Flickr's OpenStreetMap integration is a bit screwy. It took photos that I geolocated in Modi'in and geotagged them in Ramallah. Totally different city.
I went for a walk through part of Modi’in yesterday and shared photos from the walk on Flickr. I noticed that the photos I took with my phone were geolocated at the correct location but, for some reason, Flickr tagged the locations as “Ram Allah, West Bank, Palestine”.
Here is an example (I geolocated my Nikon photos at the same location as my phone photos):
Flickr uses OpenStreetMap for its maps. When I clicked on the map preview in the image, it took me to Modi’in (which is correct) and yet the caption on the photos is a totally different city.
I don’t read Arabic so I couldn’t tell you exactly where Ramallah is on OpenStreetMap through Flickr’s map interface but here are Modi’in and Ramallah in Google Maps:
Leaving aside whether the caption in Flickr, “Ram Allah, West Bank, Palestine”, is a correct designation in itself, why are my photos tagged with that location when their actual locations are very much in Modi’in in Central Israel?
I’m sure the explanation for this is an interesting one.
It's time to either renew or cancel my Flickr Pro subscription. I have my doubts about whether it is worth spending the $50 to renew so I thought I'd explore my options in this post.
I just realized that my Flickr Pro subscription ends in just under two weeks. The annual cost for Flickr Pro is $50 and I am wondering if it is still worth it?
Flickr still seems to be going strong and I follow a lot of photographers there. More importantly, I have my entire library on Flickr (100,361 photos as I write this) and I haven’t touched the sides of my 1 TB of space (I’m currently using 0.2 TB). I had a similar internal debate two years ago and concluded that it was worth it. Now I’m not so sure.
The main benefits of the Pro subscription is that there are no ads and the Desktop Uploadr is available for automated uploads from my local hard drive. The Uploadr used to be available to all Flickr users and Flickr restricted it to Pro subscribers when it revised the subscription plan.
I still think that was a mistake and Flickr alienated a lot of users, although I can see why they did that. The Uploadr became one of the few value adds that Flickr could hold back as a “premium” feature after it removed most of the image resolution and storage capacity limits.
There is a little doubt about Flickr’s future (this is a long-running issue) but there aren’t any concrete indications of Flickr’s demise. Flickr seems to be ticking along and may well keep going for the foreseeable future. It has certainly remained an integral part of my photo sharing and backup strategy for years.
There are a few alternatives. One is switching to 500px which has a Plus package that costs $25 a year for unlimited uploads, statistics and integration with Google Analytics. The Google Analytics integration is a nice touch but by no means a deal breaker for me.
One of the appeals of 500px is that I receive so much engagement there when I upload photos. That is great for validation and feedback. I get some feedback on Flickr but it doesn’t seem to come as easily.
Another option is something like SmugMug which has a $40 a year package for a customizable site, unlimited uploads and integrations with print-on-demand labs (could be useful). The price point comes close to Flickr’s and I’m not sure if there is a clear benefit there to justify it even though the service seems excellent.
I thought about consolidating everything in Google Photos (my library is there too, albeit in the reduced resolution for free storage) but upgrading to 1 TB will cost $10 a month which is too expensive. For now, I maintain a complete library in Google Photos in “High quality” resolution as a more readily accessible backup.
Of course, the elephant in the room is Facebook which is free (at least in terms of subscriptions) and which is a better sharing platform anyway. I have my libraries backed up elsewhere so it’s not like I’d need to entrust Facebook with my only copy. Facebook would just become a place to share my photos and get feedback from people.
Why it could be worth sticking with Flickr Pro
The big reason to stick with what I have is my self-induced lock-in. As I mentioned earlier, my entire library is in Flickr. It isn’t my only copy (definitely not) but it is a lot of material that is already organised into albums and shared in part online.
$50 is not cheap but if I factor in the hassle of replicating that library on some alternative service, it may be worth the extra cost. As I mentioned earlier, the main differences between the free and Pro subscriptions are that the Pro subscription removes ads and adds the use of the Desktop Uploadr which runs in the background on my Mac and automatically uploads new photos I add to a watched folder.
Of course, cancelling my Pro subscription doesn’t mean I have to remove my library from Flickr. As far as I can tell, it won’t be affected by switching to a standard plan.
If I switch to a free subscription, it will mean manually uploading new photos if I decide to maintain a current library on Flickr. There are other ways to upload photos to Flickr, though, as convenient as the Uploadr is. I have already configured Lightroom to upload to both Flickr and Facebook so it’s really just another step in my process to send images to Flickr and Facebook from within Lightroom.
The bottom line
On balance, the risks of switching to a free Flickr account are pretty low. It will be a crappier experience of the site with all the ads but an ad-free experience, alone, is not really worth the $50.
I’ll miss the Desktop Uploadr’s functionality but I am already uploading manually to Google Photos after the Google Photos desktop uploader stopped working on my Mac. I can compensate with Lightroom or even Apple Photos (if I decide to try that to manage my local library again).
So, having considered all of that, this is what I’m doing with my photos:
I’ve disabled the auto-renewal for my Flickr Pro account and I’ll see how it goes without the Pro benefits for a while. I’ll keep uploading to Flickr although the loss of the Desktop Uploadr may mean I’ll just upload the highlights.
Facebook remains a good place to share photos casually, especially considering that my friends and family are there (and I use it anyway).
I’ve been uploading some photos to 500px so I’ll just keep doing that. I receive great feedback on my photos there. No reason to stop doing that.
Google Photos will still receive all my new stuff as an alternative sharing space.
All my full resolution photos and RAW files will go to Amazon S3 as usual.
So … what do you do with your photos? What are your thoughts about Flickr Pro?
I gave this more thought after my post and decided to renew my Pro subscription. I’ve had a positive experience using Flickr and when I put the cost into perspective, it wasn’t all that much to preserve something that has been working for me.
Another plus that I didn’t realise when I was weighing up the pros and cons of renewing my Pro account is that visitors to my photo pages won’t see ads either (at least, this is my understanding from PetaPixel’s “In Defense of Flickr: 8 Reasons I’m Sticking Around“).
My photos are typically uploaded to Flickr and Google Photos by default. I also sometimes share albums on Facebook but I don’t have complete archives there at all. I also make multiple backups of my primary photo library and RAW files because I am more than a little neurotic about losing my family photos.
At the same time, I love living in a time where we can take so many great photos and share them so easily. Having machine learning systems go through our photos and make them so accessible, despite taking 23 photos of the same sunset, is amazing.
Google Photos definitely has the edge when it comes to identifying what is in our photos. As long as I have my Flickr (and other) backups for full resolution images, I’m happy to keep sending all my photos to Google Photos too.
I haven’t used Apple Photos much. The libraries tend to become pretty big. My current edited library is about 128GB. That is stored in Flickr in full resolution (I uploaded most of that when we arrived in Israel – a decent upload capacity and no data caps is a must) and in Amazon S3.
I don’t really see me using Apple Photos for my full library. For one thing, I don’t have the drive capacity for that on my current MacBook Air. For another, iCloud storage pricing is still relatively expensive compared to other storage options. Still, I created a small Apple Photos library to play around with the new Apple Photos app.
One of the changes that I like is that I don’t have to replicate my photos in the Apple Photos library. I can “import” photos that I have stored on different drives without actually moving or copying them. That saves a lot of space.
That said, Apple Photos still seems to take up a lot of extra space on my drive relative to the imported photos. At the same time, the library may seem to be relatively big because I activated the Photos iCloud Library and it is importing photos shared through my iPhone and iPad.
I probably need to play around with Apple Photos and use a bigger subset of my library to get a better sense of how much space it will actually use once I’ve accounted for my iCloud library.
Those old family slides
My current mission is to have about 150-200 slides from my childhood scanned and added to my digital library. The big challenge with older generations’ photos is that there either aren’t many or they are in physical formats that will only degrade over time.
The slides are mostly in pretty good shape and there are a lot of amazing memories in there. So much I have forgotten from my childhood.
My Grand Plan is actually to co-ordinate with my brother and sister to have all the slides they have from my mother digitised and shared as a collected family archive.
