Flickr is so frustrating. Guess I should have read the fine print. I just found out that the flickr only allows you to view up to 200 pictures only if you're using the free account. Come on, only 200 pictures? I'm not a heavy photo-taker, but even I have more than 200 pictures. What are they trying to do? Oh yeah, force you into paying for the pro account which costs $24.85 per year. I know it's not that expensive, but being a student means not really having the option of spending as freely as I would hope to, and there is the economic crisis worldwide. This is after all, a non-essential expenditure.
It's not only the 200 picture limit that is so annoying, a few weeks ago, I also found out that they only gave you 100mb of bandwidth per month. At an average of 1 mb per photo (I'm not really much of a photographer), that's just 100 pictures per month. But oh wait, you can only store up to the most recent 200 pictures. So that's just 2 months worth of bandiwdth. And yes, I know they claim that they still store your older pictures, but hey, what's the use if you can't excess them? Unless of course you upgrade to a pro account, which is exactly what they want. Yes, yes, I know, nothing in this world comes free, so I suppose they would want to charge people for their bandwidth. It after all costs money, and giving away things free is not business, that's charity (not that charity is totally free, but that is another story for another post).
I'm considering moving my pictures to be stored google's picasa web albums. For one, there is storage of up to 1 gb, which is about 1000 pictures for me, far more than that stingy Flickr which offers only 200 pictures. There is no limit to the number of pictures, save for the 1 gb limit (unless of course there is yet another fine print I have not read). So for now, I'm moving those pictures I have yet to upload to picasa web albums. And of course, if I do run out of space, it's a simple matter of registering for another account, right? Unless of course someone out there knows a better image hosting site that offers far greater storage and less restrictions for free.
So, what do you guys use? Flickr? Picasa web albums? How good are those that you are using currently? Please do comment. Seriously want to find one that fits what I want, which is about 200mb of bandwidth per month and no limitation on number of pictures stored and of course, it must be free(basically if flickr scrapped their 200 picture limitation, I wouldn't have complained so much and would have stuck on with flickr.) Oh well, I guess I'm the one being stingy, after all, nothing comes free. So for now, Google's Picasa Web Albums will suffice.
It's not only the 200 picture limit that is so annoying, a few weeks ago, I also found out that they only gave you 100mb of bandwidth per month. At an average of 1 mb per photo (I'm not really much of a photographer), that's just 100 pictures per month. But oh wait, you can only store up to the most recent 200 pictures. So that's just 2 months worth of bandiwdth. And yes, I know they claim that they still store your older pictures, but hey, what's the use if you can't excess them? Unless of course you upgrade to a pro account, which is exactly what they want. Yes, yes, I know, nothing in this world comes free, so I suppose they would want to charge people for their bandwidth. It after all costs money, and giving away things free is not business, that's charity (not that charity is totally free, but that is another story for another post).
I'm considering moving my pictures to be stored google's picasa web albums. For one, there is storage of up to 1 gb, which is about 1000 pictures for me, far more than that stingy Flickr which offers only 200 pictures. There is no limit to the number of pictures, save for the 1 gb limit (unless of course there is yet another fine print I have not read). So for now, I'm moving those pictures I have yet to upload to picasa web albums. And of course, if I do run out of space, it's a simple matter of registering for another account, right? Unless of course someone out there knows a better image hosting site that offers far greater storage and less restrictions for free.
So, what do you guys use? Flickr? Picasa web albums? How good are those that you are using currently? Please do comment. Seriously want to find one that fits what I want, which is about 200mb of bandwidth per month and no limitation on number of pictures stored and of course, it must be free(basically if flickr scrapped their 200 picture limitation, I wouldn't have complained so much and would have stuck on with flickr.) Oh well, I guess I'm the one being stingy, after all, nothing comes free. So for now, Google's Picasa Web Albums will suffice.
5 comments:
Photobucket is another option that has similar features with Picasa Web Albums.
http://photobucket.com/faq?catID=29&catSelected=f&topicID=320
Another option is ImageShack.
Alternatively, you could try to search for Image Hosting Site.
Here is a link that could be of reference for you:
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/736878
~Cheers!
thx!!
really appreciate the comment!!
And I never like the interface of Flickr too. :)
I use Photobucket.
As I have always said, what the large print giveth, the fine print taketh away. XD
Just switch, forget about Flickr.Its hard to pronounce anyhow.Perhaps there is a reason why its named Flickr, its so full of shite, that people flick their bogeys at it.XD
I use Flickr for its social networking capabilities. Of course after having the 200 picture viewing limitations for a year, I moved to the pro account and never looked back.
For me, it's definitely worth it.
Post a Comment