Flickr Recommendations - size and organizing?

[Frank Petronio]

Thinking about starting back up with Flickr... it seems useful as a way to show a deeper array of images, maybe get a few nibbles... plus it works on smartphones and tablets nicely, etc.

Having been off it for a couple of years, I'd start a new account. What is the best way to organize your images for Flickr, since they want to order everything by date? I remember editing dates to get the order and sorting I wanted with a set. Is there an easier way to sort picture order other than planning ahead or changing dates one at a time? If I could simply drag and drop to sort it would be fantastic.

Also what is the optimal size to upload? I don't want to upload tiny images out of some paranoia about some Third World rip-off... they already have.

Any other tips? Does Flickr apply sharpening and gamma adjustments without user control?

[sully75]

Use the flickr uploader, it works good.

I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about picture order. It's just a jumble of singles. That's essentially what it is and what it will be. You can however make sets up of your pictures, and then you can order them any way you are able.

I export 1000px on the long edge jpegs in lightroom and then use the uploader. I've seen a plug in for lightroom that's supposed to do it for you but I'm not sure how that would work.

I figure people are going to rip off what they are going to rip off. But if you catch them you can sue them. I just think watermarking shit looks so lame.

I don't think they sharpen or gamma adjust pictures. I've never noticed it.

In the shameless self promotion category, I've noticed your pictures will only get looked at if a) one of your contacts sees something and goes to look at it b) you link to it in 50 groups or c) you link to it from a site like this.

(check out my contacts list (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulmcevoy/contacts/), there are some pretty phenomenal photographers on there)

[tbeaman]

An image at it's original uploaded size stays exactly the same (as far as I can tell), but any of the smaller copies (640px, etc.) Flickr creates get sharpened up the wazoo. Nothing you can do about it, but it's not that bad. Plus, you can always compensate by under-sharpening the original.

Use sets and 'collections' (basically, sets of sets) to organize your stuff. The built-in organizer is drag and drop and quite easy to use.

[Nguss]

I just put the pics up and then sort them into sets. I doubt anyone would want to rip off anything of mine! I only upload about 600 / 650 pixels at 72dpi on the longest side as that way I can see it on screen at a decent size and upload using the Flickr uploader. Some of the original size 8 x 10 scans that have been uploaded however are insanely detailed.

[Ramiro Elena]

I upload large, 12Mp or so. I haven't checked if the larger upload get sharpened. The smaller ones do but they never look bad.
Now, you're gonna get into trouble with the flickerinoos if you upload your usual skin photos. I am pretty sure Flickr is run by mormons. My content is pretty safe and I was called to order once. You need to filter your own photos as unsafe or restricted before anyone sees a nipple, grabs the machine gun and starts shooting people.
I make collections and inside them, sets with the camera I used. The order thing I've never figured. I wish they'd made it easier (drag and drop).
I really like how you can navigate with your keyboard.
The pro account is worth the money in my opinion.

[sully75]

dude...I see dirty pictures on flickr all the time. I think Frank would be ok. There's a lot of boobs there.

[Ramiro Elena]

Sure, but they want you to filter them. I think it goes like this:
Nipples=Restricted
Pubes=Unsafe

They also don't tell you why you're being restricted. You're supposed to know what you did wrong.

[Ben Syverson]

All Flickr uploads get sharpened by their internal image resizer... Not by an offensive amount, but it's definitely visible.

You should assume that whatever browser is viewing Flickr is doing so at standard 2.2 Gamma (sRGB). Some browsers can interpret embedded ICC profiles, but then you're not in control of how they're doing the conversion. So Adobe RGB images from a Canon, for example, should ideally be converted to sRGB before heading to the web.

Size is up to you, but I always appreciate when people upload large images. I upload digital shots at full size because who cares, and I upload film scans at convenient sizes. I like 600 DPI for 4x5 — 2400 x 3000 pixels. It's a fraction of the 2400 DPI master file, but it's big enough for people to appreciate the sharpness of LF. I think I upload 8x10 at the same pixel dimensions, so that would be 300 DPI...