Embedding images from Flickr

[AlanC]

What's changed?

When I try to embed an image I just get a link to an attachment. The topic on how to embed images now says use a size of 1600 pixels rather than the original (as was specified before) but doing so still just gets me a link to an attachment rather than the image when I preview the post.

 

[Pete_W]

This happens to me sometimes too. I am uncertain as to why. The past week I have been linking to 'Original Size' in Flickr and it's been working. Very confusing.

 

[dirk]

We did not change anything, but Flikr changes often something. I guess they do not like the embedding feature, but they can not disable it completely, because many use this feature and would leave without it.

 

[AlanC]

When I did as Pete suggested and embedded the original, full size image then it worked (see the April 2025 photo thread). But if I try to embed the 1600 pixel version I just get a link. But last time I tried I couldn't embed the full size image (the Photo Association Game thread) and ended up with a low resolution copy uploaded from the Flickr link.

The requirement for a 1600 pixel image is a change that happened at some point. It always used to be the full size image, and the instructions now say:

1. Choose via dropdown menu as size "original" (at the bottom) 1600 pixel.

So I'm not sure what's going on since I've never been able to get 1600 pixel images to embed and original images don't always work.

 

[dirk]

If I have time, I will look into this again. But not very soon. I am tired of Flikr changing again and again the procedure.

 

[Travis Butler]

When I did as Pete suggested and embedded the original, full size image then it worked (see the April 2025 photo thread). But if I try to embed the 1600 pixel version I just get a link. But last time I tried I couldn't embed the full size image (the Photo Association Game thread) and ended up with a low resolution copy uploaded from the Flickr link.

The requirement for a 1600 pixel image is a change that happened at some point. It always used to be the full size image, and the instructions now say:

So I'm not sure what's going on since I've never been able to get 1600 pixel images to embed and original images don't always work.

When you say 'embed', are you using 'Embed' or 'BBCode' as the sharing option?

'BBCode' is what I've been using, and as long as I keep it at or under 1600 pixels, it works fine on the posting; it doesn't always preview right, but it posts right.

 

[sergun80]

The problem is probably not with flickr, but with your account/settings. I have selectively looked at other people's links, and in most of them you can find a link.

It should be like this:

 

[AlanC]

I'm sorry about all this, Dirk, but I really haven't got a clue what's going on here since, as far as I'm aware, I'm not doing anything differently to how I've successfully posted images in the past.

I'm doing what the thread "How to upload images" says. On Flickr I click the "Share" icon for the photo, choose BBCode and an image size of Original or Large (1600 x 1600), copy the resulting code and paste that directly into the forum message textbox.


Although I do usually leave off the part of the code to generate the text links with the image name and attribution. I wouldn't have expected that to cause any problems, though, since the BBCode for the url and img tags for the photo are complete and properly terminated, plus Pete is seeing the same issue.

It may be as Travis has said, that it doesn't preview properly but will post OK. I do remember seeing this happen previously: I'd select preview but not always get the images. I'll give it a go next time I'm posting some photos and see what happens.

 

[dirk]

Do not worry. You can test it everywhwre in the forum and send me after the tests a link via PM and I delete them then. Just call the thread "test" and nobody will be bothered.

 

[AlanC]

It looks like Flickr is going to become pretty useless as a means of hosting photos for display on other sites unless you have a paid account:

https://blog.flickr.net/en/2025/04/...e-size-download-limitations-on-free-accounts/

We’re rolling out a service update to Flickr’s download options for free accounts, and we want you to know what to expect. Starting May 15, Flickr will restrict downloads of original and large-size images (larger than 1024px) owned by free accounts. If you use a free account, this update applies to both your own content and to content shared by other free members.

I'm presuming that'll stop the embedding of original or 1600 pixel size images since you could bypass the download restriction simply by getting the URL to the image, opening it in your browser and then saving the image. And I'm guessing it'll break existing links to images posted here since they use the original.

We'll see what happens, but if it does break links to existing photos then I see no reason to keep my Flickr account and will be deleting it.

 

[Pete_W]

I do wonder about the long term prognosis for Flickr. I really like it and am a subscriber (have been since the Yahoo days) but under the current owners it has felt like a platform in decline.

 

[Markuswelder]

I do wonder about the long term prognosis for Flickr. I really like it and am a subscriber (have been since the Yahoo days) but under the current owners it has felt like a platform in decline.

For sure. I had a Pro account for years, until the price started rocketing up, and the services declined. So I just went back to a free account, and tipped the money into my NAS.
Google p!$$ed me off too, I bought a series of Samsung phones that gave you quite a bit of free Photos lifetime storage, well, right up until you got close to the original free limit, and then tried to start charging you for it, as it had somehow "expired"
And, they make it more painful than pulling teeth, to try and embed photos from there on message boards. You can get it working, then they deliberately break something so it no longer works.
Once again, I declined to use it, and tipped the money into my NAS instead.
And I now only really post on sites that automatically resize images to the forum requirements. All these external storage sites keep changing the rules, or disappearing, so I just store my own and am done with it

Edit -I'm not wanting to upload or display huge images, just upload normal 1920 or 2048 size images and the forum resizes to it's own specific requirements.

Edit 2 -I'm also currently wandering around China, and Flickr doesn't work here, but I can happily access my NAS. So there's that too

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Be careful with NAS directly attached to the internet. They are not that hacker proof, have a lot of vulnerabilities. So be sure to use such a device in a dmz, so that if it gets hacked they can’t spread to other devices in your network. Furthermore only store data on it you want to share with the world and minimize the number of ports with a firewall (which you need to have for a dmz anyway). And expect to loose the data (that it gets encrypted by ransomware).

