By the lamp's flickr

March 28, 2005 8:49 PM

What are the alternatives to flickr?

I don't currently have a personal web host that allows php or mysql.

I was a community leader when Yahoo bought out GeoCities. This time I'm not going to just blindly continue on until I'm pushed out. I got a pointer to Buzznet, which I'm trying but don't really like -- the limited size of the images probably being the key thing.

I'm a Flickr Pro, so I don't mind paying -- at least I won't once my current Flickr period runs out. I signed up for a trial with the Australian Kodak site, but it doesn't appear to allow browsing by the public.

I have roughly 30MB of web space available, but it's dumb -- no scripts or databases. I suppose if there's a product that can take my photo collection and produce a decent set of static files, that'd be cool too. But I do currently have around a Gig of images on Flickr, so even if I only pick the good ones and resize them I can't imagine that I'll be able to fit them into that space.

posted by krisjohn to Computers & Internet (9 answers total)

If you really want control, you should host the photos on your own website. This may mean changing where you're hosted.

Many web hosts these days will offer one-click installation of Gallery, which is pretty good. But you're either going to need to pay for a lot of storage, or you'll need to downsample the images you post to the web.

There are many other gallery programs that are less feature-ful but also lightweight and elegant, some of which are simply flash or javascript--you just upload a directory of images and the software figures out what to do.

Of course you don't get the cool communal features...
posted by adamrice at 8:59 PM on March 28, 2005

I use(d) pbase - 10Mb upload limit (per each username/email address) for non-payers and supposedly only for a limited time. My friend, a prolific photographer, was paid up and swore by it - he introduced me to it.

But I twice uploaded at least 12Mb about a year and a half ago under 2 different usernames and the pix/galleries are still there and accessible. I found it all very easy and reasonably styled. I don't know the cost/size limit - it's at the website.
posted by peacay at 11:34 PM on March 28, 2005

smugmug
posted by justgary at 12:53 AM on March 29, 2005

Second for smugmug. The basic account, $29.95 per year, has no limit on storage and 4GB/month bandwidth.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:56 AM on March 29, 2005

You can get a regular ol' DreamHost account for $96 a year that gives you 2.4 gigs of storage. Seems like something that would be your best bet, rather than moving every few months from one dinky gallery service to another.

Then you can install whatever gallery program you like and have a permanent URL to share. I've only ever used desktop-based gallery builders (like Galerie, which interfaces with iPhoto) but I've toyed with a few that are SQL based. If you can follow instructions for FTPing the files into place and typing a few commands at the command line to set permissions, you shouldn't have trouble installing one.
posted by bcwinters at 7:02 AM on March 29, 2005

Picasa will generate good static files. I can't stand the pages produced using Gallery.
posted by grouse at 7:03 AM on March 29, 2005

I don't understand- what's wrong with flickr? Or is this all just speculative? I have my own space at Dreamhost (hint: they've got an undocumented special- promo code "777" gets you a whole year of the cheap service for $8!) and still use flickr pro.
posted by mkultra at 7:25 AM on March 29, 2005

You can get a regular ol' DreamHost account for $96 a year that gives you 2.4 gigs of storage. Seems like something that would be your best bet, rather than moving every few months from one dinky gallery service to another.

I have dreamhost also, and it's not even close. For ease of use and a clean look, smugmug blows away anything you're going to do with your dreamhost space, at least easily.

And for 30 bucks a year, with no limit on storage, you can't beat the value, even at dreamhost's prices. Even flickr seems over priced in comparison.

(not to mention categorizing smugmug as a "dinky" gallery service is absolutely false)
posted by justgary at 12:08 PM on March 29, 2005

Response by poster: I'll probably move to Smugmug when the time comes, but...

Are there any more templates for Picasa web page export?
posted by krisjohn at 5:14 PM on March 29, 2005