[tomtom]

Hello,
I was wondering what the online photo dumping/sharing site of choice was? I see alot of people here use Flickr.. I've a Picasa account and used it in the past, but get fed up of the downloaded picture manager app that seems to overmanage my pictures on my PC - but you have to use it to upload images to Picasa...
If Flickr - why? Is there anything out there better?
Thanks,
T

[Paul B]

Flickr because its simple, the uploader is great and it says hello to you in a different language each day.

[slackline]

I find the pics on flickr are down/re-sized and loose a lot of resolution, which in one sense might be a good thing if you're worried about people nicking your pics and using them without permission, but on the flipside you might like to show of your pics in their full glory.

I've used flickr for four or five years and for the price of pro account you get a a pretty good deal, the only draw-back is the long-term tie in (in my opinion).

Two other common choices are detailed (very briefly, without any opinion due to lack of experience) here.

[Johnny Brown]

My experiences of hosting are the DIY website approach, or more recently PhotoShelter (good, but pricey).

However I look at images on Flickr fairly regularly, and don't like it. Picasa is easier to navigate and doesn't seem to attract the same reams of drivel comments.

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

However I look at images on Flickr fairly regularly, and don't like it.

I agree, am I the only one who gets annoyed Flickr doesn't seem to have a 'next' button in the normal view? I may be being thick but without going into slideshow view, how do you flick through a set with a single click?

[dave]

top right it'll show you the next and last pictures in the set, click on one of them.

[slackline]

am I the only one who gets annoyed Flickr doesn't seem to have a 'next' button in the normal view? I may be being thick but without going into slideshow view, how do you flick through a set with a single click?

Look to the right of the picture, there will be various different square thumbnails for the sets and/or groups that the picture you are currently viewing has been added to (if the user has bothered to put them in sets and/or groups).  Hover the mouse over these and a pop-up dialog box appears, the one on the right takes you to the "Next" whilst the one on the left takes you to the "Previous" (this will be chronological based on date uploaded if you are looking at them under the individuals photostream; whatever order they have order the set in; chronological if its a group based on the date they were added to the group).

Obviously this won't flick you through the whole set "with a single click" as you desire as you'll have to click again on the next image that loads, but if you don't like the picture that is Next/Previous based on the thumbnail just use the arrows underneath to scroll to the next.  You can also view "Sets" of the thumbnails by clicking on the name of the set (in grey) just above the thumbnails.

[Johnny Brown]

Its still a shit UI though isn't it? Picasa is a lot simpler and more intuitive. When you sign up, do you have to tick a box that says 'I agree to add sycophantic messages to every picture I see'?

[Durbs]

Sycophantic comments PLUS horrid, tacky, flashing gif.

If you've got a Pro account you can upload (and share if you wish) original resolution shots.

[slackline]

Its still a shit UI though isn't it?

You think so?  Why? 

I don't, at its base level its clean, simple and uncluttered (the comments are additional and are generally a consequence of adding your pictures to groups, if you avoid this you're highly unlikely to get flashy gif shit).  The ability to organise my pics into sets and collections makes it easy for me to find pictures from a certain point in history when I want, and this is nicely augmented by the use of tags.  I participate in some groups, but rarely comment on many pictures as personally I don't have much to say about other people's pictures.  One feature I really like is some of the Greasemonkey scripts for Firefox that people have released to tweak the UI through javascript of many of the actions and features.  It also integrates nicely with external apps such as the Dokuwiki I use and twitterfeed.

What does Picasa have that Flickr is missing (obviously dependent upon the user requirements which vary from person to person)?

Perhaps you could augment the Wiki article (editing of which is open to all) to give a more balanced representation given you have used and formed opinions on both?

Picasa is a lot simpler and more intuitive.

I've never used Picasa, but haven't had a single problem learning how to use Flickr to organise my pictures.  If some subtle nuance hasn't been glaringly obvious I've found the answer in the help/FAQ within about 1 minute.  Horses for courses I guess.

When you sign up, do you have to tick a box that says 'I agree to add sycophantic messages to every picture I see'?

No, as per above with adding your pictures to groups (and your choice of group will often reflect the sort of comments you get), adding comments yourself is completely optional, just the same as making posts on UKB and the use of emoticons in your psots  .  In fact if you don't want the general populace to see your pictures you can keep them all private so that only "Friends" and/or "Family" can see them (although obviously they have to sign up for a free account and be added as a contact of yours).

[cofe]

I've never had a problem with Flickr, but then my stuff is either private or contacts only. Stops me getting the fucking drivel comments and i just send links to the people i'd like to see my images, rather than all the riff raff. It would be good to have the option of UI black rather than white but I don't give that much of a shit. Picasa has always seemed a bit log to me. Depends who you want to share pics with i guess.

[slackline]

It would be good to have the option of UI black rather than white but I don't give that much of a shit.

Flickr on Black

[Johnny Brown]

You think so?  Why? 

If you'd read my earlier post, you'd understand I'm only considering the perspective of someone viewing photos, nor uploading or organising them. I would submit that viewing is the whole idea of an online gallery.

Obi is a technology/UI professional, and it wasn't obvious to him. It isn't to me either = shit UI.

I'm not bigging up Piacasa, only used it briefly, but it is more simply laid out, and the relevant buttons are more obvious. From an aesthetic viewpoint I don't like the design of either.

[dave]

hence the expression "black by popular demand".

[slackline]

If you'd read my earlier post, you'd understand I'm only considering the perspective of someone viewing photos, nor uploading or organising them.

 

However I look at images on Flickr fairly regularly, and don't like it. Picasa is easier to navigate and doesn't seem to attract the same reams of drivel comments.

 Sorry my mistake, I forgot to read between the lines of "don't" and "like" and how this relates to "easier" under Picasa

I would submit that viewing is the whole idea of an online gallery.

Quite, but someone (be it me, you or tomtom who's asking here) needs to upload and organise pictures and its is this process that tomtom has found laborious in Picasa.  As you point out below in terms of aesthetics you find both rather log, so their on a par on that front and what is of greater relevance is the UI for uploading and managing said pictures.

Obi is a technology/UI professional, and it wasn't obvious to him. It isn't to me either = shit UI.

Two people having the same problem does not equate to a universal opinion! Lets get a decent sample size and an RCT going to check this out properly, I'll do the sample size calculation.   

 

[Bubba]

I fail to see what's difficult about viewing photos in Flickr.  The UI is perfectly clear imho with a very easy to use navigator just to the right of the photo. Perhaps I'm just used to it. 

Regarding comments. If you don't like them then you can delete them or ban a persistent "offender" from commenting on your pics. However, if you send your photo to a group pool then members of that group can still comment. The answer is obvious, don't send to the group pool, or only use groups that don't give crap loads of comments.

My problem with Picasa is that you *have* to have an application installed to use it and it's yet another service that belongs to Google.

Another plus for Flickr is the huge amount of apps and services that has been built around it, e.g. Flickriver as an alternative online viewer, or Flickroom as a Adobe Air viewer.

It's also cheap. Granted, something like Smugmug  is a much slicker and better looking service, but it costs a lot more.

[cofe]

i've never had a beef with viewing pics on flickr either. google do seem to be taking over the world.

[Johnny Brown]

I still think its log. Especially the navigation.

[Paul B]

its p*ss to use, I can't see what you've got beef with, photostream seems intuitive, click on something then flick between the previous or next? what is there that doesn't work?

[slackline]

I still think its log. Especially the navigation.

Maybe this will help 

If you're having trouble with that then try this one first...

[cofe]

yeah johnny you dick. just click on something you mug. clicky click click.

[Johnny Brown]

[Jim]

I'm with Johhny and Obi here, I think Flickr is shit, never been able to see how to view the next photo without going into a slideshow and I'd like to think I'm not shit at using computers. I've also got no interest reading slack-lines 15 page essay on how to either (sorry)
Obviously never tried to upload/manage photo's with it as I was struggling to view them.
It's a terrible layout and interface IMHO, never tried anything else yet but will not be using flickr

[slackline]

I've also got no interest reading slack-lines 15 page essay on how to either (sorry)

Try the flow diagram, or go with what dave said...

top right it'll show you the next and last previous pictures in the set, click on one of them.

Besides, its not about viewing pictures its about ease with which they can be uploaded and managed online as tomtom hasn't got on with Picarsa, but with a bit of luck I reckon Yahoo! will sit up, pay attention and take onboard the constructive criticism and revise the user experience in due course. 

[Paul B]

Does this break it down for you Jim?

[Jim]

are words like next, previous,forward, back etc... copyrighted?
you know, the conventional words that we all use to navigate nearly 99% of websites?
Flickr is shit, deal with it

[Paul B]

firefox doesn't have forward or back stamped on the navigation buttons, we all seem to be able to use that ok. Oh but its obviously shit as well.

If you want to see a shite user interface I point you in the direction of photobucket.

[slackline]

So far based on posts in this thread the question "Is Flickr Shit?"....

Yay	Nay
JB	PaulB
Obi	slack---line
Jim	Bubba
	cofe
	dave

 

[Jim]

yes but you forget me, johnny and obi are the foremost authority on if stuff is shit or not
put that in your pipe etc..

[Paul B]

I can't, its not clearly labelled where I put it in to smoke it?

[Johnny Brown]

Distinct bias in that list towards those who use it to host their photos. I guess folk vote with their feet.

its not about viewing pictures its about ease with which they can be uploaded and managed online

This is laughable. Why the fuck do you upload them then? Because its a joy to use the upload interface?

And you forget Obi actually is an authority on accessibility of  technology. Its his job. Seriously, if he has to ask how to use something, its shit.



Where is the shortcut for viewing this set? I hate that little filmstrip thing. I want to 'flick' between a gallery and a large image, not between medium sized images and a stupid thumbnail cursor.

[Jim]

[Paul B]

Its where it says BROWSE (that is labelled jim), or alternatively click on the set. In that instance its the whole photostream (oh look, its lit up like a link).

I host my photos on Flickr because I got sick of photobucket and its advertising nonsense, I enjoy the Strobist group and all the info I can learn from it and hated all the picasa shite that my dad sends me. I only changed a month or so ago.

Thats more like it jim. Now make sure you remember to breath... In, then out.

[Tris]

I backup all my photos to Skydrive.

You get 25Gb of free storage (you can store other shit there - music/docs etc) and also share your photo albums/folders with everyone/just specific people. Slideshow views etc.

It has a drag and drop interface, and when you add pictures it asks you if you want to resize them or keep the originals. It's simple, easy to use and free.

 

[Johnny Brown]

Its where it says BROWSE (that is labelled jim), or alternatively click on the set. In that instance its the whole photostream (oh look, its lit up like a link).

I think you mean browse Which isn't lit up like a link. I must be a fucking idiot not to have found that, its the smallest text on the screen. The other link you mention, which I had found, never seems to be the set, just the entire stream. Useless.

General advice to anyone putting photos online (except slackline as he doesn't do it for folk to look at):

EDIT for fucks sake.

Tris, that sounds good, but I can't see how to look at anything without signing up.

[Paul B]

I think you mean browse Which isn't lit up like a link. I must be a fucking idiot not to have found that, its the smallest text on the screen. The other link you mention, which I had found, never seems to be the set, just the entire stream. Useless.

Thats because your in the stream, if you were in the set it'd miraculously take you to the set. My expertly drawn diagram shows which other sets that given picture belongs to.  Do I need to draw another to show you how to click the plus button and what to do next?

I sent a link for a Flickr gallery that was of my grans diamond wedding around the family, to sum it up, they're all ancient (Nat and I were the youngest, the next youngest was 50). I didn't get one email back asking how to flick between the pictures, if my grey haired relatives can work out out  .

[dave]

I'm amazed that apparently there are people that can build a computer from scratch, install an OS, connect to the internet, log onto a forum with a username and password and then claim not to be able to work flickr.

Some of that shit don't add up.

[Jaspersharpe]

 

I'm no good at this shit and only look at photos (as opposed to uploading my own) but I think Flickr is piss easy to use.

[slackline]

its not about viewing pictures its about ease with which they can be uploaded and managed online

This is laughable. Why the fuck do you upload them then? Because its a joy to use the upload interface?

General advice to anyone putting photos online (except slackline as he doesn't do it for folk to look at):

Believe it or not I don't spend hours poring over my own pictures once I've uploaded them, I put them there for others to view (initially when I moved to Australia), and like Paul my parents, grandparents, aunts/uncles, brother etc. some of whom are far from computer literate have never had a problem browsing my pictures in the five or six years I've been using Flickr.

