I think the generative AI is allowable when used to clean up images (i.e. removing objects) since "dodging" has been a darkroom technique for a long time.

I also acknowledge that AI generated images is a trend we could accept and have to learn to use for whatever purpose we want such as work or personal entertainment. But as mentioned by the admin, purely generated AI images will not yet be allowed, or adding objects that weren't there before (distinguishing this from removing images and just extending the background).

ski 9:
"put this one in the same category as OPA" . It is a way of seeing it. With the caveat that in an AI image there is no 'person" in P. And, as generative models statistically predict the next pixel, there is no "intention" No artist, no intention, there is no "Art" You are looking at "Other". You are looking at the screenshot of an internet search. My problem with AI is that

AI replaces human creativity with statistical analysis.

An AI image is an inanimate object. It's a ortogeiss boulder. :-)
If someone takes an AI image, and makes some changes, that is, probably, digital art, if manipulation is sufficient to add a touch of human creativity, If I take a pic of this, this is OPA. But it's like a pic of the Mona Lisa: I need to add yet something more.
If there is not another artistic addition during the photographic step, we end up discussing if taking the photo of a screen is fundamentally different from taking a screenshot.

I imagine how painters were feeling when photography arrived: in a similar way. My point is that is someone wants to use AI, is welcome. But it is a different thing from photography, ( as photography is a different thing from painting). So, long life to AI-dedicated groups on Flickr.

If we decide that taking a pic of the screen is different from a screenshot, than it's ok. But I would like to know what I am looking at, and it must be specified in the description of the image.

ski 9:
It was actually your creative use of TV screen shots that inspired me to try this experiment! Even though mine was quite simple, I was surprised by how much the act of photographing the screen added another layer to the Midjourney-generated image. The iPhone introduced its own noise and a strangely photographic quality. I can imagine that taking it further — with a proper digital camera, some intentional blur, different angles, or other tweaks — you could really transform the result and create something even more interesting.


Roberto aka Nomadfoto:
Roberto, you raise some interesting points! My “photographing the screen” experiment wasn’t meant to suggest that snapping a photo of a screen is more artistic than taking a screenshot. The real aim was to show just how easy it is to technically satisfy the “light hitting the sensor” rule — even if the underlying image is AI-generated. If someone wants to skirt strict definitions, it’s really not that difficult.

As for generative AI, I see it as another (admittedly controversal, powerful and sometimes unpredictable) tool in the modern photographer’s kit — much like HDR, panoramas, or digital blending were when they first appeared. It’s easy to use, easy to misuse, and, like any tool, its value depends on the intent and skill of the person wielding it. To call it “soulless” or devoid of intention overlooks all the creative decisions involved: prompts, seeds, iterative edits, custom models, and plenty of trial and error. There’s often more human input (and frustration!) than people realize — not to mention the use of image prompts, which really puts the human behind the wheel.

Honestly, if we say there’s “no artist” in AI art, couldn’t we just as easily argue that in photography, it’s simply nature doing its thing and we’re just pressing a button at the right moment? (Or the wrong one, if I forget to take off the lens cap.)

At the end of the day, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Rather than drawing ever-tighter lines, maybe it’s wiser to focus on intent, transparency, and trust within our community. After all, it’s the spirit behind the image that really matters.

Sky-nomad:
There is a difference between producing an image, and art.
Anyway, we will end up discussing what's art, and good luck! :-) I have no problem on looking at, and appreciating, AI-derivative work.
But this is digital art, not photography.

Differences ( legitimate) of opinions apart, the problem at hand is different. As the Weekly is about Photography, not digital art, I think that here we're discussing what is acceptable for this group.
In specific, we were discussing if taking a picture of a piece of digital art "recycles it" as photography or not, and therefore should be accepted in the weekly,
I remember there was a long discussion about OPA (is the photograph of a painting acceptable?) The conclusion ( admins please correct me if I'm wrong) was: only if the photo adds something to the original that this can be considered "original work"
It is somehow similar to copyright law, fair use, etc. What is "original work"?

