Picasa or Flickr? Why?
October 24, 2004 4:16 PM   Subscribe

Picasa or Flickr? Why?
posted by keswick to Media & Arts (16 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
Flickr, because I have a Mac. I don't know anything about Picasa, but I've been so happy with Flickr I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to do something else with it UNLESS someone could come up with a good substitute for iPhoto which is completely unwieldy and terrible and yet the easiest way I have so far to organize and download photos locally using a UI that doesn't suck. Prior to using Flickr I had a homemade solution for displaying photos online which I liked pretty much and which worked pretty easily. While Flickr isn't the end-all be-all killer app for me, I've been happy with the way it works, the community that it has attracted, and the responsiveness of the Flickr team [to suggestions, to help requests, and even to wackos and their wacko demands] which makes me positive-thinking about the future of Flickr.
posted by jessamyn at 4:36 PM on October 24, 2004 [1 favorite]

Flickr - If you can shell out the very reasonable $40 or so for a one year pro subscription (or if you don't post many photos and can handle the limits on the free account), it's the best choice, IMHO.

If having online galleries is important to you, it is definitely the way to go. I did the math on how much I would need to pay per year for web hosting space that would allow me to run Gallery and host my several gigs of photos. Flickr is a much better deal.
posted by sanitycheck at 4:46 PM on October 24, 2004

I think you're comparing apples and oranges
Picasa is more comparable to iPhoto I believe.
Picasa is a photo-management app. Flickr is for sharing photos online. You can share (via email, or Hello or whatever) your Picasa pics too, but it's definitely different.

For managing my photos I use Picasa, and if I was on a Mac I might have a hard time choosing between Picasa and iPhoto. But that's only because I'm not familiar with iPhoto.

As for getting my stuff online and viewable by other people, I prefer making my own websites/web-photo-galleries over using a pre-packaged thing like flickr, but that's just my preference. I think Flickr is definitely very cool, and I dig browsing through the tags there, but I don't really see a need for it in my life. There are tons of really simple php scripts and such for making quick, slick galleries.
posted by soplerfo at 5:11 PM on October 24, 2004

I love the automatic calendar thing on flickr.

I wish there was a script out there that did that kind of thing automatically. I've used coppermine and gallery, on my own server, but I'm thinking of moving it all to flickr, just for that kind of thing.
posted by MiG at 5:56 PM on October 24, 2004

As said before, you're comparing apples with oranges. I use both, but when I get a mac (one day) I'll use iphoto over picasa.

I didn't quite 'get' flickr at first, but it's really grown on me, and its future looks very exciting. And to me personally, most of the simple php scripts make crappy looking galleries, but if you already have hosting, they're free, which is nice.
posted by justgary at 7:22 PM on October 24, 2004

I like Adobe Photoshop Album 2.0, it's great for local storage.
posted by riffola at 8:06 PM on October 24, 2004

posted by thebigpoop at 9:01 PM on October 24, 2004

Flickr for posting, Picasa for managing. Hello for sharing privately.
posted by kamylyon at 10:16 PM on October 24, 2004

I haven't used Picasa - but a quick note on the apples vs oranges thing - if I were reading these comments without having used Flickr, I might think it wasn't good for organizing and storing photos: only for sharing. This is not the case - Flickr murders iPhoto for photo organization (sets, tags, privacy, descriptions, notes, organizr...).
posted by nthdegx at 5:44 AM on October 25, 2004

Don't forget you have to upload all your photos to Flickr. That's the downside to running this kind of app server-side, and it kills it for me. Too slow unless I manually resize the photos first.
posted by smackfu at 6:20 AM on October 25, 2004

I see what you're saying nthdegx, but would you really upload all of your photos to Flickr? If so, then perhaps the two apps are indeed comperable I'm not familiar enough with Flickr to really know. I just assumed that it'd be kind of a pain (and perhaps a bit dangerous) to keep all of your photos online and managed via Flickr. With Picasa, at least everything's local and easily archived/backed up (with tags and organization and all).
posted by soplerfo at 6:22 AM on October 25, 2004

As you and smackfu suggest, soplerfo, it is the uploading that is the issue. I sort through mine before uploading and only put up my favourites. Luckily I'm shit at photography so this doesn't amount to an impractical amount. They've made some nice tools for making uploading easy - but if you're taking photographs in any volume and don't have a fast internet connexion, this should be a core consideration.
posted by nthdegx at 6:47 AM on October 25, 2004

Picasa, because Ludicorp is a bunch of bastards and killed GNE.
posted by angry modem at 8:52 AM on October 25, 2004

I might think it wasn't good for organizing and storing photos: only for sharing. This is not the case - Flickr murders iPhoto for photo organization

Still apples and oranges. Yes, it organizes them online, but they are still so different that the choice is more what you want to do, not which program is better.

For instance, you can use flickr for organizing, but the free version won't hold much, and even the paid version has a monthly upload limit. And I could go on...
posted by justgary at 6:44 PM on October 25, 2004

And I could go on...

Please do.

but the free version won't hold much

Based on what? It holds plenty. OK, the upload limit might be restricting if you take photos in any volume, but then that's what the pro accounts are for.

and even the paid version has a monthly upload limit

Yes, but it is very high. If two piece of kit are both designed to organize photos, it isn't a case of apples and oranges -- whether the methods they employ are different or not. It's definitely worth discussing.
posted by nthdegx at 5:48 AM on October 26, 2004

I have to disagree with nthdegx again. I look at how I use Picassa and can't possibly imagine taking the time to do the same with Flickr. With Picassa, I just point it at a directory on my HD and start tagging/organizing/manipulating all of my photos. With Flickr, because I'd have to upload them first, I don't see this as being convenient for mass archival/organization. I can't see how it would make sense to upload all of your photos to Flickr, and, I'm not about to delete any photos just because they're not the best in a set, because I'm anal and insane that way. So, to me at least, Flickr and Picassa are very different. I can't believe that Flickr is intended to be used this way - archival of all of your digital photos. I do think that this is Picassa's purpose though.
I think that because both apps organize photos, there's some overlap in what they do, but they're essentially different, and I could see using both of them at the same time. Organize locally with Picassa and share photos on the web with Flickr. Though, perhaps the line's blurring more with the development of Hello as a photoblogging tool.
posted by soplerfo at 7:04 AM on October 26, 2004

« Older How do I fuel a Zippo?   |   First Credit Card Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.