Flickr Pro

paudie

Is it really worth going Pro?

Convince me.

I'm launching my own professional site soon but I'll still need somewhere to show my meh shots, so is Pro the way?

mikeanywhere

Depends on how many pics you want to post. Not having Pro status means you are limited to a certian number of pics you can post.

rymus

Pro is the way.... and it's only $20 per year. Not exactly a bad deal for unlimited storage space.

Fajitas!

Well, it's 24 quid...and you get plenty of new features. You don't get spam. I'd say it's worth it

rymus

If we're going to get specific about it... its $24.95 which converts to roughly €19.53

Calina

Well I have more than 3800 photographs stuck on a Pro account with no worries about 1) storage capacity or 2) bandwidth issues. Looking at my own hosting, and given what photographs can do to bandwidth, that's no bad thing. At 20E a year it's dirt cheap.

That being said, it is not up to any of us to convince you that you should use a Flickr Pro account. It is up to you to look at your needs and then decide on the best option for you. I don't know what your needs are, what bells and whistles you might want that Flickr might offer you. I do know that the chief one for me is that I don't have to worry about any of the backend stuff, for example. Technical problems are someone else's problem and what's more they're very rare.

Roen

Plus you get to hang with all the cool people :cool:
And people like me

thebaz

i was going to go Flickr pro , but 18 photos a month is eneogh for me !
For the excess photos , i can put them up on Picasa web albums (for free !)

FreeAnd..

hey theBaz, i think you are getting mixed up with the free account. On the pro you can add up to 2GB a month which is alot more than 18 unless you have a medium format camera or something...Flickr is definitely worth it especially if you have a good upload connection you can put up full res images with no haslle whatsoever...

paudie

Well there's no way in hell I'm sticking full res pictures on the web ANYWHERE. I like control of my pictures thanks very much. I'm thinking that the flickr would be a good place to stick stuff I don't consider up to par for my company site, but that I still want people to see. I've already reached one limit of the free account which is that it only shows the most recent 200 photos you've uploaded.

Or maybe I should be a bit more choosy about what I upload, and delete some of the older stuff? Just using you guys as a sounding board I guess. Thanks for the replies anyway. I think I shall dwell on it for a while.

thebaz

FreeAnd.. wrote:

hey theBaz, i think you are getting mixed up with the free account. On the pro you can add up to 2GB a month which is alot more than 18 unless you have a medium format camera or something...Flickr is definitely worth it especially if you have a good upload connection you can put up full res images with no haslle whatsoever...

the 18 photos a month on the freebie flickr, is eneogh for me -- as i try to maintain some quality --
picasa web albums, also allows full res images to be stored - 250 MB of free storage .
i hate parting with my money

FreeAnd..

Sorry thebaz it was me who picked you up wrong, i thought you were saying that putting up 18 photos a month was not enough for you...

rymus

paudie wrote:

Well there's no way in hell I'm sticking full res pictures on the web ANYWHERE. I like control of my pictures thanks very much.

Which is why you lock it down so only people you have specifically set can view the other sizes. I've locked it down to only friends & family being able to get to my high res photos... Everyone else just gets the 500px version.

paudie

But do you then have to upload both versions?

Do you do this just for backup? I'm just wondering why waste time uploading a big ass file that your not going to show that many people, when the web version will suffice?

Feel free to rip me to shreds if I'm being a moron :P

Enygma

You can also use the Flickr API to display the images on your website saving on hosting and bandwidth costs for you.
Not only that but Flickr does all the resizing for you as well as having your images well organised (sets, tags, titles, description) and also retains all the EXIF data.

I'm currently working on a gallery system that uses the Flickr API to gather images and their related information.

I'd say go with Flickr, it's not a huge investment and there are many benefits to using it.

rymus

I upload the big ass files so if I need them, I'll know where to get them. I let a certain amount of people (mostly people that I think aren't going to rip me off by downloading and printing my photos) view all sizes but yes, I only have to upload one image and flickr does all the resizing.

For me anyway, Flickr is primarily a storage solution. Other than that, what Enygma said. Flickr is a beast of a website, the number of things you can do with it are always increasing.