Fun With Flickr!

[idvfilms]

Now you can show your family and friends exactly where your photo's were taken. I think this great! Flickr blog (http://blog.flickr.com/flickrblog/2006/08/great_shot_wher.html)

[beaker]

I think smugmug does too.

[pzarquon]

Very cool. I was occasionally manually geotagging my Flickr photos, as well as my videoblog entries (via Vlogmap (http://community.vlogmap.org/)), but this integration is pretty slick. The map link for geotagged photos is a bit lost in the photo display sidebar, but once you're in the map view, it's a pretty awesome way to browse random photos. Ultimately, it'll be interesting too see how many unconnected people take pictures in the same spot over time.

[pzarquon]

Here's a live link to geotagged photos on the island of Oahu (http://www.flickr.com/map/?&fLat=21.471679&fLon=-157.918853&zl=8&min_upload_date=900000&min_taken_date=1970-01-01%2000:32:50). It's fun to zoom around and see what was captured at a particular place.

[tutusue]

I've completely lost how, once photos are uploaded, to create a URL so the photos can be viewed on my web page!

The only reference I can find on flickr.com is for creating a dynamic badge (http://www.flickr.com/help/photos/#53). But, that generates an overabundance of html. In the past I've been able to generate an image URL, eg: "http://farm1.static.flickr.com/xxx/xxxx/xxx.jpg". All of my FAQ searching isn't turning up what I'm looking for. Has the site been revamped since 12/31/06, which is the last time I was able to generate a URL? Or, have my searching skills gone right down the tubes? :o

TIA!

ETA: I followed admin's instructions here (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=10371&postcount=2) and when I click and hold nuthin' happens! Also, the badge allows only public photos and I don't want my photos public. The URL mentioned above allows private photos.

TIAx2!

[tutusue]

Found it...just needed to click on "all sizes"! :o

[pzarquon]

Heads up, Flickr fans! Next Saturday brings us "24 hours of Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/groups/24flickr/)," a global, collaborative photography event!On May 5, 2007, grab your camera and whatever else you need, and chronicle your day in pictures. The group's photos will be featured at Flickr events around the world this summer and in a companion book, which will contain a selection of photographs chosen from the groupWould love to see some Hawaii shutterbugs represented!

[tutusue]

May 5 is also the date for Don Ho's services in Waikiki. While a great photo op, maybe not a wise flickr op. Still, I will take photos knowing full well that I'm a really lousy photographer! :eek: There's nothing quite so beautiful as the final sendoff, Hawaiian style.

[pzarquon]

I didn't make it to the Don Ho events in Waikiki, but I did make sure to have my camera on me for "24 Hours of Flickr" anyway. Here's a couple of highlights from my set:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/486051308_037abfe4fd_m.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/hawaii/sets/72157600182043613/) http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/486048642_4fd55748b1_m.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/hawaii/sets/72157600182043613/) http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/486077947_653988d003_m.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/hawaii/sets/72157600182043613/)

Anyone else grab any memorable images today?

[mel]

I did not want to get caught up in the crowd and traffic in Waikiki today. Shot a few at Magic Island this afternoon.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/486099105_44b1a51765_m.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/486099097_dec95b4883_m.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/214/486099081_0c97b60c02_m.jpg

[tutusue]

I didn't make it to the Don Ho events in Waikiki, but I did make sure to have my camera on me for "24 Hours of Flickr" anyway.[...]
Is Kaneshiro the married name of your 2nd cousin, Joy?!

[pzarquon]

Is Kaneshiro the married name of your 2nd cousin, Joy?!Wow. Sorry I missed this message, Tutusue! And yes, that's (http://flickr.com/photos/hawaii/486083683/in/set-72157600182043613/) Joy Kaneshiro. How do you know her?

Only came by this thread to invite local Flickr users and fans to the next meetup (http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/216976/), tomorrow at 10 a.m. at Ke Iki Beach past Haleiwa. RSVP here (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nahui_aikane/discuss/72157600388162137/)!

[tutusue]

Wow. Sorry I missed this message, Tutusue! And yes, that's (http://flickr.com/photos/hawaii/486083683/in/set-72157600182043613/) Joy Kaneshiro. How do you know her?[...]
I don't! I know her husband and his brother. Small island, as usual! ;)

[scrivener]

Some interesting developments at Flickr recently. I'm not sure I should write about it here, but on the off-chance someone wants to help me make sense of it, I'll give it a go.

