Flickr still the ugliest, cheeziest photo site on the net

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Mar 29, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Mar 29, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    N Guest

    N, Mar 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    DanP Guest

    DanP, Mar 30, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Rich Guest

    I dislike the entire site, it is hideous, made-up like a children's
    playroom.
     
    Rich, Mar 30, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    DanP Guest

    Stop looking at it then!

    DanP
     
    DanP, Mar 30, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    The only time I go there is if someone posts a link in a message.
     
    Rich, Mar 30, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    For once, Rich, I have to agree with you. Flickr is one of the most
    unattractive sites on the Web for displaying images.
     
    Bruce, Mar 30, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    N Guest

    Have closed your account?
     
    N, Mar 31, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    It is, but it works well and is good for sharing, annotating and
    searching. It's more about the content and communication than the color
    scheme.
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 31, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Rich Guest

    I'm on Pbase.
     
    Rich, Mar 31, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    N Guest

    That doesn't answer the question.
     
    N, Mar 31, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Agreed, but having done so well with the more difficult aspects of
    Flickr, wouldn't you have thought that they would do something much
    easier and make it more visually attractive?
     
    Bruce, Mar 31, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    N Guest

    What do you suggest would make it more visually attractive and keep the
    performance?
     
    N, Mar 31, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Pigs and lipstick come to mind.
     
    tony cooper, Mar 31, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    It's a popular site and attracts a lot of socializers, like facebook,
    who like the playroom colored logo... they don't want a cool snobby art
    critic look, or even if they did, that's just their whole image. Lots of
    excellent serious photogs there also though and it's nice that the
    'common folk' mix up with the 'artists', it's nice that my work gets
    seen by people who might have an interest in the type of work I'm doing.
    There just aren't as many people looking at pbase or anywhere else.
    Flickr pics get seen in google searches too.

    I'm really not all that into the social media aspect like all the
    fawning posts with blinking sparkling avatars but I have established a
    few dozen 'contacts', who commented on my photos, or 'favorited' them,
    then I'll look at their stuff and if it's interesting, I'll mark them as
    a contact, then I can go browse my contacts' photos, which is a pretty
    interesting bunch, to me anyways... I don't see how to share that slide
    show of contacts' but here's the closest I can get:
    http://www.flickr.com/people/edgehill/contacts/
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 31, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    True. All the more reason to provide a better viewing experience for
    those who would like it. A choice of backgrounds would be a small but
    significant step in the right direction.


    I don't doubt the value of Flickr, whether to photographers or to the
    social networking "set". I think the success makes it all the more
    important to be able to present images in a way that you feel suits
    them, or which you feel might attract others. The starkness of the
    current Flickr offering can only detract from the content of the
    images IMHO.

    But I recognise that Flickr is immensely successful. For certain, it
    needs no help from me and my opinions!
     
    Bruce, Mar 31, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Really it's just the goofy logo, otherwise it's a simple white
    background. If you click on an image now it enlarges a bit with a black
    background 'lightbox' and arrow keys work for stepping through both
    ways. You can link that way:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/5578907340/#/photos/edgehill/5578907340/lightbox/
    or as a slide show full screen with filmstrip if you mouse below:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/sets/72157603328712620/show/with/5578907340/
    -but yeah, otherwise, they just want to keep the original look for
    'branding' purposes, probably.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 1, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    It's not just the white background/logo I find annoying - it's the
    mass of fussy detail that detracts from the images. I could probably
    just about tolerate the white background if it wasn't for the clutter.

    I agree that when you get past the white page and start viewing
    images, the presentation significantly improves. If only they applied
    that look to the main pages too!

    For branding purposes, Flickr only needs the logo IMHO. But it's all
    a matter of personal taste. Tastes differ, and I accept that some
    people might actually like the Flickr look. Many more people will
    tolerate it because of what Flickr offers.

    I just cannot abide it. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Apr 1, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I don't have an account with them.
     
    RichA, Apr 1, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Oh yes. Ask any pro photog how they like hack amateurs infesting the
    image banks with their images.
     
    RichA, Apr 1, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.