SmugMug Swallows Flickr

photolady95 · 04-23-2018, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by THoog

the current price for a Flickr 'Pro' account is US$49.99/year.

I pay $24.95 a year for my Flickr pro account, but I've been with them for 9 years.

Edit, Boris beat me to it but at $47 a year is cheaper than the Zenfolio prices per year.

Last edited by photolady95; 04-23-2018 at 03:52 PM.

photolady95 · 04-23-2018, 09:36 AM - **1 Like**

I finally got the email. Came in Yahoo mail this morning at 1.41am. And it was in my spam folder.

bdery · 04-23-2018, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by bobell69

I checked SmugMug out. Very expensive membership fees

60$ per year is what it costs me for the second-to-highest tier. That's really not that bad.

stevebrot · 04-23-2018, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

I finally got the eMail about 10 minutes ago.

Me too.

I have yet to review the terms and conditions, however. My major concern is that the URLs for photos and pages will not be treated as permalink. My secondary concern is that there may be dilution of copyright policy.

Originally posted by bobell69

I have a pro account on Flickr. When I heard that SmugMug purchased Flickr I checked SmugMug out. Very expensive membership fees. I'm concerned that my annual pro account fee will increase to the point that I can't afford it.

That too. Unfortunately my Pro account just renewed.

Steve

stevebrot · 04-23-2018, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by THoog

Are you seeing different prices from what I am seeing? A SmugMug 'Basic' account is US$47.88/year, and the current price for a Flickr 'Pro' account is US$49.99/year.

Originally posted by boriscleto

Those of us who have grandfathered Flickr Pro accounts pay $24.95/year for unlimited storage and ad-free browsing/sharing...So we'll probably be paying twice as much...

Me too...

Steve

**THoog** · 04-23-2018, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

Those of us who have grandfathered Flickr Pro accounts pay $24.95/year for unlimited storage and ad-free browsing/sharing...So we'll probably be paying twice as much...

Yeah, that's what I'm paying (less actually, since I renew two years at a time), but based on a quick Googling, it appears that 'grandfathered' SmugMug users pay less than the advertised prices, as well. I don't think you can look at new user pricing on one and grandfathered pricing on the other and say one or the other is inherently more expensive. (I have a renewal coming up in June at the current price, so unless they change the price really soon, I won't have to worry about it for a couple years.)

normhead · 04-23-2018, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

almost definitely , i need to read terms because they gave basically 32 days for you to download and close accounts if you don't like smug mug terms, total BS move that is

I joined flickr so recently, all my flickr photos are none folder, on my desktop, no need to download anything.

bobell69 · 04-23-2018, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by bdery

60$ per year is what it costs me for the second-to-highest tier. That's really not that bad.

I was looking at the $15US a month which becomes $180 per year. Convert that into Canadian Pesos and it is about $235 per year. Currently, I'm paying $24.95US per year for Flickr.

**monochrome** · 04-23-2018, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by photolady95

I finally got the email. Came in Yahoo mail this morning at 1.41am. And it was in my spam folder.

Mine was a few minutes later than yours - and it went to my Junk Folder too.

D1N0 · 04-24-2018, 05:03 AM

I got it two times for both my accounts (different themes, one is photography oriented the other gear oriented).Each time a few hours apart from each other.

BrianR · 04-24-2018, 05:21 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by stevebrot

No, they queue. The slow parts are in determining the route, the negotiation with the receiving server, network latency and bandwidth (bits/second)*. Latency at each hop along with server negotiation can be considerable such that the time to send even a small message can be upwards of a full second in a non-optimized environment. Bulk e-mail providers typically have hot access to back-bone networks and significant computing power to allow adequate throughput.

Thanks! That's pretty much what I expected and also what seems to be happening as the emails are reaching more people.

I'd think tens of thousands of people (or more!) downloading all their photos en masse will also be a non-trivial thing. IIRC, flickr would dump the full resolution versions of photos that are rarely accessed into less expensive and less quickly accessed storage (they had a blog post with more details that I can't find at the moment). For people using their accounts to backup large photo collections, this might apply to many of their images. I'm also willing to bet that even if they don't plan to abandon the smugmug ship before it's even docked, this announcement has prompted many people to download everything "just in case".

It might be a fun, coffee filled time at flickr right now.

Lord Lucan · 04-24-2018, 07:17 AM

Everyone here seems to be discussing hosting companies which specialise in photos, but you can rent general purpose hosting if it is just for linking into sites such as pentaxforums.

I rent 5Gb of space for 36 GBP/yr, unlimited bandwidth, email accounts and sub-domains (I have a couple of web sites on it too). It suits me, and obviously you can pay for more space if you need it. But I would not store photos on any hosting site as Flickr seems to assume and some people do (I know that is the fashion), I only use hosting for what I want to link.

bdery · 04-24-2018, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Lord Lucan

I rent 5Gb of space for 36 GBP/yr, unlimited bandwidth, email accounts and sub-domains (I have a couple of web sites on it too). It suits me, and obviously you can pay for more space if you need it. But I would not store photos on any hosting site as Flickr seems to assume and some people do (I know that is the fashion), I only use hosting for what I want to link.

