Photo hosting alternatives?

[hbelkins]

Flickr Pro is nearly $75 a year. Without Flickr Pro, I can't upload any more photos since I'm well past the 1,000-limit for a free account.

Are there any decent free alternatives to Flickr? It appears that my existing Flickr library will remain intact, but I have a ton of photos I've taken in the last year that I'd like to put online.

In the meantime, I've been posting to my Millennium Highway Facebook page. The albums are public so even you non-Facebookers can view them.

http://www.facebook.com/millenniumhhighway

[gonealookin]

The free ones all turn to crap eventually.  I don't care for some of the changes Imgur made, but then I'm only uploading a couple photos a month on average so I can live with it.

If you like Flickr, have "well past" 1000 photos already on there and have "a ton" more you want to add, I'd think the paid account at $5.54/month (paid in advance for two full years; must be a one-time payment of $133) might be worth it.

[74/171FAN]

Looks like you posted a bad link HB.  This one worked (https://www.facebook.com/MillenniumHighway/).

[bandit957]

Flickr Pro seems pretty cheap, but the greater point is that all of this stuff would be free if we'd just return to the Internet of 30 years ago. Everything used to be more peer-to-peer and wasn't done through structured, corporate-owned websites.

[formulanone]

There's no free lunches anymore in this space, unless you want to host your own.

500px.com is another I've heard of by pros, but have not yet used for myself. Been awhile since visiting it, honestly. Do you want and desire feedback? If not, then I'd just go with cheapest and ability to share elsewhere.

There's a free ("Explorer") plan, but it only allows 21 uploads per week. The "awesome" plan seems to be around $60-70/year, which is less expensive than Flickr and supposedly has no storage limit. There's a "Pro" plan designed for more professional photographers who want more uh...exposure.

[Scott5114]

If you're willing to release some of the rights to your images, Wikimedia Commons is a no-cost option. While the downside is that anyone can use your images for whatever they like, it does mean that (assuming they don't break any site policies) they will always be available; even if Wikimedia bites it one day, other organizations mirror it. Plus, the images will be available for use on wikis like the AARoads Wiki, and even the media (I've had a photo I took of the Grandview Triangle at one of the Kansas City meets be used to illustrate a local article on construction there).

Your mileage may vary on whether any of this sounds like a good idea or not, but since I'm personally never planning to turn a profit on any of my roadgeek photos, Commons is an excellent choice for me.