Yahoo recently bought Flickr, another site that manages online photo sharing, and offers many more features. When I learnt of the acquisition, I wondered why did Yahoo buy it, when they already have their own utility. I guess it is all about brand equity; they wanted to get the entire user base of Flickr (which was much more than that of Yahoo Photos), but apparently these business stratagems are not my cup of tea :-)
I do not upload photos frequently on the net. But, for last many years, I have been using yahoo photos to share pictures with friends. I found it quite easy to use, including uploading, organizing and sharing. It is simple to use, and quite sufficient in features for amateurs like me.
So why am I thinking of it at all ?
A couple of days back, I logged onto Yahoo Photos (after a considerable time), and I must admit that I was not really surprised to see that Yahoo has planned to shut down Photos. They have provided an option to the existing users, to migrate their photos to one of their affiliates - Flickr, Snapfish, Kodak Gallery, Photobucket and Shutterfly. I was not familiar with the last two names, and of the first three, Flickr appeared best to me [see - brand name at work!]. So, I selected Flickr, and I was informed that my photos are queued for migration, which may take some time. Meanwhile, I started browsing through the "help", when I learnt the disadvantages. Since I signed up for "free" account [one can sign up for the "privilege" account for a fee of $25 per year], I was limited to:
- uploading 100 MB worth of photos in a month
- displaying a maximum of 200 photos at any given time
- having three sets at maximum [sets are equivalent to albums in Yahoo Photos]
- if the account remains inactive for 90 days, it will be deleted
Now, 100 MB p.m. limit doesn't really bother me, since I haven't used that much of space in last four years on Yahoo. A limit on number of photos displayed is somewhat irksome, but not big trouble for me [though I found that there were users which were really irritated by both of these]. But I find it difficult to comply with the last two - I am rather organized, and like to file all my photos in folders, so I had 10 albums for 250 photos. Also, activity on my photo folders is little, and it is not rare for it to remain completely idle for three months.
I learnt of the limitations after I had requested my photos to be migrated. At that time, I recollected that Yahoo Photos also allowed me to download my photos back to my disk. So I went back there, but my account was locked for migration. And now, my photos have all been moved to Flickr, and Yahoo folder deleted.
Flickr is "happy to inform" me that I can get around the above limits by paying the membership fee. I do not mind paying for a service, but on the other hand, I am not willing to pay for a service which many providers are giving free of cost. So, I decided to migrate my photos to picasaweb, since that is an excellent service, and provided by Google, and does not impose such limits [It does limit the maximum space available, but that is around 3 GB, which is more than sufficient for me.] Now comes the biggest hitch - I cannot download my photos from Flickr back to my disk! I scanned all I could, but found no way to do this!
In conclusion:
1. If anyone is aware how can I download my photos from Flickr, please tell me about it.
2. If you are migrating your photos from Yahoo, please evaluate your options carefully.
3. In case you are using Yahoo Photos, but are not aware of it yet, they propose to delete all non-migrated accounts after Sept 20.
I do not upload photos frequently on the net. But, for last many years, I have been using yahoo photos to share pictures with friends. I found it quite easy to use, including uploading, organizing and sharing. It is simple to use, and quite sufficient in features for amateurs like me.
So why am I thinking of it at all ?
A couple of days back, I logged onto Yahoo Photos (after a considerable time), and I must admit that I was not really surprised to see that Yahoo has planned to shut down Photos. They have provided an option to the existing users, to migrate their photos to one of their affiliates - Flickr, Snapfish, Kodak Gallery, Photobucket and Shutterfly. I was not familiar with the last two names, and of the first three, Flickr appeared best to me [see - brand name at work!]. So, I selected Flickr, and I was informed that my photos are queued for migration, which may take some time. Meanwhile, I started browsing through the "help", when I learnt the disadvantages. Since I signed up for "free" account [one can sign up for the "privilege" account for a fee of $25 per year], I was limited to:
- uploading 100 MB worth of photos in a month
- displaying a maximum of 200 photos at any given time
- having three sets at maximum [sets are equivalent to albums in Yahoo Photos]
- if the account remains inactive for 90 days, it will be deleted
Now, 100 MB p.m. limit doesn't really bother me, since I haven't used that much of space in last four years on Yahoo. A limit on number of photos displayed is somewhat irksome, but not big trouble for me [though I found that there were users which were really irritated by both of these]. But I find it difficult to comply with the last two - I am rather organized, and like to file all my photos in folders, so I had 10 albums for 250 photos. Also, activity on my photo folders is little, and it is not rare for it to remain completely idle for three months.
I learnt of the limitations after I had requested my photos to be migrated. At that time, I recollected that Yahoo Photos also allowed me to download my photos back to my disk. So I went back there, but my account was locked for migration. And now, my photos have all been moved to Flickr, and Yahoo folder deleted.
