Online Photo Sharing

Three photo-sharing services lead the pack

Reports say that SmugMug is one of the most powerful photo-sharing services, although it is relatively expensive. The SmugMug Standard subscription (*est. $40 per year) includes a plethora of upload options, unlimited storage, advanced tagging, themes for photo presentation pages, photo printing and image embedding. SmugMug also includes advanced privacy controls and superior backup security, reviewers say. For more advanced users, SmugMug offers a Power subscription (*est. $60 per year) that adds video sharing, custom layouts and disables the ability for users to download images with a right mouse click. For professional photographers, a Pro subscription (*est. $150 per year) adds numerous other extra features, most notably the ability to set your own prices for photos and earn a profit from your work. SmugMug doesn't offer any kind of free photo sharing, but a 14-day free trial is available.

SmugMug draws kudos for implementing features better than other photo-sharing services. FirstTube's Mike Gravel is particularly amazed by SmugMug's "dizzying" array of configuration options and its variety of organizational tools. Dizzying might be the right word, as at least one reviewer says that website navigation can be a little confusing. Still, that's one of the few negatives we saw. As far as other pluses, Photography Bay and Star Reviews test SmugMug's customer service and found it to be highly responsive and helpful. Print quality is also judged as excellent in multiple reports. Users reporting in at Photographyreview.com rate SmugMug head and shoulders above other photo-sharing services; few negatives are cited and most are more than offset by the site's strengths.

While reviewers aren't very impressed with Flickr's paid subscription option (*est. $25 per year), its free photo-sharing account fares much better and is considered by many to be the best current free photo-sharing service. The free account give users access to most Flickr features, such as adding comments, inline captions and advanced tagging to online albums, plus privacy options and a large user community.

There are some downsides, however, and reviewers are mixed on Flickr's ease of use. On the one hand, uploading, creating online photo albums and sharing photos seems to be a breeze, but some complain that Flickr's navigation is not intuitive for those not used to browsing an interface that relies on tagging as an organizational tool.

Additionally, many could find Flickr's free account too constraining. Flickr includes ads in free photo-sharing accounts and limits these accounts to two sharable videos (150 MB maximum each) and 100 MB of photos per month (10 MB maximum per photo). Though Flickr places no limit on the number of photos per account, only the most recent 200 are visible with a free account (though all are stored by the service). Images uploaded on free accounts are re-sized to be no larger that 1,024 pixels along their longest edge. The original images are stored in case the account is upgraded to paid status, but they can't be accessed by others (or even the account holder) without upgrading.

A paid subscription removes the ads, restores access to the original files, provides unlimited photo and video uploads and downloads, lifts the maximum photo size to 20 MB and displays all photos. But it does not provide as many options as SmugMug and Flickr lacks layout customization tools and the ability to make a profit off photo sales. Anyone who wants to view your online albums will always have to register with Yahoo! (which owns Flickr), which aggravates some reviewers.

Although it lacks most of the features of the services above, Google's Picasa Web Albums (free for up to 1 GB of storage) could be a good choice for casual users looking for a simple service that addresses most of their photo-sharing needs. Reviewers praise Picasa Web Albums for its ease of use, lack of ads, and seamless integration with the free Picasa software for photo organization, editing, and uploading. Privacy options are good, and you can limit access to your online albums and keep them out of public view. However, there's no way to stop someone from downloading an image once it is found. You also can't use custom layouts or advanced online organization techniques such as batch tagging and sub-albums.

One of Picasa Web Albums' chief negatives is photo quality. A comparison at the Ben Co. blog compares image quality at Picasa Web Albums and Flickr and persuasively shows that for identical photos, image quality is notably better at Flickr. Picasa's 1 GB storage limit might also be constraining, but additional storage ranging from 10 GB (*est. $20 per year) to a whopping 400 GB (*est. $500 year) is available.