When I look at photos of my parents’ childhoods, I’m struck by how few I have access to and just how few there are altogether. It isn’t quite as bad as the great grandfather in the Google Photos video with just two photos in his whole life but there really aren’t many photos going back a couple generations.
If anything, our kids will have too many photos of our lives and theirs but, hopefully, machine learning will keep developing and the (likely) terabytes of family photos we leave for them when we eventually leave this life will become a rich and valued archive of memories.
Capturing movement in our photos can be challenging, but it’s a great way to convey emotions. Here is a selection of some wonderful shots that capture motion in creative ways. To see more photos and share your own images, visit the full gallery on Flickr.
For starters, Google Photos is now a standalone service. It is no longer tethered to Google+ and its not clear what this means for Google+ as a social stream.
One of the best features of Google Photos is what Google described as a “single, private place to keep a lifetime of memories, and access them from any device”. You can store “unlimited, high-quality photos and videos, for free”. That bit got my attention immediately and features strongly in any discussion about Google Photos. It is a bit misleading, though, and I’ll get into that below.
One feature which was carried across used to be called Auto-Awesome. It is now called “Assistant” and it takes your photos and does some really cool stuff with them; adding effects, creating animations and a number of other really nice effects. It is one of my favorite features of Google’s photo service (here is a cool example based on some of these photos) and I’d love to see this in Flickr even though I’m not sure anyone other than Google can really pull it off.
Google Photos will take your photos and organize them automatically based on when you took them, where you were when you took them, who features in the photos and what is in the photos. It potentially takes a lot of that manual effort you usually put into organizing your collections. You can create manual albums too and you can even create Collections (these used to be called Stories in Google+) which are also very cool ways of telling stories using your photos from events and locations.
Another feature is your ability to share your photos using other services (like Twitter or Facebook) or even using a link that gives people who have the link access to your photos even if they wouldn’t otherwise have access. That is something Dropbox practically pioneered and Flickr emulated. It is great to see services supporting sharing across more external services.
Google has released iOS and Android apps as well as a new desktop uploader that, like the Flickr Uploadr, watches specified folders and uploads automatically. The apps are very clean and work pretty well. The iOS version works on iPhones and iPads.
Overall the update is a great one. Google Photos is a pretty compelling option for consumers who never really saw the point of Google+ as a separate social thing.
Google’s bait and switch
Google says users have “unlimited” space for their photos but there is a catch, a big one. The “unlimited” space applies to photos uploaded from now (or probably photos which were previously covered by Google+ Photos unlimited option – roughly 2 megapixels if I remember correctly) and only if you choose the option to upload “high quality” versions of your photos.
High quality images are compressed versions of your photos and are limited to 16 megapixels. That is probably fine for most casual users but it becomes a problem for more serious users and users whose devices natively shoot more than 16 megapixels (it won’t be long before this is the norm).
There is more, though. Your existing photos aren’t included in this new unlimited plan if they exceeded the resolution that qualified for the original “unlimited” so don’t expect space you paid for to suddenly be freed for other uses. Also, even though Google Photos will upload RAW photos (something Flickr doesn’t do), those photos probably won’t be included in the “unlimited” storage – RAW photos are usually very high resolution images and will probably use your normal storage allocation.
Videos can be up to 1GB each and playback on Flickr is limited to the first 3 minutes;
Photos can be up to 200MB each (that is probably the equivalent of a direct export of a RAW file at maximum resolution for most DSLRs);
Photos can’t be more than about 31 times wider than they are tall (not sure what this is about but I usually don’t encounter this problem).
Flickr prefers JPG and PNG images and will convert to JPG for viewing. That said, it retains your original files which you can download as and when you want:
The original, completely uncompressed version of your content is always saved to Flickr, along with several alternate photo sizes for you to use around the web.
Google Takeout will let you download your photo albums but bear in mind that you will be downloading the compressed, “high resolution” versions of your photos if you take advantage of the “unlimited” space. This means you can’t count on Google Photos for uncompressed photo archives unless you pay for enough storage.
The real losers
Google Photos isn’t going to replace Flickr for me but it is going to be a great option for casual users, especially people who use Google’s other services like Gmail, Google Drive and others (which is a lot of people). It is also going to be an easy choice for Android users (as you would expect).
I don’t need to do that anymore. I have pointed Flickr’s and Google Photos’ desktop apps to a local folder outside my Dropbox folder and they will upload new exports as soon as they appear. This means I can remove all my stored albums from Dropbox and keep that space available for other files I need to store on an ad hoc basis.
Dropbox’s appeal is your ability to store your photos in their original format on Dropbox and that includes RAW and other more specialized formats. Of course that means you need a fair amount of space but if you have followed all the suggestions to earn more free space you probably have more than the basic 2GB for use for a variety of storage requirements.
Paying for premium Dropbox accounts to accommodate photo libraries has become an unnecessary extravagance and, despite ripping off many of its features, Dropbox’s Carousel is just less compelling than Flickr and Google Photos now. If I were a casual user, I wouldn’t even bother with Dropbox.
Other losers include all the other paid photo storage and sharing services. Some of them, like 500px, are really good services but they are becoming niche services for professional photographers who want more advanced analytics and the ability to charge for their work.
Flickr and Google Photos have won the consumer space
The elephant in the room is Facebook with its huge market share. It doesn’t have the features Google Photos and Flickr have and may add those in down the line but my preference is to stick with a relatively free-standing service for my memories.
Consumers who feel similarly have no real reason to go with services other than Google Photos and Flickr. If you want to share high quality versions of your photos and be able to store them reliably (as much as you can with 3rd party services), stick with Flickr. As I mentioned in my previous post, I have a secondary backup to Amazon S3 in addition to local backups and I recommend a similar setup. Don’t trust your only backup to just one service, whether it is Flickr, Google Photos or something else. Have multiple backups and blend local with online to keep your stuff safe.
When it comes to an overall winner, I still pick Flickr and you should take another look if you dismissed it previously.
I love virtually everything about this photo of bicycle handlebars titled “Kalverstraat” by Lucas ():
I really like using a shallow depth of field in many of my photos. My favourite lens is my f1.8 50mm lens although I am still learning how to capture as much detail as I need at those lower f-stops without getting too caught up in using a shallow depth of field just for the sake of it.
I also really like this photo titled “Red street” by the same photographer:
I’ve been using Flickr since about 2004 and, admittedly, I didn’t pay much attention to Flickr until recently. Until then it was a service I sometimes paid for (I opted for the paid Pro version for a few years for the additional storage) and then loosely used as a backup storage space for my photos. Three significant changes brought Flickr to the foreground as my primary photo storage and sharing service:
All accounts being upgraded to 1TB for free,
The updated and excellent Flickr Uploadr, and
The most recent updates that just made Flickr so much more useful.
I have a lot of photos in my archive that go back over a decade. My photos are a growing record of our lives and experiences. When I look at the photos that have survived from my parents’ earlier years and from our ancestors, I see fewer and fewer visual records of earlier times and a relatively poor historical archive. Digital photos make it possible for us to create rich historical archives of our lives and to store those archives pretty inexpensively.
Granted digital also means we probably take way too many photos of stuff we don’t particularly need to document in quite so much detail but, on balance, I’d rather have a richer archive.
Anyway, I have used various combinations and solutions over the years to archive and share my growing photo library. I’ve used 500px (great service but I didn’t see the point in paying when I had Flickr for free), Dropbox (paid and free), Google Photos (including Google+ Photos), Google Drive, local external drives, Amazon S3 storage, iCloud and Flickr.
My current archive runs to about 128GB. It is derived from iPhoto library exports and edited photos from Lightroom. I don’t think it includes most of my RAW archives so that size will increase when I consolidate those archives fully. The first challenge with a photo library of more than a few gigabytes is that you have to start paying for storage and you have to decide between a variety of photo storage options and how you want to also share your photos.
What I did for a while (and still do to a degree) was to store my photos in a dedicated storage space and share more limited and selected collections on Facebook, Google+ and Dropbox. Actually, Dropbox doubled as a storage and sharing service so it is pretty useful but accommodating my collection means subscribing to the Pro Dropbox service at about $99 per year. That may not sound like much but I had to contend with a pretty hefty currency conversion rate at the time and it wasn’t the only paid storage service I was using.
