Sharing sites

On Aug 18, 2019, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

Given the new limit imposed by flickr, I'm looking around at alternatives. I
am not a pro and so do not want to pay. I just use flickr to send a link to my mum, or now
and again here etc.

How much of a limitation is 1000 images for you, especially if you are using
Flickr for occasional sharing rather than a full archive?

Personally I feel that the annual cost for a Smugmug subscription is not that
great at $48/year, and the service provided is well worthwhile if you have
more than a 1000 images, and/or videos to store, or share. Image security
settings can be customized for individual galleries, and/or images.

https://www.smugmug.com/features

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-CjDGqMk/0/69962f58/5K/i-CjDGqMk-5K.jpg


I seem to have a server with a ton of space, fixed IP and 100/100 fibre
optic, so the simplest might be just use that.

What sort of storage, and backup will you need, and what are your broadband
costs?


Currently trying out piwigo.

Any opinions?

Here's the test:

http://185.219.26.132:1961/gallery/p...ies&lang=en_GB

I am not too impressed with that as you have presented it. What sort of
options do you have for tweaking presentation, along with file, and shared
image size?

Do you subscribe to Adobe CC?
If so you would have storage, and sharing capability with that.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Aug 18, 2019, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

On 18/08/2019 19:33, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2019, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

Given the new limit imposed by flickr, I'm looking around at alternatives.
I
am not a pro and so do not want to pay. I just use flickr to send a link
to my mum, or now
and again here etc.

How much of a limitation is 1000 images for you, especially if you are using
Flickr for occasional sharing rather than a full archive?

I have 600+ images on there now. I do copious shoots now and again, like I
have lots of photos of bicycles racing.

How much local storage do you have, and use with your computer, and what sort
of local backup/archive do you keep?

So are you using Flickr as a cloud archive, or as a repository for sharing
selected images?

How many of those bicycle race photos are keepers?
I know that when shooting bike races, airshows, or motorsport I can churn out
800 to 1600 shots, and select a handful (20-50) of really good shots as
keepers.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg

Of the 600+ images, are all *keepers* or would you be able to tolerate a
selective purge to reduce that number?

Ultimately I tend to agree with the author of this Petapixel article that
once one starts using 1000+ images of free commercial server space it is time
to pay a reasonable fee ($49) for unlimited space.

https://petapixel.com/2018/11/02/why...users-to-1000-
photos-is-a-smart-move/


I seem to have a server with a ton of space, fixed IP and 100/100 fibre
optic, so the simplest might be just use that.

What sort of storage, and backup will you need, and what are your broadband
costs?

The server has bout 650GB free space. Not thought about backups. Costs are
fixed.

You could set up your own website/gallery, but ultimately you would end up
with self imposed limits.
....and you need to have a thought about backups.


Currently trying out piwigo.

Any opinions?

Here's the test:

http://185.219.26.132:1961/gallery/p...ies&lang=en_GB

I am not too impressed with that as you have presented it. What sort of
options do you have for tweaking presentation, along with file, and shared
image size?

Prolly "good enough for me". That setup is out of the box. Not really looked
at customising it yet.

I would go for something more established such as Flickr Pro, or Smugmug.
....and pay for the luxury of unlimited storage.


Do you subscribe to Adobe CC?

No.

Pity, because Adobe CC also provides for storage and sharing of RAW files.

If so you would have storage, and sharing capability with that.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

Savageduck:
How much of a limitation is 1000 images for you, especially if you are using
Flickr for occasional sharing rather than a full archive?

Paul Carmichael:
I have 600+ images on there now. I do copious shoots now and again, like I
have lots of photos of bicycles racing.

Then you're a perfect candidate for a *paid* account at Flickr. The
Internet hasn't done the world any favors by causing so many people to
want everything to be free.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:02:58 AM UTC+2, Davoud wrote:
Savageduck:
How much of a limitation is 1000 images for you, especially if you are using
Flickr for occasional sharing rather than a full archive?

Paul Carmichael:
I have 600+ images on there now. I do copious shoots now and again, like I
have lots of photos of bicycles racing.

Then you're a perfect candidate for a *paid* account at Flickr. The
Internet hasn't done the world any favors by causing so many people to
want everything to be free.

The internet?
It was flickr that can't seem to make up their mind what kind
of free space they wish to provide.. first they had limitations
(max 100 pics), then they offered virtually unlimited space
(1 tb) and now they switch back to limitations (max 1000 pics).
Given how cheap diskspace is, and considering the fact that
it's only getting cheaper, it's odd that companies still
occasionally reduce the free space they offer.

imgbox is also a useful site for sharing a bunch of pics easily
with a thumbnail overview. Very weird that imgur got rid of that
thumbnail overview feature.

http://imgbox.com/g/yZCqvE4jeE

imgur does support uploading from url though, while imgbox
only allows uploading the files from your pc.


--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article ,
sobriquet wrote:

I have 600+ images on there now. I do copious shoots now and again, like I
have lots of photos of bicycles racing.

Then you're a perfect candidate for a *paid* account at Flickr. The
Internet hasn't done the world any favors by causing so many people to
want everything to be free.

The internet?

so you've heard of it.

It was flickr that can't seem to make up their mind what kind
of free space they wish to provide.. first they had limitations
(max 100 pics), then they offered virtually unlimited space
(1 tb) and now they switch back to limitations (max 1000 pics).

they were recently bought by smugmug, who decided that 1tb free was not
a good idea.

Given how cheap diskspace is, and considering the fact that
it's only getting cheaper, it's odd that companies still
occasionally reduce the free space they offer.

not odd at all, given that some people abuse it, and you're also
ignoring bandwidth costs.