Flickr is "happy to inform" me that I can get around the above limits by paying the membership fee. I do not mind paying for a service, but on the other hand, I am not willing to pay for a service which many providers are giving free of cost. So, I decided to migrate my photos to picasaweb, since that is an excellent service, and provided by Google, and does not impose such limits [It does limit the maximum space available, but that is around 3 GB, which is more than sufficient for me.] Now comes the biggest hitch - I cannot download my photos from Flickr back to my disk! I scanned all I could, but found no way to do this!
In conclusion:
1. If anyone is aware how can I download my photos from Flickr, please tell me about it.
2. If you are migrating your photos from Yahoo, please evaluate your options carefully.
3. In case you are using Yahoo Photos, but are not aware of it yet, they propose to delete all non-migrated accounts after Sept 20.
15 comments:
then its time for you to check picasaweb :)
I faced the similar problem. Why do you think I have stopped uploading my travel pictures on Flickr which is linked to my trippermap as well on my other blog ?
I do not intend to pay the subscription fees for the same reasons stated by you. After starting on Flickr, I realized it allows only 3 albums & that was end of it. Now also, if I HAVE to upload pics, they are lying scattered w/o any albums assigned to them.
Also, from my experience I found that Flickr is very slow compared to Picasaweb which not only allows to have free innumerable albums, the upload time is less.
Like you I too wanted a no. of albums to keep my pictures in an organized way.
My advice- Go for picasaweb. :)
And yes, I also bought an external hard drive to store all my photos in that. Can't trust these web albums for their change of 'mood'. ;)
@Prashanth, Cuckoo: Thanks for your advise. I have zero-ed in or picasaweb - as you said, it offers more benefits. But the big question is, how to get my photos back from flickr?
dude.. dont know if this will help u or not.. but give it a shot.
http://www.flickrleech.net/
http://sunkencity.org/flickrbackup/
not sure if these will work or not.. but hey.. worth a shot. if it works.. great. if it doesnt.. well no harm done. except for a few minutes wasted.
all the best mate.
also check this out
http://greggman.com/pages/flickrdown.htm
may be i wouldnt advise it to a non techie friend , but for u its more than easy.
n yes, picasa web is the ultimate winner. the day google made its picasa go web, i shifted to it.if it was by google, it had to be d best (ok brand name again) and not only all tht, but did u observe tht the picture quality is quite good on picasaweb,n u can show them to ur friends in full screen :)
No idea :-(
I agree with Prashanth. Picasa is good.
Hi dear, dont knwo this that flicker was taken by Yahoo bcoz earlier it was a product of Google..
Have just check after reading you blog..No photo sharing in Google.Strange..
Anyways, i havent used flicker so no idea abt that..
TAke care
Sorry Sigma, can't help! Anyhow, never uploaded to Flickr...
@ Cuckoo: Sorry for a hurried response earlier. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I do not intend to use any of these online sites for storage - I rely on my hard disk/CD for that, I just want to use it for sharing photos with friends. I want to do this not just for newer photos, but for older ones too, in case I want to share older photos with some friends I am talking to after a long time.
@Raj: Thanks for the links. I havent been able to try them out as yet, but will do so at the first opportunity. And you are right, nothing lost even if it doesnt work :-)
@Maverick: Thanks for the link. Am gonna try that out too when I am able to find some time, hopefully this weekend :-) I would have shifted to Picasa in the first place, had Yahoo given me the option. :-(
@Ash: Thanks! Picasa seems to win hands down :-D
@Shruti: Flickr was never owned by Google. Google has its own photo-sharing tool, which is Picasa, which everyone here is raving about :-D
@Gil: And good thing too, that you never did. :-) I just realized that the photos I uploaded to blogger manually, have been stored in picasaweb albums!
there used to be something called flickrfs, at least on linux. i haven't used it, but it can be used to sync both ways. maybe you can give it a try, if you've linux on your machine.
btw, folders are an old concept. now we've tags ;-). i've realized that folders are a pain, and if u have to have them, just use unique tags and they become virtual folders.
cheers,
asuph
here is the thing:
http://manishrjain.googlepages.com/flickrfs
Yes, I agree too. Picasa is better option considering the limitation of Flickr.
What makes Flickr interesting is its thousands of lively groups, which provides largest exposure comparing to any other site. I would suggest that along with picasa you continue with Flickr , irrespective its display limits.
wat still downloading the pics :)
@Asuph: Thanks for the link! I am going to try it too, one of these days - I promise myself. I have a whole lot of linux machines to chose from [my work env is on unix-based platforms], so no problem with that. :-) Yes, tags act as virtual folders, but somehow going to the 'home' directory and seeing it cluttered doesnt appeal to me - I like to see things in their place :-)
@JV: Thanks for your advise. However, for now, my primary purpose of sharing selected photos with friends, for the rest there is the blog! Check out my travel blog sometime.
@Maverick: No, of course not. I havent even started :-( Too busy with work :-(
I do the same, Picasaweb. Very easy to use and look and feel is quite good (obvious for a Google product). I am a google fan for its "Dont be Evil" copcept and hope they will continue to same kind of support.
Post a Comment