Damien Franco PRO 5:52pm, 10 April 2008
In the past couple of days I've gotten invited to join several groups protesting video on flickr. While some people are certainly embracing this media addition others are obviously opposed. What side of the fence do you fall?
SoxFanInSD PRO 10 years ago
I'm for simplicity. Photos only on Flickr. I have no interest in viewing video clips. Video can be shared elsewhere... like YouTube. What's next? Social networking?
cuulblu Posted 10 years ago. Edited by cuulblu (member) 10 years ago
I would be for a flickr or yahoo video site that is totally unassociated with flickr for photos. I own both still and video cameras. I would like a place to intelligently discuss video. IMHO youtube does not provide that.

I think that the same reasons I do not like youtube are the reasons people do not want video here.
KDFischer {Legacy} 10 years ago
I think flickr is NOT the place for video. I think that video is going to come onto flickr, it's going to become "the main thing" and Flickr is gunna turn into another Facebook or MySpace, and thats ridiculous.
agnisflugen 10 years ago
i have my sneaking suspicions that seedy videos will start making their way into flickr, and it will become a playground for pornography....and flickr will become cesspool of smut....
oddphotography 10 years ago
Quite honestly I'm torn. It would be cool to house photo shows on flicker. Pro show gold can compress them into a good web format. However that is video made up of still images. If you opened it up for video it would be hard to monitor what content would be acceptable.
agnisflugen 10 years ago
it wouldn't be so bad, if the videos were more like long photographs...such as this one...

it was visually appealing and tastefully done...but like oddphotography said, it will be difficult to monitor the content, and that's when the racey materical will start making it's way in....
vt335 Posted 10 years ago. Edited by vt335 (member) 10 years ago
I really am not interested in video. agnisflugen is probably right; there will be a certain amount of porn to show up. It already shows up in photos on flickr. If flickr wants to host videos there isn't much any of us can do, however, I hope they give those of us who administer groups the option to accept or deny them.
vt335 10 years ago
Well, I supposed if I had looked I would have noticed I have the option to accept or reject videos. I will not have videos in the group I administrate.
kappie2007 10 years ago
Personally, I don't think video belongs on flickr, it is a perfectly good medium but with a different aesthetic from photographyand therefore deserves its own site.
jatamaniuk 10 years ago
Video should be going elsewhere. This is a community primarily of photographers. Yes, the vast majority of P&S digital cameras can also shoot video clips, but... it honestly is not anywhere near the same.

As others have said, I am nearly certain that a great deal of questionable content will show up and clog up the servers. I too have come across a bit of ... I suppose the tasteful term would be erotica... that shows up on flickr. There's enough of that in photography here on flickr, we don't need to add in video of it.

Perhaps they should open up a new site: or something like that... and use that for videos. As it is, this could turn into youtube very quickly.
chihuahua mamma1961 10 years ago
I fall on the no videos side cause why would we want to turn flickr into another you tube ? also it does not take much talent or an eye for that matter to run a video camera . I think it takes alot more talent to take photos . I said NO VIDEOS!!!!
foregoing cactus [deleted] 10 years ago
Video? We all have the option not to watch them. Let's just suck it and see.
raddad! aka Randy Knauf PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by raddad! aka Randy Knauf (moderator) 10 years ago
My only concern is bandwidth. Will the addition of video slow down the loading of photostreams for viewing? If Flickr can assure us that this will not be affected then I have no problem with the addition of video. There is already alot of pornographic use on Flickr. A few months ago I reported a photostream that had obvious child pornography and Flickr quickly responded by removing the photostream. The point is that any time people have the ability to upload content you will always have someone posting material that may be questionable. The problem with this type of material is who is the judge of questionable? Who wants to be the judge and jury of uploaded content for the rest of the people using this site? Do we want them to have this power? I think not.

I joined Flickr because I wanted to post photos and receive feed back on them from others. Flickr is without a doubt the best photo posting site for this type of interaction. So long as the posting of video doesn't interfere with my ability to do what I signed up for then I'm not apposed.

I see this as the same argument about content on television becoming too racy or violent. We sometimes forget that every television ever made has one special option, the on and off switch. Flickr has this as well. If I find a problem with video content, I just will not click on the view option, or more directly I can type in a different URL and go to a different site. This is democracy in action. Vote with your fingers.

As for the argument about talent, video is more about content and less about technique. I have no problem with this. Would a photo of a Martin Luther King speech be as powerful as a video of his "I have a dream" speech? No. Are there a lot of really bad videos on U Tube? Yes. But once again who is going to be the judge of content? And do we want a judge?

