[msbarnett]

Smugmug is only a viable replacement for Flickr if your content stays within their absurdly strict and conservative acceptable content policy.

I've photographed a lot of burlesque events, and although none of the photos contain overt nudity, the mere presence of a breast with nipple concealed is enough to get your photos summarily removed by Smugmug's staff.

[JayNeely]

That sucks. I don't want to support that.

With Flickr going downhill, what should I switch from SmugMug to?

[potatolicious]

500px has been taking off in the photographer community lately, though they're nowhere near feature-parity with either Flickr or Smugmug.

No geotagging, not even API access, makes the use cases somewhat limited. But what is there is impressive, and the general caliber of work on 500px is higher than Smugmug, and a lot higher than Flickr.

I do find the discoverability features somewhat annoying due to the userbase they bootstrapped with. With Flickr Explore you'll find some puzzlingly banal photos making it to the top. With 500px's "most popular" galleries you'll just find a lot of nudes. It's like nothing else on that site gets any hope of rising to the top if it doesn't slip a nipple.

[msbarnett]

500px feels like it's evolved a culture that values very carefully curating your photos and posting only your very best to 500px itself; the expectation seems to be that the bulk of your work will end up on ${SOME_OTHER_SITE}. People seem prolific if they have 50 pictures up on 500px; I don't think I've seen anyone with 100.

It can be a great adjunct to a Flickr replacement, but unless the usage patterns change radically, it won't be that replacement itself.

[pyre]

  > With 500px's "most popular" galleries you'll
  > just find a lot of nudes. It's like nothing
  > else on that site gets any hope of rising to
  > the top if it doesn't slip a nipple.

Really? I'm not seeing any nudes[1]. Am I looking at something different?

[1] http://500px.com/popular

[Florin_Andrei]

I'm self-hosting my photos. The Linux server is a NAT firewall, but also a file server and Web server. Combined with a dynamic DNS service, works well enough. I've literally terabytes of space available, at little to no additional cost (I'd keep this machine around anyway).

[jmathai]

Have a look at OpenPhoto. You can download and install the software on your Linux server and use your NAT for storage.

http://theopenphotoproject.org

[justincormack]

At least on flickr there is the "take me to the kittens" facility for self-censored pictures.

[gatlin]

Maybe that's true for public photos; I know of a photographer who frequently snaps shots of wild and crazy college-town happenings and from my inspection, by your rules she should have been canned a few hundred times now.

[msbarnett]

They'll allow that kind of content only in non-public galleries that are also password protected. It's possible to slip some things through the cracks, but if and when they're found they'll delist the photos.

There's no value for me in paying money for a service which requires I lock up my photographs like Fort Knox merely because they contain skin. Your friend's mileage may vary.

(this is the relevant section from their TOS: "By using any Interactive Areas, you agree not to post, upload to, transmit, distribute, store, create or otherwise publish through the Site any of the following:

Any photograph, video, message, data, information, text, music, sound, graphics, code or other material ("Content") that is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, suggestive, harassing, threatening, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent or otherwise objectionable or harmful, including without limitation photographs or other Content containing nudity that would be unacceptable in a public museum where minors visit;")

edit: It's also not hard to find them discussing their policy, like the customer reps on their public blog: http://don.blogs.smugmug.com/2007/01/31/the-dark-side-of-the...

"I’m afraid if you’re a nude photographer, SmugMug isn’t the place for you. We’re a family safe site, and we will ask you to take down any photos that violate our terms of use."

"Our nudity policy is pretty simple and written in plain English. You can see it in our TOS. The summary line is as follows: “we prohibit the uploading and display of photographs or other Media portraying explicit nudity that would be unacceptable in a public museum where minors visit, for example. If your photos would only be suited for adult sites, adult magazines, or R-rated movies, they are not suitable for Smugmug.” We do enforce this rule to the best of our ability."

[sp332]

I checked, it is in their Terms of Use http://www.smugmug.com/aboutus/terms

  A. General Terms
  13. User Content

a. User Content that is... obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, sexually suggestive... including without limitation Photos, Videos or other User Content containing nudity that would be unacceptable in a public museum where minors visit

[dagw]

nudity that would be unacceptable in a public museum where minors visit

That has got be one of the most stupid 'clarifications' I've ever seen in an EULA. Have these people ever been to a museum? Think of just about any act or scene that is "obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, sexually suggestive" and I can guarantee you I can find a photo, painting or sculpture depicting more or less just that hanging proudly on display in some "public museum where minors visit".

[sp332]

Ah, interesting. I've never tried it, but that's good to know.

[msbarnett]

It's tragic in that they otherwise have a very nice service and I would very much welcome the ability to give them my money; they're taking themselves out of the running for rather a lot of photographers.