Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

For only like $25 a year, it's definitely worth it.

Yeah, I'd say so. :)

I have a Pro account, and feel it is worth the $25 a year.

Most definitely. Do it, dooooooo it.

I Say no..

If you pa for web hosting, why not host your own images? You're already paying!

Additionally, their free service really is plenty. do you really upload that much?

Well worth every penny.

I'm not sure if they fixed this bug, but if you run out of your free bandwidth you could still email them photos (using the special Flickr email address they give you) and those aren't counted as part of your monthly allowance. It worked for me last year, not sure if they plugged the hole.

thanks for all your input. I'm gonna give in to this fee. :)

jackosh: Some flickr members upload more than 200 photos, and some upload in the thousands.

For some, being able to link flickr on their website saves them from upgrading their hosting plan, to accommodate their photos. Many people have a basic hosting plan, and paying the $25 is less than upgrading to another plan.

Best $25 I spend each year.

Even if you host your own images, you still have to setup some type of gallery for your pictures, until you just want some place to store them. It's way easier for me to just send someone to my Flickr gallery. They make organizing my pictures way easier than if I were to do it on my own hosting.

@LorriM: I'm 80% confident that goes against their terms of service. I could be wrong, and I don't feel like going through it.. but I remember viewing a discussion of that very topic before. Additionally, 200 photos is not really a limit.. the service will only display 200 photos at once. So, for example, you could have three albums of 200 photos (equaling 600). It will still store unlimited photos!

What I don't like about Flickr is that yahoo took over. I hate how they demand you use their email service just to use the photo-sharing service that they purchased!

If u had flickr before yahoo purchased them u can still use that login.

jackosh: Are you referring to photo limits, or linking to flickr? I will assume you are referring to photo limits.

I have a pro account on flickr, and according to their faqs, which I just checked out to make sure I was staing things correctly:
"A Pro account member has unlimited uploads (up to 10MB per photo), unlimited storage, unlimited badwidth, unlimited photosets, permanent archiving, ability to replace photos." I can upload as many photos as I wish.

I am allowed to link my flickr gallery on my websites...either with individual photos, or a photostream.

Yes, free members will have your photos (over the 200 limit for display) stored, that is correct. But, for some they want to be able to have all the photos in their gallery displayed.

But, to each their own, like in everything else. I understand where you are coming from.

jackjosh: you're allowed to post your flickr photos anywhere, as long as the photo itself links back to flickr.

And yes. Best $25 I spent this year. If i was limited to 200 photos, that would have lasted me through one field trip and random photos.

And I've done the self-hosted photo route (in fact, took me forever to get a flickr account), and I would never go back to that. It just wasn't as handy as flickr is for me.

Yeah, Flickr is wonderful, 25 dollars is fantastic value.

@jackosh - Yahoo don't force me to use their email system in order to use Flickr, I just use a Yahoo Id to log in - yes you get other Yahoo services but you're not forced to use any of them if you don't want to. Also, look at the reaction this note got - Flickr was almost universally recommended by the people above - and the others sounded like they hadn't really used it and found it's beauty. Nobody mentioned the login method apart from you!

Flickr is one of those things that isn't very useful without a pro account. Upload limits, 2 photo set maximum, etc. If you upload more than 4 photos a month, you can't really use it without pro.

Lisa: I agree on how long it takes to capture 200 photos. My gosh, i can do that just walking through my garden.

As far as organization of photo sets, etc., flickr is an excellent route for that. And, you only need a Yahoo Id in order to log in to flickr. I don't use Yahoo's email service, never have, never will.

You really can't beat the cost for the beauty of the service.

@LorriM: I was actually talking about hotlinking to your flickr account from another website, but it looks like it's allowed provided you link back to flickr!

@talkaboutdesign: I did sign up before yahoo acquired flickr. I was mentioning that it bothers me that it is no longer an option. Further, yahoo is in the process of making us change over to yahoo accounts too.

@publicenergy: I don't care that others didn't mention it as a problem. I don't like it, which is why I said it - I was giving my opinion of the service (and it was asked for), so it shouldn't be a problem if its not the same as yours or anyone else's!

I have my own web hosting and I just dump random photos into a folder and link that way... if it needs to be gallery-ized I have a MT installation for that.

Best $25 I spend each year.

Ditto!! I like the tag feature for organizing your own photos and it's kind of its own community (however much or little you want to get involved) that way. The new "collections" grouping is useful, although I haven't used it myself yet.

I think it also gives a whole new joy to carrying my camera around, too.

(Yeah, my purse is really heavy.)

Most definitely worth it. I have thousands of photos uploaded (many private), which is great for backing up my photo library, pointing friends to photos, etc. There's not monthly upload limit, you can create tons of sets/collections, and it's so inexpensive. Do it. :)

I'm gonna have to side on the side of the "money well spent" camp.

I used to think that the free version was enough for me and why would I *ever* want to spend money? Then I uploaded my 201st image and noticed older pictures dropping away. I held out till a favourite photoset disappeared and then shelled out the cash. This was just about a year ago and I haven't regretted it for a second.

I found that I take more pictures now I have the pro account. Plus, it is just such an easy way to share pictures with people. Yes, I could go through the hassle of ftping them to my website, then creating a gallery, then knocking my server out when more than three people want to look at the same picture...

Much easier to let Flickr take the strain for me. Plus I love the 'note' functionality, that people can comment on pictures, that you can 'favourite' pictures, have collections and sets (though I've yet to create a collection. Hmm, perhaps that can be my homework?)

You're clearly already a Flickr user so I don't have to give the spiel on the service. And if you didn't like what they did you wouldn't even be contemplating the upgrade... All I can say is that I never pay for anything if I can help it, and I have yet to regret paying for my pro account.

Shh.... If anybody from the Flickr team reads this thread, he might suggest to the CEO to up the price of the PRO Account!! LOL

jackosh: Yes, it is allowed, and I find it to be extremely useful. But, like I said earlier, I understand and respect your viewpoint, and we don't have to agree with each other.

ErinR: I have quite a few ancestral photos uploaded to a private set, that only family members can view, download, etc. It is quite convenient, and a good way to archive those photographs so my family can use them how they wish, at their leisure. It also saves me from having to email files back and forth to them, or having hard copies printed for them.

LorriM: obviously the same goes for me! I respect that most people prefer the pro account.. it just isn't for me. As low as $25 is, its still too much of an expensive purchase (on top of my other yearly bills).. I'm very happy with the free account :)

I also agree that for $25.00 USD it's worth it if you have a lot of pictures.

If you think about it, at $25.00 a year it works out to be around .07 cents a day for a pro account. I think anyone can afford that.

If you actually had to pay seven cents a day yes anyone could basically afford it, but some of us simply don't have $25 at one time to toss at a web service that CAN be solved with a simple gallery script and a decent hosting plan.

The ease of use is what makes Flickr appealing to me. I used to use the gallery application supplied by my hosting company, but I just like using Flickr a lot more. Flickr's really cool with Flock (which I only use to write blog entries). All I have to do when I do my thing is drag the images from Flock's integrated Flickr toolbar into the post. Anyway, before I go off on a tangent, the convenience, ease of sharing, ease of organizing and a couple of intangibles make the $25 worth it to me.

I even use a plug-in to make a gallery page on my own site that pulls in the sets from Flickr. It seems really odd to upload photos to Flickr if I'm going to cache the images from Flickr back to a gallery on my own blog, but I really find the ease of organizing photos in Flickr such a huge benefit. Not to mention Flickr's auto rescaling of images is far smoother than the server my host has me on. It's nice not having to manually rescale every image to get decent looking thumbs and medium sized versions of a shot for inline images on an entry.

My satisfaction with Flickr is very high. My only wish is for an additional photo size in between medium and large.