Whatever the decision of the group, something I would consider a red line is the disclosure of the technique used, and alterations made (photography composite included)
While I can accept anything as "ultra realistic digital art", just declare it. I can not accept something pretending to be a photograph of, say, a market in Beijing, that include fake products or people. If I am looking at a photograph of a market in Beijing, I want a faithful representation of what the lens captured, with clear boundaries on what can be altered. Otherwise, title it " improved Bejing market" and put in description what was altered: then I know it is art, and that's ok.

Roberto aka Nomadfoto:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Roberto. I agree that the group’s focus is on photography, and I think we’re all on the same page about that. The real question is where to draw the line with editing, and I appreciate the idea of transparency.

Personally, I think it works best to keep things open — if anyone’s curious about the process behind an image, just ask in the comments and the photographer can share as much as they like. That approach has served the group well so far.

Let’s keep enjoying photography and creative experiments — after all, that’s what keeps things interesting!

Sky-nomad:

While I have no problem with illustrations-AI and digital paintings being shared in the WEEKLY, I'm not interested in exploring or commenting on this kind of work, but will leave them be. Being an illustrator or digital painter is a completely different beast from photography, and while they can be equal artistically to photography, they require separate sets of knowledge and skill. While many illustrations and digital paintings might start out as a photograph, that doesn't mean the work is a photo, no matter which way you look at it.
A good illustration or digital painting requires great skill and hard work. I'm almost 73 years old, and I don't have the years it's going to take to become proficient or articulate enough to evaluate/analyze this kind of work. I hope to spend the rest of my remaining years trying to master the fantastically fun craft of photography. It looks ot me like more work and talent are required to create good illustrations and digital paintings than photographs. At least until AI completely takes it over.
One of my long-term goals in life was to become decent at playing the guitar, but I gave up on that so I could spend more time with photography. It's not that I hate playing the guitar, but it is going with what I think I do best, even though that doesn't mean I'll ever be great.

Sky-nomad:
I agree that there are many "gray areas" in this discussion that are worth exploring!

Teddy Alfrey:
I’m particularly interested in those “gray areas” — the point where a photograph might stop being considered a photograph. I often stitch together multiple images to create panoramas or extend the reach of a lens. Over time, I’ve developed a fast manual process for this, which works even when there are slight changes between frames, like moving objects or different focus points. Photoshop’s automatic (and somewhat AI-driven) alignment rarely works for me and can sometimes distort the image in unpleasant ways. The same goes for stacking; I prefer to manually combine layers, even if it sometimes results in a bit of ghosting.
Generative fill can be a real lifesaver in these situations, especially for generating textured backgrounds where needed. For me, combining photos like this expands the creative possibilities of the camera as a tool. I wouldn’t necessarily call the results pure photographsn—but they’re not illustrations either. “Photo composite” might be a better term, though if the work is done well, it can be impossible to tell the difference without knowing the process behind it.

Sky-nomad:

I do a lot of focus stacking and stitched panoramas. While some might not call this "pure/straight photography," as long as new elements are not being added to the scene, for all practical purposes (for me) it is still a photograph, even though these images are technically composites. I believe my photos are "true" to the original scene, with no unicorns running around or crazy textures covering the image.

If you examine the history of photography, from the first photograph/heliograph created by Joseph-Nicéphore Niépce, through "The Linked Ring," to “The Photo-Secession," to "Group f/64," you will notice a significant back-and-forth between what photography is. Many of the original Group f-64 proponents claimed that only contact prints (not enlargements) should be considered as "straight/pure" photographs." Of course, members of that same group, like Ansel Adams, eventually employed enlargers and very heavy processing techniques to arrive at their finished images.
Then along came ADC (Analog-to-Digital Conversion) with all of the Information Theory attached!
Software developers were able to devise methods for previewing digital files created by ADC. Those developers did a darn good job of allowing us to see a "ball-park" version of what our images might be, but those developers were only averaging things out and not gods of absolute truth and they never claimed to be so. Some say that SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) is the only "true" or "pure" photo that a camera delivers. That concept is utter nonsense.

Eventually, our work will be defined by our peers. Will focus stacks be considered false photos? Will pasting images of snowflakes onto a photo to create a Christmas card be considered a "real" photograph?
For me, the best indicator of where we are going with photography is by reviewing lists of known good or great photos and which ones are genuine masterpieces. There is a danger of trying to make your work just like everybody else's, but the benchmarks of quality and artistic integrity are within those lists!

