I recommend Smugmug to everyone and am delighted with the service myself. Recently though other people have been recommending Flickr citing advantages such as
Adding multiple tags per photo
Allowing a viewer to add notes to a picture
Reading metadata tags already associated with your files
No limit on download bandwidth
Availability of Java and .Net libraries for download
Use of Flash for slide shows
I have no interest in try Flickr but would love to be able to respond to Flickr advocates with a list of reasons why Smugmug might be better.
Also, I used Shutterfly for a while, pre smugmug and found that their upload often choked on a large batch of files. A friend of mine still uses them and he had that same problem a week ago. He switched to Kodak.
thanks art - this is great info and we really appreciate it
Every photo sharing service is different, and Flickr certainly does have things we don't have. They're a great service, you'll never hear me say otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, they're the 2nd best photo sharing site around. I worry about their Yahoo! acquisition, since things have a history of getting lame quickly over at Y!, but Flickr's founders assure me that's not going to happen. I hope not.
I happen to think the most useful thing they offer (that we don't) is their "blog this" interface, and we're clearly behind there, for example.
I recommend Smugmug to everyone and am delighted with the service myself. Recently though other people have been recommending Flickr citing advantages such as
- Adding multiple tags per photo
We have this, and we hear from customers all the time that our keyword tools are much easier to use, especially for large batches.
We don't have this, and I can't recall ever hearing it as a feature request. We do allow (optionally) your friends and family to add/edit your captions and add/edit your keywords, but that's not the same thing.
Yep, this is something they have - but our download bandwidth limits are incredibly generous. We can't offer unlimited bandwidth or we'll start losing money. (They we'd have to sell out to Yahoo!, too. )
I think, and our customers seem to agree with us, that an unlimited upload limit, combined with a generous download limit that almost no-one every hits, is much better than a small upload limit and unlimited download limit. But hey, capitalism rocks. If you like having limited uploads, Flickr's your place.
- Availability of Java and .Net libraries for download
I know people are working on libraries for smugmug for various languages, but I don't think either of these two are out yet. Someone can prove me wrong.
Neither Flickr nor smugmug build their own libraries - they're entirely user-created and user-supported. We'll get there.
I happen to think that's a big negative. Lots of people don't have Flash installed, or have older versions, or whatever. Go try Flickr's slideshow and then try ours. I think ours handily wins - the photos fill your entire screen and look gorgeous. It works in all browsers, no Flash required.
I think there are a ton of things we have, though, that they don't. For example:
- No customization at all.
- No styles.
- No mapping.
- Unlimited uploads (in a single batch, too!)
- No bulk tools.
- No prints.
- No gifts.
- No Pro pricing.
- No personalized URL.
- No Domain name support.
- No CD/DVD backups.
- No video.
- Multiple password levels in addition to privacy controls.
- 8MB/16MB photos.
- Never asks for a login, including seeing larger photos.
- Hierarchical gallery organization.
- Best customer service on the web. (Flickr's is helpful and friendly, but usually has responses in days, rather than minutes like smugmug).
Hope that helps!
Don
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
I recommend Smugmug to everyone and am delighted with the service myself. Recently though other people have been recommending Flickr citing advantages such as
Adding multiple tags per photo
Allowing a viewer to add notes to a picture
Reading metadata tags already associated with your files
No limit on download bandwidth
Availability of Java and .Net libraries for download
Use of Flash for slide shows
I have no interest in try Flickr but would love to be able to respond to Flickr advocates with a list of reasons why Smugmug might be better.
Also, I used Shutterfly for a while, pre smugmug and found that their upload often choked on a large batch of files. A friend of mine still uses them and he had that same problem a week ago. He switched to Kodak.
Hi Art,
Far as I know, the tags on Smugmug are quite a bit more robust than Flickr's. You can add multiple tags per photo, tags can have two words separated by spaces (surrounded by quotes) so you can read them better, they nest, we have bulk tools to enter/edit them, etc.