My point in writing the above was that this thread quickly accrued input from people who only browse Flickr, yet tomtom, in the original post to the thread, didn't like the way in Picarsa over-managed his pictures forced you to use their app for uploading, hence my above statement. 

Flickr is far more flexible in the uploading of pictures as it has a WebUI, and various different tools which include official and third-party (one of the linux programs I use F-Spot allows me to upload directly, and exports the tags I've used in its database to Flickr, meaning I don't have to waste time tagging them again).  EDIT - Forgot to mention that you can upload from your mobile and upload by email too.

And you forget Obi actually is an authority on accessibility of  technology. Its his job. Seriously, if he has to ask how to use something, its shit.

He seems to do ok though (695 pics posted to date) (discovered from a picture posted here and using Flickr Look-up).

+ what dave said.

[Jim]

I'm amazed that apparently there are people that can build a computer from scratch, install an OS, connect to the internet, log onto a forum with a username and password and then claim not to be able to work flickr.

Some of that shit don't add up.

Exactly, flickr must be shit

[Johnny Brown]

This reminds me of my Dad's B&O stereo. He maintains its brilliant, but its unusable.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.hdbeat.com/media/2006/09/boremote.jpg

Where's the fucking play button?

[slackline]

This reminds me of my Dad's B&O stereo. He maintains its brilliant, but its unusable.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.hdbeat.com/media/2006/09/boremote.jpg

Where's the fucking play button?

It remind me of a P-Funk lyric (covered by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers)...

"If you have to ask, you'll never know"

[Somebody's Fool]

This whole thread reminds me of a play written by a dog.

[slackline]

Which one?

[Somebody's Fool]

The hypothetical one.

[Jim]

Maybe they've taken 'idiot proof' too far and only idiots can work it? 

I really never occured to me that the 2 thumbnails represented forward/back.
It doesn't suggest it anywhere apart from 'browse' written in the smallest almost invisible text.
Its just not obvious at all IMHO. If you hadn't posted that self-help image, I probably never of even bothered looking at anyones flickr pictures again.
Also, basically all what Johnny says as well

[tomtom]

Wow - I never meant to unleash such debate!

FWIW, I think flickr looks good but is a bit clunky to use - and I dont know why they can't have a more 'normal' scrolling preview forward backward thing - and that you seem to only have one size of large image... and finding a page of thumbnails is something I can do sometimes but not others... maybe its just me but is it a wee case of style over substance? (which is not necessarily a bad thing..)

But Picasa is a sack of shit (despite just using it). I dont think the viewing user experience is bad - its easy to use and you can find georef'd pics on a map and other stuff blahblah.. but as I put in the original post (that Slackers referred to a couple of times) the software you have to download onto your machine (unless you use the very shite online uploader) is complete log. Turd. Wank. Shite. It spends 20 mins re-ordering all my carefully ordered folders in its own silly little way... and as I copied across a load of files onto a new computer it seems to think they are all the same age (despite being in folders called 2007, 2008 etc..). Oh and theres a few other buggy clunky bits that piss me off too.

So shirley this is an opportunity for someone to make an online photo-thingy that gives you up to a gb of storage, a decent UI for uploading and viewing and with minimal advertising???? 

[slackline]

and that you seem to only have one size of large image...

Try the "All Sizes" button above a picture to view alternative "large" (and smaller) sizes.

[dontfollowme]

I have Picasa set up to monitor certain folders so only photos in these folders are added. I don't let it add every photo and video on my hard drives. If I want to upload photos for friends to see I use one of the many html templates available for Picasa and upload this exported website to my webspace. A fairly painless job.

[Iesu]

me.com?

or does everyone here hate apple CORP with as much passion as the evil google?

If you have a mac and/or iphone/iTouch then it's a pretty good service (cloud computing access to email, cal and address book, everything syncs between devices seamlessly, "find my iphone" and remote wipe in case of loss/theft, iDisk file server, oh and Galleries).

I don't use half this stuff, because i don't have an iTouch device. But i do have more than one mac and it's nice to be able to auto sync contacts, mail and calendars between the desktop and laptop.

