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!

Picasa 2.0 Released, Reviewed

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the doesn't-work-for-me dept.

Media 277

firebirdy writes "Google's Picasa 2.0 was announced yesterday (with support for RAW, Gmail integration, and uploading to popular photo services, among other things) and PC Magazine is ready with a review. Four and a half stars, and the only drawback found by PC Magazine folks was the lack of support for handheld devices."

cancel ×


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

Hi (FP?) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403708)

Hello fellow Cads. I'm not a Cad, yet you are. Someone reply.

Re:Hi (FP?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404033)

I may be a cad, but you're a barbarian.

Whats Picasa? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403709)

404 File Not Found
The requested URL (articles/05/01/18/2331238.shtml?tid=188&tid=185&t id=217) was not found.

If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to

Re:Whats Picasa? (3, Informative)

douthitb (714709) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403733)

What's in a name? (0, Troll)

scottjpearson (824714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403711)

Mi casa, Picasa...

Re:What's in a name? (1, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404014)

Don't pee in mi casa, please.

I wish they'd release a linux version (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403714)

Picture management is about all I use windows for these days and I have been through every last source forge solution and they all suck compared to picassa.

Re:I wish they'd release a linux version (1)

Dani Filth (677047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403837)

Have you tried KDE's digiKam [] ? It lets you setup photo albums, add metadata, export to HTML, etc.

Re:I wish they'd release a linux version (4, Informative)

bogie (31020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403912)

Well there are photo organizers for Linux out there. They aren't in the awesome category or as slick as Picassa but they work and you can manage and organize photos on Linux pretty easily.

I know its not completely done but have you even looked at F-spot?
how about gThumb
or digiKam IP/rubriq ue.php3?id_rubrique=3

Compared to what the older version of Picassa offered these aren't so aweful. Pre 2.0 Picassa sucked for image enhancement and only had a nice visual experience going for it. Its not like its organizational tools were very good so I don't know why you were so hung up on having it for Linux. With 2.0 yes, Linux users should be jealous, but pre that I thought it was just average with a gimmicky but fun timeline feature.

Anyway, the picasa people did say to post if you wanted a Linux version of it. This is at there forums, so drop by and add to the "Picassa for Linux" thread Maybe they'll actually listen?

Re:I wish they'd release a linux version (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404247)

I wish there was something for Linux that would allow me to select a range of pictures and print them catalog style. I remember a M$ prog called Thumbsplus that would do that, I think they called them "Contact Sheets" or something like that.

As it stands now, there are some good viewers, I like GQview [] which is an included extra with most distros.
It's really handy. Not perfect for for general viewing it does the job. Complaints: no printing ability, extremely limited image manipulation ability, but as a simple viewer, very good..

If I want to print multiple photos on a single page I have to import them into OO which is not on my list of fun things to do...

Re:I wish they'd release a linux version (1)

MAdMaxOr (834679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404262)

In your situation, I'd use Flickr [] .

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403716)


Why is it...? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403717)

Why is it that Apple fanatics don't mind apple suing the pants off of college kids, but if Microsoft did the EXACT same thing, they'd be up in arms? Why the hypocrisy?

Re:Why is it...? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403737)

My Apple iShuffle plays OGGs, does your Windows Media player do that?

Steve Jobs is Christ reincarnated, so shut up and go ctrl-alt-del your machine from another crash.

Turn any iPod into an iPod Shuffle in 3 easy steps (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403904)

AWESOME (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403721)

System Requirements

Microsoft Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0+
Picasa 2 is available in English only.


acvh (120205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403819)

System requirements were the first thing I looked for: Windows AND IE. Too bad.

I use a Mac, and don't really like iPhoto. I wish it was iTunes for pictures, but it isn't. I'll stick to folders with names like, "2005017", for now.


Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404236)

I gave it a try with Wine, and it almost works [] . The pictures just never get added once you click the Finish button, and the import a whole folder thing doesn't work at all. Oh well.

Re:AWESOME (4, Informative)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403849)

Picasa respects what browser you have as your default. It has already launched Firefox several times when I clicked on something that launches a web browser.


gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404143)

yes. but the way they put it means that they're using it for internal things, like rendering.

but.. now that i'm installing it.

wtf is up with this? it gives 2 choices. completely scan my harddrives for pictures OR just scan desktop, my documents and my pictures. hmm. where's the 3rd option "let me choose what to scan"..

so now it's scanning through 250 gigabytes of crap rather than just the 3 gigabytes that i wanted.


