Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Flickr Online Photo Service Reviewed

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the through-a-glass-darkly dept.

The Internet 182

kschoenwandt writes "I have been an early fan of Flickr and while I am by far not as much of a shutter bug as most users seem to be, I enjoy the features and use it regularly. Taking some time out reading, I noticed that I am not the only one impressed: The Globe and Mail published a piece on it as did The Christian Science Monitor. Cool!"

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's official (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975142)

...as did The Christian Science Monitor

It's official. Baby Jeebus loves Flickr.

Christian science monitor? (-1, Offtopic)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975172)

I could of swore people reguarded science and religion as opposits..

Or is that the "Monitor" part?

Re:Christian science monitor? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975221)

The Christian Scientists are the people who don't believe in doctors.

Apparently, this site doesn't have any photos of doctors. Hence, their approval.

for the uninformed... (3, Informative)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975268)

from their "about us" page

[Mary Baker] Eddy [founder of The Christian Science Monitor]insisted, against strong opposition from some of her advisers and church officers, that the words "Christian Science" should be in the paper's name. According to one of her biographers, Robert Peel, to Eddy, "the designated title was an identification of the paper with the promise that no human situation was beyond healing or rectification if approached with sufficient understanding of man's God-given potentialities. Nor did the "good news" of Christianity involve the prettification of bad news, but rather, its confident confrontation".

There's more information on that page, but in the interest of brevity, I only copy pasted the relevant part of the FAQ.

Re:for the uninformed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975399)

Lest someone conclude that the editor was going toward a rational synthesis of science and religion (not that this is possible anyway...), note that "Christian Science" is actually neither. It's a fanatic cult known mostly for milking its constituency out of $$$ and the radical belief that faith can (and for the virtuous, must) substitute for medical attention in the case of illness.

Re:Christian science monitor? (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975960)

Is anyone else amazed at the number of people here on Slashdot that apparently have never heard of CSM prior to this article?

Learn more about the periodical before your dismiss it based on its title.

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975178)

fourteenth post!

(hey, i'm being realistic here.)

In Korea... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975182)

In Korea, Only old people share photos.

(1st post?)

2 places that like it (2, Insightful)

Nemesis099 (60955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975186)

I don't think 2 minor news sites can say that this is the best photo sharing site. I'm not saying that I won't check it out and see if it is worth it to me but unless something a little more well known talks about it I really do not think it is slashdot worthy.

I happen to use ofoto which has worked very well for me although now I'm looking for a more advanced site. One that will allow me to sell my photos to make a profit for me and not just the website.

Re:2 places that like it (2, Insightful)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975248)

Don't knock it till you've tried it. It's on slashdot because it's innovative and uses some pretty cool tech in the background. Give it a shot and see if you don't go running from Ofoto.

yes flickr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975320)

I'll give you flickr you little whippersnapper!! [freeshell.org]

Re:2 places that like it (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975925)

I looked at this..hoping it might be one of those sites that let you upload your digital pics...and they'll send you back physical printed copies (for a fee).

Are there any good sites that do this? I can easily manage my own digital pics on my websites...but, would like an easy way to upload my pics, and have them snail mailed to me as high quality prints.

Re:2 places that like it (1)

GreggBert (89663) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976021)

You might try EzPrints.com [ezprints.com] . You can send them your digital images, specify sizes, qty, etc and they will send you your prints in about five business days. Several of the other print from the web type sites actually use EzPrints as their fulfillment mechanism.

Re:2 places that like it (1)

davesplace1 (729794) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975285)

A service does not have to be big to be SlashDot worthy, just good or great. Yes ofoto is good, but Flickr online is a great service and well worth trying out IMHO.

Re:2 places that like it (5, Insightful)

xetaprag (657967) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975290)

You've got to wonder if this isn't a trend that has larger consequences.

Photo storage has traditionally been a "OS" centric activity. Peronsal photos tend to be exactly that, personal. But if users are willing to store (and trust) personal information on (to) public internet sites, then why not display the same trust will all but your password files. If I can store my email on GMail, my photos on-line, and my documents online, what's left for the average user? If I am an average joe (and am not hiding a secret porn stash) then why not store the majority of my digital information on-line.

