[normhead]

Here's a list of possible alternatives. I'm using this as my starting point and am finding it helpful:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/best-photography-portfolio-websites/

---------- Post added 11-03-18 at 02:56 PM ----------



Considering we've only had 48-72 hours to digest the new terms of service, it's unreasonable to expect people to have finished their research.

I went to similar websites year ago and ended up on flickr. Good luck. From a brief look, those sites aren't free.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-04-2018 at 06:05 AM.

[steve_k]

The Adobe discount is for CC All apps for $45 per month. Useless for photographers.

[Rondec]

I guess I don't understand the negativity for folks who have lots of photos on there. There was a lot of angst over Flickrs interface when it was free. It feels as though Smugmug has actually improved that aspect of things considerably and is wanting to charge 3 dollars a month for you to upload images over a thousand. I've tried some other sites for linking photos here, but either the quality isn't there (don't allow large images and actual images are pretty low res) or, the cost is actually more than Flickr is charging.

I'm not particularly into the social aspect of Flickr. The photos of PF folks I see on PF. I'm not trying to get explored or noticed over there, but I do like having the ability to link to larger images.

I do sort of feel as though there is a weird idea that stuff on the internet should be free. But it still costs money to produce content and a decent user interface and that price usually has to be covered by the users of the site.

[Racer X 69]

I guess I don't understand the negativity for folks who have lots of photos on there. There was a lot of angst over Flickrs interface when it was free. It feels as though Smugmug has actually improved that aspect of things considerably and is wanting to charge 3 dollars a month for you to upload images over a thousand. I've tried some other sites for linking photos here, but either the quality isn't there (don't allow large images and actual images are pretty low res) or, the cost is actually more than Flickr is charging.

I'm not particularly into the social aspect of Flickr. The photos of PF folks I see on PF. I'm not trying to get explored or noticed over there, but I do like having the ability to link to larger images.

I do sort of feel as though there is a weird idea that stuff on the internet should be free. But it still costs money to produce content and a decent user interface and that price usually has to be covered by the users of the site.

I understand your point, might even agree some.

I think what is getting to most people is that the service has been free, and now Smug Mug is going to start charging for it, after having said they weren’t going to make any changes.

[pschlute]

paying whatever they ask. Next year it may be $99, or more

That is an argument for not uploading files to any online site. Even if you found a free one you like now...who knows?

Why worry what will happen in the future, it's not like you will be forced to pay any increased fee !

---------- Post added 11-04-18 at 11:45 AM ----------

Same here. I would definitely upgrade to Pro if I had the possibility to "attach" a file that would be downloadable only by me to each uploaded jpg. I would call this feature "Private Original". That way I could virtually store the original unedited file in the same place as the publicly accessible edited one and all of a sudden, it would become a lot more attractive to have a Pro account...

If you label your original as "private", no-one but you can even see it, let alone download it.

[aslyfox]

That is an argument for not uploading files to any online site. Even if you found a free one you like now...who knows?

Why worry what will happen in the future, it's not like you will be forced to pay any increased fee !

---------- Post added 11-04-18 at 11:45 AM ----------



If you label your original as "private", no-one but you can even see it, let alone download it.

You can set up flickr to mark your posts with your copyright

Thus giving you protection

You may need legal assistance to enforce such rights but that would always be true in any copyright infringement issue

[UncleVanya]

I guess I don't understand the negativity for folks who have lots of photos on there. There was a lot of angst over Flickrs interface when it was free. It feels as though Smugmug has actually improved that aspect of things considerably and is wanting to charge 3 dollars a month for you to upload images over a thousand. I've tried some other sites for linking photos here, but either the quality isn't there (don't allow large images and actual images are pretty low res) or, the cost is actually more than Flickr is charging.

I'm not particularly into the social aspect of Flickr. The photos of PF folks I see on PF. I'm not trying to get explored or noticed over there, but I do like having the ability to link to larger images.

I do sort of feel as though there is a weird idea that stuff on the internet should be free. But it still costs money to produce content and a decent user interface and that price usually has to be covered by the users of the site.

I think most people are bothered that rather than implementing a cap and stopping all uploads until you are below 1000 images, they are going to delete images until 1000 is your total. Furthermore, the effect this will have on forums like this one where deceased members photos will vanish and where even live members may elect to not bother to relink photos if they delete or rehost them is going to be disruptive.

[aslyfox]

I understand your point, might even agree some.

I think what is getting to most people is that the service has been free, and now Smug Mug is going to start charging for it, after having said they weren’t going to make any changes.

If anyone promised you that life would be fair

They were wrong

[aslyfox]

I think most people are bothered that rather than implementing a cap and stopping all uploads until you are below 1000 images, they are going to delete images until 1000 is your total. Furthermore, the effect this will have on forums like this one where deceased members photos will vanish and where even live members may elect to not bother to relink photos if they delete or rehost them is going to be disruptive.