On Aug 20, 2019, sobriquet wrote
(in ):

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:02:58 AM UTC+2, Davoud wrote:
Savageduck:
How much of a limitation is 1000 images for you, especially if you are
using Flickr for occasional sharing rather than a full archive?

Paul Carmichael:
I have 600+ images on there now. I do copious shoots now and again, like I
have lots of photos of bicycles racing.

Then you're a perfect candidate for a *paid* account at Flickr. The
Internet hasn't done the world any favors by causing so many people to
want everything to be free.

The internet?
It was flickr that can't seem to make up their mind what kind
of free space they wish to provide.. first they had limitations
(max 100 pics),

That was the original Flickr.

then they offered virtually unlimited space
(1 tb)

That was after Yahoo bought them out, and in desperation move to save the
sinking Yahoo ship offered the 1TB. Then Verizon bought Yahoo, and dumped
Flickr which was running in the red to SmugMug.

and now they switch back to limitations (max 1000 pics).

SmugMug was now running two very similar operations, and given that there is
no real free ride in the broadband server world they streamlined the Flickr
operation with the free 1000 max image, and the pay Pro accounts. Note that
the Flickr Pro, and SmugMug Basic accounts are both $49/year.

Given how cheap diskspace is, and considering the fact that
it's only getting cheaper, it's odd that companies still
occasionally reduce the free space they offer.

Unfortunately *free* is very often unsustainable, and when it dies folks will
complain.

The cost of disc space has nothing to do with the image sharing, and cloud
storage business model. It is a business, and the bottomline is, they need to
be profitable. Giving away unlimited free storage, and bandwidth will
ultimately result in what did happen to Flickr with its bounce from
independent startup, passing through the struggling hands of Yahoo, to
Verizon, which wasn’t prepared to play the subsidizing freeloaders game, to
SmugMug who has done a reasonable job of saving Flickr by redefining their
operation, and at the moment making it into a capable business.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Paul Carmichael
wrote:

Do you subscribe to Adobe CC?

No.

Pity, because Adobe CC also provides for storage and sharing of RAW files.

The truth is, I could easily live without any of this, as I could just use
dropbox. And
it's taken me years to get to 600 pics on flickr.

dropbox recently ****ed everyone over with their 'update' and without
permission. it's now electron, uses *enormous* amounts of memory and
even now has a web browser (chromium), for something that is supposed
to just sync files.

On Aug 21, 2019, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article ):

On 18/08/2019 20:41, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 18, 2019, Paul Carmichael wrote


Of the 600+ images, are all *keepers* or would you be able to tolerate a
selective purge to reduce that number?

Ultimately I tend to agree with the author of this Petapixel article that
once one starts using 1000+ images of free commercial server space it is
time to pay a reasonable fee ($49) for unlimited space.

https://petapixel.com/2018/11/02/why-flickr-limiting-free-users-to-1000-photos-is-a-smart-move/


I seem to have a server with a ton of space, fixed IP and 100/100 fibre
optic, so the simplest might be just use that.

What sort of storage, and backup will you need, and what are your
broadband costs?

The server has bout 650GB free space. Not thought about backups. Costs are
fixed.

snip
I would go for something more established such as Flickr Pro, or Smugmug.
...and pay for the luxury of unlimited storage.


Do you subscribe to Adobe CC?

No.

Pity, because Adobe CC also provides for storage and sharing of RAW files.

The truth is, I could easily live without any of this, as I could just use
dropbox. And it's taken me years to get to 600 pics on flickr.

I'll prolly use both for the foreseeable.

Each of us have our own priorities in all this, and one has to use whatever
works for him/her, with the understanding that each has limitations, some of
which are hidden behind the fine print of the TOS.

Currently, along with my local working, and backup drives, I use three Cloud
sharing services to fit my different needs. I use an unlimited SmugMug
account ($49/year), an Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan account, which
along with the software included, gives me 1TB of storage &
sharing/collaboration, and syncing between mobile devices and desktop, and
finally a free Dropbox account for quick, and convenient sharing of stuff
such as screenshots, images I would not add to SmugMug, or Adobe CC, and
other files

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 06:28:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Currently, along with my local working, and backup drives, I use three Cloud
sharing services to fit my different needs. I use an unlimited SmugMug
account ($49/year), an Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan account, which
along with the software included, gives me 1TB of storage &
sharing/collaboration, and syncing between mobile devices and desktop, and
finally a free Dropbox account for quick, and convenient sharing of stuff
such as screenshots, images I would not add to SmugMug, or Adobe CC, and
other files

To each his own. I have been, like you, a long-time user of SmugMug.
I like the idea of being able to design my own "home page" and set up
galleries by subject.

I have some "unlisted" galleries that I use for things like
screenshots or other images that are uploaded for a temporary or
special need. I routinely delete images that are no longer of use in
those "unlisted" galleries.

A "listed" gallery is available for viewing by anyone who opens my
SmugMug site, but they don't see any "unlisted" gallery. But, I can
still link to a single image in an unlisted gallery and send it to
anyone by email.

I have a Dropbox account, but haven't used it in quite some time. It
seems that every time I bring it up, Dropbox has made some change that
must be dealt with.

Dropbox and Skype seem to be managed by the same people. Skype, too,
makes frequent changes and each time it is used (about once a month,
in my case, to call my brother in Denmark) something's different or
some new version must be uploaded.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have a Dropbox account, but haven't used it in quite some time. It
seems that every time I bring it up, Dropbox has made some change that
must be dealt with.

the recent updates being the most obnoxious, adding a web browser and
memory hogging background processes to what is basically a file sync
utility. fortunately, there are numerous other options.

Dropbox and Skype seem to be managed by the same people. Skype, too,
makes frequent changes and each time it is used (about once a month,
in my case, to call my brother in Denmark) something's different or
some new version must be uploaded.

nope. two different companies.