Have Flickr uploads compression increased?

JonBowles

JonBowles

Suspended / Banned
Messages
656
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am noticing that images I upload to Flickr no longer look as sharp as they used to. I'm guessing they have increased the compression..I can even see artifacts on some images when viewed large. Has anyone else noticed this? It's making me look around for a different site to link images from.
 
I hadn't specifically noticed the compression, I'll have to check ... but the site has certainly become a lot slower to use for me.
 
Well I asked on the flickr forum. I was asked to show them one of my uploaded photos so that they could see the what the compression was. But once it's up there they can't see the original to compare it to!
I give up.
 
I have been using Flickr and Photobucket as long term storage for my photos I have given up on Photobucket as the downloaded images are really low quality and I cannot use it anymore for 3rd party hosting but if as you say Flickr are using higher compression does this mean I will never see my original photos ? I think it's about time I purchased a second harddrive to store my photos !
 
flickrcomp.JPG

Can't see any difference whatsoever between full size Flickr and the original file uploaded to Flickr. You won't normally see the original though, you'll see one of the reduced size versions they make for displaying across various platforms.
 
Who on earth would upload large resolution images to Flickr, and why?
 
I was uploading large images as a way of protecting my images from a total melt down. I had a work friend when I first started the world of work (a long time ago) a middle aged guy who's house burnt down he said to me the worst thing he had lost was all the photos of his kids growing up, this stuck with me !
 
droj said:
Who on earth would upload large resolution images to Flickr, and why?
Click to expand...
Me for one. I do it when I want people to be able to see my full size images, such as when comparing the edge to edge sharpness of two different lenses, or simply when I'm rather proud of the detail resolution of a photograph. In fact there are Flickr groups dedicated to people who want their images to be viewed at full original size.
 
chris malcolm said:
Me for one. I do it when I want people to be able to see my full size images, such as when comparing the edge to edge sharpness of two different lenses, or simply when I'm rather proud of the detail resolution of a photograph. In fact there are Flickr groups dedicated to people who want their images to be viewed at full original size.
Click to expand...
What about copying them and printing them? Oh even when you set no downloads Its so easy to do so.
 
Chaz Photos said:
What about copying them and printing them? Oh even when you set no downloads Its so easy to do so.
Click to expand...

If I was selling apples then thieves would reduce my stock and hurt my sales. But someone who steals a photograph leaves me with the photograph. I don't think a photo thief is going to pay me for it if I make it harder to steal. I don't think a photo purchaser is going to steal it instead if I make it easier to steal. Of course there will be a few instances where these generalisations fail. I think the failures are probably rare enough that it's not worth my while going to any extra bother to try to stop photo theft happening. In fact a lawyer friend of mine said I was wasting my time trying to sell photos. Instead I should simply aim to make money by identifying photo thieves and threatening them with legal action.

I never, however, publish on Flickr or anywhere else photographs I've been contracted to take, unless to do so was a specific part of the contract, e.g. for publicity.
 
chris malcolm said:
If I was selling apples then thieves would reduce my stock and hurt my sales. But someone who steals a photograph leaves me with the photograph. I don't think a photo thief is going to pay me for it if I make it harder to steal. I don't think a photo purchaser is going to steal it instead if I make it easier to steal. Of course there will be a few instances where these generalisations fail. I think the failures are probably rare enough that it's not worth my while going to any extra bother to try to stop photo theft happening. In fact a lawyer friend of mine said I was wasting my time trying to sell photos. Instead I should simply aim to make money by identifying photo thieves and threatening them with legal action.

I never, however, publish on Flickr or anywhere else photographs I've been contracted to take, unless to do so was a specific part of the contract, e.g. for publicity.
Click to expand...
But by letting anyone have your photos free you are taking work away from pros who live by taking photos, If you copy music the artist still has the original, but you feel that is OK by your thinking.
 
I upload all mine at full res for a backup but as someone pointed out to me a while back you can set the maximum viewing size to smaller to protect people downloading the full size image from Flickr?
 
6CBFBEC6-36EA-4566-BB50-DF8CB6703314.jpeg Just found it under privacy and permissions a setting called - Largest shared image size
 
Last edited:
Chaz Photos said:
But by letting anyone have your photos free you are taking work away from pros who live by taking photos, If you copy music the artist still has the original, but you feel that is OK by your thinking.
Click to expand...

Really?? It’s his photos, he can do what he likes with them. Why should he give a damn about the “pros” or music?
 
Chaz Photos said:
But by letting anyone have your photos free you are taking work away from pros who live by taking photos, If you copy music the artist still has the original, but you feel that is OK by your thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't let anyone have my photos for free. I take all the obvious precautions, such as forbidding downloads. What I was explaining was why I don't go to the lengths of never uploading any full size images in the first place to Flickr, because determined and knowledgeable thieves can find ways. The photographers whose sales will have been impacted by the fact that some determined and knowledgeable thieves have stolen my photos instead of buying theirs will only be those photographers who who are trying to sell images of the same subjects and no better quality than mine. Good luck to them. Firstly that's a very tiny amount of photographs and photographers, and secondly I've found it so difficult to sell mine that I've given up! I find it much easier to sell my services as a photographer than to sell the photographers I make available for viewing on the web because they're family snaps, or what you might call tutorial shots which I'm hoping better photographers will help me improve.

With respect to your argument about music theft, I note that many musicians argue that it's simply paranoid copyright lawyers who make all the fuss about copyright, that the population of thieves and purchasers have little overlap, and that in fact it's having a lot of your music stolen which creates the popularity that gets a lot of it sold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top