A free online image host service that lets me organize?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I suspect I have a better visual memory than you. I don't need all
those index tags. Once I get into the right folder I search by
thumbnail.

it has nothing to do with your memory and you can't remember each of
tens of thousands of photos anyway, plus, who wants to look at zillions
of thumbnails, hoping to fine the right one?

the computer can determine what's in the photos for you, so you can
concentrate on taking more photos, or something else if you prefer.

query for what you want and it returns the results. it's a servant who
will never complain.

I don't keep every photograph I take

why not? other than complete ****ups, there's no reason to delete
anything. you never know if that image might be useful in some way.

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.

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.

nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| Does anyone know if there is a free online image host service can meet
| my requirements?
|

Have you considered setting up your own website?
It's not very expensive. You can then arrange your
images any way you like and don't have to accept
the "terms" or limitations of hosting services.

Disadvantages: It would require some effort and
learning to get it set up. Also, you won't get easy
settings to limit who can see your images or download
them. You can set up private connections and you
can try to limit anonymous downloads, but you'd
have to handle all of that yourself.

quite a bit of effort.

Yep. Hence looking for a free image host that already does this. It
doesn't seem like it.
--
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 1/24/2017 11:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I suspect I have a better visual memory than you. I don't need all
those index tags. Once I get into the right folder I search by
thumbnail.

it has nothing to do with your memory and you can't remember each of
tens of thousands of photos anyway, plus, who wants to look at zillions
of thumbnails, hoping to fine the right one?

the computer can determine what's in the photos for you, so you can
concentrate on taking more photos, or something else if you prefer.

query for what you want and it returns the results. it's a servant who
will never complain.

I don't keep every photograph I take

why not? other than complete ****ups, there's no reason to delete
anything. you never know if that image might be useful in some way.

The hoarder theory of storage.



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.


True. Some of us consider the time well spent. It is a real life chance
to review image files, and perhaps even learn how they could have been
improved.



--
PeterN

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:09:43 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I suspect I have a better visual memory than you. I don't need all
those index tags. Once I get into the right folder I search by
thumbnail.

it has nothing to do with your memory and you can't remember each of
tens of thousands of photos anyway, plus, who wants to look at zillions
of thumbnails, hoping to fine the right one?

the computer can determine what's in the photos for you, so you can
concentrate on taking more photos, or something else if you prefer.

query for what you want and it returns the results. it's a servant who
will never complain.

I don't keep every photograph I take

why not? other than complete ****ups, there's no reason to delete
anything. you never know if that image might be useful in some way.

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO!

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.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 23:09:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


| If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
| 'people'.

I don't know where I'd look, but I *would* know
where to look. I keep things organized. It doesn't need
to be findable by just anyone. It only has to be findable
by me. And I'm the one who designed the organization.

Even my ladyfriend, who takes a lot of pictures and
knows little about computers, has no trouble creating
folders for various trips she takes and for categories,
like family. She also backs them up without any trouble.
I just had to show her how. And she does it all without
any help from Picasa or any other middleman tool.

yet she had to have help from you.

And of course she wouldn't have required help if she was going to have
to learn how to index them with Lightroom.

No, of course not.

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.

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.

today, such a thing is laughable, but that's only because new computer
users have always used a mouse. they learned when they were a kid.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 22:57:23 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Even my ladyfriend, who takes a lot of pictures and
| knows little about computers, has no trouble creating
| folders for various trips she takes and for categories,
| like family. She also backs them up without any trouble.
| I just had to show her how. And she does it all without
| any help from Picasa or any other middleman tool.
|
| yet she had to have help from you.

Yes. she needed to learn how to use the
tools and she did. Is there a point there? People
shouldn't learn anything? Anything that involves
learning is wasteful and inefficient? Before Picassa
life on Earth was sheer drudgery?

i didn't say learning is wasteful.

the point is that if the computer can do work *for* you, why fight it?
it's a servant who never complains.

Didn't you have to learn to feed yourself at
some point? Do you regret that? Or maybe not.
Maybe your nurse is standing by waiting for you
to stop typing so she can steer a spoonful of
goo into your mouth?

babies know how to suck on a tit without anyone teaching them how.

.... and they would not benefit from a machine to do it for them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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?

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.

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.

you're rationalizing again.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Didn't you have to learn to feed yourself at
some point? Do you regret that? Or maybe not.
Maybe your nurse is standing by waiting for you
to stop typing so she can steer a spoonful of
goo into your mouth?

babies know how to suck on a tit without anyone teaching them how.

... and they would not benefit from a machine to do it for them.

whoooooosh

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


It's not because of the cost factor that I delete images. It's the
clutter factor.

there is no clutter.