>>3385094This is the most incel thing I've read on /p/ all week
>>3385120>Anyone using Flickr should immediately re-evaluate their lifeIt's one of the few platforms which doesn't sell you for advertising revenue, one of the few platforms which has a predominantly photographer audience, one of the few platforms not entirely driven by social media algorythms, etc
>>3385120>sure, if you shoot in JPG and don't mind if your pictures are automatically resized to 2000px in width and don't mind severe compression to reduce filesize>unironically buy your own website and upload images thereOr use a service which doesn't resize. Specifically the one you mentioned accepts RAWs of any resolution and there're several others
Shitpost better
>>3385123Very much this. The services they offer for professionals are parallel to none and what they're charging is ridiculously cheap.
Personally I'd never pay a subscription to host my images, particularly outside of paid work, but I don't deny many people do want that option.
>>3385133This is what Instagram specialises in- it has way more traffic (particularly passive business and client traffic) than Flickr. The exception is when you want to offer a portfolio of high-res shots for stuff like product or stock photography but by then you should already have a paid service and/or your own webhost.
>>3385210>My point is that you shouldn't assume everyone uses it exactly the same as you do.Everyone in this thread seems to be ignoring that. Flickr was fantastic because of how open it was to all types of photographers. Unfortunately that freedom facilitated spam and storage-accounts, which this addresses, albeit at the cost of some of the non-paid uses of Flickr
>>3385251>kek, you can't name a single artist with 1000 photos worth showing. Even the greats have, tops, 50 photos worth anything.>Only professional photographers with nothing but their personal work should use FlickrYou're an idiot
