ImageShack changing to subscription only

[Ish]

I know some people on here use ImageShack. I've always used the free version and got an email from them a couple of days ago:

"We are removing advertisements on the new ImageShack pages, allowing you to upload what you wish, and moving to a subscription based model."​

I was wondering what would happen to the photos I've posted on here if I didn't upgrade so went to the website and found the following:

Is the old ImageShack still available?
No. Since we have redesigned the new site we are no longer supporting the old ImageShack. We want to give our customers the most modern and best looking product possible and that is our hope with the new site.

What happens to my account after the trial or if it expires?
If you don’t pay after the free 30 day trial or if your premium subscription expires, image uploading will not be available. However, access to the account and images previously uploaded are still allowed.​

Which is fair enough. I can get a subscription for $1 a month until 1 February and $1.50 a month after that. It's not a lot but I don't really use it much so wondering about alternatives.

I don't want to go to Flickr, anyone using anywhere else they're happy with? If you're with the free version of ImageShack what are you going to do?

 

[themumu]

I suppose it depends what you liked about imageShack and what you don't like about flickr. I used to use image shack for images that were just random and I did not want them to be easily searchable and associated with my identity. I liked the little bit of anonymity it provided. I also feel that if the images there went missing tomorrow I would not cry very hard about it. You really shouldn't expect more from a free service, they owe you as much as you paid them.

Flickr is my public collection in a sense that the images I publish there are intended to be viewed as a sort of portfolio, as an invitation to browse through more if you like one.

I haven't needed to use image shack for a while, but if I were to look for an equivalent for my use, I'd go for something like http://postimage.org - it looks simple enough.

 

[boast]

I switched to imgur a few years ago when imageshack was blocking the forum I visit.

 

[Designer Dale]

I just noticed this. I use my ImageShack free account just for the model car photos that I post to build forums but don't want to clutter my flickr account with. Can't see paying extra for that, so I guess I need to learn more about using Flicker. A lot of people in model forums use Photobucket and Folki, and the Can't Post Photos threads are too common for me. And again, a lot of those guys use Windows...

Dale

 

[Ish]

I suppose it depends what you liked about imageShack and what you don't like about flickr. I used to use image shack for images that were just random and I did not want them to be easily searchable and associated with my identity. I liked the little bit of anonymity it provided. I also feel that if the images there went missing tomorrow I would not cry very hard about it. You really shouldn't expect more from a free service, they owe you as much as you paid them.

Flickr is my public collection in a sense that the images I publish there are intended to be viewed as a sort of portfolio, as an invitation to browse through more if you like one.

I haven't needed to use image shack for a while, but if I were to look for an equivalent for my use, I'd go for something like http://postimage.org - it looks simple enough.

I don't use Flickr because I don't want to sign up for a Yahoo account. Everywhere else is happy to use one of my existing emails. I liked ImageShack because it was great for occasional use, though I did find that sometimes the shadows were blocked up when the pictures were posted online.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not coming here to complain about it. It's great that there was a free service for so long but I'm not the only one that will have to decide what to do.

 

[TheReef]

I'm considering using http://imgur.com

The photos don't stick around forever, but might suffice for these purposes.

From their FAQ:
"As long as images are getting at least 1 view every 6 months, they will stick around forever. After that, your image may be removed to create more space for newer images."

Flickr has the disadvantages of stripping EXIF data and requiring the unsightly credit text when linking to their images, both of which are less than ideal for a nice POTD experience.

 

[acearchie]

Flickr has the disadvantages of stripping EXIF data and requiring the unsightly credit text when linking to their images, both of which are less than ideal for a nice POTD experience.

I believe IMGUR strips all EXIF data completely when uploading and I learned the hard way but make sure you keep a hold of your links or have an account otherwise you’ll lose access to your photos and have to upload again!

If I’ve ever posted a screen grab here it’s been through Imgur.

 

[themumu]

I don't use Flickr because I don't want to sign up for a Yahoo account. Everywhere else is happy to use one of my existing emails. I liked ImageShack because it was great for occasional use, though I did find that sometimes the shadows were blocked up when the pictures were posted online.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not coming here to complain about it. It's great that there was a free service for so long but I'm not the only one that will have to decide what to do.

The thing about free services it seems, is that there is always another one springing up when an existing one goes down . If it's for occasional use only, you'd probably be fine with any of the multitude alternatives.

Flickr has the disadvantages of stripping EXIF data and requiring the unsightly credit text when linking to their images, both of which are less than ideal for a nice POTD experience.

This is actually incorrect. While the default link created when using the "Share" button includes a brief line of text (title of the photo and user's display name, nothing too unsightly), you can easily remove that bit before you post it up on other sites. Flickr Community Guidelines do suggest you link back to the photo's page on Flickr, but those are only guidelines and nothing terrible happens if you do not follow them. They exist to promote the use of Flickr as your portfolio, to make it easier to explore your other work when you share photos on other websites. Nothing specifies how exactly such a link should be formatted, it's up to your discretion. Personally, I very much enjoy viewing Flickr (or other) profiles of people whose work intrigued me on POTD and finding more great photos. So it all depends on the desired use case

As for EXIF, if you do include the link to flickr page, it's easy to see it from there.

