If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
On Jan 4, 2019, sobriquet wrote
(in ): Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). The free Flickr option of 1000 images is reasonable, particularly for most non-pro photographers. You can still share individual images and albums. You just can’t accumulate a massive library of images, and expect them to host a collection in excess of 1000 images for nothing. After all, just how long do you anticipate storing you images for sharing without culling down below the 100 image limit? There are costs that they are not compelled to absorb, just because you don’t like the idea of paying for anything. So my suggestion, is reconsider a limited (1000 image) free Flickr account, and work within the limitations to share images and/or galleries/albums. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
On Jan 4, 2019, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com): On Jan 4, 2019, sobriquet wrote (in ): Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). The free Flickr option of 1000 images is reasonable, particularly for most non-pro photographers. You can still share individual images and albums. You just can’t accumulate a massive library of images, and expect them to host a collection in excess of 1000 images for nothing. After all, just how long do you anticipate storing your images for sharing without culling down below the 100 image limit? ....er, 1000 image limit. There are costs that they are not compelled to absorb, just because you don’t like the idea of paying for anything. So my suggestion, is reconsider a limited (1000 image) free Flickr account, and work within the limitations to share images and/or galleries/albums. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 12:19:12 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 4, 2019, sobriquet wrote (in ): Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). The free Flickr option of 1000 images is reasonable, particularly for most non-pro photographers. You can still share individual images and albums. You just can’t accumulate a massive library of images, and expect them to host a collection in excess of 1000 images for nothing. After all, just how long do you anticipate storing you images for sharing without culling down below the 100 image limit? There are costs that they are not compelled to absorb, just because you don’t like the idea of paying for anything. So my suggestion, is reconsider a limited (1000 image) free Flickr account, and work within the limitations to share images and/or galleries/albums. -- Regards, Savageduck These costs can't be the reason. Google still offers *unlimited* storage space (provided they can compress the jpg files) for free. Maybe they will eventually add a feature allowing you to share a link to an overview of shared albums. It just mystifies me why they haven't already done so, but I guess they wanted to orient the service more towards backup and private sharing where it's more typical that you'd like to share a particular album with friends. Perhaps it was also a way for them to avoid all the copyright hassle they get exposed to when offering people more freedom to share stuff as people typically share stuff rather indiscriminately. The 1000 images limit at flickr is unreasonable in proportion to the 1 TB limit for free accounts. 1000 images is a tiny fraction of 1 TB, so they kind of went from a generous free amount of space to a rather crammed amount of free space. But I guess the pendulum swings back and forth.. probably at some point in the future they switch back to offering more space, as disk space generally only gets cheaper. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:18:21 AM UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 12:19:12 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 4, 2019, sobriquet wrote (in ): Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). The free Flickr option of 1000 images is reasonable, particularly for most non-pro photographers. You can still share individual images and albums.. You just can’t accumulate a massive library of images, and expect them to host a collection in excess of 1000 images for nothing. After all, just how long do you anticipate storing you images for sharing without culling down below the 100 image limit? There are costs that they are not compelled to absorb, just because you don’t like the idea of paying for anything. So my suggestion, is reconsider a limited (1000 image) free Flickr account, and work within the limitations to share images and/or galleries/albums. -- Regards, Savageduck These costs can't be the reason. Google still offers *unlimited* storage space (provided they can compress the jpg files) for free. Maybe they will eventually add a feature allowing you to share a link to an overview of shared albums. It just mystifies me why they haven't already done so, but I guess they wanted to orient the service more towards backup and private sharing where it's more typical that you'd like to share a particular album with friends. Perhaps it was also a way for them to avoid all the copyright hassle they get exposed to when offering people more freedom to share stuff as people typically share stuff rather indiscriminately. The 1000 images limit at flickr is unreasonable in proportion to the 1 TB limit for free accounts. 1000 images is a tiny fraction of 1 TB, so they kind of went from a generous free amount of space to a rather crammed amount of free space. But I guess the pendulum swings back and forth.. probably at some point in the future they switch back to offering more space, as disk space generally only gets cheaper. https://www.howtogeek.com/133062/the...than-facebook/ Maybe shutterfly is an option.. they seem to offer unlimited storage space as well and supposedly it's easier to share albums there. Did anyone try this who has a reasonable selection of albums to get an impression what that looks like? I'm looking for something similar to the way picasaweb allowed one to share a range of albums (a nice bonus would be if it has the ability to shuffle pics in a slideshow): https://get.google.com/albumarchive/...46033118696357 My flickr account has some albums, but I tend to use it more for digital art lately. https://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
On 04/01/2019 20:31, sobriquet wrote:
Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). I don't have an obvious answer to your questions beyond those published by Flickr. Google's sharing and compression arrangements are I'd have thought to do with its business model, and monetising data. I used Flickr a lot. I used it well within the new 1000 pics limit - the biggest limitation for me came recently with the removal of Photos (the Mac picture manager and basic editor) integration. So I now use a 200GB cloud service from Apple - about $3/month. Just makes life simpler, and I can use it to back up other data. An example: https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z532ODWLFRHJ -- Cheers, Rob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
On 05/01/2019 00:18, sobriquet wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 12:19:12 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 4, 2019, sobriquet wrote (in ): Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). The free Flickr option of 1000 images is reasonable, particularly for most non-pro photographers. You can still share individual images and albums. You just can’t accumulate a massive library of images, and expect them to host a collection in excess of 1000 images for nothing. After all, just how long do you anticipate storing you images for sharing without culling down below the 100 image limit? There are costs that they are not compelled to absorb, just because you don’t like the idea of paying for anything. So my suggestion, is reconsider a limited (1000 image) free Flickr account, and work within the limitations to share images and/or galleries/albums. -- Regards, Savageduck These costs can't be the reason. Google still offers *unlimited* storage space (provided they can compress the jpg files) for free. Which simply tells you that Google is better at monetarising the service. A terabyte of disk space still has to be paid for. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
picasaweb vs google photos
On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 9:31:16 PM UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
Hi. In the past I've used picasaweb and what I liked about it was that when I was sharing an album of pictures, people could easily click on a link to get to an overview of all albums shared by me. I wonder why this is no longer seems possible with google photos. I can share a particular album via a link, but then the person receiving this link doesn't seem to have any way to get to an overview of all albums I'm sharing on google photos. It feels like google is imposing some unreasonable restrictions on my freedom to share pictures. Sure, some people might prefer it if they can share an album without giving people access to all the pictures or all the albums they share, but why is this not an option so people get to pick what suits their preferences? Google photos offers a lot of free space (especially considering that flickr recently dramatically downgraded their free photo sharing space from 1 TB to something like 1000 pictures), but it seems to be kind of useless for photosharing if you can't even do something basic like providing an overview of shared albums via a link (like it used to be possible via picasa webalbums). In the google photo communities someone mentioned the option of using google docs for a basic overview of multiple shared albums. https://support.google.com/photos/thread/918348 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
issues with picasaweb | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 17th 12 03:22 PM |
issues with picasaweb | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 0 | May 17th 12 01:42 AM |
Phooto the ultimate picasaweb hack... | kobayaschi | Digital Photography | 0 | September 25th 07 12:30 PM |
Try to use Google to organize your photos and videos | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 13 | May 9th 06 07:31 PM |
Folks, why not google-organize your photos? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | May 8th 06 11:35 PM |