Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Flickr Online Photo Service Reviewed

Posted by michael on from the through-a-glass-darkly dept.

kschoenwandt writes "I have been an early fan of Flickr and while I am by far not as much of a shutter bug as most users seem to be, I enjoy the features and use it regularly. Taking some time out reading, I noticed that I am not the only one impressed: The Globe and Mail published a piece on it as did The Christian Science Monitor. Cool!"

8 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. 2 places that like it by Nemesis099 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think 2 minor news sites can say that this is the best photo sharing site. I'm not saying that I won't check it out and see if it is worth it to me but unless something a little more well known talks about it I really do not think it is slashdot worthy.

    I happen to use ofoto which has worked very well for me although now I'm looking for a more advanced site. One that will allow me to sell my photos to make a profit for me and not just the website.

    1. Re:2 places that like it by billstr78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't knock it till you've tried it. It's on slashdot because it's innovative and uses some pretty cool tech in the background. Give it a shot and see if you don't go running from Ofoto.

    2. Re:2 places that like it by xetaprag · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You've got to wonder if this isn't a trend that has larger consequences.

      Photo storage has traditionally been a "OS" centric activity. Peronsal photos tend to be exactly that, personal. But if users are willing to store (and trust) personal information on (to) public internet sites, then why not display the same trust will all but your password files. If I can store my email on GMail, my photos on-line, and my documents online, what's left for the average user? If I am an average joe (and am not hiding a secret porn stash) then why not store the majority of my digital information on-line.

      At some point Microsoft or the Linux-folks are going to have to realize that OS systems design to manage data on just-local drives are woefully inadequate.

  2. Re:Christian Science Monitor? by adturner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh, obviously you've never actually read an issue of the CSM otherwise you'd never make such a remark. While it is published by a church (not one I particularly care for btw), it is one of the best researched independant publications in print since they actually have reporters in foreign countries rather then just relying on AP/Newswire/etc. Not quite up to Economist standards in my unhumble opinion, but worth at least looking into.

  3. Re:Web 2.0 anyone? by say · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its bad enough most people (outside /.) think HTTP is the Internet

    People who know what HTTP is, do generally also know what a protocol is, and do not think HTTP is the Internet. People think the Internet is a program with an icon depicting a blue E.

    --
    Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  4. Re:Too dependent on Flash by Quixote · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I just tried viewing some images, and nothing showed up! Upon some digging around, it looks like the actual images are SWF files.

    Why in the world would anyone send images as Flash?

    Being a Linux user, I can't use this site.

    If Google has taught us anything, it is that Occam's principle rules: simplest interface is the best.

    Ciao Flickr!

  5. Re:For the love of god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because it's not static content?

    E.g., http://www.flickr.com/photos/caterina/35187/

  6. Flickr is Geek-Friendly, Amateur-Friendly by beej · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I like: no storage limits and effective use of "tag" keywords to mark photos, as well as the general usage of the site (photostreams, comments, and so on.)

    The comments are encouraging for an amateur photographer like me who wants to take good pictures for people to enjoy, and not be eviscerated by a professional critic.

    Definitely room for improvement (sets of sets, printing integration), but they seem to be hard at work making this happen. And it looks like they're going to charge $60/year, which seems kind of pricey compared to the competition.

    What finally (after a couple days) pushed me over the edge to pay them and subscribe were the fact that they have seamless integration with Creative Commons licenses for your photos (cool-factor points), and an open open API for managing your photos through 3rd-party scripts. With it, I've written a python script that I use to batch-upload and annotate photos. I haven't tried their client with Wine, so I don't know if that option exists for Linux-only users.