Flash for slideshows is actually a big drawback for quite a number of reasons. You quickly find that many people that you want to share with, expecially aging parents, don't have it installed and have no idea how to. Or they have an old version. And Flash doesn't do progressive JPEGs, so if your connection is slow you have to wait for the whole photo before you get the idea.
We have a full-screen slideshow Flickr doesn't have that's wildly popular. We sense the screen resolution you have and make JPEGs on the fly that fit it. We don't depend on the browser or Flash to resize the photo, which do poor jobs, and Flickr doesn't have a full-screen slide show.
They do have unlimited download bandwidth, which appeals to a certain type of user. Unfortunately, we had experience with this early on because we became briefly popular for Fark Photoshop Contest competitors, where one image can get an insane number of views and break us. My guess is that was a big contributor to Flickr running out of money and having to sell to Yahoo. Yahoo already seems to be taking steps to limit bandwidth. For example, you now have to log onto Flickr or register to see large-sized images. You can imagine the revolt if we made our visitors register (even for free) after they click the large link on a photo.
Very few of our customers need unlimited download bandwidth and if they do, we're happy to send them to Flickr. But many need unlimited upload bandwidth to set their accounts up or after a big shoot. Flickr restricts that.
I think the bottom line is Flickr has social networking as the center of its design. It's the Friendster for photos, and that's very appealing to some people. We have photos at the center of our design, and that's very appealing to others. Choice is awesome.
ROFL. We must have been writing at the same time. Haha.
Don
Thanks guys, that helps a lot. And makes me even more pleased that I went the smugmug route. I agree with your cut on Flash - not a good thing. Smugmug slide show is great.
I think the only thing you listed as an advantage that's not exactly right is the personalized URL. Flickr does offer a personalized URL. It's not a good one - http://www.flickr.com/photos/yourname/ but they do have it.
Anyway thanks a lot for arming me with these facts. It's exactly what I was looking for.
Art
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
In order to understand recursion, you first have to understand recursion.
Art Hill
Thanks guys, that helps a lot. And makes me even more pleased that I went the smugmug route. I agree with your cut on Flash - not a good thing. Smugmug slide show is great.
I think the only thing you listed as an advantage that's not exactly right is the personalized URL. Flickr does offer a personalized URL. It's not a good one - http://www.flickr.com/photos/yourname/ but they do have it.
Anyway thanks a lot for arming me with these facts. It's exactly what I was looking for.
Art
Sorry, I meant to say "personalized hostname," not URL. I suppose every site on the net has a personalized URL for you, somehow, so that was lame of me.
I know people are working on libraries for smugmug for various languages, but I don't think either of these two are out yet. Someone can prove me wrong.
Omar has produced 'Send to Smugmug' which includes a SmugMugApi DLL, which encapsulates the key 5-10%. It's under, I think, MIT licence, so even more liberal than GPL.
It has a fair few issues, and only targets a small section of API 1.0, but it's great place to start.
Neither Flickr nor smugmug build their own libraries - they're entirely user-created and user-supported. We'll get there.
Indeed : Expect SmugTools.NET (hint as to the platform ) out fairly soon. I've got a bit of bug-beating to do, some rather more hard-core testing, a bit of documentation and then it'll be out there...
Comments
thanks art - this is great info and we really appreciate it
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I happen to think the most useful thing they offer (that we don't) is their "blog this" interface, and we're clearly behind there, for example.
See comments below:
We have this, and we hear from customers all the time that our keyword tools are much easier to use, especially for large batches.
We don't have this, and I can't recall ever hearing it as a feature request. We do allow (optionally) your friends and family to add/edit your captions and add/edit your keywords, but that's not the same thing.
We do this and have done it for longer than Flickr has. EXIF and IPTC.
Yep, this is something they have - but our download bandwidth limits are incredibly generous. We can't offer unlimited bandwidth or we'll start losing money. (They we'd have to sell out to Yahoo!, too.
