13 comments

• 

  olorinsledge

  3 years ago

  Use a real online photo sharing website and 'it won't be long before you'll forget you ever used Google to share pictures.'
  
  Sorry to be so harsh but this really is a pretty average offering by Google. :)
  reply
• 

  Bob Caswell

  3 years ago

  Maybe "average" in that Google has been releasing quality free products for a long time now (so compared to other Google projects). But compared to the rest of the online/free/web2.0/photo-sharing world? I think I've found what I'll be using.
  reply
• 

  pieceofschmidt

  3 years ago

  this is sub-par to flickr, et. al.
  there's not a way to send pics from my phone to picasa, if there was, then i'd switch from flickr. until then, it's flikr.
  reply
• 

  Mikey

  3 years ago

  I hope it isn't like the 'free' Picasa 2 from Googles own website that installs spyware (picked up if you are running Stopzilla).
  reply
• 

  Kevin

  3 years ago

  I've used ofoto, now Kodak Gallary, for about six years. They still have gigs and gigs of my pix from the begining till now, for free.
  
  Oh yeah, I can share and ORDER PRINTs. Until there web portal has a way for my family and friends to order pix (for grandmas and such) I'll still upload pix from Picassa desktop to Kodak Gallery.
  reply
• 

  Kelvin

  3 years ago

  This sounds like another Google fan boy review. This is a *completely* sad and unimpressive offering by Google. It is not even close in comparison to Flickr. Not even close.
  
  Plus what is up with the 250 mb storage limit?! That is hilarious. You have to pay $25/yr to upgrade to an account with yet another limit (While Flickr (which is also $25/yr) and new Yahoo photos beta (which is free) have unlimited storage).
  
  The UI is also weak compared to Flickr, Yahoo Photos beta or even their own Calendar's cool ajax UI. This is embarassing, and I feel it may have been rushed into release after Yahoo Photo Beta's release one week back.
  reply
• 

  Bob Caswell

  3 years ago

  I suppose it's a preference thing, but Flickr, for me, had an ugly, obtrusive, and not-very-intuitive interface. Perhaps it's great for the techie, but for the average user, I think Google is much more welcoming.
  reply
• 

  luke

  3 years ago

  the program picasa itself has some new features built in as well. The first time you start up an updated version it has to create new, hi-res thumbs of all your images for its new interface- this can take quite a while, especially with raw and psd files.
  
  Also if you go to 'tools' --> 'experimental' you'll see ftp uploading, geotagging, searching by colour and searching for duplicates. Cool stuff. Now if they only included 'smart albums'...
  reply
• 

  dan1el

  3 years ago

  I just got an invitation without doing anything. WEIRD.
  I open my gmail account on one tab in firefox and in another i open the link to picasa and i got a page to accept the picassa invitation
  reply
• 

  tabrez

  3 years ago

  Flickr too has a limit of 20MB uploads per month for its basic, free version.
  reply
• 

  vuzman

  3 years ago

  I think this UI is much better, i.e. nicer looking and easier to use, than Flickr. I'm a Flickr fan myself though, but when I show other people (regular, non-computer savvy people) my Flickr site they have initial problems with navigation, and never use the commenting and other features.
  
  On a side note, I see the pictures in your Picasa Web Album are all jpg's. Big mistake. Wondering why the screenshots are so ugly? They should look exactly like they do on the screen, but don't.
  
  Here's a tip:
  JPG is for photos, PNG is for everything else.
  reply
• 

  derek

  3 years ago

  Any way i could get an invite? I'm at dbrans at gmail.
  
  thanks
  reply
• 

  Bob Caswell

  3 years ago

  Derek,
  
  Google doesn't treat it like it did gmail. With Web Albums, you visit picasaweb.google.com, sign up with your gmail account, and wait for Google to respond (hopefully quickly).
  reply