Interaction is probably the largest bit. It’s easy to follow other photo producers. But leave a comment, and it’s nearly impossible to track replies to your comments. It’s fine for building a following, or a list of followers. It’s a failure for building interpersonal ties. That’s unforgiveable in the age of social media, I think.

But it’s solveable. I suppose there are third-party apps that could help, or other workarounds. Flickr could (god forbid) do some actual development of their own site. Shoot, even Facebook rolled out a bunch of features recently. If they could shift quickly, surely Flickr could?

But if Flickr were to try to adapt, I fear their lack of attention to detail would kill them. It’s a hard thing to define – why are Google’s, 500px, and others’ sites so much easier to use? Why do bugs still exist in Flickr’s interface?

The experience on other sites isn’t perfect. But Flickr – shoot, I can’t click on images in the web app. My Android phone won’t position the lightbox-enabled photo properly. That’s a pretty important piece, don’t you think?

• Thomas Hawk doesn’t exist.  He’s really Andrew Petersen, a San-Francisco-based stockbroker (direct link).
• The overall consensus of Hawk isn’t terribly positive.  Similar to my own. I do find it interesting that people criticize his work, when in my mind it is very much subjective.
• A link (from here) to the most important page on Flickr. Yes indeed: the contacts page is indeed quite a mess. This ties in to my complaints about comments.
• There is a definite feeling that Yahoo has killed Flickr.  Flickr, after their previous layoffs, has definitely lost their key supporters.
• There is a feeling that the quality of photographers has dropped.  I believe they are heading for 500px and similar sites, where they are taken more seriously.
• I get a feeling that Flickr has become a commodity to Yahoo.  They are turning into the Budweiser of photo-sharing sites.
• There are multiple complaints from people that their comments/contacts have dropped off.  I have noticed the same.

Coming at this from a different angle: I’ve finally put my finger on what it is that frustrates me about Flickr, yet excites me about Google+. It’s the interaction.

On Flickr, you can comment. But it’s hard to follow a thread of conversation – you get lost in the noise, as it were. You can follow comments on your photos, but you lose yourself on other peoples’ threads.

G+ really doesn’t have that problem. Not yet, at least. Since there aren’t thousands of annoying banners, invites, etc., you don’t lose track of the conversation.

So for me, that’s really it. Flickr still has its place, but barely. Google+ is more appropriate (for now) for connecting with like-minded people.

Started in an attempt to see if I wanted to stay with MF film. Turned into a challenge to see how many OK shots I could drag out of the 3 rolls of 120 Delta 400 iso in my Rolleiflex 2.8F that’s had too little use since I bought it in 1980.

As a recent entrant into the world of the 60′s-something Rolleiflex, I’m pretty amazed.  I recently went through my first roll (on Tri-X), and ended up with only one keeper – and a personal one, at that (picture of my daughter). I have a long way to go, but at least I can enjoy some of this gent’s work.  Particular favorites:

• Barclays 3 Cash. Wow, I think this is the best in the set.
• Fresh Air. The look, the framing, the slightly off-kilter eyes that aren’t quite in sync.  Beautiful street portrait.
• Polar Explorer. There’s almost joy on the gent’s face.
• 28 June 1996 ~ 9. This is about as good as street photography gets.  Again with the off-kilter eyes, but this time in combination with the anti-Gaddafi sign. So much that could be read into it.

Contrast his work with:

Monopoly Die

Not the best, as I was testing a close-up lens attachment.  So very far to go…

An extra thanks to Mike (proprietor and general know-it-all of TOP) for pointing this one out.

Some things are better, though – adding your photo to groups is much more efficient (once you figure out how to do it).

Guess we’ll see what comes of it…

Favebrowsr, today

This is really more of an observation about Flickr than anything else, but I’ve noticed: if you lock down your files in Flickr (no download, no seeing other sizes), but upload a larger-sized photo (compared to the on-screen display of a Flickr image), the full size is actually available to anyone who tries to access via the Flickr API.

Take this pic, for example. I favorited it just a short while ago. On screen, it’s fairly small – maybe 400 pixels wide.

OK, you’ve looked at that? Now, move over to the Flickr Favebrowsr and click the “I” over it (do it soon – it’s in my top 10 faves right now). Notice how it’s a nice, large size with plenty of detail (and the noise jumps out at you)? Probably not what the poster intended.

So take this as a nice side-benefit to browsing the Favebrowsr.

Proof:

The image, as seen in Flickr

Full size image, through the API

Note: the blurring to both images was added by me. This is to protect the image owner’s intellectual property. If you want to see the original or the full size, visit his site or use the Favebrowsr (fave his, then look at your own in the Favebrowsr).

Flickr Favebrowsr

Meet the Flickr Favebrowsr.

I wasn’t in too creative of a mood when I named it, but I was enchanted by the concept.  I forget where I saw it, exactly, but someone had built a beautiful way of surfing between user’s favorites. It was wonderful, but: it required giving up personal info (email address, or logging in) and the images in all screens were too small for my tastes. Some of the behavior wasn’t all that I wanted, either.

So I built my own.

You see the results to the right – and the link to the far right.

OK, so this should be pretty easy to get the hang of.  See the pictures below?  They’re just drawing pictures on how to get there & get started:

Favebrowsr - Link

Favebrowsr - search

So, you use the link & go to the page. Then search by user name. In this case, I decided to abuse Jason From Duluth. He’s wild and zany (just look at that icon!) – he’s got to have super-crazy faves! On closer inspection, how not true. I’m just destroyed, man!

But nonetheless, it makes a couple of points: if you search & you get the message from the “Favebrowsr-search” icon, then you’re doing it wrong. Do it right, and all will be OK.

Once you get a valid search in, you’ll see a list of images appear.  It might be slow.  Deal with it – I’m not gettin’ paid for this. You now have two options.  Click anywhere on a thumbnail (well, small image in Flickr terms), and you’ll see that photographer’s images added to the list.  Click on the small “I” icon that usually hovers over top-left corner of the small image.  That will pull up a nice, larger image:

Favebrowsr - Link to Details

Favebrowsr - details

That’s all there is to this guy.  Surf around, browsing only by user favorites.  All links are pointing back to Flickr, all info comes directly from there, and I’ve tried to make it as easy as possible to go to that user’s photostream.  In a little over a day of programming & debugging, I’ve found far more interesting photos this way than I do via explore.

The Barely Alive Part

OK, so the last thing.  You might experience trouble with this.  I tested in Google Chrome and Firefox: no probs whatsoever.  IE8 is failing, though.  So for you?  It’s probably a crapshoot.  I’ll try to get IE running, but… well, it’s not a high priority for me. Maybe in a month or so…

Feedback or notes to the contact page, please!

For example, compare these two photos:

Eklutna Lake at Sunset (HDR)

Drops of dew

First, you see them small, here on the screen.  Then look at them in their larger view (click through to Flickr & choose “all sizes”).  Compare them.

Which one do you prefer? At which size?  Based on responses on Flickr (not the “nice jorb” type of comments, but traffic, favorites, etc), the HDR of Eklutna is the superior pic. And yet, I neither prefer it nor believe it.  In the smaller size, the HDR is certainly easier to make out.  But in larger sizes?  I prefer the Drops of Dew pic.  If this were to be printed out?  I suspect anything larger than 8×10 would be better with the Drops of Dew pic, as well.

I guess my point, in the end, is this: if you’re looking to sell a print, many times the format of Flickr makes it the wrong place to market your work. You’re probably better off printing the work and hanging it at a local coffee shop – at least there you will be showing exactly what you’re selling.