I am never sure what it is about generative-AI that camera-people fear.

First, what generative-AI does is nothing new. It is “graphic-arts”. The only thing that generative-AI has done is lower the skill-bar for graphic-arts. Now, any-old dope can do great graphics.

So, what are camera-people afraid of? Is it ”being fooled” by graphic arts? Obviously, no one should “trust” any image that we see today in any context, whether it is “labeled” or not. But good fakes have been fooling people for almost 200 years, so this is not a new issue either.

To me, graphic-arts is a completely different thing though, like oil-painting, and I don’t feel threatened by it, even if there is no longer a skill-barrier, and any-old dope can do great graphics.

What I say is; when we can’t tell the difference, the difference doesn’t matter. I prefer to use an optical camera as my tool, and others will choose a different tool for their art. What I don’t understand is … why would any graphic-arts person think that it is cool to make people believe that they are doing optical work?

John-Pa:

I agree with everything you said above, except that I'm not afraid of other artists trying to fool me. Instead of being "afraid," I'm more likely to roll my eyes.
Many professional graphic designers, as well as some photographers (such as those specializing in headshots), may be concerned about losing work. AI can create some pretty cool-looking posters, logos, etc., and some AI thingys can create professional-looking headshots from iPhone selfies.

I'm going to move forward with my camera-oriented work and strive to make my images faithful to the essence of the scene with no unnatural-looking post-processing effects because that's my idea of a good time.
Who knows what the future will hold, but computer generated imagery will be part of it. Maybe, the public will fully embrace it. However, once sentient robots wander the scene with cameras, look out!

John-Pa:

I guess is has something to do with our definition of "photography".
For me, it is a "game" around the deliberate limitation posed by lenses and the reality perceived by them ( less about the sensitive surface).

Unless we do this for work, we don't "have" to produce images.
I try a sport analogy: if the objective is putting a ball into a target, what's wrong about using hands, if this makes the job easier? If you play American football, in fact, you can. If you play "real" football :-) (soccer) you can't. Because the fun is in the process, in playing the game.

does it make sense?

so, my "obsession" of setting rules, is sort of understanding which kind of ball game we're playing here at the Weekly.
Today, on the front page, Is is written : photography"

So, if you can't bring yourself to trust the integrity of the group, what's the point?

Roberto aka Nomadfoto:

Whatever the WEEKLY rules allow, I'm fine with. However, I'm not interested in reviewing or learning the "in-and-outs" of illustrations, digital painting, or deliberately over-processed photos, other than to discourage their use. Of course, if that's a photographer's style, it's just as legitimate as me trying to stick to reality. However, I'm not going to waste my limited time left on this planet by going down bunny trails, when I want ot focus on photography, and camera work.
I don't care for sports photography, but if someone posts a sports photo, I'll try to give it my best, honest review, as long as it's a photograph and not something that started as a photo but ended up with crazy things added on top of it.

John-Pa:

Teddy Alfrey:

Not sure I understand.
I am happy with the rules as they are today, and the present "honor system".
Today, the rules are" Non-photographically generated images (traditional art, A.I., computer, etc.) are NOT permitted in this group. Only submit photographs to the group: images created by light falling on a photosensitive surface, (film or an electronic image sensor)."

I had the impression, from yours (and others) latest posts, that you were oriented into accepting AI images, and I was making an argument against it.
That's it. Apologies if I misunderstood.

Teddy Alfrey:
John-Pa:
Roberto aka Nomadfoto:

This is exactly what I love about the WEEKLY group: simple rules, but always room for interpretation. Some members perfect old-school methods, some embrace new ideas but draw their own “red lines,” and some break every rule just to spice things up. Everyone’s welcome to contribute, comment, and share their wisdom — sometimes the discussions get heated (or at least warm), but that’s part of what keeps things interesting. And of course, the Admins are always there to step in if things go too far.

What’s really remarkable is that this dynamic has kept the group going strong for over twenty years! I was looking back at some photos from the very first week in 2005 and found this hilarious contribution from “Renthamster,” titled “Victory is Mine”:


The comment section was full of Keepers and Freeflights debating the heavy Photoshop editing — of course! The Keepers won that time, and the photo is still in the pool as one of the group’s oldest. Is it a great photo? That’s for everyone to decide. But it’s definitely funny, and proof that the flame is still flickering.

