New Flickr Feature - Camera Roll

[acearchie]

Not sure if it's live for everyone yet but it seems like a great little update that really makes sense of having 1000GB of free storage and allows me to properly use Flickr as an online photo album archive rather than just a showcasing platform.

At the moment I still think there is a need for two accounts (one for every picture and one for the 'best') but this seems like a great way to manage them (easier than organise).

One initial bug I've found is that I can't alter the date on the film photos I have scanned (the option is there but it doesn't seem to be working as I get an error message)

Nice and easy to batch change rights and visibility from this view too.

After fiddling about for ages trying to find old photos with the old infinite scroll, then pages, this view is a god send:

Anyone else spot any dinky features?

Try this link and see what you think!

Just seen the new Flickr Uploadr for Mac which is pretty good fun too! It allows you to set a plethora of folders for Flickr to Auto Upload from. Perfect as it will let you upload as soon as you import or export!

 

[robgendreau]

Cool. It showed up as a beta feature in my account as well.

I've been wondering about non-gallery type storage. How does one archive photos, esp RAW, one does not want to display?

 

[Indydenny]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. Hadn't seen that, and *I think* I like it!

 

[Anonymous Freak]

So, in the last month I've uploaded my entire library to Google+, will be uploading it to Apple Photos, and now I can do it with Flickr. Sounds good! Diversification of storage is good.

But they all have obnoxious limitations.

Flickr has the highest storage cap for free, but won't upload from an iPhoto Library that isn't in ~/Pictures apparently (it says my library in /Users/Shared/Pictures has no photos.)

Google+ has a good uploader, but if you don't pay for extra space, it won't fit my whole library. On the plus side, it DOES have an option to upload a 2048 pixel wide version of each photo - which makes them all fit.

Apple Photos will have the advantage of being built in to the OS, and, like Google+, the disadvantage of storage space. (My library is 145 GB, half as still photos, half as videos.)

 

[MonkeySee....]

With the Flickr Uploader does it work like a syncing system or will they be separate things. e.g if I delete a pic off iPhoto does it affect Flickr?

Also can you still set the images to Private when uploading?

 

[acearchie]

With the Flickr Uploader does it work like a syncing system or will they be separate things. e.g if I delete a pic off iPhoto does it affect Flickr?

Also can you still set the images to Private when uploading?

Initially I feel like it's a one way system. I.e. I have a folder on my desktop that I export HQ JPEGs to and it uploads them then I can delete the exports.

 

[VirtualRain]

I guess I don't understand how this Camera Roll feature is supposed to be used. It looks exactly the same as the Photostream but broken up by date? ... and in some cases, it's by date taken, and in other cases, it's by date uploaded... What sets the date? How is this any different from the Photostream?

EDIT: Answering my own questions... you can sort the Camera Roll by date taken or date posted, but the date taken may not be true since any photo that gets converted from a RAW to a TIFF for round-trip in post will get the date of editing set as the date taken. And ultimately, this Camera Roll, is designed to replace the Organizer so it will offer a lot more features than the Photostream.

Actually, the new Flickr uploader for Mac (which is also in Beta along with this Camera Roll Feature) seems ideal for Flickr publishing from tools like Capture One Pro which don't offer built-in sharing.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Initially I feel like it's a one way system. I.e. I have a folder on my desktop that I export HQ JPEGs to and it uploads them then I can delete the exports.

Cheers. Thats perfect. I synced direct from iphoto last time and I removed the pics from iPhoto thinking I had backed them up and it removed them from Flickr!

This way is much better

 

[CharlieBrandt09]

It would be great if Aperture or LR could point to these online storage solutions for photo reference. Or, is there something like that in existence already?

I am running out of HDD space and would love a solution like that for a portion of my library.

 

[robgendreau]

It would be great if Aperture or LR could point to these online storage solutions for photo reference. Or, is there something like that in existence already?

I am running out of HDD space and would love a solution like that for a portion of my library.

LR has publishing services explicitly for some storage solutions, like Flickr. These tend to be more of the gallery/storage solutions.

If you want you can set up a publishing service that will just send original images and metadata to a hard drive, or to say your Dropbox, OneDrive, Amazon, SugarSyncy or whatever folder, since they exist on your Mac just like any other folder. It could also be jpegs you send or whatever else.

The nice thing about the publishing service is that it can tell if you made changes to the images, so you can republish them with changes. Or add or delete to the collection. Works pretty well with the storage solutions that use a folder on the Mac.

