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

Google+ houses healthy community for photographers

88
 Google+ uses Circles to connect users.

The accepted story on the Internet is that Google+ is a ghost town, that Google squandered initial interest in the service by not letting people in quickly enough, and that it’s dead in the water.

Yet, standing in proud defiance of that narrative is a plethora of photographers, who’ve flocked to Google+ and somehow transformed it into one of the most vibrant photographic communities in recent years. 

The gradual exodus of users from Flickr saw many photographers transition to other services: 500px picked up a lot of the slack, and the ubiquity of Facebook made it a natural home for pro photographers peddling their wares. But when Google+ first went live in July of 2011, a core of photographers joined in the first rush, and brought with them enough followers to create a self-sustaining critical mass of users. 

The iPad version of Google+ allows for seamless scrolling through users profiles (image by Thomas Hawk).

Thomas Hawk is one of the most followed photographers on Google+, and he thinks that Google actively went after the photography community.

“Many of the earliest G+ photographers were amongst the most social and active but neglected photographers on Flickr,” Hawk said. “Google+ successfully courted the most social photographers on the web and made a big push towards welcoming these people into the Google+ ranks from day one.”

And though Google exec Marissa Mayer's arrival as Yahoo!'s CEO a couple months ago looked promising for Flickr, the site's first homepage redesign since her arrival, now slowly being rolled out, reportedly removes the Flickr link from its former prominent left nav position, according to Business Insider.

Google+, however, is keeping photographers at the forefront. Google’s Brian Rose pointed out that, “everyone on our team is a photog, whether we shoot with our mobiles or with film,” and that his team constantly monitors feedback on the service, be it through product forums, Google+ mentions or feedback links.

Features for photographers

Unsurprisingly, it was image quality that drew many people into Google+ originally. When the service debuted, images uploaded to Facebook were brutally compressed, leaving them heavily artifacted. While Facebook has improved on that now, since inception Google+ stored photos as  large, gorgeous images inside a sleek UI that blew everything Facebook and Flickr were offering out of the water.

Even at thumbnail scale, Google+ displays images in an arresting and interesting way (images by Thomas Hawk).

Anyone you talk to who was there in the early days agrees that it was the way that photographs looked on Google+ that clinched their initial buy-in. HDR guru Trey Ratcliff put it simply: “photographers spend a lot of time inside Google+ because of the user-experience of sharing photos.  Not only do they look great in the stream, but the lightbox also makes the photos look cool.”

Pulling up an entire album on the iPad shows you the images, and at a glance displays how many comments and +1s they've received (images by Brian Rose).

He’s not alone. Prolific photographer, author and organizer of the Google+ Photographer’s Conference Scott Kelby saw the effect as soon as he joined. “The size of the thumbnails were the size of [every other website’s] big photos … seeing the photos large had a huge impact on me the first time I launched Google+.” Hawk describes the photos on Google+ as “huge oversized images compared to Facebook's postage-stamp-sized images at the time.”

Comments

Total comments: 88
Gary Allman

I think Google+ & Picasa have deficiencies which have not been addressed yet.

They ignore a lot of the EXIF data - in particular the Image Title and Copyright field. Tags only seem to appear in Picasa Web and not in Google+

Kudos to Facebook which actually extracts the embedded copyright statement and displays it.

Google+ and Picasa Web don't honor the formatting of the Description field - jumbling it all up into a big mess, and they ignore any embedded html in the description. Flickr bless it's little cotton socks sucks the image title, description and tags right out of the picture for display - and it keeps selected embedded html too.

Google's commitment to photography is not there yet, otherwise Picasa (and Google Chrome) would know what a color profile is and be able to honor it.

My conclusion is that the Google+ interface looks good, but is lacking in substance.

0 upvotes
JoaCHIP

I guess the need of photographers can be summed up easily by listing all the things Flickr doesn't offer: What we need is a simple and quick reacting UI with a dark background and large images in proper quality.

0 upvotes
raybies

I prefer Skydrive.
I really want to like G+ but skydrive is just so much better for sharing photos... maybe not in the "Social" sense, but in the single sdrv.ms/NGo9aW.

1 upvote
Ivanmckt

Definitely agree. The only reason why I still use my g+ account is to follow famous/regular photographers.

