ozdude

I only use Snapfish to get prints or canvas from Flickr, or I upload separately. I do not use it for storage purposes. I also never use iPhoto or Aperture uploaders, they are annoying, I prefer to upload directly through the browser or app.

What service are you looking for? Storage or printing?

cordelli

Did you download the desktop app to use? You can easily upload hundreds of files at once with that. Drag and drop or just select the folder and files. The web interface is horrible, the desktop app is pretty good.

CDTraveler

I have to share photos of an event occuring while I am traveling. The photos only need to be seen by a specific group of people.

I don't normally post photos online or use Facebook ever, so I think what I want is an online photo site that will generate a URL that I can send to those who need to see the photos but not allow my photos to be searchable or otherwise available to the world.

I have the portable technology to upload photos, including a WiFi device, I just need to know the best place to plant them.

Suggestions?

jsnydcsa

To answer ozdude's question: Storage or printing. Answer is both. I tend to just upload everything (since Snapfish was "free" I didn't care how much was stored there). And, when photos were needed (about 1x per month) or the usual once-per-year holiday cards with a photo of the kids for printing. So, not a lot of printing.

So, I would say "storage" is my first/primary need. And, I'd include in "storage" the ability to privately share photos with friends and family.

Flickr's initial Tour seems to imply that at least some of your photos are public. I would definitely NOT want that. I'd want all my photos to be non-public by default. And, have the ability to send a recipient-specific link to a family member or friend to view my photos.

I have found that, when they work, the site's stand alone apps do work well but really prefer and iPhoto uploader. I put all the same photos into iPhoto. So, it'd be nice to be able to just click in iPhoto to upload to a given service rather than having to separately run the service's stand alone app and add the photos via the app.

SmugMug came back to my mind in reading through this thread. The $60 "Power" package (I might have an occasional video) seems fair (though I always like free). How's their iPhoto uploader?

cblaisd

I'd probably suggest a simple folder on Google Drive that you share with those whom you want to be able to access; then upload the photos there either all to that folder, or to sub-folders within that folder (I **think** parent folder permissions carry to sub-folders in Google drive)

CDTraveler

Um, what's Google Drive?

I'm the old fashioned sort; I keep my data on my desktop machine and my photos private, so the "cloud" is not a place I know.

cblaisd

https://www.google.com/intl/en_US/dr...tml?authuser=0

If you have a gmail address (which is easy to get), you get 5GB of free storage.

CDTraveler

I looked at the link, and in one line they sum why I don't use the cloud:
I don't want to share anything that I have, just a few photos! Google's persistent privacy issues concern me, and for that reason I won't get a Gmail account.

Ages back I used the Kodak photo site, but that's long gone. Flickr doesn't seem to allow private photos, does any site?

cblaisd

Uh, the "anything" you share is at your absolute discretion. You mark the folder for sharing, and then get to choose exactly who (and only who) can access it and whether it's read-only or they can edit/upload to the folder too.

CDTraveler

No, it definitely is not up to you what is shared once you begin to use Gmail - my son's school has had loads of privacy problems with it. There are lawsuits and government sanctions against Google in multiple countries for privacy violations. However, Google isn't really what my question was about.

I'm looking for a dedicated photo sharing upon for one time use by a restricted group of people; are there any out there?

cblaisd

Let's review:

You asked for

I suggested something that will exactly meet your criteria.

You responded

I took the time to explain

You then unintentionally (I'll offer the benefit of the doubt) misunderstood the nature of Google Drive

and asked for

Which of course is exactly what Google Drive will allow, with absolute control by you over how long the folder is shared and with whom.

You may not wish to use Google Drive for whatever reason, but you know, it's always nice when someone attempts to help that they at least receive, you know, a simple "thank you."

Hope you find what you're looking for that meets your expectations. It seems to me that any solution, given your initial criteria, is going to be "cloud-based." You could get a Pogoplug device for your home network, though, if you want to keep your files locally.

ozdude

Flickr can be as private as you want, you don't have to make anything public. You can then make sets, and share links only for those sets.

Otherwise cloud storage might be something worth looking into. I use dropbox, and it actually has quite a good interface for photo sharing and viewing.

Flickr is not really a storage and bulk sharing solution. It's more for people who upload a few pics a day for public sharing through groups etc. It's not really for storing hundreds of holiday or work snaps, there are many other better options for that purpose.

ozdude

Flickr is completely private if you like. The reason I don't like uploading from iPhoto is that it syncs your albums. So you need to have the albums kept on your iPhoto database. For me that is cumbersome. If I go on holiday and take 100 shots, I may only select 15 for sharing, so I need to create a new album as a sub-set.

If you want storage and sharing amongst friends I do not recommend flickr. Dropbox is decent as cloud storage and it manages photo galleries nicely. Otherwise I think you are on the right track with Smugmug, you could also consider photobucket.

CDTraveler

Well, gosh, some people might think that any product requiring registration with google is not just a simple photo sharing site, and furthermore might not appreciate the way in which you presented it as such. Feel free to take offense if it makes you happy, but no thanks are in order as no help was received.

gfunkdave

Whatever notions of Google you harbor, the fact is that cblaisd's suggestion is a perfectly good one given your stated concerns. I am unaware of any online photo sharing service that does not require users to sign up for an account. Merely creating a Google account and uploading some photos will not result in jackbooted Google employees banging down your door and carting off your bank details.

If you'd prefer to build your own web server and share your photos that way, enjoy. But that seems to be a lot more bother than it's worth.

You can read through the rest of this thread, too. You might find some other ideas that suit you better. Smugmug comes to mind, but Google Drive would probably be easier on initial setup (and certainly cheaper: free vs $40/year or so).