 

[TheReef]

I believe IMGUR strips all EXIF data completely when uploading and I learned the hard way but make sure you keep a hold of your links or have an account otherwise you’ll lose access to your photos and have to upload again!

Ah you are right.

I had a look at http://photobucket.com, it looks like they preserve EXIF data.

2GB for the free account seems more than adequate for sharing reduced-size photos on the web, can anyone see any pitfalls in using photobucket?

 

[TheReef]

This is actually incorrect. While the default link created when using the "Share" button includes a brief line of text (title of the photo and user's display name, nothing too unsightly), you can easily remove that bit before you post it up on other sites. Flickr Community Guidelines do suggest you link back to the photo's page on Flickr, but those are only guidelines and nothing terrible happens if you do not follow them. They exist to promote the use of Flickr as your portfolio, to make it easier to explore your other work when you share photos on other websites. Nothing specifies how exactly such a link should be formatted, it's up to your discretion.

You are correct in that there is flexibility here, but the page you linked states this as a requirement:

Do link back to Flickr when you post your Flickr content elsewhere.
Flickr makes it possible to post content hosted on Flickr to other web sites. However, pages on other web sites that display content hosted on flickr.com must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Flickr. This provides a way to get more information about the content and the photographer.

My feeling is in order to satisfy this most people will (and currently do) take that flickr generated text and paste it in the POTD thread as-is, as it's easiest for them to do so (which is totally understandable).

The slightly better alternative would be wrapping the plain IMG tag in a URL tag that points to flickr, this would allow "discoverability" as you mention, but provide a better experience for all POTD users.

Personally, I very much enjoy viewing Flickr (or other) profiles of people whose work intrigued me on POTD and finding more great photos. So it all depends on the desired use case

As for EXIF, if you do include the link to flickr page, it's easy to see it from there.

This is fair enough, but I think one of the nice things about POTD is that you can scroll through the list of images and view exif (with a browser plugin/app) without having open a new tab/page to view exif data.
Discoverability is great, we should encourage that along with providing a nice experience for users of the POTD thread.
EDIT: when I say unsightly I'm referring to forum code when quoting images, I agree this is a nice thing.

For people with slower connections and low data quota this is especially important.

I find quoting images linked from flickr is more time consuming too, resulting in less image quotes in POTD.
Not sure how many people are still using the TIMG browser plugin I made, I know there were a few bugs pertaining to flickr links.

 

[jjk454ss]

Ah you are right.

I had a look at http://photobucket.com, it looks like they preserve EXIF data.

2GB for the free account seems more than adequate for sharing reduced-size photos on the web, can anyone see any pitfalls in using photobucket?

I switched from Photobucket because their app never works. I really like something with an ios app.

 

[themumu]

...
I find quoting images linked from flickr is more time consuming too, resulting in less image quotes in POTD.
Not sure how many people are still using the TIMG browser plugin I made, I know there were a few bugs pertaining to flickr links.

At the risk of being discovered for the amateur that I am, my main reason for sticking with Flickr is iPhoto integration. I can forgive a lot of shortcomings for that and also for Flickr API.

 

[Cheese&Apple]

Not sure how many people are still using the TIMG browser plugin I made, I know there were a few bugs pertaining to flickr links.

A bit off topic here but I'm using the plugin Reef. It's great...I just wish it worked with my iPad as I use it for a lot of couch surfing.

~ Peter

Btw...I do wish more people would quote with thumbnails. It makes browsing the POTD flow better.

 

[TheReef]

I switched from Photobucket because their app never works. I really like something with an ios app.

Thanks for the info!

At the risk of being discovered for the amateur that I am, my main reason for sticking with Flickr is iPhoto integration. I can forgive a lot of shortcomings for that and also for Flickr API.

Yeah it might be time for an update to the extension. It seems like yourself and many others on POTD are very happy with flickr.

A bit off topic here but I'm using the plugin Reef. It's great...I just wish it worked with my iPad as I use it for a lot of couch surfing.

~ Peter

Btw...I do wish more people would quote with thumbnails. It makes browsing the POTD flow better.

I agree Peter, I love seeing the critique posts strung together with a couple of thumbnails.
It really promotes/enhances interaction and strengthens the sense of community surrounding POTD, which I think contributes to the thread's success over the years.

Safari for iPad doesn't support extensions unfortunately, but there are these things called bookmarklets... will investigate.

To keep things on topic I have created a new thread relating to the the extension.

 

[Designer Dale]

I'm considering using http://imgur.com

The photos don't stick around forever, but might suffice for these purposes.

From their FAQ:
"As long as images are getting at least 1 view every 6 months, they will stick around forever. After that, your image may be removed to create more space for newer images."

Flickr has the disadvantages of stripping EXIF data and requiring the unsightly credit text when linking to their images, both of which are less than ideal for a nice POTD experience.

There are three ways to tackle Flickr in the link in my sig. One of them doesn't include any of the credit links. But then after the Flickr revamp, it may not work. I'll go see.

Dale

PS: One forum member who used PhotoBucket found it so unreliable that he always posted an attachment along with his linked image. I post in a model car forum and all of the threads regarding trouble with image posting are from either A) Photobucket; B) Windows; or C) Photobucket on Windows...

-----------------------------------------------------
A Flickr photo with a hidden link. Click me.