I said it earlier and I'll say it again. The only problem with the addition of video is bandwidth. So long as it doesn't affect our ability to see the content that we wish to see what is the problem!
gigantic rock [deleted] 10 years ago
Regardless of my individual opinion (indifferent), with flickr being a business their primary intent is to make money. This is done by garnering market share. So, by making the video upload option available only to Pro members, unlike YouTube who offer free services, flickr may just have convinced some people who were considering a Pro account but hadn't seen any benefits previously.

We can protest all we like, but with all this exposure flickr videos are getting, I think it is highly unlikely that flickr will pull the service.
poppaJ 10 years ago
I too say no video but it looks like flickr is in this for the money so I'm sure it's here to stay.
vidular PRO 10 years ago
There are other sites for video, I came here for photography. Like others I am concerned about bandwidth. It seems to me that flickr now loads somewhat slower than just a week or two ago; I don't know if that is due to the videos or some other reason. But videos of any quality (even 320x240 flash) take a lot of bandwidth. The concept of a short video montage of photographs is okay in general, but we already have slide show tools for that so I am not certain what a video format would add to the experience on flickr.
matt_cinque 10 years ago
honestly i would love to be able to screencap a quick tutorial to help someone out and post it in a thread, the reason im against it is because of the reasons talked about above,

i think its worth not posting video tutorials to save the community we all love so much, ill just create a youtube account and post a link in the thread
Excellent idea matt!
gigantic rock [deleted] 10 years ago
I am for groups to remain segregated though. ie. Photo only groups as they have been and new ones for video. This way it won't affect me much.
Champloo 10 years ago
I think it is an odd move. I certainly didn't join flickr for video and I am fearful of what it may do to the community. However If done right it could improve the community instead of hurt it. For now I will simply avoid choosing contacts and groups who use video in a way I don't like and hope video doesn't hurt the overall flickr community.
matt_cinque Posted 10 years ago. Edited by matt_cinque (member) 10 years ago
the funny thing is that youtube videos are easily embedded into most sites, but not flickr, the simple change of allowing users to embed (almost any other website will allow it) would make video a non issue

paying members wouldnt be paying for bandwidth because its streamed from youtube, flickr users and group mods could easily turn embedded video on or off in comments if they didnt want it, the community wouldnt be overrun because videos could only be posted as comments (tutorials etc)

basically flickr dosent want youtube stealing the business and in turn has diabled the most useful feature. you cant even embed your OWN videos here because theyre affraid of people just useing youtube

its flickrs own fear of the competition that will eventually ruin the site (thats if they dont bail on video all together, fingers crossed)
Yahoo!Video already exists but of course it does not rival YouTube and so this is purely a marketing decision and has no artistic value. If I thought it was for artistic reasons I would support it ( with caution ). It is probably here to stay so I think we should push for proper filtering.
matt_cinque 10 years ago
there are 25,000 of us currently in in the "we say no to videos on flickr" group, if we all switched to another website they would have more than enough to streamline and get it working just as fast as flickr, i say we start polling for the best alternative and abandon flickr and yahoo all together
cuulblu 10 years ago
This is a repost from another group. I began by showing the parallels between photography and videography since there were some comments that videography was not photography. I feel that the comments are relevant. These are just MHO presented for your consideration. Following is the repost.

Digital photography captures still images on electronic media. It is then loaded onto a computer for post production manipulation.

A digital video CAMERA uses a lens. Each frame is exposed usually at 1/60 of a second. You use a zoom lens to achieve appropriate framing. On more expensive video cameras shutter speed and f/stop are adjustable. Video cameras use light to capture the images on a light sensitive medium, which with the current generation of consumer video cameras is a digital sensor, often the same sensor found in a still camera. Then the images are recorded onto digital tape as digital coding, or onto CD or a hard drive as digital coding. How is videography not a form of photography. This is a very similar to the old argument that photography in not art.

A lot of video tends to be unthought, repulsive, inappropriate and many other things. This type of video compares to snap shots. Many of the complaints about video seems to be this type of work seen on you tube. But if you gather those who are more serious about what they shoot, who are trying to learn and improve, who want to inteligently discuss video how is that different from what happens on flickr?

Granted moderating a video forum to achieve what flickr has may be impossible. Finding those who want to pursue video intelligently will be difficult. Keeping out the knit wits, probably impossible.

The other most common complaint I am seeing is bandwidth. That may be a concern. However IF flickr puts money into servers and whatever hardware is needed to maintain bandwidth it might not be a concern.

