[q-base]

I really think that Flickr has unrealised potential. One of the reasons photographers use Instagram is probably the ability to share their work with a wide enough audience and not just "photo-snobs". For years Instagram has been more or less hostile towards photographers, who just want to use the app for photo sharing.

Flickr, in my opinion has a wide enough base of people, generally interested in photography, to mirror some of the positive effects of sharing to Instagram.

It was no doubt better in the past. But there is still a lot of people on the platform and an okay amount of interaction.

In my opinion there is still a potential for rewamping the platform and make it even better.

[toastal]

Yep. Flickr does a lot of things right in comparison: holds onto and prominently displays camera metadata (EXIF), doesn't strip your color profile, allows uploading in wide gamuts to all clients (no sRGB conversion), doesn't compress the living hell out your photo, much more lenient on photo dimensions allowed to upload which is great for panoramas (not limited to square and squarish crops), allows editing not just the post data but also the license and the image itself after upload (maybe you realized it was darker than you thought and need to make a tweak), holds onto an original copy of the upload for archival reasons (I've used in a pinch when someone needed a hi-res copy and I wasn't attached to my NAS), and the, not to gatekeep, lack of everyday phone shots made the platform great to just browse by 'interestingness' and not being slapped with memes or influenerse or low-quality stuff for your friends but not a portfolio.

[busyant]

> I really think that Flickr has unrealised potential.

One thing is that Flickr's geographic search/exploration feels like it was Frankenstein-bolted onto the base site.

The geographic search would be interesting and fun if it worked well, but its current implementation just feels... weird?... and non-functional.