At some point Microsoft or the Linux-folks are going to have to realize that OS systems design to manage data on just-local drives are woefully inadequate.

Re:2 places that like it (1)

TheAntiCrust (620345) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975348)

If I am an average joe (and am not hiding a secret porn stash)

That's a pretty BIG if. Plus, there are many websites on-line that store huge amlounts of porn. So that aspect is/can be held on-line too.

Re:2 places that like it (1)

SECProto (790283) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975299)

It will probably need more users for it to be featured by bigger news sites/papers. Nothing wrong with saying slashdot featured it first!
Although I don't really classify the Globe and Mail a minor news site - it's the website for a newspaper, not an internet-only news site.

I like it (3, Interesting)

TravisC (792858) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975353)

I started using Flickr last month and am very impressed. Granted I don't have a big need to sell my photos, just to manage them easily and quickly.

Two of my favorite features of flickr are the ability to email photos from my phone directly to the site, and the fact that they provide code which enables me to display the last 5 flickr photos on my personal website. In addition to those two features, they allow members to post comments on photos. Plus, you can see how many times each photo has been viewed. Another nice feature is the photographer's ability to make several notes on each photo, which appear when the viewer hovers the mouse pointer over each note's user customizable box.

Yes, there are features I'd like to see incorporated, but the service is still in beta, and considering that I think they've done a great job so far. Check it out. Here's my page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/travischurch/ [flickr.com]

2 minor news sites? define minor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975431)

That's like saying, oh - ET found, but it was only reported by the WSJ and BBC America, but unless something a little more well known talks about it I really do not think it is slashdot worthy.

I love how worldy and journalistically snobbish slashdot's readership has become, as they truck off to the lofty spires of SharkyExtreme and IGN Vault for reliable news.

A pitch for $30/yr smugmug, better than flickr (3, Informative)

applecore (805364) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975516)

One post mentioned smugmug.com, which is what I settled on after an intense evaluation of 25 sites, including ofoto, Yahoo!, shutterbug, etc. Here is my quick plug for smugmug as a recommendation for anyone else looking to run from ofoto etc. for superior services like flickr or smugmug: 1) Unlimited storage (they get you for downloading - viewing - more than 180,000 med-size jpegs in a month, flickr only limits your UPloading 2) Sharing of ORIGINAL size photos. This is indeed rare. 3) Backups to CD or DVD of ALL your photos (about $25). A great deal for groups like mine with 20,000+ photos. A NEW feature of smugmugs they didn't have a year ago. This was the reason for my intense search. 4) Hotlinking to intelligently organized pictures (www.smugmug.com/-[Ti S M L O].jpg Does it matter if my $0.02 are in Australian dollars?

Re:A pitch for $30/yr smugmug, better than flickr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975891)

I'm looking at the smugmug site, but can't find an answer to this -- is it ~$25 to backup _all_ images you have on there? Or is it $25 for x amount of photos?

Thanks!

Re:2 places that like it (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975635)

i use www.imagestation.com for my main online photo albums since they give you unlimited storage along with the ability to retrieve the orginal sized picture.

The only one I've seen so far that had a photo selling option was www.shutterfly.com, but they only let you sell prints of your photos, not the images themselves. It was fairly limited and looked like it only catered to the event photographer (kids sports, weddings, etc).

There are quite a few stock photo places to sell your pictures to the mass media you just have to look around.

Re:2 places that like it (2, Informative)

swim_bike_run-geek (828578) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975923)

I don't think 2 minor news sites...

The Globe & Mail is one of two national Canadian Newspapers. Not exactly minor to us Canucks.

Andvanced piracy??? (2, Funny)

koi88 (640490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975208)


... I just read on their website.
But, unfortunately, it's just advanced privacy:-(
While also nice, we unfortunately will have to resort to our standard piracy tools...