If you've explored Flickr very much at all, you know there are several photo-pools dedicated to the appreciation of women. A guy whose photostream I follow and who administers a pool has spent the past two years posting street-candids of women. They are all photos taken in public places, and the subjects are women of all shapes, sizes, colors, and ages (but no kids).

I know I get criticized for it quite a bit, but I am an ardent admirer of the female form, in all its forms, and I really appreciated what this guy was doing. I even may have contributed to his photo pool on occasion with some of the photos I've taken.

But Flickr is shutting him down. It is asking that he remove his street candids because, while they do not cross the line between candid photography and voyeurism, they are "creepy."

He writes:
Flickr has determined that all my candid images are in violation of Flickr's TOS, even though all are marked private for Friends and Family only and restricted to 18yrs and older. Therefore I will no longer be able to post new images to this group. All my images will be deleted in the next few days.

In order for me to keep my account I must delete all my candid images. I suggest that if you have favored any of my images that you now save them to disk. I will be looking for another site to post my images.


This is all still being hashed out, but the guy has decided first to get his photostream into compliance before continuing to plead his case with Yahoo! While he acknowledges that it's Yahoo!'s service and Yahoo! can do whatever it wants with it, it does seem to be a policy that lacks a certain sense.

Using images from my own photostream, here's what I understand:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2407/1923581834_8892ac4398_m.jpg
This street candid would be okay.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/439459920_86bcfa918e_m.jpg
This candid on Haleakala would be okay.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/1923540850_54f37733fd_m.jpg
This one violates the TOS, and I could lose my account because of it.

I have to say I am at a loss. Of course I'll continue to use Flickr whether I can share photos like this or not, but to remove this one very interesting aspect of photography makes it a lot less interesting for me.

Am I missing something? Could you help me understand Flickr's point of view. whether you agree with it or not?

[CranBeree]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/1923540850_54f37733fd_m.jpg
This one violates the TOS, and I could lose my account because of it.

I have to say I am at a loss. Of course I'll continue to use Flickr whether I can share photos like this or not, but to remove this one very interesting aspect of photography makes it a lot less interesting for me.

Am I missing something? Could you help me understand Flickr's point of view. whether you agree with it or not?

if the ladies were to find out you took candids of them, would you think they would consider it creepy? in this day and age?

[scrivener]

But why only the ladies? Why not the gentlemen or the people in the crowd shot?

[pzarquon]

Does he post other photos? Or just "street candids of unsuspecting women"?

On one hand, I say, if it's a public street, you can take pictures of whatever you want. Bald men. Asian women. Pigeons. Fire hydrants. I don't care if you're a professional photojournalist or a kid with a $79 digital camera. Fire away!

On the other hand, if his clear and sole motivation is voyeurism, catering specifically (as lawyers like to say) to "prurient interests," I can see a photo hosting service invoking their TOS and dumping him off their system. You have a right to photograph whatever you like in public (as far as the "privacy" question is concerned). But any private company has the right to say it rather have nothing to do with your content or interests.

There are thriving communities on Flickr for all kinds of things. (Browse the tag 'wife (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/wife/)' for an eye-opening experience. NSFW!) And yes, "street candids" of women, particularly at beaches but just about anywhere, are quite popular. I'd be curious if these focused communities are being allowed to continue to exist, even as an individual contributor is being penalized for his separate photo collection. (Though at least in a community or group, the contributors in most cases will have a wider variety of images in their photostreams.)

Frankly, all it takes is one angry pedestrian who sees herself objectified and judged on any website, and the hosting provider will balk.

Your photostream does have cute Japanese tourists standing on the corner in Waikiki. But it also has your Zippy's lunch plate, your students performing science experiments, your friends' graduation parties. Your photography is, I guess, more "well rounded," and less likely to be targeted.

That doesn't mean that someone seeing your cute Japanese tourist photo out of context (or, say, browsing your conveniently organized "Covert Sightseeing (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchell/sets/72157594388895289/)" set) will see it quite as innocuously as you do. Creepy it can be.

It's a grey area, to be sure. Recall the legal wranglings over the fellow who was taking video of women... er, at an upward angle on escalators at Ala Moana. At the time, there wasn't even anything to charge him with (apart from trespassing). I do think a tweak to an existing law was proposed but I don't even know if it was enacted. Another pivotal case nationally involved a guy who was videotaping youth gymnastics meets. His case hinged not on his using a camera (as there were of course dozens of proud parents with similar equipment), but specifically where he was pointing it and what he was doing with the footage.
But why only the ladies? Why not the gentlemen or the people in the crowd shot?Because it's clear "the people" in the same shot are not the reason you had your camera pointed and focused where it was at that moment.

[scrivener]

Does he post other photos? Or just "street candids of unsuspecting women"?
In his photostream, he has sets devoted to "dudes," couples, cars, flowers, and sculpture. Yes, most of it is of the sort I just described, and his account name is "girl watcher," but I just don't see how Flickr can determine that what he's doing is "creepy," especially when NONE of his shots are up skirts, down cleavage, or otherwise invasive. He doesn't shoot into buildings or through windows, and all of his subjects are in public spaces.

You have a right to photograph whatever you like in public (as far as the "privacy" question is concerned). But any private company has the right to say it rather have nothing to do with your content or interests.
Yes, and I made this point here and on the message board of the Flickr group.

Frankly, all it takes is one angry pedestrian who sees herself objectified and judged on any website, and the hosting provider will balk.
What I find interesting about this is that if most of these people saw themselves in a background crowd, passing behind a television news reporter, they'd think it was awesome.

Your photostream has cute Japanese tourists standing on the corner in Waikiki. But it also has your Zippy's lunch plate, your students performing science experiments, your friends' graduation parties. Your photography is, I guess, more "well rounded," and less likely to be targeted. That doesn't mean that someone seeing your cute Japanese tourist photo will see it quite as innocuously as you do. Creepy it can be.
I totally understand that it might make a few people uncomfortable; I've been uncomfortable with some of the photos of me YOU'VE put up, but the question of whether or not a photo caters to prurient interests is so subjective I don't get how it can be measured. One of the photo pools I belong to and share photos with is called "office porn." It's aimed at people who really, really dig office supplies. Sure, I don't get physically turned on by the images there, but I get turned on in other ways, and when I take a nice close-up shot of a pile of scissors or staplers or stacking trays, I'm trying to inspire that same reaction in others: It's undoubtedly titillating in a nonsexual way.

I use the Ala Moana escalator guy as a example in my classes all the time. The reasonable expectation of privacy going up escalators is a subjective, social construct, but it's pretty well defined and understood. Plus, of course, the photographer was on private property, so mall management could determine whatever it wanted in the same way that Flickr can determine whatever it wants.

Because it's clear "the gentlemen or the people" in the same shot are not the reason you had your camera pointed and focused where it was at that moment.
No way. The gentleman sweeping up glass in front of the broken window downtown is the ENTIRE REASON I took that picture. Same for the crowd awaiting sunrise on Haleakala. They are photographs of people doing things, and I personally think they made interesting subjects. I did take the photo of the tourist women in Chinatown because they were cute women, but in my mind, it's very nearly the same thing. These are not invasive photos AT ALL, except that some might consider it an invasion just that I've posted these photos on the web, just as the subjects of the other photos might.

[Peshkwe]

It's most likely the 'privacy' bit in the TOS, the 'wives' category escapes because they are willing participants, the women on the street may or may not be willing to be published. Without a model release specifically saying they agree to the mass viewing (and they're over the legal age) it's in violation.

Ten to one some folks found themselves on somebody's page and pitched a fit.

[pzarquon]

In his photostream, he has sets devoted to "dudes," couples, cars, flowers, and sculpture. Yes, most of it is of the sort I just described, and his account name is "girl watcher," but I just don't see how Flickr can determine that what he's doing is "creepy," especially when NONE of his shots are up skirts, down cleavage, or otherwise invasive.Well, his choice of account name says a lot. As wonderful as his photos of dudes, couples, cars, flowers, and sculptures may be, it seems pretty clear he's got one passion. I suspect his many fans don't spend much time in his other collections.

Creepy is subjective, you'll get no argument from me at all about that. If you think you're going to find a hard and fast rule that can push cases like this one way or the other definitively, you won't. I'm sure Yahoo! prefers it that way. They need room for discretion, and I support their right to exercise it.

Mitchell, I love you like a brother. People sometimes think we're brothers. And I've posted my share of beach shots and pretty ladies, some of them undeclared candids. But if you can't see that someone might see your "Covert Sightseeing (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchell/sets/72157594388895289/)" collection, or anyone's "appreciation of beauty in its many forms" as creepy, I don't know what to say. I concede, it's a spectrum for me, too. Girl on corner? Photography 101. Girl on TheBus? A touch of creepy. Girl in classroom? Creepy.
What I find interesting about this is that if most of these people saw themselves in a background crowd, passing behind a television news reporter, they'd think it was awesome.C'mon, Mitchell. Don't stretch that analogy too far. Unless the television news reporter was working for Girls Gone Wild News Network, there's a significant difference between being captured by a news crew covering a new library and a cameraman looking for hot babes.
I totally understand that it might make a few people uncomfortable; I've been uncomfortable with some of the photos of me YOU'VE put up, but the question of whether or not a photo caters to prurient interests is so subjective I don't get how it can be measured.
Like I said, it's subjective, absolutely. But what if your handle is "girl watcher"? What if your photo collection has "covert" in the title? What can reasonably be surmised about your intent? And again, like I said, even if it's totally innocuous, you just need one person to complain and you'll get tossed. Photo hosting services won't even hesitate. It's not worth the trouble.
No way. The gentleman sweeping up glass in front of the broken window downtown is the ENTIRE REASON I took that picture.Er, I thought you meant the people in the background of the photo of the tourist girls. Never mind.These are not invasive photos AT ALL, except that some might consider it an invasion just that I've posted these photos on the web, just as the subjects of the other photos might.Context counts for a lot. When I'm looking at your overall collection of photos, the word "invasive" would never pop into my mind. But if I was focusing on just one image, or a curated collection of images fitting a theme? All of a sudden, the very same images carry a completely different message. It is interesting, to be sure, how "random photos of people in Honolulu" can become "voyeur shots of girls" through the magic of tagging. :)

[Menehune Man]

I only use my Flickr account to hold photos that I need URL's for.
Like Geocaching pages, etc.

Really not much interest for others to look at.

[mel]

One of my contacts at Flickr is a person that goes by the name of "Asian Infatuation (http://www.flickr.com/people/asianinfatuation/)" and he has a ton of pictures taken in Waikiki, elsewhere in Honolulu and around the world of pretty ladies on the street.... just what any other person would see at Waikiki.... except he photographs them all. And that is all his subject matter is. He hasn't been targeted by the Flickr police...... yet.

I've seen worst pictures than standard street shots on Flickr, and I have wondered how they pass muster given that Flickr is supposedly "family friendly".

As for photos taken on private property, I was recently harassed at Ala Moana Center one night for trying to take a photo of the full moon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macprohawaii/1760281200/) from the top deck of their parking lot. No one else was there, it was early evening and it took me only about 5 to 10 minutes at the most to set up the camera, take a few frames and get out of there. Of course one of those security guards on bikes had to come over and push his weight on me. I got into a very short verbal exchange with him but in the end I left. I wanted to get the moon rising between 2 buildings.

It is funny that they let me and anybody else shoot all kinds of photos at Ala Moana Center including Centerstage concerts, store displays, people, Thunderbird jets, etc., but not alone and not bothering anyone at the center when I am by myself. Hmmmmph!!!

[PoiBoy]

public property or not...if someone takes a picture of my girlfriend without her permission they will get beat up. That stuff is seriously creepy and imo disrespectful. and crrrrrreeeepppppyyyy

[Pomai]

You being alone vs. in a crowded area probably looked more suspicious. They might have suspected your motives were other than getting moon shots. Keep in mind the FBI just released a warning of terroristic threats at our nation's shopping malls (http://www.ksfy.com/news/local/11129306.html) during the holiday season. The security at Ala Moana were probably already briefed on this. So naturally a guy alone with a tripod and an SLR on mall grounds would look suspicious, no matter what you look like or who you are. He could have at least let you get the shot, though. At least he's there "supervising" you (witness).

As for that threat, that won't discourage me from going to the mall.

Post Edit: Mel, I just checked out the link to your moon shot. Just awesome! I'd like to use that for an album cover or other graphical artwork. Damned your camera got some LENS! The shot is so crisp, it almost looks fake. lol

As for photos taken on private property, I was recently harassed at Ala Moana Center one night for trying to take a photo of the full moon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macprohawaii/1760281200/) from the top deck of their parking lot. No one else was there, it was early evening and it took me only about 5 to 10 minutes at the most to set up the camera, take a few frames and get out of there. Of course one of those security guards on bikes had to come over and push his weight on me. I got into a very short verbal exchange with him but in the end I left. I wanted to get the moon rising between 2 buildings.

It is funny that they let me and anybody else shoot all kinds of photos at Ala Moana Center including Centerstage concerts, store displays, people, Thunderbird jets, etc., but not alone and not bothering anyone at the center when I am by myself. Hmmmmph!!!

[pzarquon]

Attention all Flickr users! Other local Flickr fans are kicking off the new year with a Flickr meetup tomorrow at Kakaako Waterfront Park (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nahui_aikane/discuss/72157602572541034/), home to one of the very first such shutterbug gatherings! It's not too late to join us! RSVP at the Flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nahui_aikane/) (with your potluck contribution) and/or via Upcoming (http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/382938/).

It's good fun, kids welcome, and everyone from photography pros to photography admirers are welcome! Here's a video I made of a meetup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5Ly4Hc5Dk%5D) in March 2006.

[skeeterbess]

I only just saw this and have signed up, but quite tentatively. There's stuff I need to do this weekend, but this sounds like a lot more fun than cleaning my car and getting my business books ready for the tax accountant, kwim?

[pzarquon]

Talkstory fun at a waterfront park potluck with other friendly shutterbugs always trumps taxes and cleaning! I hope you can make it!

[Sprite]

Hi Pzarquon!

Um, I wanted to watch your video but the address didn't work! :(

I'm usually out running around (literally) around that time so I'm iffy. I'll try to be sure I'm no too sweaty if I'm in the area. :) I don't use flikr but maybe I'll figure out why it would be something I should.

[pzarquon]

Like to take photos? Like to blog? Even if you don't use Flickr, I think you'll find a lot to talk about and learn at a Flickr meetup. And who knows, you might decide to give it a shot. I host most of my photos at Flickr, even when I include them in my blog. It's just a great way to organize images (and it doesn't take up my server space or bandwidth).

Drop by if you can!

As for the video... hmm. How's this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5Ly4Hc5Dk)?

[skeeterbess]

It's not working out for me to go today - too much other "stuff" getting in the way. Maybe next time.

[Sprite]

Ryan, the video worked this time! :)

Skeet, awwwwwww! :(

[pzarquon]

We're at the park now. It's a blue, sunny day, after all. Try come! Let's talkstory and shoot each other! Call 372-3372 if you get lost.

[helen]

Most memorable event at the gathering was that someone said "SuperFerry" and all of the people stop what they were doing and started to take pictures of the SuperFerry as it was coming in to Honolulu Harbor.

[Sprite]

I was thinking the same thing on my way home! Too funny! I couldn't help but think how ironic it is that we were so iffy about it yet it excites us to see it go by.

I know someone mentioned the speed and then they mentioned the whales. No matter what, we will always have that in the back of our minds.

I know Auntie Lynn wanted to know what everyone was doing. She didn't fall for it like we did. :)

I can't explain it... the crazy boat just asks for attention.

It was nice to see a lot of people in person! :) Lika Nui was a brief topic of conversation but still remains a mystery.

We talked about weddings, kids and food! Auntie's going to open a restaurant so we can all go eat at her place. Right Lynn?

[LikaNui]

Lika Nui was a brief topic of conversation but still remains a mystery. Interesting. But I'm a simple person -- a mystery inside a conundrum inside a disfunctional contrajuxtaposition, an anomaly of an aberration of idiosyncratic singularity and irregularity, and a nonconforming anachronism of ephemeral synchronicity, with gravy all over.
And there you have it, in a nutshell.
All you had to do was ask! :)

Other than that, it sounds like you folks had a fun day. So where are the darned pictures?!?

[Sprite]

I haven't downloaded any pictures yet. I think I'm gonna blog about it... not because of us, but because of what I ran up against after I left. I'll download the pics and then decide. I will try to refrain from posting anything sensitive... there wasn't anything but I don't want anyone to worry!
:p

Actually, it's kind of funny 'cause I got mad but it turned out it was egg on my face when I found out what I was dealing with. I'll post the link when and if I do.

Thanks for being so welcoming you guys!

[tutusue]

Interesting. But I'm a simple person -- a mystery inside a conundrum inside a disfunctional contrajuxtaposition, an anomaly of an aberration of idiosyncratic singularity and irregularity, and a nonconforming anachronism of ephemeral synchronicity, with gravy all over.[...]
I'll certainly drink to that! Oh wait...I just did! Actually, that's a lie. I'm still working. I'll need to take pictures next week. Lots of 'em! Talk about dysfunction...
:D

[LikaNui]

I'll certainly drink to that!
Heh. I had three reactions to that.
First was a :D
Second was a ;)
And last was just a simple :)

[pzarquon]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2107/2176088655_1af715d26b.jpg (http://www.lightfantastic.org/imr/extras/videoblog/archives/2008/01/hd_hawaii_flick.html)

Photos from the meetup can be found in the meetup group photo pool (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nahui_aikane/pool/). In addition, as a sequel to the video from the 2006 gathering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5Ly4Hc5Dk), I've posted a video montage from Saturday (http://www.lightfantastic.org/imr/extras/videoblog/archives/2008/01/hd_hawaii_flick.html)... now in high-def stereo! :)

[skeeterbess]

Looks like I missed a really good time & lots of photo opps. :p Friends and food and kids and dogs - all good stuff. Hope I can make it next time.

[pzarquon]

Uh oh. There goes the neighborhood. Flickr now supports short video uploads (http://blog.flickr.net/2008/04/09/video-on-flickr-2/), too. A lot of hardcore still-photography members are convinced it's the end of the world. I, for one, want to see how this photo and video mix shakes out over the next few months first. Here's my first Flickr video, a clip of Lanikai Beach (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hawaii/2399192361/).

[helen]

According to Flickr only the Pro accounts can upload video and even then it's only a limit of 90 seconds.

[scrivener]

I like the player. It's not crowded with ads or "check this out, too!" links.
Here's mine (http://snurl.com/23vyv), a shortened version of a video I've shared with some others before.

[mel]

OK. I posted mine. A short clip (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macprohawaii/2400691312/) I made a few months ago using the 30 minute Flip2Video camera that I bought at Comp USA's closing sale a few months back.

The Flip camera like my recently acquired Canon Powershot S5 IS saves video clips as AVI. I don't know all the technical specs on either camera's video capabilities. I guess I'll look it up later.

I'm pretty new to digital video and have to figure out how to use the iMovie program that came with my Mac. I made only one crude edit with Quicktime Pro on the posted video.

As for Flickr a few things I noticed:

1. The video I posted looked better on Flickr than it does on YouTube.
2. For anyone who has created sets for Photos, it looks like you can mix your video with your photosets. The photo sets used to state "XX photos" in the set, but now states "XX things" in the set. I created a new set just for my video and it calls that "a thingy".
3. Like YouTube you can also embed your videos to another site. I like that.

The 90 second limit is fine for me. I think they did that so people don't post music videos which run for 2 minutes or longer. Plus I don't think Flickr should increase the video times since I think and hope the site remains primarily a photo sharing site.

I remember when I was (and still am) on BuzzNet, it started off as a photo site, but over time morphed into video and a MySpace wanna-be with all kinds of clutter and distractions that stray from the original focus of the site.

[scrivener]

I'm pretty new to digital video and have to figure out how to use the iMovie program that came with my Mac. I made only one crude edit with Quicktime Pro on the posted video.
Mel, I normally dislike the tutorials that come with application software, but the iMovie tutorial (if it's anything like what it was eight years ago) is actually pretty well-done. I learned a lot and forced myself to do everything in the tutorial exactly as instructed (like most people, I was tempted to try a million different things) and am glad I sat through it.

[pzarquon]

I think adding video to Flickr opens up all kinds of wonderful opportunities, but as suspected, plenty of photo-centric members are up in arms. There's a "No To Video On Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/groups/no_video_on_flickr/)" group with over 10,000 peeved members.