seeing as i hadn't really heard of picasa until you mentioned it, i think that's why flickr might be better. there's a community there. i only post stuff there, because i enjoy looking at my contacts list work, and i know i'll get the most response there.

i don't have a pro account there, and don't see a need for one in the near future.

Well, most of my friends and contacts use flickr, so it only makes sense to put it up there if I want to share them.

Of course, it's not the most economical from a functionality/file storage standpoint, but I really like the social aspect of it, not to mention an endlessly interesting photography community.

yeah, what julia said

I like how flickr works. I am non pro.

I used to use it more and I paid the money but then I never felt the need to renew it.

LOL @ them calling it a Pro account when you have to pay them for it.

flickr is fun!

Yeah, basically what Julia said... I had never heard of Picasa either.

I really like the flickr interface, how easy it is to flag your own photos, make them private but then create a link so even non-users can view them, etc.

I debated about whether getting a pro account, but I'm really happy I did because I upload a lot of photos. Currently I have 1,601... the photos I've taken with my SLR camera range from about 2.4-9.2 MB each.... which means I've almost certainly gone well over the 1 GB capacity of Picasa.

And I like that I have the full-sized versions uploaded - I don't have to worry about shrinking down photos and they're available for anyone to print if they really want to.

I've heard of Picasa - it's google's photo powerhouse...I have to admit, the unlimited upload feature is great, but then if it reached the status of Flickr, a price would eventually be put on that, so trying to compare them is pretty futile.

I use flickr but don't have a pro account, but I still have a lot of photos on there..

Picasa web albums is teh retarded compared to flickr. Why? Because Picasa only offers limited storage, even for $$, where as flickr gives you unlimited storage. I mean $75 for 25gb? thats pathetic. Its really like Yahoo and Google swapped philosophies on photo storage for some reason. Flickr also wins on community, mostly cause it has been around longer.

Now a true competitor to flickr is Zooomr, which still lacks the community of flickr, and a few features and usability. But for storage and linking is just as good if not better because it gives unlimited storage to everyone, and all paying does is remove advertisements.

'CAUSE!

my pro flickr account comes with my internet service, and i love the community.

I started using it because it was the only website I'd heard of where I felt I had to make an effort with my photographs, that it had to be photography and wasnt just a site like photobucket which was a means to an end, I feel like its a place where I can put my photography and people might see it.

Granted its not amazing at the moment but its getting better but I see flickr more of a portfolio site, I went pro because I was uploading a shit ton of photos for the mish mash and the amount of photos I take is steadily rising (in fact my minimum now is 1 a day since I started th 365 day project which is a self portrait once a day for a year).

I'm a "Pro" because I like storing unlimited photos at their maximum sizes, tagging photos, sharing photos easily with a family that doesn't always understand technology, and because of peer pressure... all my friends are already there.

(Also, I tried to do that 365 project. It didn't work. I might try again sometime. I'm happy that there are people that CAN keep theirs going.)

ive used picassa at work and im not that impressed, its Ok. Other people I know are. I have a pro account at flickr and I love participating in the community.

Okay I wasn't a pro account till like 3 days ago and yes, I debated a lot should I pay for it or not. The only reason I really began using flickr was to do the Project 365 and posted my vacation pics from India for my cousins in India to see.

Anyways... I know about Picasa which I normally don't use because people rarely use it and I think Flickr is more like a community thing. Like groups and adding contact .. I don't know if I can do the same with Picasa.

And i just got the pro account so I can finish of the 365 thing - and then I ll be using some other Picture site to upload pics (i guess Picasa since I use it to edit pictures most of the time)

:-)

ladykat: And I like that I have the full-sized versions uploaded - I don't have to worry about shrinking down photos and they're available for anyone to print if they really want to.

This appears to apply to Picasa as well. The only size limitation they stipulate is under 10 MB per photo.

Audiovore: Picasa web albums is teh retarded compared to flickr. Why? Because Picasa only offers limited storage, even for $$, where as flickr gives you unlimited storage. I mean $75 for 25gb? thats pathetic. Its really like Yahoo and Google swapped philosophies on photo storage for some reason. Flickr also wins on community, mostly cause it has been around longer.

Well, from my point of view, it's 200 photos max at Flickr, vs. a thousand or so at Google, since I'm not going to be paying anybody anything for photo hosting. Not when I've already got a website host with a huge gob of unused space. (But agreed, Picasa's extra storage space is pretty steep.)

People I actually know will look at my photos regardless of where I've uploaded them. Random strangers are welcome to look at (most of) them too, but I feel unmotivated to pay for that privilege.

And considering the general nosiness of Yahoo (to make their ad salesdroids happy, when you set up an account they demand your real name, your real postal code, your real date of birth, etc...) giving them a credit card number (which is also a handy tool to *verify* your profile info) just squicks me. There's no way in hell Yahoo's getting my credit card info. So, no "Pro Flickr" for me.

Picasa also has a few incredibly useful features:

- captions added within the Picasa (PC software) interface are actually embedded in the photo's IPTC data,
- video can be uploaded too. Considering how much "home movie" footage I shoot with my digital camera, having both video and still photos in the same place makes the most sense to me.