor were they really up to the spec I would do today. I was able recover almost everything but there was substantial loss of shield pics. I ended up remastering all the older photos that were viable and started using triplicate back up...lesson learned.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 02, 2018, 02:33:31 PM
Had a hard drive crash back in 2014 which wiped out my photo hard copies.
Aren't photo hard copies made out of paper?
Quote from: kphoger on November 02, 2018, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 02, 2018, 02:33:31 PM
Had a hard drive crash back in 2014 which wiped out my photo hard copies.
Aren't photo hard copies made out of paper?
Indeed they are, meant to say hard drive copies I think.
Quote from: kphoger on November 02, 2018, 01:46:47 PM
Quote from: formulanone on November 02, 2018, 09:38:01 AM
I'm still annoyed by losing a mere 50-60 photos from a trip to Texas 7 years ago...don't try to move files while hurriedly getting into an airplane seat.
My dad has always been into bicycles. Once, when I was growing up in the 90s, we saw two long-distance cyclists while driving on US-36 near where we lived in Atwood, KS. My dad offered to let them stay at our house that night. It turned out they were Dutch, and they were on an around-the-world cycling tour. They had even cycled across northern Africa, complete with government escorts across Libya and Algeria. My dad took a few pictures of them at our house and then later mailed them to Holland. After they got back home, they had all their film developed and found out that an airport X-ray machine had destroyed all their pictures (the guard at that airport had assured them that that particular machine wouldn't destroy their film, so they trusted his word). That airport was on their return journey home, so it destroyed every picture they had taken. The pictures my dad mailed to them were literally the only pictures they had of their entire journey.
So, hey, at least it's not that bad!
I think any film with a rating over ISO 800 will be ruined by X-rays, but it probably depends on the scanner strength. I took rolls of Ektar ISO 1000 through scanners in Miami, and later Barcelona, and they were not damaged.
Just while I am thinking about it, there are some utilities out there that can recover saved files that have been inadvertently deleted from a memory card. In my experience utilities such as this do work fairly well so long as new information hasn't been overwritten over top of the data one is trying to recover.
Ugh. I started using Flickr and quit trying to do web pages and upload to my site because it was easier. I've been paying the $24.95 for the Pro account, but $50 is just a little too much.
Guess I'll port my Flickr albums over to Facebook. At least it's still free.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2018, 04:31:50 PM
Ugh. I started using Flickr and quit trying to do web pages and upload to my site because it was easier. I've been paying the $24.95 for the Pro account, but $50 is just a little too much.
Guess I'll port my Flickr albums over to Facebook. At least it's still free.
Is Facebook still compressing photo file sizes?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 02, 2018, 05:04:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2018, 04:31:50 PM
Ugh. I started using Flickr and quit trying to do web pages and upload to my site because it was easier. I've been paying the $24.95 for the Pro account, but $50 is just a little too much.
Guess I'll port my Flickr albums over to Facebook. At least it's still free.
Is Facebook still compressing photo file sizes?
Without a doubt. Facebook sucks for pictures.
Do Facebook photo URLs expire? I've often seen missing photos in forums that looked like Facebook URLs.
Flickr pro used to be a $ 50 / year subscription, until Yahoo thought personal data mining could cover the running cost and decided to drop nearly all limits on free accounts, so there was no real advantage for taking a paid "pro" subscription unless you were dependent on the statistics.
This move didn't really surprise me and I doubt if a similar "unlimited" storage plan would be much cheaper elsewhere outside of the Facebook / Instagram / Google ecosystems.
Quote from: Chris on November 02, 2018, 06:04:51 PM
Do Facebook photo URLs expire? I've often seen missing photos in forums that looked like Facebook URLs.
I know at least some of them do. I've seen posts here that linked to Facebook images, but they no longer displayed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 02, 2018, 05:04:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2018, 04:31:50 PM
Ugh. I started using Flickr and quit trying to do web pages and upload to my site because it was easier. I've been paying the $24.95 for the Pro account, but $50 is just a little too much.
Guess I'll port my Flickr albums over to Facebook. At least it's still free.
Is Facebook still compressing photo file sizes?
Free for Facebook to use as they please... (Automatically public per TOS)
^ Hence why I wouldn't consider Facebook a viable location.
There is also the question of how many photos a person needs to upload.
The average person only really has the time to scroll through a few photos every few days. That's true for even the best photographers.
