Flickr Online Photo Service Reviewed
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!"
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.
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.
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
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!
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.