EvilAlien (133134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404235)

If it doesn't scan your whole harddrive, how are we supposed to be able to search for stuff we want that you might have?

Re:AWESOME (1, Interesting)

Agret (752467) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404147)

Maybe they say you need IE so that you won't try and download it with Microsoft Word?

Re:AWESOME (0, Flamebait)

AstroDrabb (534369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404162)

But that still doesn't mean that Picasa doesn't need IE internally. So once again, any IE exploit, becomes a new Picasa exploit. No thanks, I'll pass. By making Picasa dependent on IE, that just limits any possible ports to Mac or Linux.

You would think with all the great geeks at Google and their whole infrastructure based on Linux servers, that Google would have their free-as-in-beer tools be more cross-platform. Sadly, that is not the case. Look at all the tools Google is offering. They are all MS-only.

Google is beginning to lose the luster it once had with me. It looks like Google is losing their focus and Google is thinking that the only way to compete with MS is to offer similar products as MS on MS-Only platforms. How sad for Google to waste all that talent, when that talent could be delivering excellent cross-platform tools. With Google locking their customers into MS-only desktop tools, it is actually _HELPING_ MS. It is opening the door for more MS domination, not only on the desktop, but in desktop tools.

Re:AWESOME (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403863)

Picasa 2 and your default browser

Q: Picasa 2 system requirements state the you need to have Internet Explorer. I use a different browser. What can I do?

A: You do not have to set Internet Explorer as your default browser to use Picasa 2. You must have Internet Explorer installed for Picasa to install and run smoothly. Most operations in Picasa 2 that call for a web browser will still bring up your default web browser, whether you are using Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, or Opera.

Re:AWESOME (0, Flamebait)

AstroDrabb (534369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404179)

You must have Internet Explorer installed for Picasa to install and run smoothly
Which means that Picasa is using IE internally. Which means that any new IE exploit now becomes a new Picasa exploit. No, thanks. I just removed Picasa from my dual boot system.

Re:AWESOME (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404270)

Great philosophy. Why don't you just go ahead and remove all of Windows, then?

Re:AWESOME (0, Flamebait)

bani (467531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404286)

i removed all of windows ages ago.


VoidWraith (797276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404293)

It prevents me from downloading it in the first place: I have deleted IE. It keeps annoying programs, like AIM when I used it, from creating popups. It also cripples a few aspects of Windows... like Network Neighborhood... However, I still have the DLLs intact, so the Windows Explorer can actually read from the Internet with its IE backend... I would delete that too if I noticed any unwanted behaviour, but so far without the executables, it seems benign.


That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404309)

No no no no no no ... not your DUAL BOOT system!

Heavens no!

Anyway, on my single boot system, Picasa will stay. I'll let you know when I start browsing the web with Picasa 2.0.

compared to picasa 1...... (5, Informative)

pbranes (565105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403722)

I used picasa 1 extensively and it was mainly a picture cataloging program - which it handled most excelently. Picasa 2 has all of those great features, plus picture touch-up features. For photo management, I give it 5 stars.

Re:compared to picasa 1...... (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404160)

The export as XHTML feature is especially nice ... it exports a folder full of pics as a photo gallery in XHTML and CSS. Very nicely done, and makes it easy to modify with python (which I'm doing now for a photo archive of an old building that just got torn down).

AND ... they fixed the one bug I saw. Used to be, the width didn't have a closing '"' on the blown-up picture page. That was the first thing I checked with 2.0, and it's fixed.

Picasa vs. iPhoto? (2, Interesting)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403752)

Does anybody have an opinion on how Picasa fares against iPhoto?

Yes, I know it's comparing Windows vs. Mac.

Re:Picasa vs. iPhoto? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403777)


Re:Picasa vs. iPhoto? (0, Redundant)

FrYGuY101 (770432) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403855)

Well it is comparing Apples to Lemons^W^W^W^W^W^WWindows...

Some thoughts (5, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403892)

I've not used Picasa, but from the tour it seems like it is pretty similar. Some nice features of Picasa:

* Keeps pictures in place. iPhoto puts them all in one directory structure, which some people don't like. I've been using a program that lets you keep mutliple iPhoto libraries so I don't have that problem.

* Comments go into IPTC fields. Don't think iPhoto does that, but it's a good idea.

* Lets you print a poster by slitting image across multiple pages.

