I'd love to move over to Picassa from Flickr, but the fact that every photo needs to be in an album is a deal breaker. I take one random photo and in order to upload it I need to put it in it's one, one-photo album? Or I can make a catch-all album that quickly becomes buried because it's my oldest? What a pain. If they just had some kind of "photo stream" I'd be all over it.
I'd like to have all my photos in one place, if possible. Having photos that can be put into albums on Picassa (with full resolution so people can make prints) and everything else on Google+ seems silly. I'd rather just not use Picassa and just put it all on Google+.
After installing Picasa you can right click an image and choose "Upload to Web Albums..." where it will automatically upload the image in the background to an album called "Drop Box" which is the "Default album for newly uploaded photos.". Picasa will then automatically open your browser to said image.
Somewhere like... the internet? Or your hard drive?
Is the problem just that it's conceptually in a folder, instead of intermixed with all your other photos? There's no difference to the work-flow, it's one step in both setups.
I think I figured it out. Make your Drop Box a public album, then go into the album settings and check the box to make the album date the date of the latest upload. Now you have a place to put random photos that will bump to the front whenever there's something new in it!
First we all know that Facebook is very image heavy. It is a great place to share and view pictures. Whereas Twitter can be a great place to share links, new info etc.
Now Google+ has gone and challenged the status quo. I'm curious how companies such as Photobucket and Flickr are going to handle this? I know Photobucket is in the midst of monetizing and generating meta data for each of the pictures on their site.
This is great. I've migrated off of Flickr for everything but my artsy photography stuff and a few special interests. All the family snapshots, kid activities, etc. have been going on Picasa at the free 800px resolution. Seems like my less computer-savvy friends and family can navigate it easier. 800px just isn't enough for a lot of uses though, so more than doubling it is great.
I definitely miss some of Flickr's organizational tools like having one photo in multiple sets but at least Picasa has tags.
I've also been using Picasa's face recognition, but only offline on the desktop app so far. Some cool technology, but I can't help feeling like I'm feeding intel to Skynet or Big Brother when I match faces with names.
Isn't using one single service to archive your photos a bit of an eggs-in-one-basket problem? Everything is reliable until the TOS changes, or someone revokes an app's privileges, etc.
A major gap I see in the integration of Picasa Web and Google+ is the lack of per-photo permissions, or at least the ability to easily create albums from existing ones without duplicating the photos.
I've been using Picasa Web to back up photos by syncing it with the desktop Picasa application. But not all photos that one may want to back up are of adequate quality to publicly share in the same album.
This means that instead of just being able to select which photos in a folder are public and which are private, Picasa users will still have to create new albums and reupload all the photos they explicitly want to share. This makes photo sharing on Google+ no less tedious than on Facebook -- when it had the potential to be much, much easier.
21 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 51.1 ms ] threadSecond, the text on this page could be made easier to read. The different sections and subsections should be easier to distinguish at a glance.
Is the problem just that it's conceptually in a folder, instead of intermixed with all your other photos? There's no difference to the work-flow, it's one step in both setups.
Now Google+ has gone and challenged the status quo. I'm curious how companies such as Photobucket and Flickr are going to handle this? I know Photobucket is in the midst of monetizing and generating meta data for each of the pictures on their site.
I definitely miss some of Flickr's organizational tools like having one photo in multiple sets but at least Picasa has tags.
I've also been using Picasa's face recognition, but only offline on the desktop app so far. Some cool technology, but I can't help feeling like I'm feeding intel to Skynet or Big Brother when I match faces with names.
You can use the Picasa client to retrieve your photos quite easily. :)
I've been using Picasa Web to back up photos by syncing it with the desktop Picasa application. But not all photos that one may want to back up are of adequate quality to publicly share in the same album.
This means that instead of just being able to select which photos in a folder are public and which are private, Picasa users will still have to create new albums and reupload all the photos they explicitly want to share. This makes photo sharing on Google+ no less tedious than on Facebook -- when it had the potential to be much, much easier.