Pain in the Tech comments on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)]

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by antivirus

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:51:43 -0800

I have to agree that flickr rocks , 2 gb web space unlimited bandwith etc!It\'s the best

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Matt

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:40:17 -0800

Excellent review, In the end I chose Smugmug because of the easier ability to display photos. You didn\'t mention Zenfolio which was another provider I had a look at and a good competitior to smugmug. I did a review myself of the various options here if you\'d like to have a look: http://smugmugphotosharing.blogspot.com/2009/12/smugmug-photo-sharing-review.html

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by software developers

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:26:04 -0700

Thanks for the thorough and insightful review and discussion thread. I've been looking for a photo sharing site to host old photo albums and new ones of my family. I think we've considered Smugmug and Flickr very well, but what about the other clear standouts: Photobucket and Picasa Web Albums? Thanks.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by ashley

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:54:39 -0700

I had an account on Webshots about 3 years ago. I was getting a new computer, so to back up my photos, I e-mailed them to myself. Now I cannot open these, as there is a red X in every spot, since the URL for the file is so old. Is there any way possible of recovering these photos? Thank you for any help you can give me.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by kikidelosfeliz

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:04:17 -0700

Can anyone point me to some beta ware or other tool to export from smugmug directly to flickr? I see several folks have asked the same above, and there seems to be a reference to something like that from the smugmug folks, but I couldn't find it.

Thanks all!

P.S. Seems to me that Smugmug is more professional, more secure, and more elegant, while Flickr is hipper, more fluid, and more social (you get comments on your photos, which you generally don't seem to on Smugmug). In other words, I have to send people to Smugmug, whereas folks somehow find me on Flickr.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Brian

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:31:54 -0700

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by testerus

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:42:25 -0700

Easy uploading is one thing, but at least as important is if and how you are able to export your pictures from Flickr (or sth. else) with all the added information to another web-service or your hard disk.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Wolfy

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:55:03 -0700

I am in agreement. Flickr is much better on the social networking end. Also sharing is esier (fewer clicks). Is there a tool to transfer my smugmug to flickr? Or a way to export Smugmug? -M

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Tom

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:28:26 -0700

Speaking about "geotagging": do you know locr? locr offers the ideal solution and makes geotagging exceptionally easy. locr uses GoogleMaps with detailed maps and high-resolution satellite images. To geotag your photos just enter address, let locr search, fine-tune the marker, accept position, and done! If you don't know the exact address simply use drag&drop to set the position. For automatic geotagging you need a datalog GPS receiver in additon to your digital camera. The GPS receiver data and the digital camera data is then automatically linked together by the locr software. All information will be written into the EXIF header. Use the "Show in Google Earth" button to view your photos in Google Earth. With locr you can upload photos with GPS information in them without any further settings. In the standard view, locr shows the photo itself, plus the place it was taken. If you want to know more about the place where the photo was taken, just have at look at the Wikipedia articles which are also automatically assigned to the picture. Have a look at www.locr.com.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Pindy

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:04:16 -0800

Smugmug now has 3 user/developers with free plug-ins for Aperture export, and I believe there's already an iPhoto plug-in.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by tjstankus

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:51:15 -0800

I have accounts on both Smugmug and Flickr. For a long time, I was perfectly happy with Smugmug, but a few things have pulled me solidly into the Flickr camp: flickrexport for iPhoto, inexpensive 1-hour prints from Target, and a more vibrant developer community. Flickr Export is easily the quickest and most convenient uploader tool that I've used (and I've tried a bunch). It's payware, but so worth it. The Target print thing turns out to be something that my family uses more than I do, but is very convenient, if not the best quality. And finally, as a software developer, I appreciate the various API wrappers and tools that come out of the Flickr development community, and the flexibility that gives me to "play" with my photos. So, for me, it really boils down to convenience over quality. Flickr is a more convenient experience. I wouldn't call either service "far superior" to the other. They just fill slightly different niches.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Dan P