It is better than the current iPhoto in terms of editing tools, but about the same compared to iPhoto 5 (due out next week I think, if not already). Also, the new iPhoto supports RAW files and I think has more export options. Basically iPhoto also benefits from the good integration with other iLife apps for making slideshow DVD's and such easier and more interesting - in that respect Picasa is more stand-alone.

Re:Picasa vs. iPhoto? (4, Informative)

ztirffritz (754606) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403909)

Picasa and iPhoto are very similar. Picasa allows users to break photos into albums and stores them in a library similar to iPhoto. The biggest benefit to Windows users is that it is a simple, clean, well written program for the Windows platform. This is a rare event. iPhoto has its flaws and drawbacks, but if you use it for what it is intended for it works rather well. Apple says that it will support 20,000+ photos, but if I had that many photos, I think I'd invest in a pro-level photo management system. The same goes for Picasa.

Re:Picasa vs. iPhoto? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403927)

I think iPhoto is much better. So I uninstalled Picasa just now. Can you point me to free download of iPhoto?

Picasa (5, Informative)

mistersooreams (811324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403754)

I've always been a bit unsure how Picasa fits into Google's philosophy. I mean, they're all about searching, locating relevant things, organisation of data etc, right? Now I think Picasa is a decent piece of software - although the first version was a tad slow and occasionally unstable, I'm willing to give it a second try. But in terms of organisation of data, it doesn't really offer much. You can't put pictures into more than one group, for example.

Surely the best thing would be actual image search. In other words, I give the program a picture of my face and say 'find all the other pictures with this face'. That's an extreme example and would be incredibly complex, of course, but some kind of actual picture searching capability would be amazingly useful.

Like I say, this isn't an anti-Picasa troll because it's a decent piece of software, but it doesn't seem to be offering anything amazingly new.

Re:Picasa (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403785)

Baby steps :)
I think google is on the right path with the images, we just got to give them time to find their way with it.

Re:Picasa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403796)

>You can't put pictures into more than one group, for example.

You can create a label which is essentially a folder containing photo shortcuts.

Re:Picasa (5, Interesting)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403805)

Actually, I love Picasa exactly because of what it has that you don't think it has. See, it _is_ possible to categorize pictures in multiple categories. You can't put them in multiple albums, but when you highlight a media file (not just a picture -- read below) and hit ctrl-K, you get a list of keywords you can associate with it, and then easily search for all media files with the same keywords later.

This was actually the feature that sold me on Picasa. See, my problem was that at last count, my laptop had about 25Gb of porn on it, in a whole bunch of video files. I wanted to be able to categorize my porn in ways that would allow me to slice-and-dice my collection -- show me all gay porn, say, or all het porn, or all porn that involves swallowing, etc. I had taken an awkward first step by putting the media files into folders, but that ran into that whole "hard to have a media file in more than one folder" (on Windows, where symlinks/hardlinks are not really all that useful) problem. So great, but what happens when I want to see all videos where Gwen Summers swallows? Hard to do.

Picasa solves this problem elegantly and beautifully for me. I'm very happy with it.

[Sigh. Since this is Slashdot and everyone thinks you're kidding if you talk seriously about porn, I should note I'm entirely serious. In fact, before I found Picasa I attempted to submit an 'Ask Slashdot' about how other people categorize their porn collection, but it got rejected as a troll]

Re:Picasa (1)

lewiscr (3314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403860)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a laptop isn't the best porn delivery device...

Re:Picasa (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403883)

My desktop has the larger archive, but the work laptop is the computer I always have with me, so I carry a ... representative sample? Is that a good term? with me.

Re:Picasa (1)

lewiscr (3314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403974)

I was thinking more of... sanitary... issues.

Re:Picasa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404006)

You need target practice

Re:Picasa (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404232)

I would be more concerned about...

'TEENAGERS and young men should keep their laptops off their laps because they could damage fertility, an expert said today.

'"Laptops, which reach high internal operating temperatures, can heat up the scrotum which could affect the quality and quantity of men's sperm.

'"The increase in scrotal temperature is significant enough to cause changes in sperm parameters," said Dr Yefim Sheynkin, an associate professor of urology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.' /0,5478,11636712%255E1702,00.html []

Re:Picasa (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404058)

Surely you're not suggesting that a Palm device would be more suitable?

Re:Picasa (2, Interesting)

Daniel Ellard (799842) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403933)

A lot of people are probably googling for "Gwen Summers" right now...

Seriously, what you've described is the basic problem addressed by any information management system. The fact that it involves photos or video is a bit of red herring. I used programs written in DBaseII to solve this kind of problem (for a vastly different domain...) twenty years ago. I find it hard to believe that the state of the art hasn't progressed until the Picasa showed up.

Re:Picasa (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403967)

Oh, certainly. I was dealing with SQL database structures to deal with this a few years back when I had to figure out how to make it so I could put my (non-porn :) ) DVD and literature in multiple categories. I could have done the same here, but then I'd have needed to put a decent interface on it, and ... frankly, the reason I run a Windows laptop is that I'm lazy and don't want to have to deal with this. Picasa's pretty much the only tool that has made it easy to do this sort of stuff. There might have been others, mind you, but I couldn't find them.

Off Topic: Google Feature Request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404230)

Wouldn't it be cool if you could get a line graph that represents the frequency of each Google search term in real time so we could see the impact for ourselves?

-- JS (signed so I can get some bragging rights if somebody actually implements this...)

Porn = easy to find? NO. (4, Funny)

No Such Agency (136681) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404012)

I want the porn on my computer to be HARD to find. That way nobody but me will find it.

I don't really want a visiting friend clicking on the wrong icon in my Start menu and having my midget bukkake collection spread out before them (neatly catalogued).

Re:Picasa (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404053)

It'd be nice to have the kind of multi-categorization for bookmarks.

Re:Picasa (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404122)

porn = sin

pls stop 4 ur sake thx

Re:Picasa (4, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404123)

Heh, that's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to Mac OS X Tiger. I don't want to mix my porn with the rest of the pictures in my iPhoto library (for obvious reasons), so I'm really looking forward to the "Smart Folders" feature of Spotlight. It'll fix the "hard to have a media file in more than one folder" problem quite well -- and I can easily store the whole collection in an encrypted disk image too.

Re:Picasa (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403822)

They state that you can add captions to your pictures that will be embedded into the files. You can then google-like search through the captions. I agree that picture search would be better, but maybe they are getting to that.

I think they are trying to get more inroads into any type of data, and pictures are a huge aspect. The nice integration with and seems to show that they are in that direction.

Actual Image Search (1)

IEEEmember (610961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403885)

For an example of visual search see LTU Technologies [] product Image Seeker [] . They have a demo [] using the 65,000 corbis [] royalty free images [] .

Image-seeker is highly scalable server-side software.

Love it (1, Redundant)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403775)

I love this software. I have thousands of digital photographs on my hard drive, and trying to find a picture is insanly difficult. Picasa made things MUCH easier, and Picasa 2 is looking to be even better.

Picasa 2 is the best photo program I have used (5, Insightful)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403783)

It is:

1) Easy to use
2) Extremely fast (even when applying effects)
3) Powerful

Very rarely does a program combine all three of those and not feel like a bloat piece of junk. Picasa does it all.

It can easily print photos or you can upload/order prints online.

You can even export photos to a web page (even save as XML format!).

It has a cool feature called "I'm Feeling Lucky" (get the Google reference) that automatically adjusts everything from color to contrast to redeye. It has worked virtually flawless for me so far on a select number of photos that I have had a chance to play along with and if there is an issue, the undo takes a second (if that) to return to the original.

Simply amazing. Best part, it is free :)

Re:Picasa 2 is the best photo program I have used (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403794)

Google: free, cheap, good. Pick any three.

Re:Picasa 2 is the best photo program I have used (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403803)

Oops, I meant:

Google: fast, cheap, good. Pick any three.

Re:Picasa 2 is the best photo program I have used (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403847)

Stupid fucking git.

Re:Picasa 2 is the best photo program I have used (1)

aardwolf204 (630780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404000)

Yes but it stores you pictures in a database, and I think it may have moved/changed my file structure once too. I'm afraid of anything that actually changes my files. Call me old school, but I'd rather have my MP3's organized in folders like Artist/album/song rather than anything like iTunes or Picasa. I know I cant be the only one either. This is the one thing that has always kept my away from apps like this. I guess when Longhorn comes along and the filesystem is replaced with SQL or something similar I'm going to finally have to give up on the good ol' file system organization... or move to linux

Re:Picasa 2 is the best photo program I have used (1)

Mr. Arbusto (300950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404248)

Not to jump on the defense of Apple bandwagon here, but iTunes is a good example of easy organization. By default is stores music in folders organized by Artist/Album/Song. The power comes from the ability to actually find something in a collection of 10,000 songs in under 3 seconds by knowing some of the information.

