mobile photography technology, culture and community

Facebook introduces shared photo albums


Facebook has started rolling out shared photo albums to select users of their social network. Currently, photo albums are limited to the user that created it, but shared albums will allow users to create a gallery that can be used by as many as 50 friends, each of whom can upload up to 200 photos. The album will have three privacy settings, which include public, contributors, and friends of contributors.

According to Bob Baldwin, the Facebook engineer that spearheaded the project, the problem with the 'old' way of sharing pictures is that 'right now, if you were at a party and there were three different albums created, you might not be able to see all the photos [based on privacy settings], which is kind of confusing and frustrating'. 

The idea for shared albums apparently came from Facebook users and was realized during one of Facebook's company-wide 'Hackathon' sessions. 

An example of a shared photo album, with an owner and two contributors.

English-speaking users can be expect to see this feature soon, while those in other countries may have to wait a bit longer.

Via: PetaPixel, Source: Mashable


Total comments: 15

I do not think Facebook is good enough as many of you already said to solve the problems to collect real good photos from an event. I would go for the services that specialize on the problem. I use which I think have solved the problem in a good way.

mike winslow

I just submitted a bug report on it. create an album, then allow multiple contributors with the privacy scope set to Collaborators only (the only other choice is Friends of Collaborators), then later decide to share out a photo from the album to your friends, then FB ignores the privacy scope of the destination share: eg Share To scope is ignored, and replaced with Share From privacy scope, when share from is collaborator album with privacy scope = collaborators only.

I had to re-upload a photo in order to show it to friends, rather than share it from where it had already been uploaded.


No slideshow? Come on Facebook, it's not hard to do.


Facebook may do whatever it wants but it won't impress any photography interested members unless they fix their horrible resampling of every photo put there... just saying...

Currently it is downright the worst place to share / showcase photos, unless they're just snapshots for snapshooting sake...


worst really? have you seen shutterfly?


Now if only they did something *useful* like allowing a user to *move* an album, with tags and comments to a "page" that would be nice. They might even be able to monetise it.

1 upvote

Nice concept however, it can only be shared within FB and after a while the album is pushed down the stream..

Try PixMix for better shared album experience:
* No registration is required (not only FB users..)
* Keep your photos private – you will always be control over your images
* Photos optimized view
* Simple album creation flow (album creation & sharing is done in 2 clicks)


Finally! Many may scoff, but I currently use Lightroom to Publish the same albums to both my Facebook account and my wife's Facebook account. These are mostly photos of our family that her friends want to see as well as my friends. Yes I have another site (Smugmug) where I regularly upload far more. There are also some photos I only put on my Smugmug site, that I will not post to Facebook. So only a subset of my photos get posted to Facebook, but they get posted twice. It's not a big deal for us since Lightroom does the work. It's just silly. This will make FB a little more usable, but they still suck. The photo sharing features on Google + are so much better (as well as the image quality), but I can't convince most of my friends and family to join.


+1 Google+ is far better and you can see all the EXIF data.

No problem if your friends don't want to join Google+. Just cut the link of your Google album then post in FB.



One big dumpster for everyone.



SCREW facebook


You share everything else with Facebook. Might as well send them your photos too.


Speak for yourself. My rule is if I wouldn't tell the postman then I don't put it on Facebook.

1 upvote

One thing that facebook needs URGENTLY is a less agressive compression algorithm. It's impossible to post ANYthing there that it isn't affected by heavy compression artifacts.


I agree. I often complain to my wife about how some photos don't look as good on Facebook as they look on Smugmug or Google +. She doesn't really see a difference, and I'm sure most Facebook users don't either. As far as social networks go, Google + is much better for photographers. Unfortunately my family and friends refuse to leave Facebook's lame party :-p

Total comments: 15
About us