Gallery3:Season of Usability 2009 Survey, Method explanation

Return to survey results main

5: Method of sharing explanation
Element started 1055 Participants
Element finished 846 Participants
Drop-Out 19%
Time to finish 3:21 min (s=20,32 min)
Free Answer

Question 5. Why do you prefer sharing photos the way you described in the question 4?
Number of valid answers 694

Because I like to have full control over my photos.
I already have a domain name and web space (for e-mail, blogs, etc) and don't see any point in paying for multiple separate services for photo hosting etc. I also have a lot of control over what software is used, who can access it, etc.
no size limit, i can do what i want
easiest way for other people to view, but i have full control over the gallery style and features
control, quality, security
Because I love Gallery of photos and an ecological way for do it.
Simplicity. I used to post photos primarily on my own website, but it was easier to upload them to Facebook... esp. from the camera in my BB... even if the quality isn't the best.
full control of my data
I like to have control of my own photo's. Since I run my own LAMP server, that's possible.
Privacy
Easy
I know that I'm going to have access to my images when I want them, and having images in one place makes it easier for people to find other photos that I've taken.
I don't have to worry about storage limits. I can allow comments, etc. and have full control of photo sizes, themes, etc. No ads.
full control over the way the photos are presented; different from the common services
I can upload *all* my photos quickly without bandwidth or HDD limitations... I don't have to waste time thinking about what handful of photos to upload...
One place to put the photos. I am not going to waste my time posting my photos on the latest greatest social site. They can see links to my own site from there.
I can show them in high resolution, I can display them however I want and I can control them in case the other site disappears. Also, I can make them freely available and easy to find.
always done it that way and gives me more control
Presence of face tagging, size of community, exposure to the greatest amount of people (they receive notifications that photos are up).
It allows me more control
Easy, Flexible
Easy, simple
I like being in control of how and where they are displayed
let's me control the experience, low cost, full size images retained, I'm a bit of a geek!
It is easy to upload and share, and the photos are tagged (people) so are easy to find.
access control; can host full resolution files; no space limits
Question 4 should allow more than one answer. I post photos on different sites for different purposes. I use Gallery for a large music community site, where the pictures I post are of a particular purpose - bands at rock shows. I use social network sites (primarily Facebook) for posting pictures of a more personal nature; friends, family. These also tend to be taken with my iPhone rather than my digital SLR.
It's cheaper to host pictures on Flickr than on my own website
SAfer and allows for higher resolution
I have full control over my photos and can set arbitrary permissions (htaccess)
I prefer running Gallery on my own website because it gives me greater control over my own photos and it does not cost me anything over the web hosting I already pay for. I avoid posting on social sites like Facebook because I don't know how those photos will be used, and I have less control over how they are grouped and displayed, and what sizes are available, etc.
to be able to remove them again...
I don't trust other photo sites due to privacy and loss of control of the photos.
- Ease of upload from my apps - Auto multi-size thumbnail generation - Pleasing appearance of gallery - Retaining control of my images (I host my own gallery)
Because I want to control the service completely.
my work - my domain :-)
I like to have control over my own photos
It's the easiest way for people to get access
So I don't need to maintain a server.
3rd party services come and go, are expensive (Flickr is pretty useless without paying) and your photos disappear when they do.
I like to keep the photos on my own server and I like to be able to track who sees them.
Easy upload, easy access for everyone
I have control over them
Control, unlimited capacity
More control of the photos.
I have Full Control - I can keep 'tabs' on them and host them in a way that I like.
Because I have complete control of the photos.
Using Gallery2 on my website allows me to get the exact look and feel that I want. Also, most of my family doesn't use Facebook, etc so using my homepage allows all of them to view the photos.
I want to keep control on my photos. I don't want Facebook, Flickr or other company to access them, it's my private life
Gives me more control over how they are displayed and allows highest quality.
More control
Because I have full controll (in the sence of security) over the pictures and only have to upload them once.
Control over many aspects including who can see what, how they are displayed, watermarks, website design.
None of the solutions I'm aware of give me the control I want over who sees what and the experience they have while viewing my photos. In other words, I'm a control freak.
data security, ownership and distribution is solely handled my myself.
Family can view photos at any time, from any place. Plus: I do not trust places such as Flickr, etc.
Better control of the photos and backing them up
I have control over them
It lets people view my photos from any computer, any time they're interested. My photos are in the context of my web site.
I don't really like email but its convenient for the occasional use I have. Plus its semi private without needing to explain passwords and stuff to people.
disk space
No photo-hosting or social site has the features I require: ability to view or download original image, easy navigation via thumbnails, hierarchical organizing, meaningful URLs, reading EXIF, simple command-line imports.
A repository as well as nice layout. My site; so not giving away control.
I have control over who sees them.
my own website!
Easy to share many photos at a time.
ease of use lots of good plugins for other service (e.g. flicker and photo printing: moo.com or blurp.com)
I have complete control/ownership over the pictures.
1/ To have control on how the photographs are displayed and quick access to make changes. 2/ There is still un-certainty about copyright when photographs are posted on a social network site / Photo sharing site. Beyond that, all of these sites have multiple caches around the globe. Deleting a photograph does not mean it will vanish. That can take weeks and weeks.
That's where the people I share with are.
Don't have to inform people, is automatic. Perhaps an auto post to Facebook or Twitter would be a cool feature.
Fast, easy, NO ADS!
full control of layout
I want to keep my photos on my own server, within my own control, so I don't lose them if a hosted gallery goes down.
Most control over photos, practically unlimited disk space.
I have control over how the photos are used and retain ownership of them. Privacy violations and user agreements are a MAJOR reason why I dislike using social networking sites, flickr, etc. for photo sharing. Gallery enables me to better control photo distribution and ownership rights.
My own photos site is totally under my control. I have about 15GB of photos on it, always growing. None of the online services let you have anywhere near that many photos. Additionally I prefer to have the photos exactly as they came out of the camera - no cropping or playing with levels etc. The online sites all mess with what you upload in order to make them "look better".
When I E-Mail photos I have more of a sense that the person received my photo.
It is extremely simple to e-mail photos.
better printing options with smugmug
people know i update my photos regularly...i don't have to email 100 people...then know to just check out the website.
More control over presentation and "ownership".
Notifications. Give me a way for new albums in gallery to appear in facebook. Or export to facebook.
Plenty of pix
I have full controll of my own pictures. I can tailor needs, like password-protecting albums. It is a nice way to keep many pictures in a structured way at the same place.
don't have to worry about flikr going out of business. I can tailor the features I want. it's cheap.
I have control of how they are presented and used within the framework.
because i can share with whomever i want, regardless of which social network they're on (or whether they're my friend on, say, facebook), greater degree of control over photo presentation, integration with other parts of my site, e.g. travelogue (note: i do also use facebook to share photos)
Easy and fast
I use Gallery because it provides me the control I want, without the storage limitations third party providers often have.
It is just easier and i like having control over who can see what.
Control of all aspects of presentation and ownership.
I only need to manage 1 repository of photos.
Fast easy. I don't have Gallery installed on the internet yet.
ease of use. control over who gets them
Ease of use. Community comments.
I'm a programmer / sysadmin. I like having the control over hosting on my own server. I'm putting the photos up as a record or a repository, and am not that interested in being part of a larger photo community (although I do have a few pictures up on Flickr too).
Control and ownership
My website is my business so I like to have the control of how my photos are displayed. It is much more professional than using photo hosting services.
Because the full-resolution pictures stay on my local server (backed up, etc.).
Total control. No space restrictions. Free of monthly cost other than internet access.
I have no storage restrictions, I can control access to the pictures, I can post the pictures in whatever resolution I like, I can monitor which pictures are being viewed
Gives me total control
I have total control. No limits on disk storage.
easy Upload, easy Sharing, easy Access for Friends, password Protection possible
I share at my computer with people who are in my presence. I used to use Gallery, but since facebook took over traffic to my site has died. My wife primarily posts pictures online and she uses Facebook.
They are *my* photos, not Facebook's...
Easy to reach many people... but I use ALL of these methods virtually equally, as each situation varies (Have stopped posting on my website because it seems too hard to set up gallery to protect the photos).
I have fine grained control over presentation, with very little visual clutter for the viewer.
I have complete control and ownership
I use Smugmug: 1) unlimited space 2) they deal with updates to the software, not me 3) visitors have free access to full resolution originals 4) visitors can purchase prints from gallery
Share on the Family website
control, backup, ease of use - i sometimes upload from the camera to gallery, and since it is on my server and i run the tapes. i know i have a backup.
I know the recipients will get them.
It's free, and I have a lot of control over appearance.
It gives me the most flexibility but allows for the best control without e.g. having to transfer rights to third parties.
It gives me flexibility and options not available via other methods by using Gallery.
Actually I use many channels to share my photos: own blog, flickr, Gallery, Twitter. It's important to me, to be able to integrate my photos from one channel to another.
Control, not relying on someone else for sharing, not directly giving someone else my photos. Ad a bit as fun/hobby
Free and online 100%
Everyone I know is automatically notified I have uploaded new images, and it allows me to restrict galleries to certain people.
I receive more feedback
The photos stay under my control. I don't want to post personal pictures on public sites.
Sharing using my own web site puts me in control of presentation and access. It's also cheaper when I have large collections of photos I need to host.
Because most of my photographs are family or family history related and I want to maintain control over access and distribution.
I have full control of the photos and can provide full resolution copies for download as well.
I like building websites!!!
because everybody can see it and I have the controll over my pics
Easier to discuss/explain/brag about pictures when you're looking at them in person (even better than video chat!).
I like having control over my own website
Full control over access rights, presentation
my own website is under my control
I retain control over who sees what and when. I have found no other site which enables password protection on individual albums.
I have full control and I am a geek.
I have control over my own data.
It gives me more control about how I show them and to who I show them.
More control over my photos and no ads.
I get to have total control over the pictures and the site.
Pictures are available but not widely known, and I can post any size including originals
it gives me an archive of full resolution photos that I can work on at any time, and i'm not dependant on a 3rd party to maintain my data or preserve the original version of the image.
Because then I control the photos and who sees them, though facebook is a regular place for posting some photos as well.
Convenency
I run Gallery on my own server, in my house, so I'm in control of everything (setup, configuration, backups, etc.).
Ease of control, and satisfaction in being "master of my own destiny". Also appreciate the interaction between Gallery and my GLoSS screensaver for Gallery, which I use to "push" photos on to my family's desktops.
Control over my photos, and who gets to see them.
I have control over the photos. I can delete them and know they are deleted.
It is easy, allows my family & friends to view my photos at their leisure, doesn't crowd-up mail space and download time on my friends computers (unless they want it to), allows me to maintain control of my photos and doesn't subject my family and friends to signing up for some photo service that they don't want to join in the first place.
It's the easiest way to reach the people I know.
Convenient for 1-2 photos at a time. Like gallery for larger collections.
I don't like the way photos are presented on other sites.
On my own website I control everything. On site like Flickr, Picasaweb, etc I can't extactly set the rights for the visitors and I can't control the sizes for the pictures and I am not realy sure that they don't 'loose' my pictures. Sociale-network sites are even worse. Email becoms complicated if you have to send 250 photos to 10 family members. I do share some of my photos as prints.
Easy to send out links, as well as track visitors
I have total control over photo permissions and I have unlimited space. I also get to customize how the photos are presented, to be consistent with the rest of my website theme.
easy of use
ease of uploading from photo management software (picassa web)
Allows people to "pull" desired photos instead of me "pushing" photos onto them; gives me control over presentation and organization.
I have nowhere to host a Gallery installation and I do not wish to make pictures available to corporations running photosharing sites.
everything under control
I have control over them.
Convenience. I do also have some on my own gallery2 based site.
i prefer use my own server.
full control over my work
Right now, the FB module/interface is easy. I was originally doing so with Gallery 2 (w/ Drupal) but join and interface of G2 was not very "friendly" for general users. If gallery was able to import from FB as well as develop an easier interface that would be great. I haven't checked out the current Beta version yet.
It gives me the greatest control.
time upload, many times download; I can dictate way of presentation; possibility of social comments; receiver doesn't need to have image software
It is easy and they remain until I decide to remove them
less limitations on size, amount of photos, disk space used, and they are on my own server, so I have control over data security.
Recipients not on internet or just prefer prints.
Storing my own photos, control over look and feel of gallery.
Maximum control
No size limit and I can customize it the way I like
It's easy and gets to the people I want, fast.
control
Club website, -so others can post to Gallery as well. More control over Gallery than with Flickr etc.
Easy sharing for a bunch of people and with less time need.
I'm not giving up my rights with my photos. Easier to control who can see my photos if I don't want the whole world to have access to them.
It's the easiest way to get them to a place where people can view them with a smidge of security.
Control of the albums and privacy from search engine bots.
Easiest way to share my photos with others. Easy to use. Allows me to organize and display my photos as I want them to be seen.
have the flexibility to control and manage.
It's easy
I've secured my photos in gallery with a username/password check via cookies
To share their happiness with Enhance the relationship between Kill time
Simplicity of sharing. Also, it's a single place to keep my thousands of photos.
For sharing to people I have as contacts, Facebook is easiest - people often check Facebook, but not my sites [I run a few sites] There's another group - people I don't know; big and somewhat fuzzy, but can include photo editors. This group's my main target w websites, inc using Gallery software {I haven't tried Flickr, say] So, optimising for web searches important to me: something I've posted about and received help for in forum. I can also send links to people who may be interested in my photos. Plus, on a couple of siges, give people opportunities to post and show off their images.
1. total control over my site 2. cost 3. 24/7 avilability 4. anyone anywhere in the world can access
Using Gallery on my website gives me total control over how I share my photos - I love it!
I want control of my photos
Not comfortable in my photo residing in someone else' server
I need not share my photos with a 3rd party.
-
because it is my own server.
I use G2 for now, as mostly a place for primary backup of my photos. If I can sometimes share them with family and friends, all the better :)
Ease of access to most people I know.
Mostly because it allows me to enforce better privacy for the posted pictures (online access, search engine indexing,...) and to retain full control over my content.
affordable, have enough disk space, control - I want to control who sees it and what is shown to whom, I host my server, fast - lan connection to the site, no small limit - I use about 1 GB and if I had to pay for it I would have to pay about 4$ a month - for a year it would be about 50$ and this is already considerable.
I'm the owner of my website and the I can do what I want...
1. I like having control of the photos I share (size, description, etc) 2. I like managing and owning my photos
With my own website I retain copyright, I retain control over how they are presented. I can notify my friends and family when they are available and I know where they are even if some dot com goes belly up.
Face book maintains the servers ... sharing is a breeze ... as all 'friends' are on the site. Free.
like to have control over my photos and take care of disaster recovery on my own. I also don't like the idea of signing over the rights of my photos to a site like facebook. Plus you're mostly limited in the size and quality of thumbnails etc, on these social networking sites.
Copyright and ownership control. Theme flexibility Feature flexibility
privacy control
Full control over presentation
Beïng in full control. - Easy acces trough my own domain.
I primarily post photos on our soccer Fanpage season per season www.doyouplaysoccernet/g3/
easy and flexible for other people to browse my photos, but i have full control over my files and my gallery
rights
possibility to group photos in ad-hoc networks (post-conference)
most easy way, despite the size limitation
Not subject to approval by someone else
I want to control how, when and to whom I present my pictures - and I don't see a reason to use social networking, photo hosting or other commercial or non-commercial sites and services for somethin I can do myself as well. I like to be in control of what I do, especially on the net.
I like to stay in control of my photos. Also like the learning of new technologies, etc.
Community. Feedback helps me to learn and seeing the work of others inspires me.
I prefer to host photos on my own website because I can have full control of the site. I don't like hosting my photos on publicly available 'free' websites because of convoluted terms and conditions and privacy agreements.
Adding photos to an established social network allows me to easily share the photos with my friends and draw their attention to them. Although Facebook only allows low res photos, for most purposes that is OK. Tagging is good too, and it's the main reason that I upload to Facebook more these days than my gallery2 install. I would use gallery more for photos I wanted to share with everyone online. Although I don't have a flickr account, I suspect that it could meet more of my needs, although being able to restrict access to photos to certain user accounts in an advantage in gallery.
ontrol over the photos, no limitations, and ability to switch platforms (no lock-in). Also - Gallery gives me access to many features lacking in hosted solutions (webDAV, load from server, etc).
Control and ownership of my own data, plus I'm a bit geeky
Control of who can see the photos
Because I sell photos and send them by email instantly
Community sharing; to reach many people I don't know. So that, I share my point of view with a huge number of audiences.
gives me complete control.
effectivity, accessibility
I have more control. I also like the ability to download/access the full size/uncompressed version, easily.
I want to control all the flow : storage, access, gui
more control over presentation
security / control / privacy
I have full control over how my photos appear on line
Full control of access rights; do not give away intellectual property
convience
Control over quality Multiple resolution Maintain control over use of images and metadata
It is easy for me to maintain, an organized layout to allow people access to photos that they are interested in.
I like to have control over my photos
No distractions to pull people away from my content
Presentation, management, wider audience, control
Because I was using Gallery before flickr/etc came about. Recently, I've been considering moving from Gallery to an iPhoto/flickr combo.
Because I have full management of my pictures, knowing that they only are displayed and used by myself
Free, unlimited storage, full control over the appearance, easy to remember URL
Because facebook shows a status update to your friends, it's the easiest way to have people see a few pics.
Its the easiest way to share with friends and family and for them to interact with the pictures (leave comments, etc)
hosting on my own site allows more control over the photos presentation, and availability, without releing on third party sites to host (and potentially to remove with little or no notice) content.
Tight integration with Picasa.
Publishing my photos from Picasa to PicasaWeb is easy.
Private website/ weblog with password.
It gives me most control over the presentation and access.
I have total control of my photo gallerys layout, functionality etc. And storage usage is not a problem when I run my own server.
Allows everyone easy and immediate access
I like to control the visual look of my galleries. I also like to control my own photo backups. I frequently upload large batches of full resolution photos (so family and friends can download full resolution copies) to Gallery 2 using the F-Spot plugin. Works great, even my wife can do it!
easy...
Makes an album for later use/archive.
because I like to have total control over our family photos. For example I've written scripts to export and optimally resize pictures in selected sub-albums to various digital picture frames.
Privacy and ownership concerns
I like to have control of my photos.
amount of pictures not feasible externally. want to maintin cntrol f my images
for convenience and security
I like to retain control of the hosting of my photos. I'm also a computer hobbyist so I like to build my own net "things", such as having my own personal gallery. One very important goal for me is able to do scripted processing and upload of photos on the Linux platform, eg. "upload all of these 300 photos in 5 directories to my gallery" which is not so easy using eg. Flickr or other gallery services which primarily use a browser-based upload mechanism.
i take many pictures. own gallery gives others opp. to choose pics themselves
i like having control of my photos and controlling who can see what. At the same time it is nice to have a secure family repository for the whole family to share.
-complete control on the access permission -use as a central archive on all my originals, while having easy access -no size limitation -privacy reason
It's easier
Greater control and security.
Easily seen by the most people/user base.
more people see it
I like the control and privacy on my own website. Secondary would be Facebook or photoshop.com... if they would connect to Gallery better or provide better privacy settings. I like the control of having on my own website and will probably never change that, but might use social networks on occasion when I want to open up to larger groups. Would be nice if the two worked together better (i.e. facebook, photoshop.com, Gallery, etc.)
Easy access for everybody, saves much bandwidth compared to email
it's the most easy way to share the photos in my own way.
i can manage it
easier to manage
easy to control the way it shows.
Fast and easy.
I offer a professional services in my website
business goals
Because I can easily password protect the gallery and give the password to people I want to see the pictures
Users / Clients can select photos and download photos immediately.
I do not want to give my personal photos to people I do not know. I only give access to special friends and family members.
Because of fine-grained user access rights which I can specify in my own gallery2.
Don't like social networks
Control over my own images. Full control over who sees them. I do _NOT_ want my pictures of the kids abused all over the net
Greater sense of privacy, security, ownership, control (than if posted on flickr, facebook, etc).
Full control over pictures and permissions, customization.
I upload primarily only on my own website because most of my photos are personal shots from outings and vacations which i share only with people I trust..I don't like social networking sites like facebook for sharing personal stuff.
The photos are on my server, I can do everything with them, I'm not addicted to an online service, my visitors stay on my site
I use Gallery on my own website because I retain complete control over everything that way.
I'm hosting with gallery2.3. It's a great tool, but I'm missing some professional features
I'm in control of my data and the graphical appearance of the website.
I keep control of the photos. And no adverts. And control of the interface.
Control, independence.
Because I want to control the process from start to finish.
I prefer to have control over my images on my own site
It is the only convenient way to provide customized, high-quality pictures.
full control of my gallery
It is very convenient.
Flexibility
Excellent tagging, notification
I share my private photos with email. And my hobby on web forum. The reason is that everyone who is interested in same thing (forum readers) visit the forum and find there links to galery.
I use Picasa and I like ease of use, especially ease of web publishing : I have all my HiRes photos on my PC, creates an album in Picasa then publish it. Photos are automatically resized. I have (almost) nothing to care about.
Because I can do everything I want (choose which code to use (gallery!!), modify source code to fit my needs, ...)
I feel that I am in control
No preference, more of a habit.
Flickr is easy to use and attractive.
Full control, no disk limits
i have my own page, so sharing this way is best for me
easier to manage, inexpensive, total control
Because then people can choose themselves what photo they want to dowload for themsleves. It also takes away the teasy task of burning disks for many people and it takes up less material (cd-roms or dvd´s etc). More over other people who shot photo´s at the same accasion can upload their photo´s too.
I use Flickr (moving to Gallery 3) because of ease of use.
I've full control of my website. I would not ever use hosting for my pictures or email or anything else
Full control
I feel to be in control of who is using my fotos
Because it is one stop place for all our family photos and anyone that knows us can stop and see what is new with us.
-Refined permissions control -Extra Security -Ability to upload large amounts of high quality images -More private
convenience
easier
Gives me control of the photos forever
They are backed up, secure, won't be deleted. Anyone can view from anywhere with the URL.
This way I can control how the site looks.
Control over content, professionalism, branding, etc.
ease of use
I can upload more than one photo at a time.
I want one location where my friends/family can visit to see my photos.
Promotes my business
Because I have the full control over my website
To keep track of visitors and hits.
Total control over my fotos.
Options for comments, thumbnails, etc.
I am using gallery2. Like to have full control of my photos.
I want to have total control on my photos.
> quick to share several Gb of photos > I share with desired people only
I want control over my photos; I don't want to sign up anywhere as I don't want to give my data away; I don't want to force anybody to sign up anywhere to see my photos. Sending photos directly via Email is really slow and fills up other people's inboxes.
I am used to Gallery for a long time (several years). However, I think to migrate to Flickr or PicasaWeb since the admin UI of these products is quite good, interface with Lightroom is very good (can not easily re-upload from LR to Gallery). However, wieving UIs in Flickr and Picasa made me not do it yet (I would prefer something more customizable, neatier UI).
Much larger control.
As I have full control of how my site looks like and how I want to organise my own site
Website allows photos to be shared with friends and family easily and is good mechanism of storage. Personal website provides some privacy.
Because they look great! Very fast to view, review, download and enjoy them. And I can always make my personal backups of the mysql database + albums and restore in case of hard drive problem.
Full functions, copyright, full control
To have or to give Photos which were made on a birthdayparty or at other activities.
I just like privacy.
It's MIdical Images
Dog breed website, have open galleries for visitors.
Full power over appearance of the site and integration with my other sites. Also, I like using my webserver as a method of backup of my photos.
easy
It allows me to control the entire process and "own" the photos myself. I am able to create easy ways to access photos for less computer literate family members and create easy to understand/navigate groupings of photos for various events.
I like having control over the system and my files.
A couple of reasons. I only post photos to my Gallery site when I feel like they are worth sharing with the public. Email is generally for more personal photos and it typically faster than posting for me.
This program has allowed me to setup my daughters web site to display her Photography work in a way that would not be possible otherwise.
More organized, better control.
As it's been said many times... i like sharing 'my' photos and other media in 'my' website, where I can ssh 'my' own server...
they can see them and I don´t have to send them... just call it ... leasy
for families and friends
I have control over them. It is my responsibility for maintainance. I can have as much storage as I want for my 15,000+ photo collection, at no additional cost besides buy another hdd. Plus video.
It's easier and I can make all the settings suit all my needs
Because I control who has access to the photos and who does not. And I have integrated my photos into my other website content.
I have control over my pictures and I own them.
have complete control over pictures like the interface
It's more personnal
I can control the size of the image. Most social-networking sites (e.g., FB) and photo-management sites (e.g., Flickr) have a single size they present.
Because I like having a gallery of images that I have taken, and I can just give a user a login so they can look through whatever I have...
-Integration with my buisness website for same look and feel as well as control on how they look. -secuirty of high res images -integrate sale of images into website -cost -speed of image to web production
Because of the wider audience that those sites attract compared to my own site. I also enjoy being able to tag the photos and group them with related images taken by others.
In the past I shared photos on my own site (and community installation of Gallery) exclusively. I now put photos that I take with my camera up on my site and photos I take with my phone on facebook due to the ease of uploading them with the facebook app. If I could easily upload photos from my phone to my gallery instance I would use gallery exclusively. I prefer to upload photos to my own site running Gallery because of my requirements which I can't meet with another solution. Those requirements are :
- retain original resolution photo for archival purposes, or for printing
- make photos viewable on the internet by anyone
- allow for multiple users since my installation of gallery is used by my entire community
- cost nothing
- feel confident that outside of traditional backups, my photos are safe where they're hosted and I'll have access to them always. I won't need to move them to some other location in the future and notify everyone of this new location because some company has gone out of business. Flickr costs money. Facebook doesn't keep the original photo. Other sites I don't trust to stay in business.
Larger target (upload once, share with multiple groups).
Control, size, ease of use (for us, not necessarily the recipient), mixed functionality.
Because it is the easiest way I found to share them to all my friends, plus technical reasons.
unlimited hosting space, greater control over format of website
Easy, virtually free, and allows for photo archives.
They're under my control and they can't be deleted just because that company goes bankrupt or closes the free service or whatever. That way I can also decide how the gallery shall look like and all the things like that. I'm just independent.
I hate filing up peoples mailboxes.
Control freak
Ease of use, ability to easily send photos multiple ways and automatically send updates to my friends
Complete control and avoid advertising clutter.
