how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?
sobriquet
Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
will resort to 320x200 in the future.
Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
just interested in their resolution)
in this free account:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/
If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).
Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/4206508593_27207dbf1e_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4207261728_34120f1b99_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/4201461918_eb00b9d200_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4200703475_a0aff70fc8_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4199974717_2bbf11705b_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4200723768_1c4f5f91a4_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg
Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin retards at
flickr?
To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
to be something like 1024x768)?
N
"sobriquet" <dohd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:73b0acf1-c7e7-46f1...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Surely, you can't be that ignorant.
egbert_no_bacon
> Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
> will resort to 320x200 in the future.
>
> Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
> just interested in their resolution)
> in this free account:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/
>
> If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
> like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
> view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).
>
> Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:
>
>
> Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin retards at
> flickr?
>
> To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
> without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
> to be something like 1024x768)?
getty gettey getit get-it
egbert_no_bacon
> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
that link don't work
ground swallow come to mind here
N
"egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8d214b1a-ff96-4d71...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I didn't post any links.
sobriquet
> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
I dunno.. I'm puzzled. I have a free account at flickr as well, but
people seem to be able to view my pictures at a high resolution (*).
So maybe it's because I published my pictures under a CC license..
dunno.
Or perhaps it's a new policy from flickr that has been enacted on new
accounts while preserving the high resolution pics on older accounts.
egbert_no_bacon
> "egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_ba...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
N View profile
More options Dec 23, 1:14 am
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
From: "N" <N...@onyx.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:14:58 +1100
Local: Wed, Dec 23 2009 1:14 am
Subject: Re: how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:73b0acf1-
c7e7-46f1-8de...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Surely, you can't be that ignorant.
---- the above is your own hand within anothers post as my reader
tells me, and others also will read
N
If you want to find valid URLs in newspost headers, you're off your tree.
N
It's in your account profile, privacy and permissions.
sobriquet
Maybe they have changed the default account settings then, because in
the past I've
created various accounts and often I didn't mess with the default
settings and it would
still present links to the high-res version of pictures on free
accounts.
egbert_no_bacon
> "egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_ba...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d19b27b9-989d-4e06...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 1:21 am, "N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote:
> >> "egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_ba...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8d214b1a-ff96-4d71...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Dec 23, 1:14 am, "N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Surely, you can't be that ignorant.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > that link don't work
>
> >> I didn't post any links.
>
> > N View profile
> > More options Dec 23, 1:14 am
>
> > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> > From: "N" <N...@onyx.com>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:14:58 +1100
> > Local: Wed, Dec 23 2009 1:14 am
> > Subject: Re: how come flickr has degenerated into such a crappy place?
> > Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
> > original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
>
> > "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > news:73b0acf1-
>
> > Surely, you can't be that ignorant.
>
> > ---- the above is your own hand within anothers post as my reader
> > tells me, and others also will read
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
are you saying, your post is invalid
N
The so called email address in the header is invalid.
I still don't know what link you're referring to.
NameHere
wrote:
>
>Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
>will resort to 320x200 in the future.
Maybe because most people have found that the only sure-fire method do deny
theft of their photography is by using small image sizes and high JPEG
compression ratios. There's no other more effective method. Digital
watermarks are easily removed. Digimark, for one, being the largest scam
ever perpetrated on the unintelligent masses. Often included as a default
on the worst of editors available. PhotoShop being the biggest loser
application to do ever so, perpetuated by just as big of ignorant loser of
all.
sobriquet
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:11:43 -0800 (PST), sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com>
People who think their photo's can get stolen on the web, have fallen
the propaganda
from the intellectual property mafia.
If you have seen this bitstring 00011101010111001110101, please
contact the police, as this bitstring has been stolen.. yeah right!
sobriquet
> People who think their photo's can get stolen on the web, have fallen
> the propaganda
> from the intellectual property mafia.
.. have fallen for the propaganda ..
Paul Furman
> On 23 dec, 02:14, "N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote:
>> "sobriquet" <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:73b0acf1-c7e7-46f1...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
>>> will resort to 320x200 in the future.
>>> Take a look at the pictures (never mind the pictures themselves, I'm
>>> just interested in their resolution)
>>> in this free account:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonrengers/
>>> If you watch individual pictures, even if you have a flickr account
>>> like I do, there is no link above the pictures where you can click to
>>> view the pictures at a higher resolution (the 'all sizes' button).
>>> Yet, the pictures are available at a high resolution via direct links:
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/4206508593_27207dbf1e_b.jpg
Ha, easy way to hack through that. Gotta give them credit for being able
to do tricks like that. Lots of plug-ins for flickr. Btw, flickr has
always made it painful to view full size images, the best way I found is
to view as a slide show. Hit the pause button, turn on info in the
upper-right, make it full screen and use the arrow keys to scroll
through the galleries or jump ahead by clicking thumbs in the film strip
below. This works for accessing the full size images in the linked gallery.
>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4207261728_34120f1b99_b.jpg
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/4201461918_eb00b9d200_b.jpg
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/4200703475_a0aff70fc8_b.jpg
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4199974717_2bbf11705b_b.jpg
>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4200723768_1c4f5f91a4_b.jpg
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2664/4195233721_8a9008cdf8_b.jpg
>>> Is this some sort of new intentional policy of those fuckin retards at
>>> flickr?
>>> To put all the pictures online at 640x480 as a kind of default,
>>> without a link to the high resolution version (while the default used
>>> to be something like 1024x768)?
It's always been 500 px max for the opening page for me.
> I dunno.. I'm puzzled. I have a free account at flickr as well, but
> people seem to be able to view my pictures at a high resolution (*).
> So maybe it's because I published my pictures under a CC license..
> dunno.
> Or perhaps it's a new policy from flickr that has been enacted on new
> accounts while preserving the high resolution pics on older accounts.
Or it could be an expired paid account. BTW I've got a paid account and
don't have any option to turn off "all sizes"
http://www.flickr.com/account?tab=privacy
other than only uploading 500px max so yeah, it must be a built in
limitation of some sort. Similarly, if you exceed the 200 shots for the
free account, the old pics don't get erased, and they still show in
searches, just not in your photostream directly. Flickr is super
annoying in many ways but it's also quite amazingly useful.
Rich
6687a8...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> Most new pictures seem to be available at 640x480 max... maybe they
> will resort to 320x200 in the future.
>
Because everyone out there thinks they are a frigging photographic genius
and that there are people roaming the web just to steal their priceless
pictures. Hence we get HACKS putting watermarks on their images, and
reducing the size of images until they are worthless to look at.