Flickr has made the first step. I do not think they will turn back. Your energy may be better put into discussing how to make the video portion of flickr at least presentable if not something we can be proud of.

On the other hand if it turns out bad, hopefully flickr will at least maintain segregation between to two formats.
Julie70 Joyoflife PRO 10 years ago
I am making no differences between what my small Sony Cybershot captures, weather a picture, scene, people or a macro flower, or a short video of ducks on the water of children dancing.

I feel they complement each other, each telling a bit more what I see around me. I did already put some firsts on flickr to prove it. The noise of cars or the quack of ducks, the bare feet young dancers, sometime video in one of my sets complement the pictures I have taken.

Of course, I just begin to learn to express myself also with video: they are also made pictures (plus the sound) !
Tony Bombardo 10 years ago
I'm saying "Okay" to video. I guess to ME, it doesnt really matter. Sure there can be bad videos. If you havent checked though, the number of bad PHOTOS on flickr is waayyyy higher than the number of bad videos, and it will probably always be that way. I just dont see a huge differennce between the two mediums. They can both suck if they want to.
cheesemonkey 10 years ago
Having only joined Flickr about 6 months ago I've been impressed by the folks who populate the site...mostly helpful, generous and interested in photography...
as opposed to YouTube (which I have been a member of for a couple of years...60+ vids on my channel) seems to include a large number of mindless, mouthy, argumentative types who have no interest in video production and make the whole feel of the place totally different...
It's not that I'm against "video" the medium. But I hope it doesn't change Flickr into another teen slanging match site...
Vincent Cao 10 years ago
I like this adding one media idea. But adding it to existing system flickr is not so good to me. My suggestion is use another system ,say, Flickv or something like that. The bottom line is we know flickr for it's a photo sharing/socializing system but not a text blog or video blog system. If the decision maker want to take advantage of the existing user resources from Flickr, they may find another way instead of adding media to existing flickr photo system.
Clive Rowland Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Clive Rowland (member) 10 years ago
I'd like te option to be able to turn off the visibility of video in your profile, so you could be blissfly ignorant they even exists. The same for mobile phone photos too actually and if possible, pictures from teenage girls who take 500 images of themselves per day, all of which are almost identical.
I joined Flickr for photography, too, and i certainly hope it remains predominantly a site for still photography. But all these "no video" groups seem to me to be a bit, well, reactionary. I'm willing to take a bit more of a wait and see attitude here. The quality of the work posted to Flickr has really impressed me, and I'm really not expecting to see that change overnight. From Yahoo's point of view: I think that's really what Flickr has going for it, and it's the reason people come here rather than going to other photo sites. It just wouldn't make sense to not continue nurturing a good community of photographers here, and I expect that's just what Yahoo will do alongside with gradually introducing video.
bunnyechoes 10 years ago
I'm saying no. I joined this site for sharing pictures - if I want to watch a video, I can easily access youtube or similar sites.

Someone mentioned a flickr site but just for videos - i like this idea. it would be a good solution i guess - those who wanted to see&share videos would be free to do so, flickr would make money out of it, and those who aren't interested would simply pass it.
.stephweiss 10 years ago
90 seconds of video is not like YouTube nonsense. It's just another medium to share 'art' (or not art, as the case may be). As long as it doesn't affect the bandwidth, I can choose to view or not view videos (or upload/not upload them) as it suits me. No worries here.
matt_cinque Posted 10 years ago. Edited by matt_cinque (member) 10 years ago
flickr hasn't purchased any new servers, meaning that video is taking a huge chunk of the bandwidth pie

i say create a "pro video" account, charge an extra 10 bucks a year so the people who really really need video to express themselves can, and they can pay for their own bandwidth and pay the extra staff

dividing staff and resources like this is an idiotic business move, in fact in my opinion its so overly idiotic the only explanation for it i can find is that yahoo is whoring flickr for every penny before microsoft buys them
Zonie_Zambonie 10 years ago
My "preservationist" side says no to video on Flickr, but my "realist" side says maybe.

I liken all this hub-bub about video on Flickr to color film within the history of photography. There are those that are more "preservationist" like Ansel Adams that were not only masters of their art and could capture the beauty of things without the aide of color. Then there were the "realists" like Barry Goldwater that were able to capture as efficiently on color film as they were on black and white film.

The art is in knowing when to use what medium. I am not as familiar as effective with video as I am with still photography, but there are some out there that are masters of the craft on video.

I guess the real question is how and where (or if) Flickr will draw a line as to what is acceptable and what is not.
Groups Beta