I think, and our customers seem to agree with us, that an unlimited upload limit, combined with a generous download limit that almost no-one every hits, is much better than a small upload limit and unlimited download limit. But hey, capitalism rocks. If you like having limited uploads, Flickr's your place.
I know people are working on libraries for smugmug for various languages, but I don't think either of these two are out yet. Someone can prove me wrong.
Neither Flickr nor smugmug build their own libraries - they're entirely user-created and user-supported. We'll get there.
I happen to think that's a big negative. Lots of people don't have Flash installed, or have older versions, or whatever. Go try Flickr's slideshow and then try ours. I think ours handily wins - the photos fill your entire screen and look gorgeous. It works in all browsers, no Flash required.
I think there are a ton of things we have, though, that they don't. For example:
- No customization at all.
- No styles.
- No mapping.
- Unlimited uploads (in a single batch, too!)
- No bulk tools.
- No prints.
- No gifts.
- No Pro pricing.
- No personalized URL.
- No Domain name support.
- No CD/DVD backups.
- No video.
- Multiple password levels in addition to privacy controls.
- 8MB/16MB photos.
- Never asks for a login, including seeing larger photos.
- Hierarchical gallery organization.
- Best customer service on the web. (Flickr's is helpful and friendly, but usually has responses in days, rather than minutes like smugmug).
Hope that helps!
Don
Far as I know, the tags on Smugmug are quite a bit more robust than Flickr's. You can add multiple tags per photo, tags can have two words separated by spaces (surrounded by quotes) so you can read them better, they nest, we have bulk tools to enter/edit them, etc.
Flash for slideshows is actually a big drawback for quite a number of reasons. You quickly find that many people that you want to share with, expecially aging parents, don't have it installed and have no idea how to. Or they have an old version. And Flash doesn't do progressive JPEGs, so if your connection is slow you have to wait for the whole photo before you get the idea.
We have a full-screen slideshow Flickr doesn't have that's wildly popular. We sense the screen resolution you have and make JPEGs on the fly that fit it. We don't depend on the browser or Flash to resize the photo, which do poor jobs, and Flickr doesn't have a full-screen slide show.
They do have unlimited download bandwidth, which appeals to a certain type of user. Unfortunately, we had experience with this early on because we became briefly popular for Fark Photoshop Contest competitors, where one image can get an insane number of views and break us. My guess is that was a big contributor to Flickr running out of money and having to sell to Yahoo. Yahoo already seems to be taking steps to limit bandwidth. For example, you now have to log onto Flickr or register to see large-sized images. You can imagine the revolt if we made our visitors register (even for free) after they click the large link on a photo.
Very few of our customers need unlimited download bandwidth and if they do, we're happy to send them to Flickr. But many need unlimited upload bandwidth to set their accounts up or after a big shoot. Flickr restricts that.
I think the bottom line is Flickr has social networking as the center of its design. It's the Friendster for photos, and that's very appealing to some people. We have photos at the center of our design, and that's very appealing to others. Choice is awesome.
Thanks,
Chris
ROFL. We must have been writing at the same time. Haha.
Don
I think the only thing you listed as an advantage that's not exactly right is the personalized URL. Flickr does offer a personalized URL. It's not a good one - http://www.flickr.com/photos/yourname/ but they do have it.
Anyway thanks a lot for arming me with these facts. It's exactly what I was looking for.
Art
In order to understand recursion, you first have to understand recursion.
Art Hill
Sorry, I meant to say "personalized hostname," not URL. I suppose every site on the net has a personalized URL for you, somehow, so that was lame of me.
Don
http://wiki.shahine.com/default.aspx/MyWiki.SendToSmugMug
It has a fair few issues, and only targets a small section of API 1.0, but it's great place to start.
Indeed
Luke
SmugSoftware: www.smugtools.com