I think this spirit — clear rules, but open to lively discussion and debate — is what’s kept the group alive all this time.
Andy Warhol famously said, “Art is anything you can get away with.” Of course, he was talking about art… not photography.

I don't chip in very often but you guys are contributing at pace without my observations.

We all seem to agree that the core of any images for critique must be a photograph or construction of photographs taken by the submitter. The discussion seems to hover around the limits of post-processing which has been a discussion among photographers since film was introduced.

I don't have any problems with 'enthusiastic' post-processing of the author's shot(s) - their art - because I feel I can submit a useful critique on the process of creating the image as well as its personal impact. When images contains elements/objects which do not appear on those shots, I'm a bit lost. "Great programming" is about the best I can come up with under these circumstances - hardly a useful critique. "AI" images are best destined for either groups dedicated to their production or groups which offer a simple like/dislike response.

Many years ago, the term "Trick Photography" was meant to create images that appeared to be real, but weren't.
This often involved skillful darkroom work where a small, specific area of the light-sensitive paper was masked off, and the rest of the paper was exposed using a particular "background" negative. Then, the process was reversed, removing the smaller mask and replacing it with the much larger piece of masking material (like cardboard) from which the smaller mask was cut.
At that point, a second negative was used to expose the previously masked area of the photo paper.
My grandfather used to play with this kind of thing. He once created a photo of himself, sitting on the edge of a teapot, while fishing from a teacup.
As fun as that kind of thing might be, is that "really" what you want to spend your time on, developing your skills as a photographer?
In the first half of the 20th Century, there was a market for "trick photography" in movies, magazines, advertisements, and other media. But, that's not the state of technology anymore.

Nomad - LOL

Teddy - I assume you intend - 'skills as a photographer' - to refer to the mechanics of shooting. My thing is image creation and I usually have specific types of image in mind before I ever pick up the camera. My work is mostly handheld or lightly supported because the flexibility suits me. That said, I'm well aware of the technical limitations that this approach incurs. Although there's always experimental stuff going on - like focus stacking - I don't feel I've exhausted image creation with my current shooting skills, equipment and post-processing knowledge.

I love all of it: walking around handheld & natural light, in studio with a model, waking up at 4am for a three hours treck, waiting on the lake for hours that f*kng bird ;-) to do something interesting...
It's the process, the exploration, the going out there, the story of the people you capture.... and than, yes, the catch, the reward of a great image. I remember all my photos.

Sky-nomad: great example !!!
Thank you ( ツ )ﾉ

Jerry Uelsmann, was a pioneer of surreal, multi-negative photomontage in the darkroom and, as a result, he faced tremendous skepticism in his career. His images—often dreamlike, uncanny, and clearly fabricated—ran directly counter to the photographic mindset of the mid-20th century, especially the modernist emphasis on "straight" photography as championed by the likes of Edward Weston and Ansel Adams. He challenged the idea that a photograph had to be rooted in objective reality, arguing that subjective, constructed imagery could be just as valid, and even more truthful in emotional or psychological terms. In the end, he ultimately won over the skeptics and pushed the boundaries of the photographic medium, because his mastery of the craft of photography, combined with his artistic vision was irrefutable... earning him credibility and respect worldwide.

Uelsmann pretty much redefined what photography could be, not by abandoning it, but by using its traditional tools to expand the territory. “Sometimes the best way to challenge a definition is to stretch it from the inside.”

Uelsmann emerged during a shift in photographic thinking. Influenced by Pop Art, conceptual art, and postmodern theory, more artists and institutions became open to non-documentary, non-purist photography. He first found an audience not through traditional galleries, but through educational institutions and journals, who were more open to conceptual work.

From my perspective, Uelsmann’s story and timeline are not dissimilar to what photographers are experiencing today. The advent of AI and AI assisted post processing have created a seismic shift in the world of photography. With even greater changes to come. Given that, I think it inevitable that how photography is defined is destined to change. It may very well go from “light-captured image-making” to a more generalized “way of seeing”. One that still uses the compositional, aesthetic, or conceptual frameworks traditionally associated with photographic practice, but expands it tools to include those that never see light.