Re:Andvanced piracy??? (4, Interesting)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975291)

They do use advanced piracy detection techniques. They are big into creative commons liciencing and since I often post photographs found on the web, my account has been marked as "bad", and henseforth my photos don't show up in public searches [flickr.com]

Re:Andvanced piracy??? (1)

SenorChuck (457914) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975512)

Would that be your cutlass, parrot, and matching eye patch?

Indeed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975210)

No more karma whores ...pleazzze Compulsory karma IQ testing perhaps. Or the establishement of the longa awaited group-suicide.com

learn if you dare to... [freeshell.org]

other useful service bureaus for photographers (5, Informative)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975215)

Besides the consumer-oriented shutterflys and the community of deviantart, there are other service bureaus which are of value to professional and serious amateur photographers out there. I used to use ezprints.com for lightjet output, but their color calibration is very spotty and inconsistent these days.

One other online photo service for you (1)

arothstein (233805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975281)

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/_KODA_\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)_CHROME|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\_(TM)_/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Re:other useful service bureaus for photographers (2, Informative)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975312)

We've been using snapfish.com [snapfish.com] for years and love it.

In fact, I just ordered photo Christmas cards from them.

A different approach (3, Informative)

senzafine (630873) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975427)

Flickr is a really cool site. I do like their keywords and group features. We recently finished a site that's (imo) as good as or better than Flickr. Give some feedback on FotoFlix [fotoflix.com] .

This site lets you create movies with some really nice templates and your own music.

Flickr and FotoFlix are by far the best sites for photo management and sharing.

Re:other useful service bureaus for photographers (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975631)

Just an OT aside, that is the best damn picture of Beaver Stadium I have ever seen, and you managed to get it on one of the 3 times this season Penn State was actually ahead!(and really the only good game they played this season), you really should try making it into a postcard or something, people will buy anything Penn State and that is a good one.

Re:other useful service bureaus for photographers (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976261)

(The parent reference is to this shot: http://halley.cc/pix/?f=penn.state/beaver.stadium [halley.cc] -- check the "even larger" link.

Heh, the closeup of the scoreboard shows MSU 3, PSU 0, first quarter. ;) I'm sure I could fudge that to the final score if I wanted to sell to Penn State fans. The detail in the original is high enough you can find Sparty and the Lion mascots on the sidelines, read most of the jersey numbers, and count the cheerleaders too.

If anyone's interested in a print of any of my gallery, even those not already in the "storefront" page, I could arrange a PayPal for it. Give me an idea of the size you'd like and we'll negotiate a price.

I dig it (2, Interesting)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975219)

What I really like about Flickr is the way it brings people together over photographs. They say a picture is worth 1000 words (bring on the picture worth replies) and allowing individuals to comment on photos and discuss topics in the group forums are by far the most often used features for me. The interface is also slick and innovative, tags are of great use in photos (as they are with mail) and the notes feature made possible by thier custom flash rendering scripts are a pretty neat as well.

Re:I dig it (1)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975519)

while this sounds good, are there any limits as to what kind of pictures can appear on the site (i.e. is there some kind of moderation system?). I am not so concerned about p0rn, but more about pictures depicting violence or other material that most people would prefer to stay way from if they could.

Re:I dig it (2, Informative)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976096)

An account can be marked as "bad" if photos they post violate copyrights or are reported as offensive and thier photos not shown in public searches, but they can still make thier way to public group photo pools. I did find one or two disturbing images this way. There is a mechanism to mark a photo as "offensive", but there is not much indication as to how they handle it from there.
Having said that, I have only found 2 or 3 disturbing photos amoungst the thousands I've viewed so far. Translation: the bottom feeders have not found out about the service yet..

Christian Science Monitor? (-1, Flamebait)

SpocksLoveChild (829854) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975225)

WTF? But it's probably a great place for all those religious nuts to put pictures of what they think are signs of the end days.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (3, Informative)

cara (118378) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975289)

Um, why don't you look at the web site? The Christian Science Monitor is basically a normal newpaper with only one religious article in each issue. It was founded in 1908 and is published by the First Christ of Christ, Scientist as a public service thing. Check out their FAQ [csmonitor.com]

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975832)

And I'm sure they aren't 98% biased on every issue AT ALL! Just more pablum for the sheep...