IIRC, WinFS has been removed from the Longhorn line up. Again something that lets you put your files where ever and indexes them when they are created or modified is useful. Better than the current method which is go through each folder one by one looking at each file.

Just tried it (4, Informative)

bogie (31020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403795)

The Effects tools are great. Nice easy ways to fix brightness, highlights, shadows etc. This will fix most problems people have with photos. One wicked cool tool is the Filtered B&W. And you thought desaturate was how to make B&W pics...

Problems. The Sharpeness tool is lacking and things become corse and grainy really quick. Almost all digital cameras benefit from some sharpenging, but here its below average and needs work. The only other glaring fault is the red eye tool zooms out and makes it harder to select eyes, not easier. It does work well though so its not all bad. I just wish it was easier to select people's eyes.

Overall though a really nice consumer photo organizer and light editor app. Hell for $40 it would be a nice app. I'm impressed that they addressed some of the shortcomings from the old version and kept it free and of course Slick feeling and looking. No need to be jealous of IPhoto anymore. Nice job Google.

Re:Just tried it (1, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404040)

One thing that I like about the effects is that it leaves the original data intact. You can go back and unapply an effect at any time, so no need to do a save-as at every step. If you export pictures, it applies the effects to the exported jpegs.

Also - while it doesn't prompt for jpeg quality settings when you save effects, it seems to err on the side of too much quality rather than too little - which I like. If I'm burning my photos to CD to have prints made, I don't want shots from my $300 camera compressed as if I were putting them on a floppy...

Re:Just tried it (2, Informative)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404063)

A great thing about this program is that any edits that you make to your pictures aren't actually written to the original file.

From the help file:

Picasa never saves over your original files, so you'll never ruin or damage a picture by editing it. Picasa preserves your original photo as a digital negative, so every edit you make is fully undoable. If you want to work with your edited pictures in other programs, you should export or save a copy of them.

For an average home user, this seems great, as it effectively stops somebody overwriting their original files with, say, a badly cropped version, and then later being unable to go back to the original as they've overwritten it. Any changes you make with Picasa don't affect the actual file, as it seems that it transparently applies the changes every time you load. The one downside of this is that you can't open the 'modifed' version in another program (without exporting it) but for an average user who just wants to do simple work on their own photos, it seems great.

is it free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403798)

When I restart Picasa it asks me fo a serial number and tells me something abaut a 15 days trial period.
I didn't find any note at that made me think I need to pay for it... a bit strange, I think.
To bad, that I allready replaced the older (free?) version.


Re:is it free? (3, Informative)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403833)

It's free as in 100% free. No ads, no trial, nothing but free.

Re:is it free? (2, Informative)

Harbinger_Of_Sorrow (767676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403872)

However, it insists on connecting to their stats server no matter what, I blocked it from the firewall, the installer went dead :|

Re:is it free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404007)

Wow imagine that, spyware from Google. Of course, slashbots still think google is "don't be evil" and this will get modded to obscurity.

Re:is it free? (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404209)

I call shenanigans. Didn't happen to me, and I have most incoming and outgoing ports blocked off.

Re:is it free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404106)

ok, but what is this?

Re:is it free? (0, Troll)

imemyself (757318) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404145)

Oh, since its "100% free" where can I download the source code? And what forks are available as alternatives? Oh, then its not "100% free".

Honestly I tried Picasa a while back and wasn't impressed. I can keep track of my photos(maybe 1000ish) just fine by making and using a logical directory tree. Like:
-2004 Summer Vacation
--Card 1
--Card 2
-2004 My Birthday
--Card 1

I can edit them in any program I like, and can take them with me fairly easily, or use it directly on another OS.

And its somewhere the stupid windows thumbnail view actually comes in handy

Great software.....but where's the web publishing? (3, Interesting)

Stevarino (607540) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403835)

I would think that with all of the features they put in there they could throw in an HTML gallery creator. I have a ton of pics of my kids that I put on the web via some other software rather painstakingly, but if Picasa did this it would make things easier...a simple template-able multi-page gallery with FTP "one-click" publishing....(not "proprietary-blogger publishing")

Re:Great software.....but where's the web publishi (4, Informative)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403873)

Click on the export button. It is all in there, even the ability to export to XML.

Re:Great software.....but where's the web publishi (1)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403989)

You don't say what software you're currently using, but I can highly recommend JAlbum [] , a free java-based gallery creator. It has an integrated ftp client so could do what you're after.

Re:Great software.....but where's the web publishi (1)

Quill_28 (553921) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404008)

I don't know about one click ftp but there is a make web page option.

Re:Great software.....but where's the web publishi (5, Informative)

Agret (752467) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404192)

Right click one of your albums on the left side and then choose "Make a Webpage" no harder than that :)

spam (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11403851)

way too many comments by people who are within 20 slashdot registration numbers of each other for my taste

Picasa has spoiled me (1)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403862)

I have grown quite spoiled by Picasa's export-to-web feature over the past couple of years. It's not perfect, but I can download pics from the camera, organize them, export them in a web-friendly format (thumbnails, navigation, etc.), and ftp the batch to my site for the grandparents to see, all in about 5 minutes. Sure beats the heck out of building the html myself.

My main gripe has been the disconnect between the album organization and actual filesystem structure, as it makes backups tricky. Sounds like the new export features should have this covered.

Thanks, Google!

Re:Picasa has spoiled me (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404191)

There's a dedicated "backup" function in this. Just FYI. And even the old version (by which I mean Google's, as that was the first one I ever used) let you do backups, as long as you were OK with putting some HTML next to it ...

Well, guess we know where their biases are (-1, Troll)

ewanrg (446949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403864)

For crying out loud... doesn't support Linux or Mac. Doesn't have half the functionality of the Gimp. Doesn't have half the functionality of Photoshop Elements for that matter.

But I'm supposed to believe this is one of the best photo editing/sharing apps ever? Please...


TiVO rants and more here []

Re:Well, guess we know where their biases are (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403973)

it's a photo organizer with touch-up tools, not a primary image editing app.

Re:Well, guess we know where their biases are (2, Interesting)

fsck! (98098) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404017)

Do GIMP or Photoshop even pretend to be photo sharing tools?

Linux support is unlikely as Picasa has a long history on Windows and is targeted towards grandparents. Portability was probably not a consideration.

Mac support? Nobody is going to use this instead of iPhoto.

Re:Well, guess we know where their biases are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404023)

I'm supposed to believe this is one of the best photo editing

where did you understand Picasa to be a photo editing app?

Re:Well, guess we know where their biases are (5, Informative)

Boglin (517490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404048)

You actually mentioned the Photoshop? Bah! Photoshop is absolute crap compared to Mozilla. Photoshop can't handle Javascript, CSS, or even Gopher. Heck, it can't even set up a HTTPS connection. Even links can set up an HTTPS connection.

But I'm supposed to believe that Photoshop is one of the best web browsers ever? Please...

(Picasa is supposed to organize your photos, not edit them. Editing is just a side feature that they added in case you're too lazy to open up Gimp. So, Picasa us a crappy photo editing program, but it's pretty good at organize pictures. Good at what it's designed for, sucks at what it's not)

Picasa "Thinks Differently" (3, Informative)

eXtra heavy (851156) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403868)

I used to be a huge fan of iPhoto but I found as my collection grew, I outgrew iPhoto. Picase stepped in for me exactly when I needed it. Picasa1 needed some work with stability. I picked up 2 as soon as it became available and have found myself completely impressed and satisfied with Picasa2 so far. The interface is easy to understand and the enhancement tools rival those in for-pay software like Photoshop Elements. It may even replace GIMP 2.2 for simple tasks on my laptop. Google seems to have the same ethic of Apple in the "make it work" category. Add in the Blogger and Hello integration and you have a superior and free for now piece of software. If only Digikam can catch up.

Re:Picasa "Thinks Differently" (1)

Gob Blesh It (847837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403991)

Google may have the same "make it work" ethic as Apple, but I've found Google's user interfaces to be on the mediocre side. Compare Gmail to, for example, or Google Desktop Search to Tiger's Spotlight.

Did you ever find a suitable replacement for iPhoto on your Mac? I've read great things about iView Media [] , but it costs $50.

Re:Picasa "Thinks Differently" (1)

eXtra heavy (851156) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404157)

I tried iView on XP and found it tried real hard to do what iPhoto does for free. I still use iPhoto on my Mac quite regularly but I really started to lean towards Picasa for a number of reasons, most specifically, the file management. I can tell Picasa where I want my files to go. iPhoto sort of takes over there and it always bothered me.