 

[MonkeySee....]

mmmmm that upload continues to work in the background and isn't a manual thing. If the photos stay there once uploaded regardless of what I do with iPhoto that would be pretty handy.

 

[CharlieBrandt09]

mmmmm that upload continues to work in the background and isn't a manual thing. If the photos stay there once uploaded regardless of what I do with iPhoto that would be pretty handy.

I was running out of room on my iMac HDD. I just transferred 20K images to the Flickr Camera Roll (after moving them first to an external HDD) and then deleted my entire iPhoto library off my iMac HDD.

This process didn't change my uploaded Camera Roll at all.

 

[acearchie]

I was running out of room on my iMac HDD. I just transferred 20K images to the Flickr Camera Roll (after moving them first to an external HDD) and then deleted my entire iPhoto library off my iMac HDD.

This process didn't change my uploaded Camera Roll at all.

Wow! Moving to the cloud!

Good on you.

I think that will be my next move.

 

[MonkeySee....]

I was running out of room on my iMac HDD. I just transferred 20K images to the Flickr Camera Roll (after moving them first to an external HDD) and then deleted my entire iPhoto library off my iMac HDD.

This process didn't change my uploaded Camera Roll at all.

Ahh nice one. You're brave than me. I just deleted the one picture and thankfully its still there

 

[Razeus]

Yep, I've been playing with this feature for a while now since I have the beta on one of my accounts since last December.

I have 2 Flickr accounts. One is for my "pro" work that is public and I share publicly. The camera roll feature is active on this one, but I don't use it, since this account is really genre based. It's more of a portfolio/showcase, so organizing my date isn't really necessary.

The other account is totally private in which I use as a backup off my folder based system that sits in Drobox (and viewable in Carousel), since there's more than enough space - for free. This is one is more about the "date taken" so I can find a photo. This is the account I'd like to have the camera roll feature on.

For now, I'm using Dropbox+Carousel. I don't even back my photos up to an extra hard drive anymore. I'm hoping Carousel adds more features such as searching and metadata viewing. I think Flickr can really be what Everpix, Picturelife, Loom, Snapjoy has been trying to be. Just hope they make the iOS app with the camera roll view.

 

[acearchie]

For now, I'm using Dropbox+Carousel. I don't even back my photos up to an extra hard drive anymore. I'm hoping Carousel adds more features such as searching and metadata viewing. I think Flickr can really be what Everpix, Picturelife, Loom, Snapjoy has been trying to be. Just hope they make the iOS app with the camera roll view.

Not quite there myself but definitely see myself going there.

I used to feel there was a need to keep raws of everything but now I'm not that sure.

I have negs of all my film stuff and maybe every year I'll pick 100 favourites and archive the originals but for the moment I can't see myself ever needing more than a JPEG after the fact...

What res are you saving and uploading?

 

[Razeus]

Not quite there myself but definitely see myself going there.

I used to feel there was a need to keep raws of everything but now I'm not that sure.

I have negs of all my film stuff and maybe every year I'll pick 100 favourites and archive the originals but for the moment I can't see myself ever needing more than a JPEG after the fact...

What res are you saving and uploading?

Full resolution at Lightroom's 92% jpeg quality.

I do keep the RAW's after a through cleaning of the crap. At the beginning of the year, I removed the last 5 years of RAW's from my computer and put them on a portable hard drive, which now sits in my closet safe. I've never need the RAW's after making a JPEG. I've printed 16x20's with just the jpeg and came out great.

RAW's are just a working file for me. Now my process after every month is to clean up the RAW's, move them to a hard drive for archive, and only keep the jpeg's on my Mac. Much less space being used on my computer being all I keep on it are JPEG's. The jpeg sits in Dropbox, and by default, my computer. Then those get uploaded to a Flickr account. That's all the back up I do these days.

 

[The Bad Guy]

Finally. People in this sub-forum talking about the proper way to work with RAW files.

 

[Razeus]

Ya. People act like a life is being lost if they move their RAW's to an archive. It's like if they don't have access to them 24/7, they're going to lose their minds.

And then these online services want you to upload RAW's, to their benefit since that means you pay more, which ridiculous, IMO.

The final output, the jpeg, is all you need to make various creative works, be it prints, books, slideshows, sharing, etc. The RAW isn't much use to me after I get what I want from it. I protect the jpegs more than my RAW's.