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975335)

umm.. flamebait? why can't I mod when I really want to? you didn't RTFA did you? there's nothing religious.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (5, Insightful)

adturner (6453) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975359)

Uh, obviously you've never actually read an issue of the CSM otherwise you'd never make such a remark. While it is published by a church (not one I particularly care for btw), it is one of the best researched independant publications in print since they actually have reporters in foreign countries rather then just relying on AP/Newswire/etc. Not quite up to Economist standards in my unhumble opinion, but worth at least looking into.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975688)

the only thing religious about the CSM is that it has a single article that is christian oriented. It is published out of boston and I like to think of them in the same way as all those jesuit schools that have free/cheap quality private school education all over asia (including the one that i went to) especially in places others whould not go to.

I'm sure there are people who will mock religion, but nothing is going to diminish the respect i have for the people like those who gave up personal fortunes, moved to third world countries and taught english, science and math (yes including evolution). One father at ST Xavier's in Kathmandu, Nepal was billionare in the US before he gave it all up.

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (1)

BReflection (736785) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975771)

Yes, and we all know the Economists' anonymity is unbiased, right? :: laugh ::

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975822)

Dunno if anyone else remembers, but back when Prozac was new, there was this brief news item that Prozac was causing people to cut themselves. It eventually hit all the major papers, only to disappear once everyone decided it was groundless. The original stories all came from the Christian Science Monitor. In retrospect, those original stories seem to be spurious, and in line with Christian Scientist doctrine.

I realize it's kindof lame to harp on one single tiny item in the paper's excellent history. These articles might not have been poorly researched at all. They might even have been surprisingly prescient, given recent intimations of a link between some SSRIs and suicide in young people. Still, I've never had this little tiny thing explained to my satisfaction, so I bring it up again and again.

Did anybody else pay any attention to this? Was this just poor journalism, unrelated to Christian Scientists? Was their journalism not so bad after all?

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975485)

I'm no fan of the Christian Science Church. It's a little kooky for my tastes. I will say though, that I've been reading the Christian Science Monitor for over 25 years. It's one of the few independent news organizations left, with a surprisingly progressive and balanced view on life and such. Go read a few articles before you knock it too much...

Thanks,
AC

Re:Christian Science Monitor? (1)

waynelorentz (662271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975581)

The Monitor is one of the most highly respected publications in America. It ranks with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in journalistic circles. Because they know they're being watched by people who think they're nuts, they work extra hard to present even-handed unbiased treatment of the news.

While I personally believe the whole Christian Science thing is a hybrid of nuts and pyramid schemes, I cannot deny that the newspaper is one of the best. I've been reading them off an on for a few years, and they are one of the world's great news resources.

integration with blogs (3, Interesting)

cara (118378) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975229)

I use flikr too and the thing I like is the easy integration with various blogs (specifically I use blogger.com, but it works with others). It's easy to create a blog entry from a photo posted to flikr - very convenient.

Re:integration with blogs (2, Interesting)

billstr78 (535271) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975352)

It's also becomming a bit like a blog location itself. I notice a few people [flickr.com] attaching long annotations or "stories" to daily posts. With comments and photos displayed in stream ordering by default, this is becoming much like my second blog.

Too dependent on Flash (3, Informative)

Smack (977) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975232)

Some of the features are only available in the Flash interface, and I don't see what the benefit is anyway. Too gee-whizzy.

Re:Too dependent on Flash (1, Redundant)

sulli (195030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975669)

Exactly. Flickr is very annoying due to the constant use of flash.

Re:Too dependent on Flash (2, Insightful)

Quixote (154172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976176)

I just tried viewing some images, and nothing showed up! Upon some digging around, it looks like the actual images are SWF files.

Why in the world would anyone send images as Flash?

Being a Linux user, I can't use this site.

If Google has taught us anything, it is that Occam's principle rules: simplest interface is the best.

Ciao Flickr!

Re:Too dependent on Flash (1)

ian13550 (697991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976233)

The only thing I can think of is that maybe it keeps people from saving the images directly to their local HD and printing them from there? There are probably better ways to do this but just a thought...

Peripheral Business (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975237)

Can't sleep? View our slide shows!

Ad Rates (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975262)

Hi! I was wondering what the rates are for getting my business mentioned as a front-page Slashdot story? At first I thought that I might have to insert open-source code into my commercial product and claim it as my own, but now that seems to not be necessary.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Web 2.0 anyone? (2, Interesting)

aardwolf204 (630780) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975293)

FTA: Flickr (www.flickr.com) is what's known as a web service or web application -- something between a website and a regular software program. Web services have long been seen as the future, but until recently they've been held back by technical limitations. Now the combination of faster computers, better development tools and greater access to broadband is making them a reality. Some have even taken to calling this new trend the Web 2.0.

Emphasis mine

I can only imagine the marketoid this came from. Its bad enough most people (outside /.) think HTTP is the Internet, now we need everyone hyping "Web 2.0", because we all know how much version numbers mean.

Sorry, feeling a bit ranty today.

Re:Web 2.0 anyone? (2, Funny)

dubiousmike (558126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975498)

Internet 2 says it wants fight Web 2 at the flag pole after school.

Re:Web 2.0 anyone? (2, Insightful)

say (191220) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975638)

Its bad enough most people (outside /.) think HTTP is the Internet

People who know what HTTP is, do generally also know what a protocol is, and do not think HTTP is the Internet. People think the Internet is a program with an icon depicting a blue E.

Re:Web 2.0 anyone? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10976105)

I think the "marketroids" were Esther Dyson and Dan Gilmor; I first saw the phrase in one of Esther's newsletters.

bizhnatch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975294)

In Japan (1)

ganzhimself (827518) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975323)

In Japan old people talk to online pictures to avoid senility... Seriously... I just signed up for this, and I think it's a lot easier than signing on to my school's VPN to upload a few pics to my student webserver, then disconnecting and going about my business... And it's better than what was that service??? Photobucket I think?

I use Flickr. (2, Informative)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975325)

I use flickr as an easy way of sharing my photos. The dealmaker was the great communities that are on there. People will give you constructive input, not elitist prickery when you post your photos. More than I can say for deviant art/etc.

Flickr (3, Informative)

JRGKGB (412557) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975350)

Flickr is pretty nice, though personally I'm a bigger fan of fotoflix.com - better multimedia options and a cleaner interface.

I haven't tried that many I'll admit. Thanks for the list above, very useful.

Open Source photo repository (4, Informative)

scaramush (472955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975384)


I've never used Flickr, but I have been using Gallery [menalto.com] now for about 2 years. It's Open Source, based on PHP and MySQL. I've had to do two complete machine moves in that time, and it's handled them both flawlessly.

I think of all the OS projects I've used (and I've been at this a while now), Gallery has brought me the most pleasure. I had more or less put down my digital camera, because I found sharing, storing and cataloging photos publicly too much of a pain. Being able to share my photos with my friends and family has just been a real joy for me. (And before someone says it, they're pictures of my garden, not pr0n ;) ).

Gallery also has a hook to buy photos from Shutterbug (but I haven't been very happy with them so far).

Thanks Gallery!

Re:Open Source photo repository (1)

kbahey (102895) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975665)

I have been using Gallery myself for a few years, and I agree it is great.

One nitpick though: it has never required MySQL at all. All its data are in flat files.

Re:Open Source photo repository (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975714)

huzzah for gallery! Also, check out brad choate's [bradchoate.com] mt plugins. I use both gallery + choatery on one site [diversionmary.com] and pure choatery on another [cheeseissliced.com]

Something else you might be interested is some php munging I did to grab recent photos out of gallery. You can find code + samples here [menalto.com] .
-e [diversionmary.com]

Re:Open Source photo repository (1)

NardofDoom (821951) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975933)

My family *loves* my gallery. Heck, even my parents' and parents-in-law's coworkers love it. I posted almost all of the pictures of my recent wedding and honeymoon (I said almost all of them, you pervert), and they like that they can comment on them, order prints, or just show them off to their friends.