Slick (3, Insightful)

Sunspire (784352) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403879)

Picasa 1.2 made me kick Adobe Album 2.0 out, the software I was using previously to organize photos. The speed of the Picasa interface is something you have to try for yourself, it runs like a greased weasel. Adobe Album behaves like it's downloading the images as progressive jpegs from the net in comparison, you can see the gradual redraws of the image when you open the edit mode.

Now Picasa 2.0 comes along, and it is at least at easy to use and fast as 1.2. It also fixes my number one problem with these organizers, that the program's internal organization is not reflected on the disk, only in some metadata. That just doesn't cut it in real life when you're working with multiple programs. I bet Adobe will start to give away their Album software for free soon, I just don't see who would want to buy it when Picasa is simply better, faster and free.

I suppose I could just install it... (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403944)

...but I don't have more than a couple seconds free at the moment.

The question I have is, can you export whatever structure you come up with to some easily-parseable format? This sounds like a great idea, but if they decide to charge for it down the road, or something better comes up, I don't want my data stuck in their program. Has anyone tried this out?

Re:I suppose I could just install it... (1)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404304)

You can export to HTML or XML (which opens up a lot of possibilities I think with online gallery programs).

Picasa sucks, but Hellos is good (2, Interesting)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 9 years ago | (#11403988)

Hello ( [] ) is really good for sharing pictures with complete idiots like your mom and dad. It automatically shrinks and recompresses the jpgs and lets you chat on the side. Great for my parents on dialup since it saves bandwidth, and if you want you can always selectively download the full image version from a few of the pics you are looking at. I havn't seen much else that is as easy and simple as Hello, but I havn't really looked for much. Email or ICQ or posting pictures on a webpage just don't cut it though.

Does it still drop files everywhere? (1)

freeweed (309734) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404104)

I tried the earlier version when Google first released this, and while it was sorta nice, I really didn't like one feature: Picasa drops a file in every directory you have that has an image file in it. Let it spider your hard drive (which is one of the cooler things about it, I thought), and suddenly every directory has a mini-database in it.

This sort of behaviour drove me nuts with a certain Windows FTP client, but at least that could be turned off. Can you tell 2.0 to use a centralized database somehow?

mod 0p (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404185)

I've never Seen the political mess visit become an unwanted Posts on Usenet are of FreeBSD Usenet or chair, return

Picasa vs. Adobe Photoshop Album 2 (2, Informative)

bazabba (669692) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404188)

I found an article that highlighted some of the hits and misses in Picasa.
Click []

I agree mostly with the lacking of a hierarchical labeling system being a miss.
Also, I've used iPhoto a fair amount and I find Picasa a bit easier to use.
However, I'm hoping that the updated iPhoto will do better.

omg, best photo organizer ever! (2, Insightful)

PhiberOptix (182584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404227)

I've just given a try on the software (i had installed it when 1.0 came out, but was unimpressed by then, i don't remember why).
But i used it for like 30 minutes and its amazing. I always hated having to browse folders to look for pictures, and i don't have to do it anymore. I gave a quick glimpse on the effects panel, and the red eye remover is easy and very effective.

this is a really cool software. really.

ps. no, i don't work at picasa, google, or anywhere near US at all.

Why? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11404261)

After all the years of dotcommery, did we still not learn to ask 'Why?' when a company seems to give away valuable software for free?

Are they trying to hurt Microsoft or Apple?

Are they trying to endear themselves to a potential audience?

Will they be tying in all kinds of for-pay add-ins?

Also, this brings up something that's been bothering me: how much source code has Google contributed back to the OS community? Any? The GPL is written to allow internal modifcation and use without requiring release of your modifications, but it seems this allowance is based on the belief that a piece of software used on a foreign machine can never monopolize a market segment. But what if all the applications are network-based? A company that is building an entire suite of networked apps that always run on THEIR servers effectively sidesteps the GPL's requirements of participation in a source-sharing community. Clearly Google is a more honest company than most (Motto: Don't be evil.), but it's not a non-profit. Things to consider...

Question about Picasa (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404274)

Can you share the albums across a home network? I have a bunch of pics and I use a program that I'm not totally happy with, but I need a program that can be used on two computers to access one shared set of pics (i.e., my computer has the pics, my wife's computer wants to look at them).

Anyone know?

I love google. (0, Offtopic)

t0ny747 (849486) | more than 9 years ago | (#11404285)

Google is great :) I just wish they would make Keyhole [] free...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>