A free online image host service that lets me organize?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| For those of us who like to
| organize and keep track of things ourselves,
| a folder is not likely to be named "People".
| Maybe something like \Personal\Family\Party99.
| Or maybe just \Party99 if you don't go to many
| parties.
|
| But how does that help yuo find your aunt, or someone.
| Was everyone you know at that party ?
|

I have no trouble finding photos, or anything else.

then you must not have very many photos.

I store things systematically and the system makes
sense to me. If you can't do that then I guess you'll
need to keep using your image organizer.

you have this flawed idea that an image organizer is a crutch. it's
not. it's a very powerful tool that allows for organizing content in
ways not possible by using the file system.

it's *more* powerful than what you use.

Luckily for
you this isn't 1999, when you would have needed to
actually understand how to navigate the file system
because there was nothing like Picassa.

luckily, because of asset managers, people can do all sorts of things
not possible in 1999.

they also have ****loads more assets to manage than back then.

except you.

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:15:46 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
sobriquet wrote:

How many subfolders are we talking about? 1000? 10000?
How many pictures? 1000000?

61 (folder/directorie)s with 171 files in total according to 64-bit
Windows 7's Explorer.

I don't see any problem with that. 61 albums on flickr is peanuts.
I have folders on my pc containing over 400.000 images, that would be
a bit of a problem with max 1000 images per album on flickr.

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| if google are uofront with sayign they'll look
| at your images then they arent; spying are they.

If you say so. I don't use Google. It's
no problem for me if you want to believe
they're fine.


| MS Word puts docs into the personal documents folder
| without asking.
|
| That's the default location you can change it or just do save as.
|

Obviously, yes. You missed the whole point
and don't seem to want to understand it, so
I won't persist.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| if google are uofront with sayign they'll look
| at your images then they arent; spying are they.

If you say so. I don't use Google. It's
no problem for me if you want to believe
they're fine.

whoosh

| MS Word puts docs into the personal documents folder
| without asking.
|
| That's the default location you can change it or just do save as.
|

Obviously, yes. You missed the whole point
and don't seem to want to understand it, so
I won't persist.

you didn't have a point.

sobriquet wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:15:46 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
sobriquet wrote:

How many subfolders are we talking about? 1000? 10000?
How many pictures? 1000000?

61 (folder/directorie)s with 171 files in total according to 64-bit
Windows 7's Explorer.

I don't see any problem with that. 61 albums on flickr is peanuts.
I have folders on my pc containing over 400.000 images, that would be
a bit of a problem with max 1000 images per album on flickr.

But Flickr doesn't let me add albums inside albums. That is what I am
trying to do. Or at least folders and subfolders.
--
Quote of the Week: "What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you
know what I did to those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:02:48 PM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:15:46 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
sobriquet wrote:

How many subfolders are we talking about? 1000? 10000?
How many pictures? 1000000?

61 (folder/directorie)s with 171 files in total according to 64-bit
Windows 7's Explorer.

I don't see any problem with that. 61 albums on flickr is peanuts.
I have folders on my pc containing over 400.000 images, that would be
a bit of a problem with max 1000 images per album on flickr.

But Flickr doesn't let me add albums inside albums. That is what I am
trying to do. Or at least folders and subfolders.

But you don't need to add subfolders to folders. If you had
millions of folders, sure, you wouldn't get away with millions
of albums on flickr, but you don't have that many folders.
There is no reason for subfolders and by appropriately naming
your albums you can still have a multi-level hierarchy that would
effectively allow you to organize your albums in a way where
the first part of the album name constitutes the top hierarchy
and the last part of the album name constitutes the sub hierarchy.
So if you had a bunch of albums it might look like this:

animals-cats
animals-cows
animals-dogs
animals-insects-bees
animals-insects-butterflies
animals-insects-dragonflies
flowers-bouquet
flowers-roses
flowers-tullips
people-group
people-portrait



--
Quote of the Week: "What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you
know what I did to those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

On 2017-01-28 20:02:40 +0000, (Ant) said:

sobriquet wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:15:46 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
sobriquet wrote:

How many subfolders are we talking about? 1000? 10000?
How many pictures? 1000000?

61 (folder/directorie)s with 171 files in total according to 64-bit
Windows 7's Explorer.

I don't see any problem with that. 61 albums on flickr is peanuts.
I have folders on my pc containing over 400.000 images, that would be
a bit of a problem with max 1000 images per album on flickr.

But Flickr doesn't let me add albums inside albums. That is what I am
trying to do. Or at least folders and subfolders.

A nested folder system is something that few of the online photo
storage and sharing services offer. You don't get one with Flickr,
Smugmug, or Google Prime.

In some cases, Google Prime for example the whole system is screwy and
non-intuitive. All image files are added to a single chronological (by
capture time and date) mass collection folder (Your Photos) where they
are further classified by image type, People and Places, Family Vault,
etc. You have to create albums from this messy pool of image files.
They might give you unlimited storage, but their organization tools are
lacking.

Flickr and Smugmug are somewhat better in that creating and organizing
albums/folders can be done at upload. The best of Smugmug is not free.
Then there is also Dropbox which supports nested folders. However, to
make DB truly useful one has to move beyond the free service.
Another issue with Flickr is, the shared JPEGs do not seem to render
true to the original uploaded files, I notice obvious tone, and
saturation changes from originals. That is my experience, others might
not have the same issue. Smugmug returns images true to my intent.

Personally I find that my best asset management tool is the not so free
Lightroom. With LR CC and my $9.99/month Adobe CC Photography program I
get 20 GB of expandable storage and access to Adobe Portfolio, Behance,
Behance Display app, Spark Post, and sharing directly from LR or my
Adobe CC Cloud storage.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-01-28 23:42:52 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:43:18 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-01-28 20:02:40 +0000, (Ant) said:

sobriquet wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:15:46 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
sobriquet wrote:

How many subfolders are we talking about? 1000? 10000?
How many pictures? 1000000?

61 (folder/directorie)s with 171 files in total according to 64-bit
Windows 7's Explorer.

I don't see any problem with that. 61 albums on flickr is peanuts.
I have folders on my pc containing over 400.000 images, that would be
a bit of a problem with max 1000 images per album on flickr.

But Flickr doesn't let me add albums inside albums. That is what I am
trying to do. Or at least folders and subfolders.

A nested folder system is something that few of the online photo
storage and sharing services offer. You don't get one with Flickr,
Smugmug, or Google Prime.

Can't speak for Flickr or Google Prime, but I have what is essentially
a nested folder system in SmugMug. The top level is the Folder, and
that can contain several Galleries. My 2015 baseball season Folder
contains 24 Galleries; one for each game played with multiple images
in each. That season I was photographing all players on the team and
providing links (free) to the parents so they could download images
(free).

OK!

The 2016 season was done with five Galleries because there were a lot
of night games because the field was being re-done that year and we
were playing all "away" games. My Nikon D300 does not do well at high
ISO and the required shutter speeds for baseball. I stopped even
bothering with night shots.

Yup! The D300 can get noisy in low light at greater than ISO 800. If
you are going to stick with Nikon, I believe you are going to get your
best Nikon APS-C low light/high ISO performance out of either a D7200
or a D500.

SmugMug says that the user can go seven layers deep, but I haven't
attempted to go that complex.

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/por...y-and-folders-

SmugMug

is a paid service, so it's not one that Ant would consider.

I got a year of Smugmug with a purchase I made last year, and so far I
have only explored setting up a few galleries, all single depth.
From what I have learned so far, I think that Smugmug is a better match
for my needs than Flickr or Google Prime. However, I still have the
greatest flexibility and functionality with DB and Adobe CC stuff.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:57:54 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

disk space is cheap. storage costs are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a
penny. it costs more in time to decide than it is to save everything.

But think of the time I save not having to type in key words.

why would you type in keywords for photos that aren't particularly good?

Why would I keep photos that aren't particularly good?

many reasons, including that they might be useful at some point in the
future, technology might improve to where they can be improved to be
particularly good, or they are a memory of an event even though there
are issues with the photo, just to name three.

and so far I have no trouble
finding the image I want (except, perhaps, in a couple of
thousand-image albums).

then consider yourself lucky. or more likely, you're rationalizing how
much effort it actually takes.

Much less effort than it takes to type in key words for every
photograph I take.

no need to do that.

That's why I don't do it.

no that's not why you don't do it.

That's exactly why I don't do it. I got fed up with typing in key
words and then gave up.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:57:53 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

far less than learning and maintaining a file/folder hierarchy, as in
little to none.

You don't have to learn it. You understand it. You know it because you
created it and it reflects the way you think.

yes you do have to learn it. you happened to learn it long ago and
don't want to learn anything new.

You might have had to learn how to think but I seem to have been born
with the capability.

you weren't.

when mice first came out, people didn't know how to use them or what
they would even be used for, which is why there were mouse tutorials.

The concept of and ability to be able to sort things into categories
is not something which has to be tought to most people.

actually it is, particularly on a computer.

Duh!

How to set up directories/folders is something which has to be tought.
How to categorise your own photographs is something which should be
instinctive. At least it is for most people.

nonsense.

if it was instinctive, then disorganized people would not exist, nor
would there be classes on how get organized, nor would there be people
who help others get organized and stay organized.

there are an infinite number of ways to categorize photos, nearly all
of which cannot be done with a file/folder hierarchy. simple as that.

There is no argument about that. The question is, are they simpler
than a fil/folder hierarchy? The answer is that up to a limit they are
not. So far, I am below that limit.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens