please empty your brain below
It didn't take long to roll into eight digits. My first photograph uploaded - in June 2005 - was ID 21,627,937

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 09.04.15 - 9:18 a.m. | #

"Then there are galleries, . . . whose coding currently works perfectly but which might one day be rendered obsolete by some as-yet unforeseen upgrade."

And there we have the reason why digital photos, stored digitally, may well be lost to future generations - unlike old fashioned prints!

Thanks, DG, for all the photos you've taken and shared so generously.

Bronchitikat | Homepage | 09.04.15 - 10:43 a.m. | #

I back up the best of my photos on two separate external hard drives but still regard Flickr as my retrieval option of last resort should these fail.

Kim | 09.04.15 - 10:48 a.m. | #

The Convoy is still the best :)

Greg | 09.04.15 - 11:07 a.m. | #

I've just been sorting through a whole lot of prints from the 70's and 80's. Polaroids do not keep well. But even some B & W and colour prints have already deteriorated significantly. So we will be scanning them all as well as storing the originals more appropriately. Roll on digital vellum!

Westville13 | 09.04.15 - 4:06 p.m. | #

Did a Google search based on your final ink, and noticed that "Construction Enquirer" has copied your Catford photo: http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2013/05/07/barratt-600-home-plan-wins-london-dog-track-race/

Ollie | 09.04.15 - 4:32 p.m. | #

As a keen Flickr user, myself, one of the things that has impressed me most about *your* photostream is the way your viewing figures appear for the most part to be generated via your blog rather than from any deliberate attempts to actively promote them.
I actually remember, a long time back, spotting one photo with a tag (possibly the only tag) where you had joined two words together, which - it seemed to me - would have made it an unlikely searchword, and I sent an email to mention it. You sent a reply explaining the tag was more for your own file management than a publicity aid.
I note you still maintain this practice, today.
From my own experience, with photos I never got round to tagging or putting in groups, I know the viewing numbers are rarely as high as for similar images where I had.
For that reason, plus the fact (as shown by today's post) you obviously do have some passing interest towards your stats, I still occasionally wonder how your viewing figures could be if the images were, let's say, 'more readily visible.'
And the reason for saying that is that so many of them are, quite simply, well worth seeing :)

RogerW | 09.04.15 - 5:25 p.m. | #

I know what you mean about photo websites closing or going bust. Before flickr existed I used fotopic.net. They went bust, taking all my photos with them, although I had local copies of almost all of them. Now the flickr premium/pro membership is no longer worthwhile in my view I do wonder how they will survive.

Jon Combe | 09.04.15 - 5:42 p.m. | #

I'll add a plug for another blog, cataloguing the changes between photos of London from the 1940s and 1950s to the same scenes today, spurred by photographs taken by the author's father: http://alondoninheritance.com/

Andrew | 09.04.15 - 6:51 p.m. | #

Well done for 10 years on Flickr. Quite correct about problems with future proofing images and associated data. I have got crystal clear portrait photos that came from my grandparents house, probably taken in the early 1900s, but nobody now knows who they are of.

Andrew | Homepage | 09.04.15 - 11:46 p.m. | #

I gave up on Flikr when they restyled the pages too radically and buggered up the functionality.

Uncle Audrey | 10.04.15 - 12:15 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy