Comments on: Flickr vs. Picasa Deathmatch

By: vaibhav dugar

vaibhav dugar — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:00:22 +0000

an amazing post and a very interactive discussion going on here has made my life so much more simpler… I need more albums, so flickr is out and Picasa is in.
thanks again

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:14:57 +0000

After considering both services, I was easily swayed by Picasa because their software works on Linux, which I use 90% of the time compared to windows or Mac. I’m paying $20 a year for 80gb. So far, I’m very happy with it.

By: Elena

Elena — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:43:36 +0000

I’ve been battling this out also. I basically just want a link in the sidebar of our family blog so that family can see all the pics. Paying doesnt matter to me. However, I find Google glitchy. Constant bugs and weird things. For example, it is not allowing me to delete pictures out of my own albums this evening. Does not matter which computer I use. And then trying to directly contact support? LOL …. not likely.

By: James

James — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:42:44 +0000

Interesting discussion. I’m a Picasa user, though I have considered switching to Flickr on pretty much a monthly basis.
Frustratingly, Picasa Web Albums’ free account 1GB storage limit hasn’t changed since the product’s introduction, and it does lack the more social components of Flickr’s site. Comments on photos seem pretty rare, and it seems to reduce image fidelity somehow by shrinking photo sizes before they’re uploaded. At the same time, I have bristled at Flickr’s ‘deletion’ (really, just rendering invisible, but they might as well be deleted as far as their utility is concerned) of photos if one chooses not to renew one’s $25 annual subscription, and I have not found a compelling Windows application to use for Flickr editing and uploading, so I stick with Picasa. I haven’t wanted to get stuck with $25 every year just to access my photos, and the limits of Flickr’s free service are just too crippling for me to ever use it for anything beyond stuff I would otherwise just post on Facebook.
As of November 2009, however, Picasa may have made up my mind for me. They’ve just announced new pricing for their ‘extra storage’, lowering it to as little as $5 annually for up to 20GB of data. I’m pretty sure this storage is shared between Gmail and Picasa, as well as other Google products, but that’s still a pretty compelling offer. I may not feel I’m getting my annual $25 out of Flickr, but for $5 a year, Picasa’s 20GB is a really simple buy — that’s less than a Blu Ray rental nowadays.
Added to the now-cheap storage (which, compared to Flickr’s unlimited $25 yearly fee, is $20 for 80GB), Picasa is a fairly robust photo organizer, and offers really nice perks like facial recognition and tagging, geotagging with either Google Maps or Google Earth, and some good tools for quick & dirty editing like cropping, contrast, etc. The Picasa program sold me years ago, and I think its online counterpart may have finally done the same.
My only problem now is that I take too many photos… If I were to back up absolutely everything, I’d need over 100GB of storage!

By: Pierrick

Pierrick — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:00:11 +0000

I read all of your comments because like all of you I’m also thinking about to find the best way to store publish and share pictures with world and friends.
To make a choice, there is some questions to answer.
1. What kind of pictures you want to share?
2. To who pictures are destinated?
3. How many pictures are you going to upload?

I think Flickr has a better website presentation than picasa, your pictures will be more beautifull to see, so if your photos are kind of artwork than friends stuff or events, Flichr seems better. Flickr can be use as a personal gallery to present your work.

If your aim is to share pictures with friends about things you’ve done with them. Most of people of your social network have a google account or a Flickr account ?

If you are using lot’s of Google Products and tools, you must know that there is a great interaction between them. “Name Tagging” pictures, you directly have a autocompete field of your gmail contacts to easy tag a person in a picture. In an other hand, if you want to put a profile picture in your gmail contacts, you can browse your picasa galleries.

If you have many (like 50) albums in picasa, is it easy to browse them? Will you find easily what you are looking for? Because picasa doesn’t have a categorisation of your albums, at least for now. Flickr is better for that, there is many ways to classify them.

As Flickr has a complicated (but original) way to classify pictures (classes, set, tags, …) rather than picasa (only albums), using Flickr can disturbe a normal photo browsing.

After writing this comment, I think I will use both of Picasa and Flickr but for different goals, Picasa will be more for family and friends stuff because most of my friends have a google account, kind of Facebook, and flickr for pictures I want them public.

By: strangebeer

strangebeer — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:46:14 +0000

I’m having an almost identical dilemma as you are/were having. In my web diving, I came across this picasa plug-in: http://picasa2flickr.sourceforge.net/

I’m uploading my first picasa album to flickr right now. Ultimately, this plug-in just prolongs the decision on which service to keep. :-/

By: Elie Tannous

Elie Tannous — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:31:40 +0000

Thanks for the discussion here, i think i’ll take picasa side !

By: Raj

Raj — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:54 +0000

I looked at both Flickr and Picasa, but finally decided to settle on Picasa. Picasa had one very important component that I thought would be extremely useful especially if you have a lot of pictures to organize. Their desktop app is a great way to organize, sort and search through and provide quick little tweaks to the pics before uploading them. I normally fight for time to prep all the pics before posting them but this way I could start off sharing them and sync up the other pics the next time around into the same album. In my context, that has been very helpful.

By: Gavin Doolan

Gavin Doolan — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:01:13 +0000

My requirements for online photo storage are different. I want to use an API (Application Program Interface) to let users on my website upload pictures to a service such as flickr / picasa and allow users to comment on said photos and create albums / delete albums / move stuff around etc..

I don’t mind if my photos appear on either site (public) and I don’t mind paying for the service if my site grows and needs lots of storage space.

Basically I want users to take advantage of the storage of PICASA and image processing ability but I want to host the content (so to speak) on my website.

I’m looking at picasa for now, but I was wondering how others felt about this kind of thing? I previously used Coppermine to do this, but as stated in the article the problem is Coppermine’s framework is very dated and lacks lots of functionality.

Plus its bridged to another open source system. I want to move away from this problem.

Any help or experience is appreciated.

By: Katie

Katie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:10:14 +0000

If you actually want any of your photos to last until you are 80, get old fashioned prints!