If you have a mac you will already have iPhoto, which will upload your photos for you at the click of a button (also works well from Aperture).

admittedly it's not cheap but i don't think £59 per year is that bad for 20GB worth failsafe addressbook/cal/email backup and access to all this from my winblows machine at work. Also you can add "family members" for 1/2 price which is dandy.

[slackline]

admittedly it's not cheap but i don't think £59 per year is that bad for 20GB worth failsafe addressbook/cal/email backup and access to all this from my winblows machine at work. Also you can add "family members" for 1/2 price which is dandy.

Thats pretty damn expensive given Google give you ~18Gb storage for free on your email, 1Gb for documents under the traditional google docs, free calendar thats easy to share with people.  Then there is wave for collaborative work (no idea what the limit is).

But then if your a Mac fan you're probably used to paying over the odds anyway 

[Jaspersharpe]

iPhone, iDisk, iTouch, iPhoto, iWanttosmashsomething. 

[Iesu]

Thats pretty damn expensive given Google give you ~18Gb storage for free on your email, 1Gb for documents under the traditional google docs, free calendar thats easy to share with people.  Then there is wave for collaborative work (no idea what the limit is).

But then if your a Mac fan you're probably used to paying over the odds anyway 

harumph!

seriously though..... I think i've said it before on here - I'm willing to spend the extra for better products (i.e. stuff that works), better customer service, and better guarantee/warranty.

e.g. Patagucci, BOSE and Apple.

I've had good experience with cust serv, warranty and the products on all three of these (which some people consider to be priced way over the odds for what they produce).

Just had a near-on £300 credit note from Patagucci for a pair of approach shoes (bought in US) which spearated at the sole/rand and a 6 year old soft shell bought off 3bay for £60. Can't say fairer than that!

iWant iWant iWant - doesn't iGet

[slackline]

seriously though..... I think i've said it before on here - I'm willing to spend the extra for better products (i.e. stuff that works), better customer service, and better guarantee/warranty.

I've used gmail for six or seven years with about three server outages in that time (that I noticed).  Google Docs does a great job, as does the calendar, I've been particularly impressed with how easy these have all linked in nicely when I got a new Android based phone, all my calendars are now on my phone and I can add appointments directly and they're synced to online.

Have you actually had problems using online email before that made you consider paying for it, or did you just go ahead and sign up before trying free alternatives?

I can't be arsed looking it up, but what guarentee/warranty/support do you actually get for your money?  Free 0800 help-line when things don't "Just Work^TM"?

On the original question about hosting pictures, Coppermine has just come to my attention if anyone is considering hosting their own pictures, looks quite feature rich and yet retains a clean interface (to my eye).

[Iesu]

On the original question about hosting pictures, Coppermine has just come to my attention if anyone is considering hosting their own pictures, looks quite feature rich and yet retains a clean interface (to my eye).

On the original question - me.com's galleries form an important part of a wider service. With no wanky commenting, downloading of optimised or full res images, web uploads that sync back to your home computer, uploads by email, and other people can upload too if you allow it.

BUT it costs £59 per annum.

The support is pretty good - apple have "advisors" available for online chat to work out help issues. it's free, but if you have to call them to work through an issue, I don't know what the rate is because i've never had to - it "Just Works" (most of the time...)

[Bubba]

UKB used to have a Coppermine gallery - I can't see the point of self-hosting images these days, the online services to it much better. There also Gallery  which was pretty similar to Coppermine.

I think Smugmug looks the best by far, if you don't mind spending the extra subscription fee.

[benpritch]

On the original question about hosting pictures, Coppermine has just come to my attention if anyone is considering hosting their own pictures, looks quite feature rich and yet retains a clean interface (to my eye).

On the original question - me.com's galleries form an important part of a wider service. With no wanky commenting, downloading of optimised or full res images, web uploads that sync back to your home computer, uploads by email, and other people can upload too if you allow it.

BUT it costs £59 per annum.

The support is pretty good - apple have "advisors" available for online chat to work out help issues. it's free, but if you have to call them to work through an issue, I don't know what the rate is because i've never had to - it "Just Works" (most of the time...)

i totally agree , me.com is excellent.

i use it for sharing files (big ones up to 12gb, probably do more but i haven't tried) all the time. also will host a website (haven't tried that either) but hope to, all my important stuff is available anywhere and it can find my phone if i leave it somewhere.