 

[VirtualRain]

Ya. People act like a life is being lost if they move their RAW's to an archive. It's like if they don't have access to them 24/7, they're going to lose their minds.

And then these online services want you to upload RAW's, to their benefit since that means you pay more, which ridiculous, IMO.

The final output, the jpeg, is all you need to make various creative works, be it prints, books, slideshows, sharing, etc. The RAW isn't much use to me after I get what I want from it. I protect the jpegs more than my RAW's.

Amen to that.

In 5 years I think I've reworked no more than a few RAW files in my archives. I'd rather shoot the same thing over again than reprocess the same RAW file.

And Flickr has really re-emerged as the ultimate photo hosting solution. Best looking site, best tools, and best free storage!

 

[Razeus]

It really has. Now the Camera Roll feature makes it almost complete. My private library (family and friends snapshots) is on Flickr and I don't even bother doing my backup routine anymore.

I pay for Dropbox and use it's Carousel app for viewing and sharing, but it's not integrated with any platforms the way Flickr is.

My music stays on Google Music (now with 50k tracks for free) so it's uploaded and therefore (backed up).

I'm really getting to the point I won't need any of my external backup hard drives. I was going to use Backblaze, but for my most prized digital assets (my pictures and my music) Flickr and Google Music is great no out of pocket cash.

 

[robgendreau]

It really has. Now the Camera Roll feature makes it almost complete. My private library (family and friends snapshots) is on Flickr and I don't even bother doing my backup routine anymore.

I pay for Dropbox and use it's Carousel app for viewing and sharing, but it's not integrated with any platforms the way Flickr is.

My music stays on Google Music (now with 50k tracks for free) so it's uploaded and therefore (backed up).

I'm really getting to the point I won't need any of my external backup hard drives. I was going to use Backblaze, but for my most prized digital assets (my pictures and my music) Flickr and Google Music is great no out of pocket cash.

Yeah, some people don't recognize that archiving a photo doesn't necessarily have the same requirements as say a database. With some data versioning is very helpful; with photos, except maybe some PSD you're currently working on, not so much. So even just a Finder copy to any old storage medium can work.

But how does this work on Flickr: say you upload a bunch of images raw as a backup to a private directory, for storage. Then you wanna adjust a bunch and show them publically there. If you use LR or something, do you end up just exporting a JPG version to Flickr? So now you have both? Or is there some way to edit the already cloud-based original locally?

Or maybe I don't care since it's unlimited storage?

 

[Razeus]

I'm guess I'm not understanding what you're asking.

I guess if you want to edit RAW's on Flickr you can as they have built in editing features, though at its very basic.

 

[VirtualRain]

Yeah, some people don't recognize that archiving a photo doesn't necessarily have the same requirements as say a database. With some data versioning is very helpful; with photos, except maybe some PSD you're currently working on, not so much. So even just a Finder copy to any old storage medium can work.

But how does this work on Flickr: say you upload a bunch of images raw as a backup to a private directory, for storage. Then you wanna adjust a bunch and show them publically there. If you use LR or something, do you end up just exporting a JPG version to Flickr? So now you have both? Or is there some way to edit the already cloud-based original locally?

Or maybe I don't care since it's unlimited storage?

Hmm... Flickr doesn't store RAW. You can upload RAW but they will be converted to JPEG. So while I guess you can use Flickr to upload unprocessed images, I wouldn't use it that way.

You're correct though... using your workflow, you'd get a JPEG conversion of your RAW and then later an exported processed JPEG if you did it that way. However, I think Flicker is best used for storing/sharing only your finished photos. Otherwise the presentation of them becomes messy.

I guess the idea behind this new Camera Roll feature is that you can upload anything and everything (which gets marked as private by default) and then use the Camera Roll to select which to share (make public) on your Photostream and in albums, etc. But why clutter up your Flickr with photos you have no intention of looking at or sharing?

Now for some people who shoot JPEG, there's no difference between unprocessed and finished, so uploading everything right out of the camera works.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just old-school, but Flickr will always remain just a repository for my finished photos.

 

[robgendreau]

Thanks VirtualRain. That was sort of what I was figuring. I'd forgotten about the RAW conversion issue. I could see uploading tons of JPEGs, even from RAW but processed by me first, since it does make it easier to share even if I don't wanna display them publically. Like storing all the vacation shots for others to pick from, since many of them wouldn't be able to process RAW anyway,and they might like some shots I think are trash.