Photo sharing

writes:

Just get one of the paid site like pbase.com or something. They will be
worth your while if you plan to have a lot of pictures...

Adding my admittedly biased 2c, the "free sites" work one of three ways.

1. They squeeze features hoping you'll upgrade to their paid service.
2. They hope to make money from print orders, and will reduce service if
they don't.
3. They are advertiser-supported. The advertisers are the customers,
and your attention is what's being sold. If you don't spend money on
the advertisers they'll decide it isn't worth their money.

Paying is worth it.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Easily organize and disseminate news and
photos for your family or group.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:26:43 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

Have you reviewed the Kodak Gallery?

I hate the way that Kodak Gallery wants visitors to "register" to see
photos. (At least, every link to a Kodak Gallery that I've been sent
by friends leads me thru this loop, which I refuse to do. I'm not a
customer of Kodak's and I will NOT register just to view photos.) I
also hate dealing with Webshots hosted galleries - the ads! My eyes!

IMHO it's much better to pay a nominal annual fee to Pbase, Smugmug,
Flickr, etc. for quality image hosting with no ads and respectful
policies for both the customer (photographer) and visitor, than to use
one of the free sites.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

In article , JC Dill wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:26:43 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

Have you reviewed the Kodak Gallery?

I hate the way that Kodak Gallery wants visitors to "register" to see
photos. (At least, every link to a Kodak Gallery that I've been sent
by friends leads me thru this loop, which I refuse to do. I'm not a
customer of Kodak's and I will NOT register just to view photos.) I
also hate dealing with Webshots hosted galleries - the ads! My eyes!

IMHO it's much better to pay a nominal annual fee to Pbase, Smugmug,
Flickr, etc. for quality image hosting with no ads and respectful
policies for both the customer (photographer) and visitor, than to use
one of the free sites.

Why not get a real host. Here's 5GB for $4 a month.
Post any sized picture you want.

http://www.ipower.com/webhosting.html

I use something like ACDC to make pages like this
http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/web/2/Veg04.htm

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article , JC Dill
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:26:43 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

Have you reviewed the Kodak Gallery?

I hate the way that Kodak Gallery wants visitors to "register" to see
photos. (At least, every link to a Kodak Gallery that I've been sent
by friends leads me thru this loop, which I refuse to do. I'm not a
customer of Kodak's and I will NOT register just to view photos.) I
also hate dealing with Webshots hosted galleries - the ads! My eyes!

IMHO it's much better to pay a nominal annual fee to Pbase, Smugmug,
Flickr, etc. for quality image hosting with no ads and respectful
policies for both the customer (photographer) and visitor, than to use
one of the free sites.

Why not get a real host. Here's 5GB for $4 a month.
Post any sized picture you want.

http://www.ipower.com/webhosting.html

I use something like ACDC to make pages like this
http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/web/2/Veg04.htm

Most people get free webspace with their provider. I don't even know what
memory you get with people like Comcast. It takes a little more work
but its worth it. Its would not seems like a good place to let others know the
username and password to FTP for picture upload, however, at least
using ipower, you can give out different usernames and passwords
for different access directories.



greg

Greetings JC,

I can appreciate not wanting to sign in when someone sends you an album to
review. Truth is, however, it is an option that can be checked off, so
whomever is sending you the album has requested your sign in. The most
common reason is so you and other friends' visits will be recorded in the
senders guestbook. At any time, they can view the guestbook to see which
friends have seen their photos and on what date. Some see it as an
advantage.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:26:43 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

Have you reviewed the Kodak Gallery?

I hate the way that Kodak Gallery wants visitors to "register" to see
photos. (At least, every link to a Kodak Gallery that I've been sent
by friends leads me thru this loop, which I refuse to do. I'm not a
customer of Kodak's and I will NOT register just to view photos.) I
also hate dealing with Webshots hosted galleries - the ads! My eyes!

IMHO it's much better to pay a nominal annual fee to Pbase, Smugmug,
Flickr, etc. for quality image hosting with no ads and respectful
policies for both the customer (photographer) and visitor, than to use
one of the free sites.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

Another option is Tabblo (http://www.tabblo.com). We offer free
unlimited upload and storage, and nicer presentations than simply a
grid of photos on a white page. Depending on what you are looking for
in photos on the web, it may be just what you are looking for.

--Ned.
Tabblo.com

Ron Baird wrote:
Greetings JC,

I can appreciate not wanting to sign in when someone sends you an album to
review. Truth is, however, it is an option that can be checked off, so
whomever is sending you the album has requested your sign in. The most
common reason is so you and other friends' visits will be recorded in the
senders guestbook. At any time, they can view the guestbook to see which
friends have seen their photos and on what date. Some see it as an
advantage.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:26:43 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

Have you reviewed the Kodak Gallery?

I hate the way that Kodak Gallery wants visitors to "register" to see
photos. (At least, every link to a Kodak Gallery that I've been sent
by friends leads me thru this loop, which I refuse to do. I'm not a
customer of Kodak's and I will NOT register just to view photos.) I
also hate dealing with Webshots hosted galleries - the ads! My eyes!

IMHO it's much better to pay a nominal annual fee to Pbase, Smugmug,
Flickr, etc. for quality image hosting with no ads and respectful
policies for both the customer (photographer) and visitor, than to use
one of the free sites.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:31:41 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

I can appreciate not wanting to sign in when someone sends you an album to
review. Truth is, however, it is an option that can be checked off, so
whomever is sending you the album has requested your sign in.

It's an option that is checked ON by default. Most users don't see
it, and don't know how to turn it off. My father is the one who sent
me to his Kodak gallery where I had to "sign-up" to see his photos. I
really resented that you tricked him into this, and I immediately set
him up with a different service for his photos.

The most
common reason is so you and other friends' visits will be recorded in the
senders guestbook.

I don't want *my* visits "recorded".

At any time, they can view the guestbook to see which
friends have seen their photos and on what date. Some see it as an
advantage.

It's only an advantage to Kodak, because you get to scarf all those
email addresses and spam them for your services.

jc


Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"JC Dill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:26:43 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

Have you reviewed the Kodak Gallery?

I hate the way that Kodak Gallery wants visitors to "register" to see
photos. (At least, every link to a Kodak Gallery that I've been sent
by friends leads me thru this loop, which I refuse to do. I'm not a
customer of Kodak's and I will NOT register just to view photos.) I
also hate dealing with Webshots hosted galleries - the ads! My eyes!

IMHO it's much better to pay a nominal annual fee to Pbase, Smugmug,
Flickr, etc. for quality image hosting with no ads and respectful
policies for both the customer (photographer) and visitor, than to use
one of the free sites.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA


--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

Hi JC,

Sorry you feel that way. It was not intended nor designed for that reason.
Rather, it was intended as a service to the person that sends you the
images. It lets them know that you were able to see the pictures etc. This
was researched before it was included.

If you think about it, if you set it to off by default, you would not be
doing the person using the service (your Father) a favor but diminishing
their options. Your Father now can see if you have come to visit. Almost all
users favor this option. Of course, it can be turned off and that feature is
readily apparent on screen when the sharing is done.

Talk to you soon, JC,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:31:41 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

I can appreciate not wanting to sign in when someone sends you an album to
review. Truth is, however, it is an option that can be checked off, so
whomever is sending you the album has requested your sign in.

It's an option that is checked ON by default. Most users don't see
it, and don't know how to turn it off. My father is the one who sent
me to his Kodak gallery where I had to "sign-up" to see his photos. I
really resented that you tricked him into this, and I immediately set
him up with a different service for his photos.

The most
common reason is so you and other friends' visits will be recorded in the
senders guestbook.

I don't want *my* visits "recorded".

At any time, they can view the guestbook to see which
friends have seen their photos and on what date. Some see it as an
advantage.

It's only an advantage to Kodak, because you get to scarf all those
email addresses and spam them for your services.

jc


Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"JC Dill" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:26:43 -0400, "Ron Baird"
wrote:

Have you reviewed the Kodak Gallery?

I hate the way that Kodak Gallery wants visitors to "register" to see
photos. (At least, every link to a Kodak Gallery that I've been sent
by friends leads me thru this loop, which I refuse to do. I'm not a
customer of Kodak's and I will NOT register just to view photos.) I
also hate dealing with Webshots hosted galleries - the ads! My eyes!

IMHO it's much better to pay a nominal annual fee to Pbase, Smugmug,
Flickr, etc. for quality image hosting with no ads and respectful
policies for both the customer (photographer) and visitor, than to use
one of the free sites.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA


--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

JC Dill writes:

It's only an advantage to Kodak, because you get to scarf all those
email addresses and spam them for your services.

I'd like to hear Kodak's answer to this. Do registered guests really
get unsolicited messages?

Bruce Lewis writes:
It's only an advantage to Kodak, because you get to scarf all those
email addresses and spam them for your services.

I'd like to hear Kodak's answer to this. Do registered guests really
get unsolicited messages?

Who cares? There's no reason anyone should have to supply personal
info to look at pictures, whether or not the info is used for actual
spamming. Kodak should not spy on users.