Those just getting into photo-sharing may want to use each of these services as a stepping stone to the next one. Picasa Web Albums is an excellent starting point for new users who want free photo sharing and online photo albums, and do not yet need additional features. When interested in more community and privacy options, not to mention improved image quality, intermediate users can migrate to Flickr and still use Picasa photo-sharing software to organize offline and upload photos once online. Finally, when ready for even more configuration, privacy, and backup options, layout customization, professional-quality prints and even selling photos, advanced users can shift to SmugMug with its Flickr import tool or by continuing to use Picasa.

While SmugMug, Flickr and Picasa Web Albums seem to get the best reception from critics, a few other photo-sharing services also draw some praise for their value and/or features.

Fotki offers both free and paid Premium (*est. $23 per year) online photo-sharing accounts. The free accounts are pretty basic, with advertising, limited photo storage space (just 50 MB), no photo selling and the inability to limit the download of your work by others. Stepping up to a Premium account lifts those restrictions and adds the ability to upload photos via FTP and to create your own website using Fotki or to integrate Fotki pages with your own site.

Reviewers appreciate Fotki most for its community features, including community forums, comments, tagging, journals, e-mail and contests. Like SmugMug, it is praised for its ease of use, unlimited storage and the ability to view public online albums without registering. The availability of toll-free telephone support is also praised. Photo printing from Fotki is competitively priced, and users have a number of layout options available for presenting their photos. Fotki also now supports video sharing. New users can take advantage of Fotki's basic features immediately and upgrade to a paid membership when they need it.

While Fotki's sheer number of features might appeal to some, serious photographers could become frustrated. While Fotki allows users to sell photos for a profit at a fraction of the cost of SmugMug's Pro account, at least one reviewer notes that Fotki's implementation of this feature does not feel as professional as it needs to be for effective photo sales. That reviewer also disparages Fotki's cluttered menu, which slows site navigation.

Although it lacks Fotki's and Flickr's community features, MyPhotoAlbums (*est. $20 per year) shines for its array of printing and gift options (cards, mugs, shirts, books, etc.), as well as its layout customization options for online photo albums. It gets a top rating in the review in The Australian Women's Weekly, though the service ended its free photo-sharing option since that report was written (a 30-day free trial remains available, however). Star Reviews gives MyPhotoAlbums its Silver Star award, outclassing other photo-sharing services such as Flickr and SmugMug. Like Fotki, MyPhotoAlbums is not an attractive choice for professional photographers as it does not have an option to sell photos for a profit. Backup and security features are not as robust as those at SmugMug, reports say.

Photobucket offers both free and paid photo-sharing accounts. While it lacks the privacy options and community features offered by Flickr, it does a good job when it comes to layout customization and ease of use. You can count The Australian Women's Weekly among Photobucket's fans, and that publication rates it higher than any other free photo-sharing service, including Flickr. The storage limit of the free account (1 GB) could be a problem, but that might be enough for users who want nothing more than to post low-resolution pictures for web display on social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace. Photobucket's ability to display customized galleries and slideshows earned praise in reviews. However, reviewers such as Photography Bay suggest looking at something other than Photobucket's Pro account (*est. $40 per year) if you need more storage space or features as it costs as much as the far more powerful and flexible SmugMug.

Snapfish draws a few recommendations, as well. Which?, a British consumer magazine similar to Consumer Reports, recommends Snapfish for "its sheer versatility and thoughtful touches," though the review doesn't do a great job of detailing what those are. David Pogue of The New York Times praises Snapfish's ease of use for printing photos. However, while Snapfish is free and provides unlimited online photo storage, it lacks many of the advantages that other services provide, including public access, community features, layout customization and the ability to embed photos on other websites. In addition, Snapfish is not really free -- that's because users must order prints or other items from Snapfish's website at least once per year in order to maintain their accounts. Considering that Picasa Web Album, a free photo-sharing service, carries no obligation and can match all of Snapfish's well-regarded printing features, there seems to be little reason to keep photos exclusively at Snapfish.