Institutions like MoMA and ICP (International Center of Photography) are already recognizing this shift. MoMA has exhibited works that blend photography and computational processes. Their acquisition strategies increasingly include digital-born works or hybrid photographic forms. When they show AI or CGI images, they are termed, “conceptual photography” or “post-photographic practices.” ICP has run panels and exhibitions around the impact of AI, deepfakes, and computational image-making.

So how will all of this affect The Weekly Group, and how we define photography?
We’re clearly in a transitional phase. Our current approach is a hybrid definition....capture plus synthesis. A process that begins with a camera-captured image but may be modified or completed using AI-assisted processing tools.

Just a few years ago, techniques like HDR, focus stacking, and compositing were at the forefront of this shift. Today, they’re widely accepted as part of mainstream photographic practice. It’s not hard to imagine a time when partially AI-generated images will be seen the same way. And, beyond that.......

bb1mm1:
This may be browser-related, but the largest version I can view or download is 2048 x 1709, whereas your original is 4908 x 4096.
I downloaded the HTML source code and was unable to find a path to anything larger than 2048 x 1709.

Here is the path to that 2048 x 1709 image:
live.staticflickr.com/65535/53552906906_cfae641ea0_k.jpg

In the source code, examining the image paths reveals that any path with a "k.jpg" extension will result in the 2048-pixel, on the long side, version. At least until Flickr changes that.

I'm using Safari on a Mac, so there might be a Windows wrinkle on this.



If you have a path/URL to the original file size, please let me know!

For now, I will be able to view my minimum size for critical review. If they remove the 2048 pixel versions, I will need to abstain from judging smaller images.

Teddy Alfrey: OK, the version I have uploaded (checking on my disk) seems to be 4908x4096. I tried the Flickr version on my desktop monitor (1920x1200) and you are right, I'm not getting at 4908 on the long side. I'm seeing what you are seeing even after going full-screen and clicking to enlarge. This is with Firefox on Linux. Chrome/Linux seems to behave similarly.

BUT, I tried it on the Android app, and my tablet screen is 2960x1848. On that screen it gives me a full-screen-size, resizable image. Just showing it goes past the (vertical) 1709 limit we saw on browsers, but I don't know what it enlarges to (if I pinch to zoom too much the quality does go down so it might be extrapolating/resizing in-place after it gets a 1-1 image, but this is all speculative. I just compare the 100% 1-1 original-on-disk image on one screen with what the tablet shows me).

Anyway, now we know it will display >1024 on the long side. We just don't know why it's imposing another limit. It may be asking the browser for the screen resolution and serving up something slightly bigger. There should be ways to get the browser to lie about the screen resolution and I might try that at some point.

If anyone else (maybe someone with a 5k screen handy) is interested, what we're looking at is this photo, uploaded as 4908x4096: www.flickr.com/photos/138284229@N02/53552906906

There is the Flickr account limit, is that the issue? There is a 1024 size limit on free accounts, and a 6144 display limit on paid accounts, although I think we are still allowed to upload and download "original size".

I would love to download or view the original-sized files!

However, I can download the 2048 pixel (on the long side) versions from the HTML source file, which is pretty easy to do with any computer, but I don't know anything about doing this with a phone.
If you do not have a pro-account, NO user, pro or free, will be able to view or download the 2048 pixel version from any of the standard Flickr web pages, like the "View all sizes" page.
Both paid and free users will be able to download the 2048-pixel versions from the source code.

I'm not sure what the exact size limit is on paid accounts, but my most recent photo, "Iriscape" is 26,816 × 6,780 pixels, and all users should be able to view and download at that size.

My concern is that Flickr will soon remove the ability to download the 2048 version.


bb1mm1:
John-Pa:

This is what I see on my screen Teddy of your Iriscape photo.
i.postimg.cc/85bLTX3h/Scherm-afbeelding-2025-05-31-om-08-...

