Glass.photo: users thread

[droj]

From Glass, as quoted above:

Exactly. In which case no non-member is ever going to 'discover' your images, whilst at the same time any member can download any one of your images at the highest resolution you've posted it at. Whether that's an argument against posting images at high res is a moot point ....

 

[myotis]

Exactly. In which case no non-member is ever going to 'discover' your images, whilst at the same time any member can download any one of your images at the highest resolution you've posted it at. Whether that's an argument against posting images at high res is a moot point ....

A few thoughts on this

I'm not sure I would mind not being "discovered", as long as I could gather together a few members to share work with.

I don't know how making your posts private would affect linking to other sites, not just single images, but Series as well: Glass promote sharing Series links with non-members, but they may not work if you have your posts marked private, unless the link offers some system of overriding the privacy for the linked photographs.

While it doesn't remove the risk of someone joining with the aim of stealing images, as a paid-for, members-only sharing site, I would think the risks are substantially reduced.

I don't have any expertise to assess what Glass have said about the security measures used on other sites giving a false sense of security, so I'm struggling with working out how the risk with Glass compares to other sites. Even if the current set up doesn't sound all that good

 

[inquisitive_chap]

I asked Gemini to compare the protections on the two sites. This is what it said. Users here with more experience than me will know if this is accurate or not (AI can make mistakes) but it seems Flickr's API weakens it

---------------

Neither site is truly "secure" in the technical sense. Glass.photo is practically "more secure," but only because it creates slightly more friction for the casual user.
It is important to understand the golden rule of the internet: If you can see it on your screen, you can download it. Browsers must download an image to display it; "protection" just means hiding that downloaded file from the user's easy reach.
Here is the breakdown of why Glass.photo edges out Flickr in this specific context, despite both having workarounds.

1. The Protection Mechanisms​

Feature	Flickr	Glass.photo
Right-Click	Disabled (via "Spaceball" trick*)	Disabled (via JavaScript)
Direct Access	Offers a "View All Sizes" page which often exposes higher resolutions.	No native "View Original" or size selection menu for viewers.
API Access	Has a public, well-documented API that scrapers have used for decades.	No public API; harder for bots to mass-scrape.
Obfuscation	Uses a transparent 1x1 pixel image overlay (the "Spaceball") to intercept clicks.	Relies on a modern Single Page Application (SPA) structure that makes "Save As" harder.

The "Spaceball" Trick: Flickr often places a transparent image on top of the real photo. When you right-click to "Save Image," you end up saving a blank spaceball.gif instead of the photo.

2. The Workarounds (How Thieves Steal)​

I HAVE REMOVED THIS SECTION FROM GEMINI's ANSWER AS IT TELLS PEOPLE EXACTLY HOW TO DOWNLOAD ON EITHER SITE. BUT BASICALLY, IT's EASIER ON FLICKR

3. Why Glass is 'More' Secure​

Glass wins on Security by Obscurity and User Interface Design.

• No Legacy Baggage: Flickr is 20 years old. It has legacy code, predictable URL structures, and millions of old links that are easy to scrape. Glass is newer and uses modern web frameworks that are slightly more annoying to pick apart.
• The "Walled Garden": Glass is a paid, subscription-only community (for uploaders).1 There is less incentive for mass-scrapers/bots to target it compared to Flickr, which hosts billions of public, Creative Commons images.
  
  
  
• Lack of "All Sizes": Glass forces the viewer to see the image at the resolution the browser dictates. It doesn't offer a handy menu to "See the 6000x4000 original," which is the most common way Flickr users accidentally leak their high-res files.

4. Verdict​

Glass.photo is "more secure" because it lacks the easy backdoors (like "View All Sizes") that Flickr provides. However, for a dedicated thief, the difference is negligible.
Recommendation:
If you are truly worried about theft, never upload high-resolution files.

• Resize your images to 2000px on the long edge before uploading.
• This ensures that even if someone steals it (via screenshot or Inspect Element), they only get a web-quality version, not a print-quality master file.

​

 

[myotis]

I asked Gemini to compare the protections on the two sites. This is what it said. Users here with more experience than me will know if this is accurate or not (AI can make mistakes) but it seems Flickr's API weakens it

---------------

Neither site is truly "secure" in the technical sense. Glass.photo is practically "more secure," but only because it creates slightly more friction for the casual user.
It is important to understand the golden rule of the internet: If you can see it on your screen, you can download it. Browsers must download an image to display it; "protection" just means hiding that downloaded file from the user's easy reach.
Here is the breakdown of why Glass.photo edges out Flickr in this specific context, despite both having workarounds.

1. The Protection Mechanisms​

Feature	Flickr	Glass.photo
Right-Click	Disabled (via "Spaceball" trick*)	Disabled (via JavaScript)
Direct Access	Offers a "View All Sizes" page which often exposes higher resolutions.	No native "View Original" or size selection menu for viewers.
API Access	Has a public, well-documented API that scrapers have used for decades.	No public API; harder for bots to mass-scrape.
Obfuscation	Uses a transparent 1x1 pixel image overlay (the "Spaceball") to intercept clicks.	Relies on a modern Single Page Application (SPA) structure that makes "Save As" harder.

The "Spaceball" Trick: Flickr often places a transparent image on top of the real photo. When you right-click to "Save Image," you end up saving a blank spaceball.gif instead of the photo.

2. The Workarounds (How Thieves Steal)​

I HAVE REMOVED THIS SECTION FROM GEMINI's ANSWER AS IT TELLS PEOPLE EXACTLY HOW TO DOWNLOAD ON EITHER SITE. BUT BASICALLY, IT's EASIER ON FLICKR

3. Why Glass is 'More' Secure​

Glass wins on Security by Obscurity and User Interface Design.

• No Legacy Baggage: Flickr is 20 years old. It has legacy code, predictable URL structures, and millions of old links that are easy to scrape. Glass is newer and uses modern web frameworks that are slightly more annoying to pick apart.
• The "Walled Garden": Glass is a paid, subscription-only community (for uploaders).1 There is less incentive for mass-scrapers/bots to target it compared to Flickr, which hosts billions of public, Creative Commons images.
  
  
  
• Lack of "All Sizes": Glass forces the viewer to see the image at the resolution the browser dictates. It doesn't offer a handy menu to "See the 6000x4000 original," which is the most common way Flickr users accidentally leak their high-res files.

4. Verdict​

Glass.photo is "more secure" because it lacks the easy backdoors (like "View All Sizes") that Flickr provides. However, for a dedicated thief, the difference is negligible.
Recommendation:
If you are truly worried about theft, never upload high-resolution files.

• Resize your images to 2000px on the long edge before uploading.
• This ensures that even if someone steals it (via screenshot or Inspect Element), they only get a web-quality version, not a print-quality master file.

​

Thanks,

Looks useful, but my limited experience with AI is to mistrust everything it says unless I already know the answer, so I can differentiate between what it gets right and what it gets wrong :-(

 

[inquisitive_chap]

I think the bottom line is that it is pretty easy to steal a photo on either site sadly if you can view it. I think making photos available to members only will materially reduce who can view it. And so only paid up members (or those on a 2 week trial) could view them and then steal them.

I confess, I would be rather surprised if someone wanted to download one of my images. And somewhat flattered! But then, unlike some of you, I am not someone who has the quality of work that could be sold

 

[myotis]

I think the bottom line is that it is pretty easy to steal a photo on either site sadly if you can view it.

That is pretty well what Glass are saying.

I think making photos available to members only will materially reduce who can view it. And so only paid up members (or those on a 2 week trial) could view them

But that might be OK

I confess, I would be rather surprised if someone wanted to download one of my images. And somewhat flattered! But then, unlike some of you, I am not someone who has the quality of work that could be sold

You might be surprised at what makes a photograph "valuable".

When we used to sell stock photographs, it was rarely the "good" photographs that sold, and one of the depressing aspects of selling stock was the awareness that creating really uninteresting photographs, that were targeted at the markets, was what you needed to do.

 

[droj]

creating really uninteresting photographs, that were targeted at the markets, was what you needed to do.

That's the Alamy model, isn't it? A policy of 'anything goes', regardless of cultural value, because somebody somewhere will want one ...

 

[myotis]

That's the Alamy model, isn't it? A policy of 'anything goes', regardless of cultural value, because somebody somewhere will want one ...