I'm thinking of making a small business of setting up galleries for people. So many people have digicams, but then just print the pictures out or email a couple at a time to their friends and family.

Re:Open Source photo repository (1)

dcigary (221160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975961)

I've also been using Gallery for quite a while now. (4 years? Really?). I agree it rocks! I've also set up a Gallery site for my brother on his server at home, and have random photo digital picture frames running around the house feeding from the server. Very, very cool stuff!

Re:Open Source photo repository (1)

scaramush (472955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976035)


Really? What hardware are you using for the photoframes? Can you tell me/us a bit more about your set up?

I like flickr (3, Funny)

syphax (189065) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975456)

I like flickr. I like their attitude- here's the first couple lines from a recent email:
Hello Most Excellent Flickr Beta Testr!

This is just a reminder to let you know that, not only do you rule, but ...
I also like the tag approach to categorizing photos. Like del.icio.us [del.icio.us] for bookmarks, tagging lets you get orthogonal with your groupings (i.e. the same photo can belong to multiple groups- generally a useful thing).

Re:I like flickr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975557)

So what you're saying is that the site was developed by Bill and Ted? Excellent! Wyld Stallyns rocks!

Re:I like flickr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975705)

Typical slashdotter. Make a "cool" reference and you are in golden with them. Never mind about their completely flawed security on the site, reference Bill and Ted and everything is A-OK!

What about legacy photos? (0)

scott_crossen (836647) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975476)

Want to get those old photos into the digital world. Check out http://www.digmypics.com/ [digmypics.com] It's a service that will digitize all of your old photos for a pretty reasonable price.

www.andrewhodel.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975478)

www.andrewhodel.com [andrewhodel.com] , Same thing, been up for years, nothing new people, go on with life.

Re:www.andrewhodel.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975533)

ha, posted the link this time

crappy security (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975495)

Too bad Flickr uses plain text HTTP authorization.

Re:crappy security (1)

brlewis (214632) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976208)

On ourdoings.com I use SSL-encrypted authentication. Except for photo uploads where I use a one-time key sent after the upload. A large volume of data being encrypted would likely slow down the server, which is why most services out there do plaintext by default.

Free Advertisement? (1)

waxcrash (604628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975503)

I wonder if the poster schoenwandt works for Flickr? Things that make you go hmm???

Re:Free Advertisement? (1)

Superfreaker (581067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975651)

I have to agree that this smells like an ad. These types of services have been around forever and this one is not exceptionally better than any of the others like ofoto, snapfish, etc...Just mho.

Re:Free Advertisement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975838)

Actually, it's possible that Schoenwandt does have some relation to Flickr.

He [graduates.com] lives in Vancouver where Flickr is based, and works as a project management consultant [bernward.ca] . According to graduates.com, he is friends with this guy [graduates.com] , who is the president of Flickr and this guy [graduates.com] , who is the Operations Lead.

But, the world is a complex network of relationships, acquaintances, hot dog stands and roller discos. Take a look at Flickr. It has a distinctly un-evil vibe.

Re:Free Advertisement? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975921)

Yes, that was my first thought too. He's an early user because he works for the company. Who else would keep track of the positive press they have received!

la dee da (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975560)

The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!

I guess it is time for a smoke break

Comparison with Picasa? (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975571)

I think I'll try Flickr. The load on my FC/Apache box is usually quite high the day after I tell friends I have pictures from XYZ event up ...

Oh, and Google's Picasa is quite nice (Windows only, though). Photo organizing, automatic import (warning: any NSFW stuff will be found, heh), etc., but it also has stuff like automatic export to XHTML galleries - I can imagine it'd be quite easy to set it up with a batch file or two so a relative could export them to an XHTML gallery, then run the batch file to transmit it to server space you've given 'em.