Flickr’s internal image sizing has always been confusing to me. I messed with “view all sizes” a while ago, and I was unhappy with whatever it is that Flickr thinks they are doing there. It seemed like a lot of effort to get to these things, and even the so-called “original size” wasn’t what I had uploaded. I found that “original size” would often show me resolutions significantly larger (and poorer quality) than I had actually uploaded, and my true as-uploaded file resolution was not available in Flickr at all. It is possible that what Flickr really means is “as shot” size, rather than uploaded-size, which they read from the camera’s meta-data. That meta-data can be edited, but that seems like way too much effort.

In addition, I think that “view all sizes” may be considered a “download”, and if you prohibit public downloads, this may have an impact on the feature also.

My personal policy on the pro-account is to restrict my uploads to the 6144 normal-display limit. I don’t expect regular-people to go through the all the hoo-ha of “view all sizes” and downloads, and I don’t trust Flickr with anything larger. Although I understand that this size restriction is for practical reasons, I think that this limit is a major flaw in Flickr that gets more severe as tech keeps advancing the resolutions that we can produce easily.

I also think that there may have been a recent announcement from Flickr about reducing the allowed size of images on free-accounts. I thought that would cause problems, but I’m not sure of the details of it. I think that this too is a major issue, because IMO some compositions just don’t work without the high-res detail that both the artist and viewer know should be there.

I just opted to go pro again - for this very reason.

JanStreetphotographer:
I see the same thing on my screen, but you should be able to scroll down and right to see the whole image. Depending on your Wi-Fi connection, it might take as long as a minute to load.
There are not scroll bars, and I always use a track pad and if I swipe with two fingers, I can navigate through the image.
If you use a mouse, you might be able to click-and-drag to position the image.

Please let me know if you're still stuck with that viewpoint!

t

Flickr has been down for some time and will not display images.

ski 9:

It's been like this all morning, but it appears to have returned a little after 11 AM EDT.

I've noticed mini-outages like this before. Sometimes, I'll be able to see the images on my phone, but not using Safari on my Mac, and vice versa.
They have to code differently for each platform, which is one of the things I was eager to avoid when I retired, so I'm guessing they sometimes have to keep things in sync with updates.

Teddy Alfrey: Finally! Interesting about the different coding. I never thought of that. Unfortunately, it would not work on iPhone, Mac (Chrome or Safari) or my wife's iPad. Seems back to normal now.

On May 15, 2025, Flickr changed the maximum viewable size of non-pro member images to 1024 pixels on the long side.
This tiny size is not much larger than a thumbnail, and not practical for a serious critique.

This is what a 1024 pixel high image looks on my monitor at 100%:


2048 pixels on the long side has always been my bare minimum, and I was being charitable with that.

I tried examining the source code of the image pages, but I couldn't find anything larger.

If anyone knows of a way to access a larger version without having to expand or stretch a 1024-pixel image, please let me know.

I will have to abstain from analyzing images with so little information. If anyone wants to go to the trouble of sending me a larger image, I would be happy to review it, but I know that's asking a lot.

I also know that it is not the fault of "The WEEKLY" or its admins that this unfortunate update occurred.

Teddy Alfrey:

I agree with you, when doing in-depth critiques, 1024ppi is far from ideal . For downloaded images, the best option would seem to be zooming to 150-200%...taking into consideration that you are zooming a low-res image. Non-downloaded images can be seen at a reasonable viewing size on screen at 1024ppi, on the Flickr "view all sizes" page. For example:

www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xzc44pfjt1y2untwuo0e4/Screenshot-2...

That is far from from perfect, but it allows for critique on things like composition/framing, color, exposure, subject matter, point of focus, etc.

Teddy Alfrey:

I tried it with something I uploaded yesterday (4096x4096):
www.flickr.com/photos/138284229@N02/54587413814

In the browser I could get it to enlarge a bit, probably to 2048x2048 by trying F11 + full-screen (this is a 1920x1200 monitor). I then manually downloaded the page (using wget) and took a look at the file in a text editor. And, sure enough, I could access the original even though I'm non-pro:
live.staticflickr.com/65535/54587413814_7aa16a1cd2_o.jpg

This would be too much work for people though.

ski 9:

The problem I have is that stretching or enlarging the image will introduce distracting arfifacts that were not in the original image.
While composition and framing would be easily reviewed, the color, tones, textures, gradients, etc. are all lost in the void of smallness, and enlarging the image will replace those essential elements with wonkiness.

Technically, if an image were reduced to 100 pixels on the long side, composition and framing might still be discernible, but any attempt at an honest critique would rely on way too much wishful thinking.

bb1mm1:
Thanks for the information! Unfortunately, this doesn't work for any non-pro accounts. I was able to download your original size (4096 x 4096) version:
live.staticflickr.com/65535/54587413814_7aa16a1cd2_o.jpg

My usual method is to simply view the page source on my browser. I thought that maybe wget had the ability to find hidden info, the "page source" data is identical to what wget supplies.

I suspect that the original file information is only visible to the page owner, and others will see a redacted version. In the case of your file, I was able to download a 2048 x 2048 version, but there are no jpg links to a 4096 x 4096 image on either the wget page or the page source.

Here is a link to one of this week's images where I can only access a 1024 x 683 pixel image:

If you have time, check to see if you can find a link to the original 6000 x 4000 pixel file.
Maybe, I'm missing something.

Thanks again for looking into this!!

Teddy Alfrey: I don't see the link for the 1024 x 683 image?

Anyway, wget should be getting the page anyone can get w/o signing-in, since it doesn't know about the cookie the signed-in browser has. I'll look into this some more tomorrow (it's past midnight here), but that's just curiosity. Even if the information is leaked now, that can change at any moment w/ an internal update and it's not a reasonable way to use the site anyway.

If they allowed browser viewing up to 4k (but no downloads) would that work for you? I imagine many people have 4k monitors and high-resolution viewing is an important part of Flickr's competitive edge. This would be a a reasonable thing to ask for. The limit they imposed on non-pro accounts was to prevent people from using site for free file storage.

bb1mm1:

I find 2048 pixels on the long side, minimally acceptable. The old limit was just that.

If I can view it on a browser, I can likely download. There are ways for a browser view to enlarge or stretch an image, depending on the attributes of the html code, but that only exacerbates the poor quality.

C'mon man! Get some sleep!!

Teddy Alfrey: OK, another day here...

Is this the photo you tried accessing yesterday?
www.flickr.com/photos/202056045@N04/54581902319/in/pool-w...

If so, here's the original file 6000x4000 file:
live.staticflickr.com/65535/54581902319_25cf5cd54a_o.jpg

I got to this the same way: download the file with wget, open it in a text editor. search for the string "_o.jpg" and grab the URL. Filenames for the other sizes seem to be there as well.

If people abuse this loophole, they can close it fairly quickly.

Hi guys. I just got this message on my Flickr mail. Do you know anything about it? I am afraid it might be a scam and I am not quite sure what to do. Any suggestion would be apreciated. Thanks

ALERT

Notification of Temporary Account Restriction

Our security systems have detected unusual activity on your account. To protect the safety of our platform, please complete a quick verification process.

Action Required:
Click the verification link below. If the link doesn’t work, copy and paste the URL into your browser’s address bar:

flickr.id27260.click/tracking/fyEROjPQNVaASRbX

Important Notes:

If verification is not completed, your account will be restricted for 3 days.

Any pending transactions (incoming or outgoing) will be paused until verification is finished.

As a thank-you for your cooperation, you’ll receive a free 3-month PRO membership upon successful verification.

We apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your help in keeping our community secure.

Best regards,
The Flickr Team

Sounds like a scam. Who's the sender?
Have you tried writing to flickr support?

Don't open the link. But that should be obvious.

Here is an example of a similar phishing attempt
www.flickr.com/groups/helpforum/discuss/72157721922760942

Thanks Daniel. I got in contact with them, see what they say. Thanks for your swift response.

olivieri_paolo:

I got the same fishing spam email a couple hours ago. I reported the user as spam and blocked it.