I also don’t want to trust my collection to a service which could drop me without much notice because of a bug or policy change so its all about redundancy and managing costs overall. I started using Amazon’s S3 storage service a few years ago too. The cost of storage large amounts of data on Amazon’s servers is pretty low and considering that Dropbox uses S3 for its back-end, I didn’t see a lot of point in relying so heavily on Dropbox when I could just go to the source and upload all my data (including my photo archives) to S3 for longer term storage and use something else to share my photos. The challenge, for a few years, was uploading my massive archive to S3’s servers on South Africa’s very limited broadband plans and data transfer limits. It required a lot of patience so I basically uploaded bits and pieces over a few years to get started.
Along the way I also started using Google+ Photos to upload my archives. I subscribe to Google’s 100GB storage plan which became a lot more cost effective about 2 years ago when the price dropped to about $2 per month for 100GB. Coupled with Google+ Photos’ really good image recognition and the ability to find stuff easily, it didn’t matter that people never really caught on to Google+ as a primary social network. It was great for simple storage and personal reference. I still have a sizable chunk of my archive in Google+ Photos (about 45GB).
Dropbox and Google+ Photos introduced something which has become essential with so many devices being repositories for our photos: sync. These background sync services run on our desktops and mobile devices and aggregate our photos from these various sources in our cloud services. It is really useful because it means you don’t have to set aside time to backup or upload your photos. It just happens behind the scenes.
The challenge with Google+ Photos (and, more recently, Google Drive because they share the same storage capacity and are slowly become more integrated) is that I started to reach the 100GB limit and the next step up from there is 1TB for $9.99 per month. As much as I like using Google services, I’m not ready to hand over everything to Google either so I maintained my S3 backups and kept looking.
For a while I started using iCloud Photo Library (initially on my iPhone and iPad until the new Photos app brought that capability to my Mac) but at $0.99 for 20GB and $3.99 for 200GB of storage, Apple’s storage service really isn’t competitive when it comes to pricing and being limited to the iCloud ecosystem isn’t particularly appealing to me. What if my next phone isn’t an iPhone and what if not all my laptops are Macs (my office laptop is a Linux laptop)? I stopped using iCloud Photo Library and downgraded my plan to 20GB to make sure my iOS devices could still backup to iCloud.
Back to Flickr
Flickr, a Yahoo! company, started to shake things up about 2 years ago when it announced a redesign and a new free storage option: 1TB. Yes, one terabyte of free storage, albeit with ads initially. You could pay $50 to remove ads and $500 to double your storage (that option always struck me as a “well, if they want to pay $500 to double their storage, what the heck!” option) but 1TB was (and remains) far more than any other free storage plan so I started uploading more of my library to Flickr even if it was more for personal storage.
I’ve had the Flickr apps on my devices for a while now and I’ve enabled the auto-upload feature almost since the beginning. That meant that Flickr has also been uploading photos from my devices to my Photostream in the background on and off for a couple years. A couple months ago, Flickr released a beta version of its new Uploadr app for Mac OS. The app basically watched folders I told it to watch (including my iPhoto library) and quietly and quickly uploaded my albums to my Photostream. Our connectivity here in Israel is pretty fast and unlimited so I just left my Mac to upload overnight over the course of a week or two and, eventually, my Flickr collection was complete.
Finally, Flickr announced a series of updates and redesigns a few weeks ago which included an updated Uploadr and both general design and mobile app refreshes. One of the newer features I really like is the Camera Roll which was probably copied from Dropbox’s Carousel app. It’s a great perspective on your uploads and your photo timeline.
The Uploadr worked even better than I thought. It organised my photos based on time-based metadata so my collection is organised chronologically. There is some duplication between albums I uploaded manually beforehand and the automatic uploads, at least where Uploadr didn’t realise they were duplicates. At the same time, Uploadr didn’t upload albums it recognised as duplicates and all the automatic uploads are marked as “Private” so they are only visible to me until I share them.
I love that I can selectively share photos within albums. I don’t like sharing photos of our kids publicly so I tend to create two albums where I have a photoset that includes photos of our kids and photos to share publicly. With Flickr, I can use one album and selectively share photos of our kids with Friends, Family or Friends and Family while others remain Public. The disadvantage here is that I have to designate contacts as Friends, Family or both for them to see the photos. That means those contacts need to be Flickr users and be logged in to see the photos. At least, that is generally the case.
I realised that the most recent updates include a very cool sharing option. It looks like I can use Flickr’s sharing tool to create a link that gives everyone who has the link the ability to see the photos I have shared (except for Private photos which remain hidden) even if they could not ordinarily see the photos if they just browsed to my Photostream.
That seems to extend to other services I share on, such as Facebook. I haven’t seen an explicit confirmation of this in Flickr’s documentation yet (I haven’t really looked) but it seems to be confirmed in the Flickr blog post about some of the updates:
So now you can easily upload, organize, and navigate your photos. But to what end? To share them of course! We’ve overhauled our sharing experience to make it lightweight and incredibly simple to use by bringing you bulk sharing! You no longer have to create an album in order to share a batch of photos. Simply swipe across your photos to select a few from your Camera Roll and click “Share.” You can grab the link, share via email, upload to Facebook, and more.
This is a great feature because it means I can share an album of photos of my family on Facebook with a subset of my Facebook friends without making the Flickr album Public just to facilitate that. At least I am pretty sure this is how it works. What this means for me is that I can really use my Flickr albums as my primary photo storage and sharing service and drastically reduce redundancy in my photo sharing processes.
Yet another update which doesn’t usually have as much sex appeal as the design stuff is a bulk download option. This is a big thing for me because it means that I have an exit option if Flickr ever stops working for me. I have over 86 000 photos in Flickr’s servers and I need to be able to get those out. Now I can:
No cloud home for your photos is complete without the ability to download them easily. For the first time, we’re bringing you bulk download. You can pick a selection of thousands of images from your Camera Roll and download them in zip format.
There are other enhancements which include improved image recognition and search capability, as well as a somewhat controversial auto-tagging feature. I suspect the bad results are a consequence of a system that is still learning. Google’s systems do this a lot better and it seems Flickr has a lot of catching up to do but, in the meantime, it is better than it was and I like the changes overall.
So, for now
For the time being, my workflow is much simpler. Uploadr automatically uploads my photos to Flickr when it notices exports from Lightroom. My exports actually go into a Dropbox folder but that is more of a temporary way-station for some ad hoc sharing until I am more comfortable with switching completely to Flickr for that or run out of space on Dropbox (I have 22GB of free space after a series of space bonuses). My longer archives are in my S3 buckets and I update those manually using Panic’s excellent Transmit app. I recently completed my archive upload to S3 so I have a complete copy of my photo archives along with other data in Amazon’s servers and it costs me around $16 a month (give or take).
I used to upload photos to Facebook to share with family and friends but I’ll just use Flickr sharing for now and see how that works. It seems to be a pretty effective option.
Between the Flickr apps on my iPhone and iPad and the Web view, Flickr has become a pretty complete photo management option for me. It is very easy to add new photos from different devices, share them with whomever I want to share them with and access them when I need them without needing a lot of storage space on my devices. It isn’t perfect and some apps and services do some of what Flickr does better than Flickr but, when I look at Flickr holistically, it is a winner.
You really should give Flickr another look if you are serious about your photos
Flickr isn’t the cool kid on today’s Web but it has a solid history and a great set of updates that make managing photos so much easier. The layouts are really clean and features like Magic View are fantastic. I get the feeling that these features are a little rough and will improve even more but they could really change your perspective on how you currently store and manage your photos.
That said, Flickr’s Organizr could really use some updates (I’d like to have an option to dynamically create and update albums automatically based on tags or locations, for example). It works well enough for now though, especially considering it is free.
There are many really good photo sharing and/or storage services on the Web today and you have probably picked one (or a few) that work well for you. If you haven’t thought about Flickr for a while (or at all), you should take another look. You might find it has everything you need and more. Worst case, you receive a free 1TB for whatever you do decide to upload.