0 upvotes
DafO

G+ won't catch up on the social side (compared to FB) - it's been too late to the game.

If trying to catch the photographer community - then I think one of it's biggest targets is DPReview!
So curious there's an article that seems such an advert on here.

1 upvote
MBStuart

I love it there. I assure you all it is 100% not dead or a ghost town. There is however a learning curve to getting it setup so you're following "photographers"
I currently have over 10K people following me with tons of interaction. I visit daily and truly enjoy it like no other network. We have a Facebook presence too but it's just not the same. Plus with all the new "promote to play" functionality from the FB pages, a lot of people I know are giving G+ a second look.

Feel free to stop by if you'd like help building up your circles with great photographers.
http://gplus.to/mbstuart

There's plenty of room for both social networks, but I'd think again about dismissing Google+

Great article Tim Barribeau thanks for sharing!

(got here via Thomas Hawk!)

0 upvotes
skamalpreet

so whats the story with the person needs toadd you to his circles before you can add him to yours...how do you follow somebody? or connect with somebody...or request to connect?

0 upvotes
napik

Google+ is pretty dead, that´s for sure.
Now that facebook once again changed their policies in restricting the posting coverage of both simple users AND sites, forcing them to pay in the future, let´s see how google+ will develop - it´s by far a better network (usability).

0 upvotes
M Lammerse

A long long time ago I was joining Googles' Orkut. It never succeeded mainly due to the invite only policy, But I think Orkut was more like a test for Google in which way to go by means of social media. Google never gave me the feeling till Google+ that it saw a social media network like Orkut as an important product...now they are too late.

Google with Google+ at least tries not to give the impression to be a commercial network with a social touch. I like the whole circle idea, it's much much lesser cluttered and much more logical and easier to maintain than that Face(facial)book, especially the privacy and sharing settings.

The only reason I use Facebook more is due to that most of my family/friends/colleagues use facebook - that is in my opinion the only power of facebook it has the enormous user base - and that is the key component of any social network, not only for your users but also for your stockholders. :-)

1 upvote
Theeky

The thing is.. you don't choose Google +;
Google + choose you... sooner or later you will be using it!

Besides that you will just love a social website without ads (at least for now).

0 upvotes
Noogy

Strange article. Who is on Google+ among enthusiasts and pros here in DPR? None of my friends who are into photography are on Google+ and since Facebook upgraded its photo capabilities that now allows high-def viewing/sharing of images, FB definitely beats Google+ hands down. How much did Google pay for this article?

2 upvotes
Lupti

Agree. I don´t see a reason for using Google+. Google is trying to force people to use it, not only people with "normal" Google account but also Youtube users.
They want to compete with Facebook, but I really doubt the success.

1 upvote
Richard Murdey

A lot of people hate facebook on principle. I do.

1 upvote
Lee Cawley

The same can be said of Google Richard. If you asked me to name my top ten untrustworthy companies, Google would be top. I would only ever use their services with fictional data, making it a no-go zone for social interraction.

1 upvote
danijel973

This is true, g+ is excellent for presenting one's photos on the web.

3 upvotes
peevee1

Sounds like an ad.

5 upvotes
adtapia

i think i hear the sound of trees falling in a forest...
if you load your images to a site no one will ever visit, what does it matter how pretty they look?

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
Richard Murdey

So the more views they get, the prettier they become?

0 upvotes
Lucky777
0 upvotes
HubertChen

I can't find images on google+ ? Help!
I googled "google plus" -> https://plus.google.com/
I ended up on a page that looked similar to my facebook page. On there I tried every Icon and search field to find this "thriving community of photographers". Zip. Where can I find great pictures? Which web address to use, where to click? I am a little bewildered that this article complaints about the www.flickr.com interface. Yet within seconds I could find galleries of my interest and explore them. I spent an hour flat to find any galleries on google + and found nothing. I am also confused that this Articles is intended to introduce google+ to photographers who do not know google+. Now after trying to use this service I am more confused. Is google + more like facebook to be a posting wall with community linking? After reading the Article and comments I thought this is more like flickr but with a better presentation and with having better community tools as bonus. What am I missing ? Help!

3 upvotes
AnandaSim

Hi HubertChen,

Articles like these are written like some tourist went to China for 2 weeks and writes about China after reading a bit, travelling a bit.

1. GooglePlus is a social network not completely like Facebook and not completely like Twitter. There may be similarities and there are big differences.

2. GooglePlus is NOT a one topic forum (i.e. photography), is not a photo gallery (i.e. not Flickr, not Smugmug). It does have a social community like Facebook, it does have Hangouts (so you can talk video and audio amongst your peers and with some celebs). We use GooglePlus to show photos and talk about taking photos, talk about how we feel, talk about food, hobbies. We use Google Plus globally to be in touch internationally with people we have never met before and we use Google Plus locally to first figure out whether so and so is our type of person before we meet. Once we meet in person, we then use Google Plus to further discuss things and show photos throughout the day, night.

0 upvotes
AnandaSim

If you have registered at Google Plus, add me and we can discuss publicly - discussing with a large group or discussing publicly is what we do often.

http://gplus.to/anandasim

Celebrity Photographers are here:
http://www.recommendedusers.com/most-followed-photographers/

Celebrity following however is not one of the things that we take a lot of time doing. Our peer interaction is I would say more important and enjoyable.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HubertChen

Dear AnandaSim,
Thanks so much for clearing this up. Now it all makes sense! I will try this weekend to get my google + account going and it will be an honor to add you. See you there :-)

1 upvote
skamalpreet

so whats the story with the person needs toadd you to his circles before you can add him to yours...how do you follow somebody? or connect with somebody...or request to connect?

0 upvotes
rgoislv

"The accepted story on the Internet is that Google+ is a ghost town, ............ and that it’s dead in the water."

It's the accepted story because it's TRUE.

7 upvotes
HubertChen

What is the best way to upload collections from Lightroom to Google+ ? Is it Jeffrey Friedl's Picasa Plugin:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/picasaweb ?

I liked the content very much, congratulations. However, I found the style uncomfortable. It left me with the feelings such as you copied and pasted it from a google+ marketing brochure suggesting it lacks a neutral view on the topic.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
New_Pants

Have you tried the Picasa Web Upload plugin?
http://www.newpproducts.com/?page_id=2743

Its focus is to try and make uploading to Picasa Web from Lightroom as simple as possible.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HubertChen

Dear New_Pants:
Thanks for your link. I had not found this one before, so great you mentioned it here. This plugin works via export and thus could be more straight forward than Jeffrey's Picasa Plugin, which works through publishing. However -- I think -- I will prefer the method through publishing as I plan to set up smart collections and plan for my collections to dynamically change with each shooting and I like for the web service which hosts my pictures to automatically reflect these changes which the publishing method appears to deliver. Have you tried both ? Is there a reason you prefer "New Products" over "Jeffrey Friedl's" Plugin ? As for me I have not used any Lightroom plugin yet. I only published manually to flickr once but am not happy with it. I have several collections ready for publishing in Lightroom and I am researching the best way to do as well as the best service to pick. E.g. 500px would be no good, as I can't automatically upload all my collections.

0 upvotes
New_Pants

To answer your question "Is there a reason you prefer "New Products""... quite simply I wrote that plug-in(!), so it primarily satisfies how I work with Lightroom.

I like Google+ and wanted a really easy and quick way to share photos with it and Picasa Web. Please feel free to get in touch via that website if you want to discuss Lightroom Publishing with that plug-in. Otherwise I wish you good luck using whatever Lightroom option does the job best for you!

0 upvotes
HubertChen

Dear New_Pants: Thanks. I am interested in your plugin and if you answer my question here you might interest a larger audience and at a same time more people learn how to publish to google + via Lightroom. I hope this is Win Win for all.
1) What are the advantages of sharing photos through export rather than publishing ?
2) What workflow are you suggesting in Lightroom towards publishing to Picasa with your plugin
3) Could you help me to understand Picasa and Google+? After reading the Article here I was expecting a flickr but with better GUI and community tools on steroids. However, I could not find it. Please see my post above. An answer would be very appreciated. Thank you.

0 upvotes
New_Pants

I can give you some quick answers:
1) Exporting removes the step of maintaining Lightroom collections. You would simply select the photos (which optionally could be in a collection) and then simply Export them to a new or existing album in Picasa Web. Publishing requires you setup Lightroom collections and then Publish those to the Web. Using Export removes the need to maintain collections, but may not be suitable to everyone's workflow.
2) I typically work on an album at a time in Lightroom. When I've tidied up the photos from my recent trip or vacation I export them to Picasa Web. I rarely modify that album in Picasa Web once it has been created.
3) I think this article does the best job for giving an overview of Google+. Picasa Web is simply the online photo storage site where Google+ gets and stores its photos.

0 upvotes
HubertChen

Dear New_Pants: Thanks for your answers!
1) & 2) Makes perfect sense. It is in fact how I work currently. I was planning to start using collections but I am not doing so yet. Your plugin seems to be a shortcut to get started right away. I will try it. Thanks so much!
3) I eventually found the "Home Page" of a photographer on Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+ColbyBrown/photos
I like what I see and agree this is much better presentation than the photographer's home page on flickr. Yet one question remains: On flickr, pbase & 500px I can explore photos without knowing the photographers name / link to his home page. I also enjoy things like featured photo's, featured albums, editors pick, etc. Where can I find such things on google+ ?

0 upvotes
New_Pants

A quick follow up to this conversation.
http://www.newpproducts.com/?page_id=2743
The plug-in at the above link now does both Lightroom Export and Publish uploading to Picasa Web. So you can choose whether you want the simplicity of Lightroom's Export feature, or the trackability of Lightroom's Publish Services feature.

0 upvotes
Pahila

I really like google+
Simple clean and efficient. Lets not forget fast.

Flickr was always too busy. never figured it out.

0 upvotes
AndyHWC

I prefer Skydrive and Microsoft Photo Gallery. Used to be a Picasa/Picasaweb users but the editing tools sucks compared to Photo Gallery. Skydrive has integrated photo/doc design, Facebook/Twitter sharing suppot and as early adapter I got 25GB for free ;-)

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
nightshadow1

I like G+ but hate the fact that concerns from us small, unimportant people, are seldom, if ever addressed. This is especially annoying when a very important feature like the ability to add an entire circle to your "G+ page doesn't work.

So, when your friends brag and tell you that they have x followers and you don't makes you kind of jealous (it shouldn't, but yes it does because it limits your ability to receive #1's and comments) and you eventually want to quit.

For example... I am nowhere close to the limit of circles or people in them. But, when I am included into a circle and want to include it in my G+, I am ALWAYS prohibited with the the message saying that I can't because I have reached my daily limit - try again tomorrow! Well, after NEVER being able to add a circle, I say forget it! Forget about customer service... there isn't any, or at least they have never bothered to try to work out this and some other problems.

I use it, but it IS a love/hate relationship with me.

0 upvotes
MBStuart

I was unimportant in the beginning, and as far as the photography community before G+ I was nobody. Twitter is this same way though - no one will just follow you because you name sounds neat. You have to get out there and interact.
The circle limits are very annoying at times for sure.

0 upvotes
Aleksandr Reznik

google+ ?! what is it?

0 upvotes
ZorSy

Picasa was good and Google+ made it even better, in particular album preview layout. As not very online socially active (I got real life), I don't like Google pushing "circles" and still invite people via email notification - I'm obsolete, I know....But - slideshow, size and maintaining quality are on the plus side.

0 upvotes
Rick Ritz

I've used Picasa for years and, of course, G+. I post only png images to FB now and it still just gets me close to the G+ quality using jpg uploads. For best resolution, I display on my own website which is far better than both of the others.

FB still has the audience so, though I don't like the FB quality as much, I still post to FB as my initial source to bring people to my website - which I track, of course, using Google Analytics. :)

2 upvotes
Nitin Goud

Please try G++ extension on firefox and chrome.
Allows you to integrate both G+ and fb.

0 upvotes
sean000

I may have to revisit my neglected G+ account, but only to participate as a photographer. When it comes to sharing photos with friends and family, all of them are on Facebook. Unfortunately Facebook is absolutely horrid when it comes to photography. Yes they finally got around to allowing higher resolutions with less compression, but Facebook albums are clunky to manage.

I have had an almost entirely neglected Flickr account since Flickr first started. I have always found Flickr to be a frustrating site to navigate. The social aspects of it were appealing, but as a photo sharing site it always seemed lacking to me.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
jquagga

I post everything to Google+. If family needs to see it, I'll post a link on Facebook to the photo or gallery on G+.

1 upvote
richard cohen

i agree with you about fb...lousy ui, but i guess resolution has gotten better. i'm using smugmug now which i like, but the interface to fb isn't great as it doesn't seem that most of my friends see the post on my wall..as opposed to my loading the album myself directly onto fb.

0 upvotes
sean000

Richard, I also use Smugmug. That is my main photo sharing site. I used to post from Smugmug to Facebook, but found that it was time-consuming. Also there is some value to having FB albums that friends can browse (because chances are they will do that more often than they will browse your Smugmug site). I have found that Lightroom makes it easy for me to publish a subset of Smugmug photos to FB very easily. Totally redundant, but I only post about 25% of my Smugmug photos to FB.

0 upvotes
Octane

I have been active in quite a number of different photographer online communities. They all have their advantages and are great. Some became very large and are excellent. But the major limitation that they all come with is the very thing that makes them popular: they are for photographers, not for the average person. Those communities are full of other photographers. Becoming popular among other photographers is great for your ego but generates very little public exposure (with a few rock star exceptions). From a marketing point of view that's not helpful. So when I read that G+ is very popular among photographers but kind of a desert when it comes to the average person I'm not too excited about it.

I'm not saying have a photographer heavy community is in any way bad. It can be very helpful and full of useful info for photographers, but in terms of getting your name out there that's not working based on my experience. But then, G+ has the chance to become a general social media hit.

6 upvotes
BobT3218

That surprises me. I left Google for Firefox. Unlike most other browsers, Google refuses to implement colour management resulting in colours that look wrong. Have they fixed it in Google+ or what?

0 upvotes
Leif1981

It sounds like you talk about the Google Chrome Browser and not the Google+ Community what this article is about.
But yes, in the latest version Chrome supports also color profiles.

3 upvotes
Model Mike

Dare I say it: quite a catalogue of misconceptions here re colour management. First, colour transformations are not required for sRGB images since all browsers assume sRGB by default. Second, while support for monitor ICC profiles would be nice, all browsers (not just Chrome) are equal in their lack of support for this. Arguably even that's not so much of an issue these days, except for wide gamut monitors. And finally, Google + is a web service not a browser.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
fabgo

Not true on both counts. Firefox has color management built in, but it's not enabled by default.

0 upvotes
Code9

I use Firefox as it's the only browser that supports image profiles and monitor profiles. My images look fine when viewed on Facebook or Skydrive. Not so good on Google+. They appear faded and lifeless. Makes Google+ a non-starter for me.

0 upvotes
M Lammerse

I use facialbook and google+ both are not specifically aimed at photography and photographers.

I prefer to use flikr, it's aimed at photographers & photography and does not want to be Facialbook or Google+.

Flikr is a photographing/photographer/photography community. Facialbook and Google+ are more aimed at selling, stockholders and how to connect (anonymous) user data to commerce

2 upvotes
Lucas_

I just think Flickr's GUI is too busy. If the focus is on photos it should be clean of so many distracting written paragraphs and empty spaces. IQ isn't what I'd expect either.

4 upvotes
xMichaelx

@Lucas: I agree that Flickr is too busy, but I have another problem with it: It's great at letting you find a single image, but looking a multiple images from someone is a real pain.

The thumbnails are too small, and the slideshow too unwieldy (esp. if someone has a lot of images). Google's UI is far superior in both areas.

1 upvote
M Lammerse

@Lucas. You are right there are absolutely points what will be need to make flikr GUI better. And what I believe, they hired some people to make it a better experience in the nearby future.

Being a paid member helps with a better user experience. What I do like of Flikr is that it is aimed at photography - it does not want to be Google+ nor Facebook. It has a broad photography user community.

3 upvotes
Lucas_

Among all those, I still preffer Smumug for my gallery. It's very well structured database with excellent image quality. GUI is clean and simple, although with most needed options in easy to use drop-down menus. Maybe the fact that it's not free ( although very affordable IMO makes it less attractive ). 500px also impressed me well, so I'll look into it deeper. As for G+ IMO it certainly looks better than Flickr.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
OBI656

Google + got ugly interface. That would be very much the only thing as far as I am concern ...

