mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com

Facebook introduces shared photo albums

15

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

Comments

Total comments: 15
JCKB
By JCKB (10 months ago)

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 http://photago.com which I think have solved the problem in a good way.

0 upvotes
mike winslow
By mike winslow (11 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
WheelerDealer
By WheelerDealer (11 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
ErdenizS
By ErdenizS (11 months ago)

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...

3 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (11 months ago)

worst really? have you seen shutterfly?

0 upvotes
Peter Galbavy
By Peter Galbavy (11 months ago)

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
Ray33
By Ray33 (11 months ago)

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)

http://pixmixapp.com/get

0 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (11 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
nofumble
By nofumble (11 months ago)

+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.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (11 months ago)

Great.

One big dumpster for everyone.

.

7 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (11 months ago)

SCREW facebook

10 upvotes
Gregm61
By Gregm61 (11 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (11 months ago)

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

1 upvote
neo_nights
By neo_nights (11 months ago)

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.

20 upvotes
sean000
By sean000 (11 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Total comments: 15
About us
Sitemap
Connect