Also, you’d have the extra work of downloading photos from Flickr, OneDrive, Gdrive, Dropbox (an excellent service with a 2GB limit) or even imgur, rather than from a single source.Īlternatively, you could insist that every project uses Flickr. Of course, not everyone would be able to see all the results. It would be easy for someone from each of the projects to create a special email address to share photos. (You can upgrade to 100GB for $1.99 per month.)īut you don’t have to use existing accounts. If you run out of space, Google stores photos in reduced resolution versions. In this case, the drawback is that the 15GB covers your email (of which I have 14GB), Gdrive files and original photos in Google Photos. Google’s similar service isn’t as easy to use, but it does provide 15GB of free storage. (You can upgrade to 50GB for $1.99 per month.) Some of your users may have Office 365 accounts, which includes a free terabyte of storage. Microsoft’s OneDrive also makes it easy to upload photos and share whole folders, the main drawback being that it has recently reduced the free storage allowance to 5GB. The second is that, this year, Yahoo has restricted the desktop Auto-Uploadr program to Pro users who pay $50 a year. The first is that permissions and settings can be confusing. You don’t have to worry about storage because each account gets a free 1,000GB (ie a terabyte), and there is no longer a limit on downloading original images.įlickr has a couple of drawbacks. A Yahoo email address/password provides access to Flickr, which has numerous photo sharing features, including RSS feeds. In this case, Yahoo is the obvious option. The billions of people who have Microsoft (Hotmail, Live or ), Yahoo or Gmail email addresses can also upload photos for you to download. However, as mentioned above, it doesn’t keep the original images, even if you upload them with the “high quality” setting. Facebook is easy to use, provides excellent tagging via face recognition, and you can control the privacy settings. Facebook is the obvious example, and it does support collaborative albums. Most people can already use photo sharing services, even if they don’t realise it. It’s also possible to hide the gallery for the contributors when you want to collect photos but not share them.” The basic ad-supported service is free, but the Event Upgrade costs $5 per month, and there’s a $20 per month version “for groups who plan on having four or more events live at a time”. Noonan adds that with “upgraded events, the incoming photos can be grouped by email address. Smaller sizes are made for fast display.” Jeremy Noonan, DropEvent’s founder, says: “Originals are stored in the cloud and can be downloaded individually or all at once. This saves a lot of storage space and bandwidth, but it’s a disaster if you need originals for editing and/or printing. Services designed to display photos on the web usually shrink them, storing a screen-friendly 800 by 600-pixel (or similar) image and throwing away your 4,000 by 3,000-pixel original. Whichever service you choose, check whether the website keeps the original images or reduces their size – as Facebook does, for example. It should be easy to download the photos in batches: each DropEvent gallery has a button labelled “Download All Photos”. A consistent naming scheme would enable one volunteer group to find photos from other groups, without mixing up their photos. Or perhaps you could create suitable galleries in advance, giving them all related names or numbers. I suspect this to be the case with the official Flickr plugin too, as I changed to the "jf Flickr" plugin hoping to solve this issue in the first place.DropEvent might fit your needs if each of your volunteer projects opened its own DropEvent gallery. This means that changing the watermark settings of a publishing service, marking all images for republishing and publishing them won't actually change the watermark on them.Īgain, this was tested with the unofficial plugin mentioned above. Which makes me wonder what the point of this feature is, as changing an image already causes it to be marked for (re-)publishing. Images weren't watermarked after republishing them.Īfter several tests I found out, to my surprise, that "Mark to republish" only processes images with actual changes. I did this in a hurry and changed the settings of one image but also changed the publishing service to use a watermark. Ironically the only time I would use this feature is to force a republication of an unchanged image (as in this case). The "Mark to republish" feature doesn't republish images without actual changes. Tested with the "jf Flickr" Lightroom plugin, the official one should work too.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |