So flickr have announced today that Pro members can now post short videos.
My initial reaction was that it’s wrong, all wrong. YouTube is for videos; Flickr is for photos.
Flickr are trying to differentiate their offering (I guess) by limiting video uploads to 90 seconds. They said: “Flickr is all about sharing photos that you yourself have taken. Video will be no different and so what quickly bubbled up was the idea of ‘long photos,’ of capturing slices of life to share.”
“I think they’re onto something but I think they’ve dug past the gold,” he said. “I really, really like the idea of ‘long photos’, but I think 90 seconds is way, way too long. I’d love to see what people could do with a maximum of two or three seconds of movement. Imagine how much more of the ‘ness’ of an image you could have in these imeos/vidages/vidtures. Think of the scene in Blade Runner where Deckard picks up the picture of (supposedly) Rachel as a child, and for a couple of seconds your can see the shadows of the trees playing across their faces and hear the laughter and the birds singing around them.”
Okay, he lost me with the last bit (not too hot on film references, as you know), but I do see his point and I’m going to strive to make some of these vidages, as well as taking snaps, next time I go out on a shoot.
And I think this is what will make it all right. Only Pro members of Flickr can upload video. These are the people who (should) understand where flickr is coming from. How many of them already take video as well as still photography? This will give them somewhere to put the results, instead of just uploading the photos and leaving the video on the computer. Or, indeed, uploading photos to flickr for peer feedback, and then uploading the video to YouTube to get lost in a sea of mobile phone footage and kittens.