I don't know that much about Alamy, but what they accept isn't necessarily what gets sold.

The photographs we found sold were "descriptive" in nature, and bought for encyclopaedia/ newspaper/magazine/book illustrations, seed/plant catalogues etc, which were initially taken to get the numbers up. i.e. a trowel stuck in a tomato grow bag, a handful of seeds, a cabbage plant, because we were aware that ordinary pictures of ordinary things sold.

But, pictures, of similar subjects (they all revolved around plants and gardening) that required effort to produce and, for me, were the more interesting and better photographs didn't sell at all. Maybe this was just a different market and filled with people producing much better pictures than us,

Some of the time you could see why a simple descriptive picture was probably appropriate. Other times, it was hard to understand (say for a Sunday magazine supplement article) why they had used such an uninteresting picture when others were available.

I should add, that the agency would reject pictures they didn't think they would sell. This is in contrast to Alamy, who only reject pictures that don't meet a certain technical standard.

 

[gramps]

Personally I'm not fussed about someone being so desperate to get one of my photos that they wouuld go to all the effort.
If it's good enough for Pro Phil Penman it'll be good enough for me.

 

[gramps]

Just discovered the Support Site, otherwise known as FAQ's - answers lots of questions.
I know you all probably found it already!

 

[myotis]

Just discovered the Support Site, otherwise known as FAQ's - answers lots of questions.
I know you all probably found it already!

Yep. one of my early posts gave directions on how to find it

But no harm in refreshing peoples memory.

 

[gramps]

Can anyone tell me if you can re-order series?

By accident I have just discovered that if you edit your series e.g. add to the title or description, it moves it to the top position.
I don't know of another way to do it and this way it's clearly only affecting one series.

 

[myotis]

By accident I have just discovered that if you edit your series e.g. add to the title or description, it moves it to the top position.
I don't know of another way to do it and this way it's clearly only affecting one series.

I'm not sure I like this.

 

[gramps]

Seems logical really, the series with the most recent activity goes to the top.

 

[myotis]

Seems logical really, the series with the most recent activity goes to the top.

I can understand the logic. But I would rather control the order, and I'm not sure if I want a Series that has been around for a while coming to the top just because where corrected a spelling mistake that I found.

The other thing personal to me, is because of what I am wanting to do with series, which is to have an ongoing visual journal divided into time periods and arranged chronologically or alpha numerically by name.

 

[myotis]

Not directly linked to Glass, so I have posted this on the have Flikr gone mad thread.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/have-flickr-gone-mad.771653/post-9678995

It's about linking photographs to TP posts from an Adobe My Portfolio personal web site (part of an Adobe sub).

I didn't know this was possible, but the number of things I don't know continues to increase every day.

 

[myotis]

I've had a reply from Glass about being able to download 1024 px pictures. It doesn't really add much to what we have already discussed, other than confirming it's a deliberate policy.


"What you observed is expected behavior. Structurally, we’ve made Glass as safe as it can reasonably be on the web. Images are served in limited resolutions (like the 1024px AVIF you saw), and we don’t expose original, full-resolution files. While no web-based platform can fully prevent screenshots or saving of displayed images, we intentionally designed it as secure as structurally possible within this context.

The “locked” AVIF file you downloaded reflects that approach: it’s a display-sized, optimized image, not the original file, and it’s not suitable for meaningful reuse or printing. For members who want an extra layer of control, we also offer a “private” account setting, which restricts visibility of images to logged-in Glass members only. Many photographers choose this option for additional peace of mind, if they are concerned.

We’re always careful to balance image protection with performance, accessibility, and the overall viewing experience — and we’re transparent that absolute prevention of image saving on the open web isn’t technically possible, but we do take protection seriously. "
They have also had a look at the forum: "We really appreciate the thoughtful discussion around this platform

"

 

[gramps]

I've had a reply from Glass about being able to download 1024 px pictures. It doesn't really add much to what we have already discussed, other than confirming it's a deliberate policy.


"What you observed is expected behavior. Structurally, we’ve made Glass as safe as it can reasonably be on the web. Images are served in limited resolutions (like the 1024px AVIF you saw), and we don’t expose original, full-resolution files. While no web-based platform can fully prevent screenshots or saving of displayed images, we intentionally designed it as secure as structurally possible within this context.