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:37:31 -0800

I think "far superior" is kind of a big statement. I currently have a subscription to both and I largely find Smugmug's experience better in every way. I was making a gallery of family photos I'd taken over the last year and because my children are involved, I didn't feel right about making their likenesses public. It was easy to create a password protected gallery, tell everybody the password and also put a hint there that only those close to me would know. Since I've been mirroring everything on Flickr, it took a while to figure out that those whom I wanted to allow viewing needed to either be members (instant deal-breaker) or they had to be invited in a rather convoluted manner through the Flickr interface using some arcane URL. What happens to those people when they delete your email? Do you have to send it again? Other bummers for me are the mandatory white background, default viewing of my (or anyone else's) photos as a photostream (a concept I cannot warm to no matter how I try) instead of the individual's own layout and preferences�I think SmugMug does this elegantly. I don't like the Sets, either. They are as rudimentary a form or organisation as it gets. The initial set layout is confusing, because you see one featured photo and a load of thumbnails, but if you click on any of them, you go to a completely different view (kind of a medium-to-small sized list view) and the utility of the thumbnails is completely lost. It makes me feel like organisation is not highly regarded at Flickr, and rather that chaos reigns and the fact that the photostream is the default view bears witness. Sorry, but this is an element of the MySpace-like behaviour that makes Flickr skew to the somewhat adolescent, in my view. not it's members but it's overall appearance. It's bothersome that you cannot turn off the filename display, which Flickr positively ACHES to put in your title field. I will say I'm impressed with the sheer amount of user-created software coupled with the Flickr API. There are certainly things to like about Flickr for me, and I'm finding them now and then, but I don't think there are clear winners except for what you want and what you expect.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Les Hawkins

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 07:12:09 -0800

I kind of disagree with the comments smugmug is for for serious or professional use. Yes I suppose it is if you want a backup. However their security modal is wrong. For instance most people want to be able to backup all their images but share only the ones they select. To do this on Smugmug means firstly uploading to a private gallery, and then duplicating any images into a public gallery. That doesn't sound to bad, ok your doubling work and space on those images you want to share, more of an overhead for smugmug than you. Then you find out you have no ability to search all those captions you did, or the keywords and even the Timeline function will not work. Even the most basic of backups usually gives you some kind of search facility. If I was a pro and did a shoot of a party. Firstly I would only want the most relevant and obviously best quality images, to be made public, especially if people want to buy them. But say someone then requests "a picture of little billy pulling a face that I know you took at the party but I can't seem to find it on your site" The only way I would be able to find it is to go through every thumbnail in the private gallery until I find the relevant image. Slow and very tiresome. This appears to be a problem for a lot of users when you search the forums, but little appears to have been done about it.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Jane

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:40:18 -0800

Hi Andy, I did see the guest pass option. That option was not available when I was comparing the two and trying to decide whether I wanted a Pro Flickr Acct or SmugMug. Before that option was available, if my co-workers and friends were all in my 'friends' list, everyone could see those photos, there is not subset in 'friends'. This was not appealing to me, I tend to not want to use multiple services to share photos as albums, hence SmugMug was a better choice for me. Don't get me wrong, I really like Flickr, (this is progress too b/c I did not like how it looked or navigated at first but I'm understanding it now and the idea it was built around) I just wasn't looking to pay for a place to share photos with a community at the time, more of an online tool to just share photos with friends and selectively at that. Using Flickr to get feedback on photos or post notes on images is good, they make it very easy. I am warmer to the idea of making images public for this kind of feedback, I wasn't before. I also like that they let you tag private photos as well, I wish SmugMug would make their keywords work as well for private photos. I agree on your points about selective permissions within a gallery, I just don't do enough volume where there would bother me yet. I would just make another public album or send them the image link which you can do within a private album, there is no album id in the address line when you do that-or send it to Flickr! I know two uploads but I don't much that I want to share with the world and Flickr doesn't take that long. Smugmug serves my purposes for which I chose it. I have faith that if there are options that are in high enough demand, they will work to roll them out to their customers. Their customer service has been good so far, responses are always within a few hours and usually sooner. I guess if you had consumers in a venn diagram, I would be one of those that are in the overlapping part.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Andy Atkinson

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:58:00 -0800

Hi Jane. Can you clarify your comments on Flickr friends? I only mark a few people that are in my list of Contacts as friends. I understand that any photo I mark "friends" they can see. If I want to show a photo to friends and family, Flickr has those options presented as checkboxes. More granular permissions would certainly be possible, but I think they cover most uses of the system. You could use Flickr to accomplish what you are describing you use SmugMug for as well. Upload all of your photos as Private and do not check Friends or Family. Now create a set called "College Friends" or "Work" and click "Share This Set" (using the Guest Pass feature) and mail the link out to a few select people. This way your photos are still marked as private however the person receiving that email link will be able to see all the photos in that set. What I don't like about SmugMug is that I can't have one photo in multiple galleries or have permissions set on each photo. Flickr lets me accomplish those two things.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Jane

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:34:48 -0800

Thanks for this review, it was insightful. I was truly on the fence when I was first looking for a photo service but I decided in the end after some research to use both. I just use a free version of Flickr to put up photos that I may want to share with others and have them comment on or have limited licences on. Flickr does make it very easy to upload and share with groups. I use SmugMug to put up all of my photos and share privately mostly with family and friends. Their customer service comes back to me quickly and I love going on their forum Digital Grin where there seem to be many knowledgeable people that want to talk about photography. I think that both services do cater to different people - or in my case, different purposes and maybe people don't have to choose one over the other in some cases. I would tell people to do SmugMug for their free trial period of 2 weeks (you don't even need a credit card) to try it out at least - they can easily walk away afterwards if it's not for them. (And no, no one from SmugMug told me to say that! =P) One thing about Flickr that I am not crazy about is that if you call someone a friend, they can see all of your photos you mark for friends-you can make multiple groups like college friends, work, family, etc. I may want to show an album to my family and not friends. Yes, Flickr now has guest pass but that is one more step you would need to do. So for sharing with select groups, I like SmugMug better and it's my primary use. Thanks again!

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Andy Atkinson

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:25:26 -0800

It is silly to upload your photos twice in my opinion (to Flickr and SmugMug). If you are a busy person who takes a lot of photos, that doesn�t scale. Maybe there would be a tool that would upload ALL your photos to SmugMug as private galleries, then easily allow you to share a few over to Flickr, but I don�t think you�ll see any easy migration tool like that unless someone masters both APIs and really loves using both services. Both Flickr and SmugMug want to compete in both consumer and pro spaces it seems. Flickr wants to host pros (even though they do �web 2.0/sharing� better), Smugmug wants to host "web 2.0" users (even though they do �pro� presentation, ordering, customization better). I think the best solution is to use a photo sharing site for what it is supposed to be for, photo sharing. Don't use a photo sharing site for backup, use a "backup service" for backup. I�m arguing Flickr is a better photo sharing site. If you are using SmugMug to leverage their S3 colocation/redundancy/etc. and you plan to "share" private galleries, then why not skip the middle man entirely and go with an archive service like [Box.net](http://paininthetech.com/online_storage_solutions_box_net) or similar. Among many other benefits to this approach, you aren't limited to photo files, you can save video files, important Word and PDF documents, blog posts backed up as XML, anything else you might want. I imagine most services of this type offer DVD (and eventually HD-DVD or Blu-Ray) backups as well, one more layer of protection and backup. Order a backup DVD and keep it in a safety deposit box at your bank for posterity.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Dan B

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:06:51 -0800

Honestly, I agree 100% with Leslie in her view that Flickr is a rather volatile company and its' business model likely changes with each new web 2.0 trend and/or business aquisition. I, personally, also use Flickr for hosting of personal and business blog-based web graphics and portfolio images. We are a media company and need a decent place to host images in a nice web 2.0 fashion, so I like Flickr for that reason. But then the realist in me wants to ensure that in the event of a disaster in our home or company location, I can depend on Smugmug to preserve our digital images and give us multiple ways to recover any images we might lose in such an event. Simply put, Smugmug is our fool-proof, 3rd layer of data backup for all of our images. Very rarely do we even give public access to our folders. We usually keep them private. They are locked down, backed up, full-resolution, and safe. To me, sharing is what Flickr is for. Storage and peace of mind is what Smugmug is for.

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by David Parry

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:23:15 -0800

Hi Andy, Just thought I would comment on a few 3rd party tools available for SmugMug which might be of interest. - AlbumFetcher: Which downloads SmugMug images and embeds captions and keywords into the IPTC headers. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=47160 - SmugBrowser (beta): Firefox extension for uploading and general album maintenance. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=47484 Cheers, David

Comment on [Photo migration: SmugMug to Flickr (and why Flickr is far superior)] by Don MacAskill

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:32:49 -0800

I can't speak for Flickr, but our DVD and CD backups do contain the folder hierarchy in such a way that it mimics the categorization and organization you've done on SmugMug. Further, it maps very closely, if not exactly, to mounting your SmugMug account via WebDAV (SmugDAV), and contains enough "metadata" in the form of ImageIDs, AlbumID, CategoryIDs, etc that you can easily correlate your data with your account using SmugDAV or the API. As for the price, we offer the DVD and CD services from Englaze at or very near cost. We may mark them up slightly to cover our customer service costs related to them, but they certainly aren't even a blip on our radar in terms of a profit-making product - we offer them because we truly believe our customers should be able to easily get backups of *their* photos in a variety of ways with no hassle. Their prices seemed fair to me, since they're handling the whole process in an easy and seamless way, but it'd be easy for you to make your own DVDs - just mount your account via SmugDAV, fire up your favorite burning software, and go to town.