If an up-loader was selective at what they uploaded, even the 1000 photo limit within the new Flickr really still is plenty.
Even if you upload and post only one picture a day, in less than three years you'll be out of room. That is, unless you're willing to kill links in your old posts (sucks to be anyone who finds an old thread pictureless!)
How many of us actually create a really remarkable image every day?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 03, 2018, 11:02:43 AM
Even if you upload and post only one picture a day, in less than three years you'll be out of room. That is, unless you're willing to kill links in your old posts (sucks to be anyone who finds an old thread pictureless!)
Really it depends on what you want to do with the photos. If you're skilled at taking photos and that's what you're looking to convey a high quality image then I can see how 1,000 would be plenty
In my case I use my photos on blog posts (which aren't high end) to convey what is along the roadway which usually results in a solid 100-350 depending on the roadway. I try to capture the typical things you'd expect in a road photos album in terms of signage but I also try to capture the context behind the road itself. To that end I end up usually talking about a lot of things on and around a road which I find photos easier way to illustrate; case and point would be CA 49. On it's own CA 49 is a scenic drive but you're missing a ton of context if all you focus on is the road itself. In my blog series I touched on the Gold Rush towns along the route, state parks, and former communities which added a lot of context why CA 49 was special. I want to say that I'm up to 912 photos for CA 49 alone and likely will be just over 1,000 once I'm able to take photos of the last segment between CA 70 and CA 89. That's all stuff I want backed up, to that end Flickr is one of my three methods of photos retention...plus it doesn't hurt I can link specific images over to message boards like this.
To that end that's why I never really never been interested in making a video series akin the Interstate Kyle. I feel they work well on freeways but outside of that I feel like you're missing way too much if you're on a two-lane highway or doing something referencing historic alignments. Granted it probably helps that I'm also into things like; hiking, ghost towns, railing fanning, and other things of the like.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on November 03, 2018, 11:09:28 AM
How many of us actually create a really remarkable image every day?
Sure, not daily, but every time I do go on a trip I end up taking 100+ pictures.
My point was that even if you post slowly, eventually you'll still run out of room, and it's shitty (IMO) to have to delete old images (and reduce the usefulness of old posts) to make room for new ones.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 03, 2018, 11:23:45 AM
Really it depends on what you want to do with the photos. If you're skilled at taking photos and that's what you're looking to convey a high quality image then I can see how 1,000 would be plenty
If you're skilled enough to be taking quality photographer shots, you're probably paying for hosting anyway.
I guess that's kind of my point. If you take hundreds of photos per day, how many photos do you expect the average person to actually look at? Even the most hardcore user isn't going to do much more than scroll through the gallery and look at maybe three or four of them with any amount of detail.
*edited to add*
Think about how you yourself look at other people's Flickr accounts. That's how everyone else looks at your Flickr account. I think when you consider Flickr in that perspective, to me 1000 photos seems like more leg room than you think it is.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on November 03, 2018, 11:29:06 AM
Think about how you yourself look at other people's Flickr accounts. That's how everyone else looks at your Flickr account. I think when you consider Flickr in that perspective, to me 1000 photos seems like more leg room than you think it is.
Personally, I don't really do that, though. I only look at the pictures that get posted here (or in other fora, if talking about non-road subjects).
For me, Flickr is my personal catalogue of road photos. I have uploaded over 43,000 photos to Flickr over the past 10 years. I post only a portion of those on internet forums, the rest is for reference and perhaps future usage.
I used to make massive road reports, coming home with 2,000 or 3,000 photos, but I switched to more roadside / project updates / scenery photos (that is, photos not taken while driving). They require more effort and time to make than a typical drive-and-shoot photo.
You have a nice collection of photos Chris.
I take both photos from behind the wheel as well as construction / roadside photos as well. Photos from behind the wheel are way easier, but almost inevitably I prefer the roadside style photos (particularly ones taken from high vantage points) to anything you can see behind the wheel.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on November 03, 2018, 03:30:10 PM
Photos from behind the wheel are way easier, but almost inevitably I prefer the roadside style photos (particularly ones taken from high vantage points) to anything you can see behind the wheel.
Agreed. I always stop when I can.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 03, 2018, 03:42:36 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on November 03, 2018, 03:30:10 PM
Photos from behind the wheel are way easier, but almost inevitably I prefer the roadside style photos (particularly ones taken from high vantage points) to anything you can see behind the wheel.
