File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
is flickr any good if you want to store your picks online (except the size-limitation) and perhaps show them around a bit or is it full of weaboos

pic unrelated
>> Anonymous
this is actually not a troll ^^
>> Anonymous
flicker is riddled with morons and horrible groups and clubs, but if you just want to store your images it is as good as any other place. Make sure you try and avoid the poisonous touch of the retarded there and you should be okay. There are a handful of decent people for every thousand drooling monkey with a camera.

Certainly you can give URLs to people you know in real life so they can view your images at leisure.
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>290089

This man speaks the truth

Allows you to store high res images, and unlimited uploads (for a stupidly small "pro" fee), win win
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
90% of the people on Flickr are morons.

90% of the people anywhere are morons, though (4chan excluded, obviously), and Flickr has a much better interface than the competition. And you don't have to actually interact with the morons if you don't want to.
>> Anonymous
>weaboos

Not weaboos, just people who will indiscriminately applaud anything baroque or in some state of undress.

There's nothing really wrong with Flickr as a storage place, though the community aspect of it sucks.

Or, you could just do the sensible thing and host it yourself. I have no clue why places like Flickr or YouTube are so damn popular when throwing files onto some free webserver and taking fifteen minutes to make a basic page to present them is possible. I guess people just want indiscriminate applause.
>> Anonymous
>>290100
the problem with hosting your own files / using a host like Dreamhost, is in uploading new shots. Its relatively difficult to scale unless you have some background in web programming.

smugmug is superior to flickr IMO, but its more expensive to get the benefit of payment processing and other "pro" benefits.
>> Anonymous
>>290100
>>youtube
hosting your own videos is a bit more of a pain
>> Anonymous
>>290121
But how many photographs do you have worth showing, really?

If you're trying to share pictures with a small group of people you know, really nothing works better than saving them at an appropriate size, attaching them to an e-mail, and sending it out.

If you're trying to show your work as work, chances are you have 100 pictures absolute maximum really worth showing. Probably closer to twenty.

If you're trying to license/otherwise sell a large number of images, by all means skip all the programming involved and go somewhere like Photoshelter. But archiving can be done by anyone who can backup to some other drives, and simple display can be done by anyone who can work Photoshop (or something else to resize) and a word processing application, if they've got even some old copy of Frontpage Express.
>> Anonymous
>>290122
No harder than finding a free server with enough bandwith or hosting it yourself, putting the files up, and making a page to link to them.

Centralized display sites make no sense from any point of view; the Internet was much better when everyone published themselves on it at one site instead of having accounts on twenty different Web 2.0 shitpiles of assorted varieties.
>> Anonymous
>>290125
Oh, and most video sucks anyway. Video is a horrible medium for conveying information or ideas, unless you're doing it like a storytelling documentary.

If you make it take no effort at all to put anything out (as opposed to their being no actual restrictions on who can put what out, which is a good thing) the signal gets completely drowned in noise. Plus, anyway, these easy publishing formats are damn inferior.

How many pictures does the average Flickr user have on their photostream? How many are actually worth looking at, even amongst the people who don't just pile on eighty layers of HDR on 800 pictures of them in their underwear cuddling with their cat?
>> Anonymous
the thing is, when looking through the preview pages (not registered) there are indeed some really good photos, like really good...but then i go all "OH LAWD" when i see all the freaking comments and invites to groups like "TEh BEST SHOTOS GROUP"
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
Flickr's free service is worse than photobucket's. Flickr resizes to 1024 on the longest side while photobucket simply allows as long as it's less than 1 meg. Flickr is also more community oriented than photobucket. I use PB to store random images (not necessarily my photos) to link people to but I use flickr to share photos. and of course, Flickr has a better gallery/organize interface than photobucket.
>> Anonymous
>>290387
>Flickr is also more community oriented than photobucket.

Yeah, that's worked out swell.
>> Anonymous
>>290387
Then buy a so-called Pro-account for 13 bucks a year and store your ORIGINAL uploads there. Beats <1meg size, I can tell you.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>290391
Nah, I store my originals in my computer and backups and resize them to a copy 1024 pixels on the long side before uploading. I don't need anything the pro service offers.
>> Anonymous
how is picasa web, better or worse than flickr?
funny thing, flickr is censored for german users, they can (even with pro accounts) only see safe pics and turning of the safe-search wont help either...
>> Anonymous
>>290394

me again

plus, picasa web offers you 1gb, does that mean i´ve got ne limit for resolution and size per picture?
>> Anonymous
>>290407

yeah picasa web has tons of storage free but my photos look shit on there compared to flickr
>> Anonymous
>>290409

huh, why is that?