I agree about the effect


But I also see their side: what if no one would delete their stuff over the limit timely or at all

[UncleVanya]

I agree about the effect


But I also see their side: what if no one would delete their stuff over the limit timely or at all

Flip it around, the cost of storage has fallen over time pretty steadily. The cost of the service is probably mostly in serving the content reliably and quickly. The users could reduce their file holdings to 1000 meeting the requirements and barely make any dent in the cost for the company. This seems more likely to be calculated as a way to get users motivated to do the easier thing, pay rather than curate. It just flies in the face of more generic services which still offer considerably more storage than the 1000 photos use for free. And the sites previous space limits were so much higher that the impact will be large.

I opted to pay up.

[Doundounba]

If you label your original as "private", no-one but you can even see it, let alone download it.

Yeah, but that's not what I want. With what you suggest, I need to store the original image on a separate flickr page from the edited, publicly viewable version. This means a headache when I upload images, making sure they are uploaded in the right order (with the original " next" to the edited file), and I need to be very careful about setting permissions appropriately on each image. The possibility of error is ever present, and it's just generally cumbersome. It's a kludge. (Does Flickr even accept RAWs, BTW?)

What I want is simply the ability to "attach" a second file which would always remain private to every upload. This second file would then be downloadable by me through an icon on the page of the publicly viewable image. That way, the original and the edited images are stored in the same virtual place and there can't be any confusion/errors.

I currently use Flickr as a sharing site only. I downsize my edited jpgs and that and only that is what gets uploaded to the site. My full-size originals remain on my hard drives. If I had this feature, I would also use Flickr as secure storage for the original files of my keepers. This would make it much more useful (and thus valuable) to me.

[normhead]

It just flies in the face of more generic services which still offer considerably more storage than the 1000 photos use for free. And the sites previous space limits were so much higher that the impact will be large.

And where is this more generic site?

[UncleVanya]

And where is this more generic site?

There are many. Amazon photos, Dropbox, Google drive, etc. They don't offer the same level of ease of use for photo sharing - I'm not trying to say they do. My statement is about storage costs vs hosting the service. I think Flickr is more negatively impacted by hosting costs which are tired to how actively viewed items are more than they are by storage costs. That is why I think the 1000 photo limit is more about a way to motivate users like me to upgrade (which I did) than about pricing this based on their costs which might involve use based pricing.

A classic example might be Rupert. His photos will be viewed less often over time than a user with fewer than 1000 photos and a high amount of social traffic and self promotion. But in this plan the under 1000 photo use can free ride while stale accounts that cost little pay the bills.

I'm not complaining about paying. Their strategy worked also, at least on me. I just think the forced culling will have a broad impact. I'm going to explore other options too, but for now I'm sticking with Flickr.

[normhead]

The whole issue of storage of photos on social websites and third party hosting is one that needs a context.

Here's the 100% foolproof alternative.

Get your own domain name, (costs money) , get your own dedicated IP address. Set up your own web server, then upload your photos so that they automatically backup your website whenever you make changes, adding or deleting photos.

UPI wo;; be responsible for site maintenance, but you'll have total control of everything. No one has to use flickr. But if you think you can do it cheaper, you're sadly mistaken. But the thing is, look at that process and you realize none of this is free.

The IP isn't free.
The domain name isn't free.
The hard drives aren't free.
The web server and software isn't free.

The wonder of wonders is that there are any free services. Personally, the first question you have to ask is, "what are they making their money from?"

Are they using your images to draw people to their site? Are they selling "analytics".
Are they targeting advertising at you based on it?

Do you care?
I realize all some folks care about is not spending money. But that in itself can have consequences. This seems to come from a position of free is good paid is bad. Free can also be bad. I'd suggest before you upload anything you check the sites policy on copy-right and redistribution. I don't remember which ones but I looked at at least 10 sites and some on some of them you give up copyright when you post.

[UncleVanya]

The whole issue of storage of photos on social websites and third party hosting is one that needs a context.

Here's the 100% foolproof alternative.

Get your own domain name, (costs money) , get your own dedicated IP address. Set up your own web server, then upload your photos so that they automatically backup your website whenever you make changes, adding or deleting photos.

UPI wo;; be responsible for site maintenance, but you'll have total control of everything. No one has to use flickr. But if you think you can do it cheaper, you're sadly mistaken. But the thing is, look at that process and you realize none of this is free.

The IP isn't free.
The domain name isn't free.
The hard drives aren't free.
The web server and software isn't free.

The wonder of wonders is that there are any free services. Personally, the first question you have to ask is, "what are they making their money from?"

Are they using your images to draw people to their site? Are they selling "analytics".
Are they targeting advertising at you based on it?

Do you care?
I realize all some folks care about is not spending money. But that in itself can have consequences. This seems to come from a position of free is good paid is bad. Free can also be bad. I'd suggest before you upload anything you check the sites policy on copy-right and redistribution. I don't remember which ones but I looked at at least 10 sites and some on some of them you give up copyright when you post.

Great points. I've considered self hosting. Its probably more expensive than people realize. I'd still probably do it if I didn't work with computers daily.