3 ms·
I tried it two months back but didn't go premium as there's essentially no organisation. I am used to store pics in sync-date folder names like Picasa. I just
by ishansharma 14y ago
I tried it two months back but didn't go premium as there's essentially no organisation. I am used to store pics in sync-date folder names like Picasa.
I just went for Picasa, which tags people efficiently, has other features and costs $2.49/month for 100 GB!
Though I left Picasa once they started uploading to Google+ by default. Private or not, I didn't like that. It also lacked some features as compared to Picasa Web. Now I just use Cubby to sync my photos folder and Picasa organises them.
- veidr 14y agoI also paid recently, because this is the only service that I know of that lets me share e.g. baby pics with my family only, and creates attractive web albums automatically, but still let them download everything as a zip file. I too was stumped by the seeming lack of organization, but if you use a tool like iPhoto or aperture, you can organize things by events as opposed albums. I hadn't really used events previously, so that took some figuring out. Look for me it works pretty well once I did. I can generally let it just sync all my pictures from all my PCs and phones and so forth, but when I need to I can make an event in something like iPhoto, and then share that as a photo page with the zip file download option for my sharees. Well worth the money so far, although we'll see what happens to their 'unlimited' storage when I really try to upload my 500 GB Aperture collection (which is only that big because I'm too lazy to ever delete photos)...