The “locked” AVIF file you downloaded reflects that approach: it’s a display-sized, optimized image, not the original file, and it’s not suitable for meaningful reuse or printing. For members who want an extra layer of control, we also offer a “private” account setting, which restricts visibility of images to logged-in Glass members only. Many photographers choose this option for additional peace of mind, if they are concerned.

We’re always careful to balance image protection with performance, accessibility, and the overall viewing experience — and we’re transparent that absolute prevention of image saving on the open web isn’t technically possible, but we do take protection seriously. "
They have also had a look at the forum: "We really appreciate the thoughtful discussion around this platform

"

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[gramps]

Well my trial ends in a couple of days and I will definitely be staying with Glass.
I like the format of the site, despite a few quirks, and see it as a good resource of 'learning' photos for my genre of photography.
I have made a number of interactions with other members and find it much more beneficial to me than Flickr.
My Flickr account subscription is set to renew in around 3 months but I am unlikely to keep it going, Glass gives me all I need.

 

[myotis]

Well my trial ends in a couple of days and I will definitely be staying with Glass.
I like the format of the site, despite a few quirks, and see it as a good resource of 'learning' photos for my genre of photography.
I have made a number of interactions with other members and find it much more beneficial to me than Flickr.
My Flickr account subscription is set to renew in around 3 months but I am unlikely to keep it going, Glass gives me all I need.

Good to hear it has been a successful experiment for you.

I'm still undecided, but I'm not seriously considering a paid-for Flikr account. I don't find the free Flikr account usable, so I'm fairly sure I will stick with having a Glass account, just not sure how I'm going to use it.

 

[inquisitive_chap]

I haven't uploaded any new photos yet. I'll keep Glass and run free or pro Flickr in parallel for a year

Not sure what limitations are of free Flickr being the 1000 photo limit

 

[gramps]

Not sure what limitations are of free Flickr being the 1000 photo limit

I think there is a max 1024px file download size - ALSO.

 

[inquisitive_chap]

OK. But I would obviously have the originals of my own pictures so for me that wouldn't be an issue

 

[Donnie]

Interestingly my pro flickr was to renew today but being Christmas and just back from a few days away for wedding anniversary my auto payment failed (too much money spent on the mrs) But when I saw £75 I thought nah so hit cancel, but it automatically popped up with a "special offer" of knocking £15 off, so yes, Im gonna renew for another year and have also just paid for the glass.photo so run them side by side and see what I think.

 

[myotis]

Interestingly my pro flickr was to renew today but being Christmas and just back from a few days away for wedding anniversary my auto payment failed (too much money spent on the mrs) But when I saw £75 I thought nah so hit cancel, but it automatically popped up with a "special offer" of knocking £15 off, so yes, Im gonna renew for another year and have also just paid for the glass.photo so run them side by side and see what I think.

That's a few people running them together, so it will be interesting to see how you all get on.

 

[Paulie-W]

That's a few people running them together, so it will be interesting to see how you all get on.

That's exactly what I'm doing. Just won't bother to renew Flickr Pro.

 

[skullfunkerry]

I had an email today offering me $10 off the first year's membership, so I'm a fully paid up member now. Haven't uploaded any shots yet, but I'll try and get to that over the Xmas period. Not sure yet whether I'm going to reupload stuff that's already on Flickr, or start from scratch.
I'm kerryymm over there, if anyone wants to follow me

 

[myotis]

I had an email today offering me $10 off the first year's membership, so I'm a fully paid up member now. Haven't uploaded any shots yet, but I'll try and get to that over the Xmas period. Not sure yet whether I'm going to reupload stuff that's already on Flickr, or start from scratch.
I'm kerryymm over there, if anyone wants to follow me

If you could post an actual link, I will add it to the list created earlier in this thread for TP members with Glass accounts.

Searching Glass for kerryymm gives several options, and I don't want to guess and post the wrong link.

Thanks

 

[gramps]

https://glass.photo/kerryymm is the only one with no photos, so I guess that's the one.

 

[myotis]

https://glass.photo/kerryymm is the only one with no photos, so I guess that's the one.

I'm guessing so.

I searched the "members" for kerryymm, and got more than one Kerry with no photographs, but using the username directly in the web address was a clever approach. I wish I had thoght of it :-(

But @skullfunkerry has now been added to the list

 

[skullfunkerry]

Sorry chaps! Yes, that's the one

 

[Paulie-W]

Referral link $29

Choose your plan — Glass

glass.photo

 

[skullfunkerry]

Finally got round to uploading some photos today. It's not as slick as the Flickr uploader, but actually I think I like that. Having a 10 at a time limit made me think more about which photos to upload; I went for a few albums that I know have got shots in which I'm really proud of, and found that I only ended up publishing a handful from each, far fewer than I've posted on Flickr in the past. Time will tell if this continues or if it starts to get on my nerves. I think after my next shoot (whenever that might be!) I'm going to try and upload to Glass only, and see how it affects my quality control.

 

[myotis]

Finally got round to uploading some photos today. It's not as slick as the Flickr uploader, but actually I think I like that. Having a 10 at a time limit made me think more about which photos to upload; I went for a few albums that I know have got shots in which I'm really proud of, and found that I only ended up publishing a handful from each, far fewer than I've posted on Flickr in the past. Time will tell if this continues or if it starts to get on my nerves. I think after my next shoot (whenever that might be!) I'm going to try and upload to Glass only, and see how it affects my quality control.

How did you upload?

My only experience with Flikr is the manual upload, and one of the attractions of Glass for me, is the Capture One plugin for uploading, which for the couple of uploads I've done has worked smoothly.

I haven't come up against the 10 picture limit, but for me, I can't ever imagine ever having over ten to upload, except maybe during an initial move from another platform.

 

[skullfunkerry]

How did you upload?

My only experience with Flikr is the manual upload, and one of the attractions of Glass for me, is the Capture One plugin for uploading, which for the couple of uploads I've done has worked smoothly.

I haven't come up against the 10 picture limit, but for me, I can't ever imagine ever having over ten to upload, except maybe during an initial move from another platform.

I just uploaded manually to the website. I quite like the uploading several starts a series, but I don't like that if you want to add to that series you have to upload one by one; if you do a second batch upload it forces you to start a new series, you can't add to an existing one (although I discovered that you can then move photos individually from one series to another).

If I've been somewhere like an airshow or a track day I'd quite possibly want to upload more than 10 shots... I'm not sure that's the sort of sharing Glass is aimed at though.

 

[myotis]

I just uploaded manually to the website. I quite like the uploading several starts a series, but I don't like that if you want to add to that series you have to upload one by one; if you do a second batch upload it forces you to start a new series, you can't add to an existing one (although I discovered that you can then move photos individually from one series to another).

If I've been somewhere like an airshow or a track day I'd quite possibly want to upload more than 10 shots... I'm not sure that's the sort of sharing Glass is aimed at though.

You get the feeling that Glass is still finding its feet a bit. Albeit with a good start.

I hadn't realised until recently that all the staff only work on it part time, and this past year they have been doing a lot of backend improvements, which has slowed down developing the frontend.

I can see why you might want to upload more than 10 pictures from a specific event, but I think you are probably correct that it's possibly not the place for this type of photograph. That is where the interest is less "photographic" and more likely to appeal to those with an interest in the subject more than an interest in "good" photographs.

I can appreciate "good" photographs of pretty well any subject, but unless you have an interest, say in planes, a large series of very similar photographs, which are only different because they show a different type of plane, aren't all that photographically interesting. Flikr (which is a bit of a catch all) or some sort of plane enthusiast site, would seem a more suitable destination.

 

[myotis]

Here is another video about Glass. This time an interview with Tom Watson the co-founder of Glass *who has since left the company*. The video is 9 months old and It's an hour long !

Edit * * I got this wrong, he has not left the company :-(

 

[inquisitive_chap]

Why did he leave?

 

[myotis]

Why did he leave?

Actually, I got that wrong it isn't Tom who left, it was Daniel (who as far as I can make out wasn't one of the founders).

It was in one of the mailings, and listed under member updates. Daniel, I think was the person behind the Youtube publicity videos that they did for a while.

​

 

[gramps]

I’m really enjoying the interaction there, lots of good photographers to learn from and observe.