[Superpredator]

I used Picasa when it was first released and found it kind of obnoxious, so I gave up on it. I recently tried using it again, and I must say, Google really dropped the ball. Picasa and Picasa Web Albums have been nothing but frustrating.

Simply adding a profile photo has taken 15 minutes--something Flickr could accomplish in four seconds. I simply can't fathom why Picasa Web would force you to choose a profile photo from your album list when every other profile photo selection process--including Google's other services--allow you to just upload from your hard drive. It's almost like they're so desperate for people to use it that they force them into using it unnecessarily.

Just to add this stupid profile image, Picasa has been attempting to update my album list--which contains all of 15 images--for the last 10 minutes.

I hate you, Picasa. Long live Flickr.

 

[pez]

Mmmm, I like photobucket, but that could be totally different, never had the urge to use picasa though.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

I use Imageshack for photos.

 

[Jubei]

I use Photobucket. But Picasa 2 is a nice and free software for keeping track of images on your hard drive - I don't use Picasa / Google's web album services as I found it restrictive as well.

 

[Duggeh]

I've always thought that the only thing that picasa was good for was archive management. I never used it for online features.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif I use Imageshack for photos.

Ditto!
Tried lots of other alternative hosts, but always return. For some reason it "just works"...

 

[essasin]

I use flickr and a lot of my photog buddies do also.

 

[Peanuts]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've always thought that the only thing that picasa was good for was archive management. I never used it for online features.

Yeah, same here.

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

Picasa is good for one thing, dumping tons of photos of family and or a vacation/trip onto an album and sending the link to family and friends. Saves a lot of time when you dont want to do anything other than just upload the photos and get a link

Flickr on the other hand is my choice for serious photography, the select set of photos from my trips get edited and uploaded onto my flickr page.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mmmm, I like photobucket, but that could be totally different, never had the urge to use picasa though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jubei /img/forum/go_quote.gif I use Photobucket. But Picasa 2 is a nice and free software for keeping track of images on your hard drive - I don't use Picasa / Google's web album services as I found it restrictive as well.

Yeah, I use Flickr for photos I want to share, Photobucket for those I don't, and perhaps that's all I need. I won't get into why I wanted to use Picasa, but I think any potential benefit is just not worth the hassle.

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif I won't get into why I wanted to use Picasa...

Self portraits of the Jame 'Buffalo Bill' Gumb tuck away?

YouTube - Oh, was she a great big fat person

 

[Uncle Erik]

Picasa is convenient for sharing with friends and family. I've used it for a few months and am happy enough with its service. Might go to another service, however, for more serious uploading.

 

[GlendaleViper]

Paying Flickr user here. Love it.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samgotit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Self portraits of the Jame 'Buffalo Bill' Gumb tuck away? YouTube - Oh, was she a great big fat person

I encrypt my collection of self tucks with PGP, but I'll put one up on Flickr for you.

And it's great that that's the only video that person has uploaded - what singular purpose!

 

[blessingx]

Picasaweb hardly sucks. It also has better Mac support than Flickr.

Pick your poison among the mainstream photo servers. They all have their pluses and minuses.