I have received two phishing emails recently, offering to buy my photos with Ethereum and turn them into NFTs. :)

I've gotten a few offers to buy my photos on Facebook that were obviously suspicious. The main thing is to never answer or click the links in the message. The problem I have with blocking stuff like this is that I see even more of the same things coming from other pages.
I kept blocking those celebrity birthday notices with AI-generated images that barely resemble the celebrity, but now I'm flooded with them.

lots of spam recently in flickr. I got the 'I want to buy your photo' stuff as well ha-ha

Friends, I received a message from Flickr support and they offer me to follow the link. Could this be a scam? My account works as always, without any restrictions. As I understand it, Flickr would first limit the activity of my account and only then require verification.
Below I attach the text of the message, having deleted the link itself
Dеаr Usеr,

Оur security systems hаvе detected unusual аctivity on your Flickr аccоunt. Tо ensure the sаfety of your personal infоrmаtiоn аnd photо librаry, we require you tо cоmplete а quick identity verificаtiоn prоcess.

Pleаse follow the link belоw tо stаrt verificаtiоn:


This prоcess is essentiаl tо restоre full аccess tо your аccоunt аnd will оnly tаke а mоment tо cоmplete.

Cоmpleting verificаtiоn will immediаtely restоre your full аccоunt аccess аnd prоvide your аccоunt with stronger security prоtectiоns.

Pleаse nоte thаt аccоunts with unverified аctivity mаy hаve tempоrаry аccess restrictiоns plаced оn them. Your prоmpt аction helps us prevent аny pоtentiаl unаuthоrized аccess.

Thаnk yоu fоr your immediаte cоoperаtiоn in helping us keep Flickr secure.

Sincerely,

The Flickr Trust & Sаfety Teаm

IMO, this sounds like a classic scam, and I would delete the message without following the link.

Oh, I just read here that olivieri_paolo received a similar message.
The question is no longer relevant. This is indeed a scam and I will try to forward this message to the Flickr service

And yes. I was also written to and offered to buy my photos and I had a lot of fun with these people)
How beautifully they tried to extract information from me, without even thinking that it would not bring them any benefit, because now payment systems do not work with Russia) My Pro account was given to me by Flickr itself, so I thank them very much. They simply entered into my situation and gave me such a gift.
I do not quite understand what the scammers wanted to get, because now I am in Russia in about the same way as the residents of East Germany once were behind the wall) Well, I don’t know - I can send money only in a paper envelope, by good old mail)) and even then I have doubts about it)))

And since we are talking about this - I have hope that soon all this madness that is happening in the world with the events that everyone is talking about will end.

I always wondered when a picture works better in black and white.
Of course, I asked the "omniscent" ChatGPT5 ( the "smart one") and this is the answer.

"Sometimes a photograph breathes through its colors. The warmth of late-afternoon light spilling gold across a stone wall, the electric clash of a red umbrella against a pale salt flat, the deep greens of summer leaves after rain—these hues don’t just decorate the scene, they carry its emotional weight. In moments like these, color becomes part of the subject itself, guiding the eye, setting the mood, and anchoring the viewer in the reality of that instant. You’re not just looking at a picture; you’re standing there, feeling the air, sensing the temperature, inhabiting the moment as it was.

Other times, color is a distraction. Strip it away, and what remains is the skeleton of the image: the geometry of shadows, the rhythm of lines, the texture of skin or stone, the play between light and darkness. Black and white can make a scene feel timeless, unmoored from any particular era. It can turn a casual glance into a study of form, or transform a flat midday sky into a canvas for contrast and mood. Without color, the photograph speaks in shape and tone, and the viewer listens differently—more slowly, more intently.

The choice between the two is less about rules than about intent. If the colors are telling part of the story, let them speak. If they’re only murmuring in the background, consider silencing them so the structure of the image can take the stage. In the end, it’s about deciding whether you want your audience to feel present in the moment, or suspended outside of time."

Of course, learning that when the color works better, you keep it, didn't help much.
Any "human" clue?

P.S. of course, the reference to a "red umbrella against a pale salt flat", a photo of mine, is .. :-)
FYI, I produce the Flikr tags with GPT, so it knows my work)... and probably everything else in my life)

Personally, I agree with this opinion 100%. I sometimes comment on a particular work, that I find the color and the “reality” of the scene to be a distraction from the underlying composition and geometry and texture. Other times, color is indeed “essential to the story”. I see (and dream) in color, so most of the time, color is very important to my own stuff. Occasionally though, it is just an annoying and irrelevant distraction. Which it is in any particular situation, is the artistic choice.

Of course, in the old-days, you shot what was loaded, because film was expensive.