 

[Markuswelder]

Be careful with NAS directly attached to the internet. They are not that hacker proof, have a lot of vulnerabilities. So be sure to use such a device in a dmz, so that if it gets hacked they can’t spread to other devices in your network. Furthermore only store data on it you want to share with the world and minimize the number of ports with a firewall (which you need to have for a dmz anyway). And expect to loose the data (that it gets encrypted by ransomware).

Been running it for years like this, no issues. It's a Synology, which does seem to have a pretty good track record with a lack of vulnerabilities.
I'm no expert, far from it, but I do have it locked down pretty well as far as inbuilt security measures.
It's also behind a VPN, I really only use it for my own storage, I could probably count on one hand the number of links to files I've ever shared off it to anyone else.
It also gets backed up once a week, so if I did somehow get hit by ransomware, I'd just write it off and start again. Not like I'm a business that needs 24/7 access to it or I go broke lol.

 

[sergun80]

Who knows which photo hosting sites have free accounts and can provide dynamic links?

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Been running it for years like this, no issues. It's a Synology, which does seem to have a pretty good track record with a lack of vulnerabilities.
I'm no expert, far from it, but I do have it locked down pretty well as far as inbuilt security measures.
It's also behind a VPN, I really only use it for my own storage, I could probably count on one hand the number of links to files I've ever shared off it to anyone else.
It also gets backed up once a week, so if I did somehow get hit by ransomware, I'd just write it off and start again. Not like I'm a business that needs 24/7 access to it or I go broke lol.

I understand it is not for running a business, but you wouldn’t know what people do, like storing all there photo’s and files on it because it is a network attached storage, get hacked by a ransomeware script (not a person) and don’t know what to do and loose al there pictures and files. So my general warning to people reading this thread is if you want to keep your important pictures and files, don’t expose a nas directly to the internet where al your valuable data is also present. And be aware, sometimes a backup is already infected.

A synology which has been years up and running has a higher risk for vulnerabilities today. Always (auto) update. Anyway, my warning still stands…. My guess is you use the VPN service from the Synology. But my recommendation still stands…and using a VPN is ok. I would configure a separate NAS for storing (and exposing files on) to the internet on a seperate VLAN and use a separate VPN device (like wireguard on a cheap raspberypi) on that VLAN. Most current multi bay nasses have dual lan port. Use one for VLAN A, and one for VLAN B (home netwerk) (on a different ip address). So from outside you never can go outside of the vlan, and you can log in from your local lan to the nas using your home network.

So that way you only advertise one port, the wireguard VPN port on your ISP provided ip-address. Once you log in with your device, you only can see and use the nas. Normally within the NAS you can choose which services and shares are available to which network port.

So it is totally fine to use devices for storage like this, even without a VPN to share pictures to a forum for example. As long as you restrict everything beyond that device, on a seperate network. And treat such a device as potentially infected with stuff.

 

[Pete_W]

For sure. I had a Pro account for years, until the price started rocketing up, and the services declined. So I just went back to a free account, and tipped the money into my NAS.
Google p!$$ed me off too, I bought a series of Samsung phones that gave you quite a bit of free Photos lifetime storage, well, right up until you got close to the original free limit, and then tried to start charging you for it, as it had somehow "expired"
And, they make it more painful than pulling teeth, to try and embed photos from there on message boards. You can get it working, then they deliberately break something so it no longer works.
Once again, I declined to use it, and tipped the money into my NAS instead.
And I now only really post on sites that automatically resize images to the forum requirements. All these external storage sites keep changing the rules, or disappearing, so I just store my own and am done with it

Edit -I'm not wanting to upload or display huge images, just upload normal 1920 or 2048 size images and the forum resizes to it's own specific requirements.

Edit 2 -I'm also currently wandering around China, and Flickr doesn't work here, but I can happily access my NAS. So there's that too

I'm kind of lazy with my photos, just storing them on a portable SSD and only uploading some to Flickr. I've got 1.2TB of OneDrive space that comes with a Microsoft subscription but find it painfully slow to upload photos there so I don't use it.

Yes, these subscription services are insidious. We (wife and I) have subs for so many TV streaming services, an Apple subscription for iPhone photos/storage and music streaming subscriptions too. Back in the day you bought a vinyl LP or a CD and built your collection. These days you keep paying for music monthly!

Same problem at work. We're migrating our legacy systems into new SaaS systems. Monthly fees, annual price increases. Vendors getting rich.

 

[Markuswelder]

Yes, these subscription services are insidious. We (wife and I) have subs for so many TV streaming services, an Apple subscription for iPhone photos/storage and music streaming subscriptions too. Back in the day you bought a vinyl LP or a CD and built your collection. These days you keep paying for music monthly!

Yeah, for sure. I treat myself to one, and only one subscription service. That being Kayo sports, because I like my fortnightly fix of MotoGP, and World Superbikes. That's it. I don't have Foxtel, or Netflix, or anything else. My raw converter is Silkypix, which you pay for once. And I did buy Elements for the layers editing, but I see they've made that a 3 year licence now. So that can take a long walk off a short plank too lol. Once it becomes unusable.
I buy my phones outright, and buy a yearly, once off data/call plan.
I have a reasonably small CD collection in the grand scheme of things, which I burn to FLAC, and is then stored on my NAS and an SD card on my phone. Any other digital music I buy is paid for outright, once.
I do waste a bit of time trolling through YouTube music, anything that I come across and like gets tracked down from the likes of JB hi-fi, and a CD purchased. Or ordered in for me
I don't have the latest and greatest of anything, but I do own everything. Which brings me great pleasure in itself
And I'm pretty damn content with my lot in life, I don't have to work millions of hours to support my lifestyle, I don't have to worry about finding the next loan payment, or interest rates, or any of that.