0 upvotes
smalltalk80

Flickr's free tier is too limiting. Picasa/Google+ allows me to post unlimited number of pictures under 1600 pixels, which are not counted toward space usage.

Google+ does not support zooming into a picture. I'm surprised they miss such a basic functionality.

1 upvote
Royi Avital

You can upload up to 2048 x 2048 without being counted toward space usage.

1 upvote
Spad16

I think this is a big reason why Flickr failed, when I got to 200 photos I started dithering, shall I pay or not. And then other things turned up and I never got around to it. I’m a bit of a happy snapper, and will never be a great photographer, but I think the vast majority of flickr users are like me, and it’s a big step to start paying, 200 photos isn’t a big enough investment to force people to stay on flickr, so lots of people just left.
/Neil

0 upvotes
Lee Dolman

I dont get how unknown photographers are supposed to interact...it seems us amateurs are merely allowed to look at all the big boys...unless I'm missing something...where do i get to see all the people like me's photo's and where do they get to see mine?

2 upvotes
Royi Avital

Share them on Posts and use #HashTags.

2 upvotes
Stubb

Participate in the day themes.

0 upvotes
richard cohen

the only thing i use fb for is to post photos, and i hate the interfaces and quality of images on that site...that being said, they have the eyeballs (friends) so it's a bit of catch-22 for using g+...not much point to use it until the people are there, but hard to draw them there just to see pix. it's actually amazing to me how bad fb is regarding image sharing and display considering it has 1 billion members...they could do a lot better, not sure if they could do worse.

2 upvotes
3DSimmon

I don't think the image quality on FB is bad at all, so long as you select High Quality when uploading

0 upvotes
Mika Y.

The image quality stiff suffers quite a bit especially for night shots even if the high quality option is selected.

On this shot of faint auroras some of the stars almost disappear on the FB-recompressed image, and while switching between them there's a visible difference:

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/579989_10151064899354075_71039305_n.jpg

vs.

http://koti.kapsi.fi/~myrjola/photos/digital/tmp/faint_auroras.jpg

0 upvotes
lylejk

I don't use Google unless I absolutely have no choice (search engine that is; many sites, unfortunately, use Google internally). I won't even use the Chrome browser since Google owns it. lol

:)

3 upvotes
photomeme

another complete misfire at the 'new' dpreview site.

google+ has ran roughshod over picasaweb, which enabled sharing of images across the web, including any social media site.

google+ is essentially a walled garden distribution vehicle.

photographers worldwide have been in an uproar. but the strategy has led many of them (the ones that didn't leave) begrudgingly to ask their usual audiences to join the community.

5 upvotes
Damon Lynch

photomeme have you ever used Google+? It seems unlikely.

4 upvotes
xMichaelx

"photographers worldwide have been in an uproar."

Ha! That's why Google+ is packed with happy professional photographers.

You're projecting.

2 upvotes
arglebargle2

I agree 100% with the roughshod part. I was happily using picasa but could not stand google+ because it changed how it lets you use your pictures on other sites.

I still haven't found a service that I am happy with now that google+ took over.

0 upvotes
Calvin Chann

WOW, who owns DPR?

Comment edited -92 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tje1964

I wish I understood why people whine so much about Flickr. Flickr shows EXIF data too, and it's very easy to communicate with other photographers. I do it every day. I like G+ very much, and I wish more people used it. But I don't think it's some kind of Flickr killer.

6 upvotes
onlooker

Flickr is Flickr killer. The interface and viewing experience is incredibly busy and noisy. When I want to see a photograph, I want to see a photograph, not some teenager's idea of a cool webpage.

7 upvotes
Leif1981

While I also don't like the word "killer" I think that many premium flickr members went over to G+. I still use Flickr a little bit aswell but they haven't change enough in the past.
Flickr group discussions are an outdated concept and make it hard to communicate since people have to dive into the groups before finding any discussions they might be interested in. Communication is on G+ much easier (in my opinion). Also the photo viewing experience. Why can't I see the exif info with one single click and blend them in instead of pushing me to another page? If I open the exif data I always have to go back afterwards. Same with the viewing sizes. There is so much unused space on the website - why I can't change the size with one click & why isn't it showing me the perfect size for the device I'm actually using. Yahoo was sleeping and didn't changed much on flickr since years. I really hope that something will change with Marissa.