I host my website on my home computer running Apache2 and Gallery2. I do this to save on hosting cost and because the very small audience for my website does not justify spending money on a hosting provider. Also this lets me send a link via email to people when I have new pictures instead of clogging up peoples email with large attachments.
I prefer to host my own photos but until I complete converting my sites to Drupal with integrated Gallery I am using Flickr and Webshots.
I use facebook because most everyone already has an account which makes it easy for them to view and comment. Even though I run gallery, it's time consuming to create logins, manage permissions and maintain the site.
control of look and function
1. I don't depend on another entity to remain up or in business. 2. I can let friends/family download full-sized images 3. There is a lot of flexibility / customizability.
More control
This way I have full control over how to present the photos.
It's fast and inexpensive
Using my own website is convenient (online access), but more private than social networks or flickr, e.g.
In my own web site
Because I don't need to worry about the space it consumes or processing issues
More control over image quality, layout, presentation.
Gives me control over how are they displayed; no banners and other annoyances.
Because of the ease of use with iPhoto for exporting photos directly to Picasa web. For special occasions I use my own website for pictures but it requires manual work each time.
Because most people can see them without me having to reach out to them directly
Control, privacy and flexibility.
because I have control over the data
Simple rights management
Sending photos via email clogs up the boxes. I don't like uploading my photos to social-networking sites because I don't like the idea of giving control of my personal information to a company to post as they would. I used to use a photo-hosting site, but then it said it'd delete my photos if I didn't make a purchase. So, to forstall that and all the preceding issues in the future, I just post on my own site.
Control of presentation, control of files, control of IP, quality of images, habit.
I would never post any of my photos on facebook for instance.
Photos interesting in itself are accessible for the public domain.
I have greater control over storage, photo sizes, presentation etc. I can set up my own style of online gallery - mainly for club use to share member photos.
I like having complete control of my photos and what can and can't be done with them.
easy of use
it's a secure site. i don't like opening my life to the public.
I like to be in control and not be limited to what I can do with my album
The pics are somewhere I know where they are, not on someone else's website (in the "cloud") somewhere, so I know I can get them back :)
because i want people without facebook and other social networking accounts to be able to read about me and my family
I like the degree of control and flexibility. Also I don't like my own photos being hosted on someone elses server
It is easier than trying to get all the permissions down in Gallery
Security Control No limits
Sharing on a site is less "intrusive" than sending by mail (expect for one or two pictures — generally funny ones). Sharing on my own site is important for me to keep the control. That don't exclude share on "social" site (like Flickr) to share in a "social way" (I mean getting comments…).
A collection can be build. Endless possibilities to arrage photos in a nice way without too much effort. Photos stay under my control on own website (opposed to Facebook and Co) E-Mail is not efficient + Spam Problem => Web is the good choice.
This way, I own the photos - I don't have to worry about the photo-hosting site going out of business and/or changing their policies, storage limits, etc.
The "free services", like Facebook and Flickr are usually limited. I already have a server, so I can profit his space to keep my photos.
Control, Flickr has been used more and more lately however. Openness is good.
I can't trust web based systems to protect my copyright.
ease of use on facebook, quickly communicates existence of new photos to friends
I can fully control the photos to be seen by whom, and no quantity, no quality, no bandwidth, and no capacity limitation on my own website.
Its my own server
1. It serves as my single photo management software (ditch the Picasa!!!). 2. All data are local in my PC under my total control. Not afraid of 3rd-party service outage / data loss, etc.
Get the most people to see them. I have total control of photo posting. Gallery also allows me to post comments easily with each photo.
Genealogy site
Hosting my own pictures gives me greater control over the layout, permissions and ability to backup/sync my photostreams with other forms of media/hosting (rsync backups, etc)
control over full res, easy way to let others download them, way to customize themes, no limits on upload/storage.
I can take the sharing of my photographs into my own hands.
It is easier for me to post the photographs to my own site, allowing those who want to look at them the ability to. Sending out a mass email with photograph attached uses up their bandwidth and mine, when they might not be interested in viewing them.
Control, who can see the photo
I wrote my own set of scripts to create HTML pages from a set of photos I want to publish
to keep control and protect my rights
Control over my own content
I prefer to have full control over my photos.
I want to control what happens to the photo and i do not want to get into any legality issues like facebook etc where your photo is still kept in the back even if you delete it. I want to assign permissions and etc etc. All the AWESOME features G2 has and hopefully G3 will have better features (whenever it comes out)
I own the pictures.
I have full control about what happens with MY fotos.
Have own domain name and can customize Gallery the way I like. Also have lots of storage space at minimal cost.
Share photos in Flickr is fast and easyp
I want to keep the photos on my webserver.
More availability to everyone
More control.
Flickr has excellent usability.
Space, Control, not wanting to pay for Flickr.
Habit - it was the only real option when I started.
We are moving to gallery 3 as soon as there is wordpress integration, but prior most photo programs were harder to integrate, and beasts to run and configure how I desired them, so I just took the easiest route and used web apps like facebook to distribute them to the people I wanted. We do have lots of photos online right now, but that's been primarily as a backup until now.
I feel better to host my own photos.
Because it's my business, I am familiar with how it works, and I can post a URL from my gallery to other places on the web.
n/a
Want more direct control over my own stuff, so don't generally post to other web sites. Had gallery running a little while back, but it was a pain. Seriously thought about creating my own that worked the way I wanted it to, but no time. Used Apple's MobileMe gallery - it works very well, especially the ability to email pictures to add to an album - however I wasn't willing to pay even more money for yet another online service and I did not like the lack of security granularity on the MobileMe galleries.
When it comes to my personal photographs, I don't like the idea of having the flowing around anywhere on the web.
Security
We are a non profit and we need to let people know what we do and how we help.We do alot of events and also take picture of the event for the miltary familyies so there love one can see them.
I have control over who has access to my photos.
That way i have full control over access etc.
I like to keep everything on my own domain.
Control, ownership, ease of access
I use SmugMug, which has a good archival back end. I maintain ownership and the site performance and features aren't tied to my own time to implement them.
Easier to upload pictures than our Gallery. No need to send an email when there are new pictures.
They remain under my control, I can customize the album and experience as I wish
Don't need to read a zillion pages of EULA to find out if i keep the copyright to my own images
I can post as many as I like and organize them how I like.
Quick and easy and all in one place.
Easiest way to allow people to see my photos without everyone on the internet having access to them. I'm not quite sure how to set up a home server without worrying about security all the time.
- Greater control of access and content ownership - More personable (not so cookie-cutter like facebook, although I have an account with them) - More options - better user user/group permissions system and security All of the above made possible with your Gallery 2.x :)
I like having an archive, and a central location for all comments. Except that I get very few of them on my Gallery, and many more on the rarer occasions that I upload to Facebook!
I controlling the look and feel of my site. It's in my control from a privacy perspective. I also enjoy the enhanced functionallity I gain from running the site on my own.
the easyest way possible, mostly I do it while travelling so it has to be simple and secure on old computers
I like having a bit of control and Gallery2 offers all the bells and whilstes (and probably a bit too much more) that I need.
Complete control over my files, hosting options, customization.
It's easier for many people to get access to my photos.
Accessible; I can link to the image from anywhere. Also, it serves as a backup of sorts.
Complete Control
Because I feel safer.
They are photos of our asociation
I prefer it for the community.
my own website: i own the pictures, no adds, i have full control.
Control.
Because I can control access to my photos. I'm too old to put my private life completely in public...
My own site keeps the photo's under my own control as mush as possible.
keep my copyright and controll about the picture use
It's easy, and I have full control over who may access the photos.
Control over my photos. Organization and archiving of photos. Backups. I can change themes and other options without worrying about whether or not the administration of the computer allows it.
I don't like posting my pics on websites i can't control.
I maintain control over the original files
I am a real geek and I want to use the tool I prefer. Using own web server, hence no limitation on storage & co
I have just shut down my own photo website (zimcontract.com). Gallery, Coppermine etc did not achieve what I wanted, and were not compatible with my webhost. Generally I want GOOD use of IPTC data and geolocation, ease of upload, with versatility in page building. Flickr gives me the IPTC/geo options and the linking options give me great versatility in building pages elsewhere. My own php scripts gave me much the same but with a lot more work!
Because they don't have to remember the URL
It's the easiest way to share with friends and family for me.
Less intrusive crap than the social sites
Because some of them access offline
I prefer to have full control over my photos.
Control, baby. Control.
one-click hosting solution like imageshack etc. is easy and fast to use. and there are even enhancements/applications which allow to upload directly from the OS-GUI by right-clicking a file and selecting an appropriate option. It then hands back a link to the image/thumbnail etc. for easy and fast distribution.
I can organize them the way I want. I can select which photos to share and still manage them on my hard drive. It's easier for relatives that aren't computer savvy. I share many pictures at a time and so it would clog others' inboxes.
Bulk - I have 10.000+ photos on my own server...
I use my online photo gallery primarily to share with my family, but I also use it as an off-site/DR backup in case something were to happen to our home PC. I prefer hosting the photos myself because I have chosen a web host with unlimited disk space and unlimited monthly transfers. I do not like having to worry about space constraints and paying for a service that may or may not continue in the next year or two years. Lastly, I like to tinker with hosting my own web page as a bit of a hobby.
Better control over the content and how it is presented.
Ease of use.
I have control over them.
I have full control over my server and Gallery installation. Easy customization, expansion, sharing, right managements.
More control.
Networking sites are very reliable and never fail to work with things like thumbnails and also they have some photo editing feature. But Gallery would be my first choice to host and share them.
Ease of controlling access
I have control over who sees and downloads the photos.
Easier, centralized, and can control where files are stored and managed.
fro sharing and friendship only.
1. control 2. easy to share, not carry-ing disks or sending bulk emails.
Easy to use.
I strongly prefer to host photos on my own website so that I can have control over the photos. Such as being able to set access permissions so that the people in the photos can view them without having to make the photos available to everybody else in the world as well.
Target audience.
I don´t prefer that way. Until shortly it was the most suitable/reliable way to get photos across the globe. This due to lack of having a server/NAS available.
the photos are available to everyone immediately, at any time; on my own website I have unrestricted control (as opposed to flickr etc) and can display images without 3rd party adverts - and I like the interaction via comments, ratings etc
Everybody is there and can see my photos simply. Comments can be left by other people as most of them have a flickr account. It's simple to upload using Shozu from my mobile phone.
more control over the photos, more professional look to the site.
I like to maintain the server that store the images.
Its easy and available for everyone without having to sign up for something
Ease of sharing, uses less bandwidth overall. More control over use of images.
Full control.
Because I have full control of how and when I want to publish the photos
Easy
I like to have complete control over my photos, their storage and use.
This allows the most control & ease of use
It's easy and there are many people already there. I like being able to post into a group and have others give feedback on the photos.
Convenience and speed.
convenient way to ensure friends/family are aware of new photos.
I use Flickr, because of it's simplicity, the various size options and ability to link to them, the gallery layout, the location of the albums to the right side, and the ability for people to easily leave comments. The meta tags are nice and so is the "add note" function. I used it to store and share all of my photos as well as embed smaller versions of the originals in blog posts. If you all could replicate this, I firmly believe you'd have the very best photo gallery software available and many would be willing to even pay for it.
Fairly easy to do, I have control. Don't like photo-hosting sites in that they rename photos, restrict sizes, have cumbersome navigation, etc.
I want to share my photos without giving them to third parties to avoid unintentional distribution.
Because I have a personal blog that describe my life
I prefer to have full control over the photos and the environment.
We share photos on a strict family basis, as a common photo album, on a password secured site.
I have images on facebook also. To get my images out there.
Easy to let the public know. Total control by myself.
to see their reaction and listen to their opinion to improve my hoppy.
More control over presentation and copyright.
It allows me to index my photos by keywords, which I am currently testing out in G3. It is very important for my clients to be able to search for photos that are relevant to their needs.
Haveing my own server, g2 has been ok for me
Full control (ACLs) + better resolution / files are left untouched.
Less confusion ie: no special viewers required for viewers to download and install. I can make the slideshow and upload it all at once. I control how it looks and there is no advertising. The URL is already paid for, why pay someplace else to host thye photo's
I have complete control over how it looks
Low cost, ease of use, habit
My images are shared in a variety of means, depending upon the image and it's intended purpose -- blog, Smugmug, Facebook, and/or prints. I have no ONE primary means or sharing.
Control
To get comments and feedback from photographers
lightweight quick look, heavy resolution available, comments, nice presentation, non intrusive
I would host on my website more but I currently have a bandwidth limit I need to consider. Also, my hosting site is very nice and easy to use to it's OK for now.
I'm hosting a number of different sites featuring their own galleries or images posted from underlying galleries. This is both personal/family as business and hobby related websites.
Ease of operation, have my own server, possibility to share high-res photos
I'm not dependent on other service providers
they are managed far more easily on photo hosting sites, except that , they give you limited storage or number of photos if you arent a pro member.
No boundaries or limitations. Easier for users to fin local pictures
Easier to show for anyone. Complete control.
My hosting service's viewer stats are nice, and I like being able to take stuff down and edit it whenever I want.
ase of access
I like to use my website as a showcase for my photos.
I like to have my photos critiqued, input whether it be positive or negative can improve my ability to shoot great photos.
I like maintaining control - security and access - of my photos.
I already have my own website and so there is no space limitation and daily upload limits or other restrictions. And i am also already using Gallery to host my photo collection which gives me complete creative control over the presentation of my online photo album!
Better organization, easy of use, mass uploads, privacy policies.
I picked that choice because I began sharing photos more when I started using Flickr in its beginnings. I like the social aspects around the photos and I liked other people seeing my photos and seeing photos of my contacts on there. I could also send links easily to my friends. I posted less personal images there since it was more public. However I did make a couple web sites for trip logs in which I put the photos directly on the sites. I also used Gallery2 a while ago to facilitate sharing of photos after I was on backpacking trips with my friends (1/year). I have since moved and my computer situation changed and I was hosting it at home so I haven't used it in quite a while but I'd like to get a Gallery3 gallery up when that evolves. I'd like to have a Gallery3 be the image backend for a web site about backpacking I'm planning. It would make image processing easier (batch resizing and linking). I may pay for a host for the site in this case. Now I use Picasa to share photos of trips - basically one time shares - because it's very simple to use and doesn't require other people to make a sign in - you can share by a keyed direct URL - and it's not as public. My reasons run the gamut I suppose.
Because I can let others post photos as well without having to sign up to a "commercial" site to do so. They don't have to worry about ads or spam and the like, because it is only ME they are dealing with.
because it's easy for friends to access and have all pics in one place so i dont need backup on hard drive.
Easy to use for posting photos online.
Control over sharing/ownership.
I like gallery because I do not have to use a website I do not know exactly how it works, and I like things under my control, although picasa and friends are slowly winning me over, they are so easy
Flickr is easy to use, fairly priced, and a very fun community. It is also a very reliable hosting site in my experience.
Concerns over visibility and ownership when using third party sites.
easy, fast, = photo archive
Becuase I'd like to receive critiques on my photos, that's why I share my work on sites such as deviant art. Besides, I make a lot of new friends from all over the world, and I am writing comments on their works. It's useful..
Question 4 should be a checkbox. Business photos primarily go on my website, family and friend snapshots on Facebook.
extended users management, control keeping of my pictures
Actually, I bifurcate between Flickr (for "arty" images) and Facebook (for personal and/or family oriented ones) Flickr does a real nice job of not messing up the resizing of the images, and it has a good user-base for feedback. Facebook is less serious, which can make it more fun.
I'm a sys admin, so running services from a system at home (or hosting solution) helps keep some skills fresh. Plus I like to tweak the UI as I see fit.
keeps all information in one place i.e the club website.
more control
No advertisements. More flexibility in customizing site and the way photos are displayed.
Ease of use, free unlimited hosting
Picasa Web albums are VERY easy to upload to and very easy to get started with. There's also an iPhoto plugin. I am trying to set up my own website and host my own gallery using gallery 2 and it's a real pain in the butt to configure and upload photos. I have heard that there are more uploader modules but I'm having a hard time finding and/or enabling them. Browsing for one file at a time sucks. An iPhoto plugin would be the best.
enough space and flexibility
It should allow me to more closely track who is viewing the photos, but this is not always the case.
user database
I do like the ease of publishing them online and making them accessible to others that way, although prints have their pros as well
Control layout, grouping, urls, and presentation
It is my website
It's easiest to share on those websites as all interested parties are often subscribed to my feed.
Control of my images. I like to display them in a gallery I control which is maintained under my own copyright where I can set licensing as I see fit. I don't like the user agreements of third party photo sharing sites that force me to grant them rights to my images, or take away my rights as the copyright holder.
individual best management
own control, possibility to customize everything
I want to be able to control the photos and not rely on others to host my photos
I prefer keep control on my photos publications. I need a login protection and I want to be able to define rights for each user or group.
Because I can share with only whom I choose to share with (short of them forwarding pics on, of course) and it does not require them to "sign up" for anything.
I use all of the above. I like to post my most used photos on Gallery for others to get to in my business. I like to post my personal stuff on Facebook and Blogger.
I am used to e-mailing photos, and it is also within my line of work as a writer/photographer to e-mail photos to external news organizations and publications.
I take a lot of family and friends who do not wish children images on the web. I also take family and child portraits for charity as well as the odd wedding and charity event. I also take landmark buildings, converting them into semi-drawing printed and sold for charity. For "clients" I often set up a web gallery and provide som prints and a disk of their images. Photo prints still have a better shelf life and I can still get images from 100yr old plates and negatives I have taken over 50 yrs ago . . . will .jpegs and RAW still be around in 2109?
because posting to my own website looks is a more direct, personal and professional presentation of my work than posting to social network sites like flickr.
I prefered to share it on my own website so I started using Gallery 2 but it was kind of tough to implement in my site. And as you are all working on a promising new Gallery 3, I'm postponing the sharing on my website
I want to be able to retain licensing control of my photos, a lot of social media sites confuse the origin of a photo and make it hard to attach Crative Commons or similar. I share large volumes of high quality images, if I used Flickr or similar I would most likely fall afoul of both storage and bandwidth limitations. I have my own server for other purposes, sharing photos is a minimal extra use of resources.
flexibility and ease of use to have my own webserver.
amount of data and privacy
I like having the control of the environment. Not only the look and feel, but also who has access to it. There is a piece of mind knowing that they photos are on my system and someone else can't use them for something else.
I have full control with my material.
Easy fast and flexible
I do not want to give away my pictures to an external company.
It is easy to reach far distance and it brings yours near and dear close.
It is a private site that requires a password.
Its easy and straightforward. I also use shutterfly because I make photobooks through their website. I use facebook because my friends all use it, and we tag each other, and comment on pictures.
it is quick, easy and central, plus provides permanent backup of my photos.
Anything else is more work than I can be bothered with.
easier, for both the sender and the receiver faster can easily be forwarded less problems for everyone
its easy,i'm on there a lot anyway.its nice to receive unbiased comments from strangers and i'm very touched that people take the time to do so.
permanent
because it's my own official portfolio and it's a place where I show my photo as first. I decide about rules on this side, and I decide about design of the site.
easy way to share
Safety
I don't trust much on public services.
I have the most control over what happens to my photos
I use photobox because the e commerce side works well
Email/CD are the only way to keep image sets differentiated s.t. the clients or family are unaware of each other. Dont like the socialnetworking thing -- it doesnt present a good image.
I don't own a webserver
A lot of people get to see them, tag eachother etc
Because I like it :)
no limitations in size, no ads, photos are kept private
It's free (well, you know, at least it's only my own time I'm taking up), and I can control the software however I want to.
full control over my images, right management, the albums should grow and always exist
I like to show off my photographic abilities without screaming "I'm an attention whore." This way, friends and family can peruse my photos as they like, they don't have to sit through me lecturing them about the photos, etc. Plus, I'm still young enough to wind up with nearly as many drunken party shots as artistic shots, and those just don't belong on flickr.
Gives me better control over the photos and I don't have to worry about them being kept on someone else server.
It's easy to upload and provides easy and immediate access to the photos by friends and family. Probably the most important feature that social networking sites has is the ability to tag people and notify them that they have a new photo of themselves.
The easiest way with no fuss of maintaining or updating own photo website
Copyright Privacy proctection Access control
I have y own website with Gallery. So it is an easy way to share my photos (they are already on the disk) and I can better control who access to it.
Cheap to do instead of paying for premium services to Batch upload images It is also easier just to put a link to my main gallery page instead of uploading the images on every website I visit.
Quick and easy for everyone to see.
Well, every photo I post both goes on my website and a Photography Forum. I like the critique of the forum, and like to have a clean gallery to show potential clients, friends and family
I used to use Gallery 1 but since Gallery 2, I've not used my gallery much at all! (waiting eagerly for the release of Gallery 3 to reclaim my gallery) In the meantime, I mostly use Facebook and Twitter. Twitter because it's easy to post from my mobile phone. Facebook because I love that you can tag people directly in the photos by clicking their face then selecting their name, then sort by person.
It's the safest way in means of security.
Simply because I control my pictures, not some 3rd party that might change their terms of service, or go out of business.
i'm used to facebook and site like this
I have gallery installed on my own website because I prefer to have the control over my private stuff. Pictures are too big to share via email, and via my own website people also can have a look at them as often as they want, instead to need to store them locally to be able to view them. This also allows to view them at any place where a webbrowser is available.
Private Foto album
I want to fully control the access rights of the different groups of users to different sets of photos.
Because it's really easy and not time consuming.
It is my data. I do not trust others. Unlimited space. Free space. I learn IT from doing it this way. I can fix problems myself.
It works for me. Total control of the look; no advertising.
because I want to control the application, front-end and look&feel. plus: I want to own the content (=photos plus text)
My wife usually does it.
Only one location to post to and only one collection (and application) to maintain.
It's personal and private
simple, more control over my photos, no restrictions on bandwidth or anything else.
Easy to upload and to tag
Like the ability to integrate media into web content
I can manage the access and my copyrights on the photos. I also post to facebook with a link back to my galler2 installation.
I want to share lots of photos. Gallery makes that much easier than other software with gallery remote, and I can have all the space I want on my own server.
High impact access to many concerned eyeballs.
Simplicity. A particular person sees exactly what I want them to, plus it's drag n drop, so it's fast to create and requires very little thought or preplanning. The bad parts would be the upload time and the mailbox storage concerns.
It is easy to control who has access to the photos, they are not just viewable by everyone. Easy to upload.
I can keep photos private or restricted to my friends
For multiple users accessible and under my own control.
Flickr is a large community, I like the way I can tag my photos, I like the way I can search other peoples' photos.
I control the photos, I also have some scripts that backup my gallery to my local PC, this way I'm assured that all of my photos are in two geographic locations
I will admit that i enjoy the social contact of Flickr, but the main reason is to become a better photographer. I do this two ways, 1) watching streams from pro's and talented hobbyists, and 2) begging for advice.
I don't believe in social networks and cloud computing much, I prefer keeping everything on my own server. Lately I have been putting up more pics on social networks but never at the full size.
lots of people can see it all at once with minimal effort
lots of people are using the same application.
Keep control Easy proces I'm used to it this way
Convenience and exposure
Because the club needs it.
It's most convenient. I know everyone can download pictures from there.
Gallery is a very great system. Simple and powerful
because i like the control where my pics are, and the design and function is up to me.
Control. No advertising (I HATE advertising).
Social features, distribution.
Privacy, Security and Control!
I want to maintain control of copy rights and publishing of my photos. Most hosting sites have it in the ToS that any information on or uploaded to, becomes their property.
With my own website, I have control over customization.
I enjoy knowing that the photos are on my own server and under my ownership.
its more secure and maintains the privacy
Public but with granular access control, reliable service, easy to upload to when out and about.
Control of photos and themes and information associated with the photos. To a lesser extend cost—I already have my own website.
there is no better place than my own webserver
Not limited for space / CPU utilization / etc... as with hosting sites.
ease of use
My webpage is kind of my photoblog... I like to add some comments and articles... it is my portfolio also for clients
access control
it is easy and i am not relying on a third party to store them. I would like to use my own website but do not have time to code something myself that is why i am waiting for this application to come out
my website means full control.
Using Gallery gives me control over building photo albums and family live all around the world. Like to point at new entries in Facebook or other social networking but keep the photos in Gallery
More control. Safety.
Moderately easy, under my control, no need to register, Easy to remove or revoke access, Private.
It is easy to lock important picture and have control over all albums
promote my photo gallery in my blog
my site, my server, my shots, my property.
For greater control over who can access and view the photos. Also, Facebook doesn't have a slideshow facility at present. Twitter doesn't seem to allow photo sharing, so I don't understand why you include it in your options here.
I share my photos using a photo gallery on my own site that I am able to control the settings, resolution, access control, etc on.
Total Control
Easy Interface
Control over look and feel, security, identity
To time limit on posts, I then have a repository of my images at is easily searchable.
To keep control of my own content.
Because of unlimited space for my photos.
I run my own sites , mainly social networking sites centered around Motorbikes and Travel and Photography. All my sites are Drupal developed.
I have as much disk space on my own website (Giga bytes of high definition photos). + No adds on my websites.
So I can manage control over who can see what - through passwords and groups. And also track their activity.
Control over quantity, quality, size, and the files themselves (for backup)
I like to have control of what and how I display my images. I dislike most social-networking sites.
Flexibility and no limits. Flexible interface where I can add and remove a different look or method of interfacing is cool. I like Not having size limitations, bandwidth limitations, not having to pay extra, etc is important to me. Many social sites limit file sizes. I want to include my original large format image. I am, however, being pushed away from my own implementation because I cannot take advantage of the easy User-centric interfaces that are out there such as googles Picasa Web Albums interface.
The two biggest UI things i like on modern social photo sites: 1. keyboard arrow-button browsing. Left, right, next pic, previous pic, easy, ajax, yay 2. Album view: Lots of thumbnails, crammed together, no stupid text on each pics, just a bunch of pics in a nice clean simple format. Leave the details, captions, stars, etc, to when you zoom-in on a pic. 3. Though not UI-related, social sites allow other users to interact. Other users with a large-install-base. This is different from allowing users to come and sign up to your specific photosite....no one wants to do that anymore. Integrate with some of the other larger communities out there. Do a universal login paradigm like OpenID. No more making a 100th account to say two words.

Return to survey results main

Personal tools

Gallery3:Season of Usability 2009 Survey, Method explanation

From Gallery Codex