While no company like Smugmug, PBase or any other will ever offer guaranteed storage, they do serve as a robust redundancy for your pictures and videos. I use Smugmug for many things, one of which is a backup for what I have at home.

Rico · 04-24-2018, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

So when will they take hostage our images and force us to pay $4 a month to keep them online? Too bad Google doesn't allow external sharing. Maybe look out for a silent fan less NAS with SSD storage, so I can host at home and be done with it.

This unit by Synology looks decent at a reasonable price. It only takes 2.5" sized drives so it is basically made for SSD making a much smaller footprint enclosure.

This is sad news on flickr. I have been a member since 2010 after whatever photo sharing site I had been using was absorbed by flickr at the time.

Something else these sites i.e. Yahoo! AOL Verizon etc all have been consolidating under a new advertising brand called Oath. This UK Register article suggests this new entity Oath is unloading flickr to trim down Yahoo!

Lord Lucan · 04-25-2018, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Rico

This unit by Synology looks decent at a reasonable price. It only takes 2.5" sized drives so it is basically made for SSD making a much smaller footprint enclosure.

Small size and footprint (as hyped in that link) does not matter with a NAS, unless you plan to carry it around with you - which is not a normal NAS function. It does not need to sit on your desk like with the guy in the picture; if I had one I would site it in the attic where a burglar would not look (or a corner of the cellar if you have one). Reliability is the main requirement of NAS, not speed or smallness, and 3.5" disk drives are more reliable than 2.5" or SSD drives. I would use something like the Western Digital Red or Gold 3.5" series. Fire is then the only threat.

04-24-2018, 07:17 AM	#117
Lord Lucan Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: South Wales Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,963	Everyone here seems to be discussing hosting companies which specialise in photos, but you can rent general purpose hosting if it is just for linking into sites such as pentaxforums. I rent 5Gb of space for 36 GBP/yr, unlimited bandwidth, email accounts and sub-domains (I have a couple of web sites on it too). It suits me, and obviously you can pay for more space if you need it. But I would not store photos on any hosting site as Flickr seems to assume and some people do (I know that is the fashion), I only use hosting for what I want to link. Last edited by Lord Lucan; 04-24-2018 at 09:06 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature It is feeding time...for some swallows	Fries	Post Your Photos!	6	07-20-2016 11:49 AM
Nature Some Tree Swallows doing what comes natural	Heinrich Lohmann	Post Your Photos!	11	07-09-2016 09:16 PM
Abstract red wing black bird, duckling, tree swallows	Venom3300	Post Your Photos!	2	05-14-2016 08:09 AM
Flickr, 500px, Smugmug, oh my.	Omestes	Photographic Industry and Professionals	18	01-26-2013 05:49 PM
flickr, zenfolio, and smugmug impressions	k100d	General Talk	17	04-29-2009 05:19 PM

04-23-2018, 09:12 AM	#106
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712	Originally posted by THoog the current price for a Flickr 'Pro' account is US$49.99/year. I pay $24.95 a year for my Flickr pro account, but I've been with them for 9 years. Edit, Boris beat me to it but at $47 a year is cheaper than the Zenfolio prices per year. Last edited by photolady95; 04-23-2018 at 03:52 PM.

04-23-2018, 09:36 AM - 1 Like	#107
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712	I finally got the email. Came in Yahoo mail this morning at 1.41am. And it was in my spam folder.

04-23-2018, 09:48 AM	#108
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by bobell69 I checked SmugMug out. Very expensive membership fees 60$ per year is what it costs me for the second-to-highest tier. That's really not that bad.

04-23-2018, 09:48 AM	#109
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007 Original Poster	Originally posted by boriscleto I finally got the eMail about 10 minutes ago. Me too. I have yet to review the terms and conditions, however. My major concern is that the URLs for photos and pages will not be treated as permalink. My secondary concern is that there may be dilution of copyright policy. Originally posted by bobell69 I have a pro account on Flickr. When I heard that SmugMug purchased Flickr I checked SmugMug out. Very expensive membership fees. I'm concerned that my annual pro account fee will increase to the point that I can't afford it. That too. Unfortunately my Pro account just renewed. Steve

04-23-2018, 09:52 AM	#110
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007 Original Poster	Originally posted by THoog Are you seeing different prices from what I am seeing? A SmugMug 'Basic' account is US$47.88/year, and the current price for a Flickr 'Pro' account is US$49.99/year. Originally posted by boriscleto Those of us who have grandfathered Flickr Pro accounts pay $24.95/year for unlimited storage and ad-free browsing/sharing...So we'll probably be paying twice as much... Me too... Steve

04-23-2018, 10:16 AM	#111
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by boriscleto Those of us who have grandfathered Flickr Pro accounts pay $24.95/year for unlimited storage and ad-free browsing/sharing...So we'll probably be paying twice as much... Yeah, that's what I'm paying (less actually, since I renew two years at a time), but based on a quick Googling, it appears that 'grandfathered' SmugMug users pay less than the advertised prices, as well. I don't think you can look at new user pricing on one and grandfathered pricing on the other and say one or the other is inherently more expensive. (I have a renewal coming up in June at the current price, so unless they change the price really soon, I won't have to worry about it for a couple years.)

04-23-2018, 02:28 PM	#112
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by eddie1960 almost definitely , i need to read terms because they gave basically 32 days for you to download and close accounts if you don't like smug mug terms, total BS move that is I joined flickr so recently, all my flickr photos are none folder, on my desktop, no need to download anything.

04-23-2018, 05:05 PM	#113
bobell69 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Courtenay BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 498	Originally posted by bdery 60$ per year is what it costs me for the second-to-highest tier. That's really not that bad. I was looking at the $15US a month which becomes $180 per year. Convert that into Canadian Pesos and it is about $235 per year. Currently, I'm paying $24.95US per year for Flickr.

04-23-2018, 05:14 PM	#114
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by photolady95 I finally got the email. Came in Yahoo mail this morning at 1.41am. And it was in my spam folder. Mine was a few minutes later than yours - and it went to my Junk Folder too.

04-24-2018, 05:03 AM	#115
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	I got it two times for both my accounts (different themes, one is photography oriented the other gear oriented).Each time a few hours apart from each other.

04-24-2018, 05:21 AM - 1 Like	#116
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by stevebrot No, they queue. The slow parts are in determining the route, the negotiation with the receiving server, network latency and bandwidth (bits/second)*. Latency at each hop along with server negotiation can be considerable such that the time to send even a small message can be upwards of a full second in a non-optimized environment. Bulk e-mail providers typically have hot access to back-bone networks and significant computing power to allow adequate throughput. Thanks! That's pretty much what I expected and also what seems to be happening as the emails are reaching more people. I'd think tens of thousands of people (or more!) downloading all their photos en masse will also be a non-trivial thing. IIRC, flickr would dump the full resolution versions of photos that are rarely accessed into less expensive and less quickly accessed storage (they had a blog post with more details that I can't find at the moment). For people using their accounts to backup large photo collections, this might apply to many of their images. I'm also willing to bet that even if they don't plan to abandon the smugmug ship before it's even docked, this announcement has prompted many people to download everything "just in case". It might be a fun, coffee filled time at flickr right now.

04-24-2018, 09:49 AM	#118
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by Lord Lucan I rent 5Gb of space for 36 GBP/yr, unlimited bandwidth, email accounts and sub-domains (I have a couple of web sites on it too). It suits me, and obviously you can pay for more space if you need it. But I would not store photos on any hosting site as Flickr seems to assume and some people do (I know that is the fashion), I only use hosting for what I want to link. While no company like Smugmug, PBase or any other will ever offer guaranteed storage, they do serve as a robust redundancy for your pictures and videos. I use Smugmug for many things, one of which is a backup for what I have at home.

04-24-2018, 06:07 PM	#119
Rico Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,205	Originally posted by D1N0 So when will they take hostage our images and force us to pay $4 a month to keep them online? Too bad Google doesn't allow external sharing. Maybe look out for a silent fan less NAS with SSD storage, so I can host at home and be done with it. This unit by Synology looks decent at a reasonable price. It only takes 2.5" sized drives so it is basically made for SSD making a much smaller footprint enclosure. This is sad news on flickr. I have been a member since 2010 after whatever photo sharing site I had been using was absorbed by flickr at the time. Something else these sites i.e. Yahoo! AOL Verizon etc all have been consolidating under a new advertising brand called Oath. This UK Register article suggests this new entity Oath is unloading flickr to trim down Yahoo!

04-25-2018, 01:57 AM	#120
Lord Lucan Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: South Wales Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,963	Originally posted by Rico This unit by Synology looks decent at a reasonable price. It only takes 2.5" sized drives so it is basically made for SSD making a much smaller footprint enclosure. Small size and footprint (as hyped in that link) does not matter with a NAS, unless you plan to carry it around with you - which is not a normal NAS function. It does not need to sit on your desk like with the guy in the picture; if I had one I would site it in the attic where a burglar would not look (or a corner of the cellar if you have one). Reliability is the main requirement of NAS, not speed or smallness, and 3.5" disk drives are more reliable than 2.5" or SSD drives. I would use something like the Western Digital Red or Gold 3.5" series. Fire is then the only threat.