Much prefer smugmug.com (1)

mrinella (548257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975572)

I think smugmug's user interface, features, and speed are far superior. You have to pay $29.95 per year, but for that you get no advertisements, unlimited storage, ability to view and download original files, and easy online printing.

Try "Gallery" if you want a DIY solution. (2, Informative)

jcostantino (585892) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975577)

I set up Gallery on my home server and after some configuring it works without a hitch! You can get it at http://gallery.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] and all it needs to run is Apache, PHP and some free image manipulation programs!

Unfortunately, it seems to be very particular about what webhosting services it likes - both of my office's hosts, Readyhosting and Interland don't have enough PHP access to make it work. It works just fine for me at home running XP Pro, Apache and PHP.

It's pretty vanilla but it supports multiple users with permissions, you can add comments, rotate, do batch uploads through either Java applets, a html form or from a URL. I was using statically generated pages from Jalbum and while these lack the prettiness of Jalbum, they are HUGELY more flexible.

Er... (1)

Sirch (82595) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975595)

Am I the only one who thinks the the grampa with grandchildren towards the right looks like he has the biggest hunchback ever?

Re:Er... (1)

saddino (183491) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975693)

I don't know his name, but his face rings a bell.

My Halloween Sonny Bono pictures are on filckr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975668)

I used flickr for that Me As Sonny Bono [blogspot.com] I liked flickr, pretty easy to use.

Photo rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975786)

Does flikr allow you to retain your "rights" to photos? What about the other services out there? I'm not sure I'd want to upload my photos only to see them in ads or otherwise "stolen". Well...maybe those photos of my ex-wife would be OK ;)

SimDesk is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975843)

I use SimDesk in Houston to share photos with my friends. Flickr only allows photos, but SimDesk allows all sorts files, so I can share my bookmarks and other stuff too.

not bad for free - www.simHouston.com

Article Ads on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10975874)

I have been noticing there have been many advertorials on Slashdot such as this one. I assume this is a new service to generate revenue. Can I get the cost of having a fake story posted on Slashdot?

Well, you know... (1, Funny)

ultramk (470198) | more than 9 years ago | (#10975919)

In Korea, online photo services are only for old people.

Too expensive (1)

hephro (166117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976069)

I find $30+ for a yearly subscription too much... you can get decent web hosting for gallery, your home page, web log, email, etc. for well under $100. While flickr and the other services mentioned are slick, they don't justify the expense IMHO.

Another option for storing & sharing photos... (1)

The Goose (174392) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976120)

I've been using http://www.fotki.com/ [fotki.com] for the past several years. For $30/year you get unlimited storage (I have over 7000 photos, using 15 gb). In addition, you get easy, deep linking to original resolution photos. And most important (for me), there is ftp access for upload/download. I have a 1 line "wget" statement running in cron that each night automatically syncronizes every photo of mine @ fotki and stores a copy on my local machine. That way, if my hard disk crashes, I get back every photo from them. If they go out of business, I have a copy of everything. They also have photo printing, but I prefer the quality of other sites better (I've tried 10+!!)

printing services (1)

rjethmal (619327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976309)

You mentioned trying 10+ printing services. Care to share what you learned? Who's got the best price/quality ratio? Service? Flexibility?

Re:Another option for storing & sharing photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10976334)

Don't suppose you'd be willing to share your wget statement? (I've only used wget very minimally.....)

Flickr API (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10976141)

I work at Flickr. Of paricular note to /.rs, check out our open API: http://www.flickr.com/services/api/

Unearthed Outdoors (1)

mailseth (227177) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976308)

I've been working on a site that, among other things, hosts outdoor related photos. It will be back under active development in a few weeks when the semester is over.

http://www.unearthedoutdoors.com/ [unearthedoutdoors.com]

~Seth

Mpix experiences (1)

rjethmal (619327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10976345)

Has anyone out there used http://www.mpix.com/ [mpix.com] to get prints of their photos? How was the service? Quality of prints? etc.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?