1 upvote
Mr.NoFlash

This article reads like a advertisement for google-plus,
The incredible size of the thumpnails - blabla - but not word about the terms of service on the first page, then on the second page a quote Getty ( a company which may buy images from google ) says the TOS would be OK
and this way everything is ok.

Nonsense. Getty is not a group of photographers. Read the TOS, that is the key.
" you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works .... "

Then there is some relevation " only to improve services "

but maybe google will make arbitrary services ( printing service, ad delivery service,.. ) in the future.

Very fishy.
Regards.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
19 upvotes
jquagga

You're missing the sentences before and after. Notably: "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." and "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. "

https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

If they can't distributed the photos you post, the service doesn't work. They translate text of posts so others can read them. And I'm sure tons of other things to operate their services. Be paranoid if you like; for me it works fine.

3 upvotes
Mr.NoFlash

@jquagga:

"you retain ownership" only means that you still can copy your photos and also publish these somewhere else, that would go without saying.

But google could use it for any of its services in the future, poster print service ( who earns the money then ? do you get a share of it ? probably no ), picture services for internet advertising, postcard printing with your photos and customers text, .. they can call every business they do a service... Google will be domain registrar for tens of new generic Top Level Domains and perhaps will supply cloud storage, will the customers be able to use the photos in their websites ( because those are a google service )? If they do and you dont agree, you will need a good lawyer - google already has good lawyers.

If the service would be limited to "social network service" ( currently called googleplus ) .... but its not restricted.

In addition to that for the resizing of images google does not need the right to "create derivative works"

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HubertChen

I agree the terms are "fishy" and I think it is sad that a company which also functions as a role model can not to produce a clear agreement. That being said, most people never intent to sell their pictures. To do so is hard work and time consuming. So for those of us never planning to sell their pictures google + seems to be a great place to share images regardless their license terms. Still I think for the sake of googles reputation ( and for being a better role model ) they should make the agreement more clear. Either admit they plan to profit from your images by reselling them if they can and what would be your royalty ( if any) or they should clearly state that the images are yours and only yours and that they do not want nor can financially benefit from them. If they would plan to sell my images and I would get a royalty it would be a clear bonus to me :-) But even if they did sell my image with me not seeing a penny, I am fine. I helped paying the service :-)

1 upvote
HubertChen

Here would be an example of clear terms:
http://500px.com/terms
Left side legal speak, right side plain English. Lovely!

Please note that:
1) All copyrights of your picture remain the way you chose. ( clear | fair | flexible )
2) You can choose to sell your pictures through their service and a whopping 95 % of the sales price go into your pocket ( If I am not mistaken at getty you will get 25 % )
3) At any given time they might shut down the service forvever. This seems a bit brisk in case you paid a year in advance for a pro service level.

After browsing their site for a while I will explore trying to sell pictures if it is as easy and straight forward as it looks :-) I sure enjoyed exploring pictures of others, my best exploring experience yet on any photo sharing site!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd

I wish Google would just buy FB already.

1 upvote
jumpmanjay

i wish everyone realized how superior g+ is over fb. the only thing missing on g+ are the people/activity.

10 upvotes
Royi Avital

The solution is keep sharing posts with our friends using their Gmail account.
Moreover, once you show someone how great Google Hangout is, they will go for it.

0 upvotes
ranalli

Yeah, that one tiny thing missing is HUGE!!! Who wants to post pictures that nobody will look at. That's why people post on Facebook...it gets eyes.

1 upvote
DafO

It may be better - but it was soooo late to the market - it's totally lost out.

Kind of VHS vs Betamax thing. I'm told that Betamax was actually better, but lost out on the PR thing.

0 upvotes
Buckyuk

It will take time but google + will be everywhere, just as big as facebook in the future

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey

I think Google is smart to just provide the tools and let the network grow organically. Where fb is more of a phone directory and message board, G+ feels more like a club.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 88
About us
Sitemap
Connect