Agreed. I always stop when I can.
I'll concur with that as well, almost all my favorite road photos are usually the shoulder or some overlook.
Quote from: MNHighwayManThat is, unless you're willing to kill links in your old posts (sucks to be anyone who finds an old thread pictureless!)
In my experience, those links get killed even without changes to Flickr's upload/storage quotas. I've had a Flickr Pro account for years and I've still seen several old photos of mine go bad. The page links remain good, but the direct photo hotlinking changes.
I found a link to their explanation of changes when I logged into my account this morning. I knew greed was gonna come into play at some point. This really sucks.
One option (for now) is to use Google Photos, which allows for free backups at "high" quality for a large amount of photos, or plugs into Google Drive for original quality photos. It can also generate decent links to share.
The Google Photos backup tool, however, was recently downgraded and now requires pulling teeth to run in the right folders.
Might as well ask this now -- can anyone recommend a good Flickr download utility, either a browser plugin or a standalone app? Either Mac or PC would work.
Yes, I have all my Flickr albums saved, but I'm not sure they're all in the same place and it might be handy to pull all my pics down and have yet another backup that I can use to upload all my albums to Facebook.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 05, 2018, 02:08:41 PM
Might as well ask this now -- can anyone recommend a good Flickr download utility, either a browser plugin or a standalone app? Either Mac or PC would work.
Yes, I have all my Flickr albums saved, but I'm not sure they're all in the same place and it might be handy to pull all my pics down and have yet another backup that I can use to upload all my albums to Facebook.
If you're downloading FROM Flickr they have a downloader. Go to camera roll and choose which photos you want, They will download then to a Zip file.
Anything uploaded before November 1, 2018, with a Creative Commons license will be spared from deletion, apparently.
http://blog.flickr.net/2018/11/07/the-commons-the-past-is-100-part-of-our-future/
Quote from: Bruce on November 08, 2018, 02:09:51 AM
Anything uploaded before November 1, 2018, with a Creative Commons license will be spared from deletion, apparently.
http://blog.flickr.net/2018/11/07/the-commons-the-past-is-100-part-of-our-future/
I’m having a hard time figuring out whether that includes the CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike) license. If it does, that saves all of my currently uploaded photos.
Quote from: US 89 on November 08, 2018, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 08, 2018, 02:09:51 AM
Anything uploaded before November 1, 2018, with a Creative Commons license will be spared from deletion, apparently.
http://blog.flickr.net/2018/11/07/the-commons-the-past-is-100-part-of-our-future/
I'm having a hard time figuring out whether that includes the CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike) license. If it does, that saves all of my currently uploaded photos.
That covers about 99.5% of my photos, which are CC Attribution-ShareAlike.
Quote from: Flickr
Photos that were Creative Commons licensed before our announcement are also safe. We won't be deleting anything that was uploaded with a CC license before November 1, 2018. Even if you had more than 1,000 photos or videos with a CC license. However, if you do have more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded, you'll be unable to upload additional photos after January 8, 2019, unless you upgrade to a Pro account.
Bottom line: Flickr Commons photos will not be deleted. Anything uploaded with a CC license before November 1, 2018, won't be deleted, but users will need to upgrade to Pro to upload more than 1,000 photos or videos.
You can change the permissions on multiple photos though the Organizer feature, and choose the Permissions drop-down menu for Change Licensing. There's default settings for uploads, as well. But can't say for sure if changing them over will have any effect (they make it seem that settings/changes before November 1st are okay).
I'm going to guess this will count against your total, if you're not a Flickr Pro member. Unless I pay for a subscription, I'm going to be frozen at roughly 15,000 photos. They lost some Pro members who thought giving 1TB to everyone wasn't benefiting their paid subscription, but I knew the free buffet couldn't last forever.
I'm guessing they specified a date to prevent people from changing the licence now to avoid deletion on a free account.
Looks like I'll be going out and deleting my account when I get around to it. Now that I'm locked out of my Wordpress Account and am over the new limit on Flickr I'm back to just occasional writing on streets.mn.
I bought Pro, since I have over 6,000 photos hosted on Flickr and don't want all of the various ones I've posted to go dead, along with having to back-up everything elsewhere. TBH, $50/year ain't that bad, less than $5 a month when you do the math. Certainly better than some other hosting services out there.
Is Ian aware of this, he is the head of the Pennsylvania roadgeek community, and I don't want to see his content deleted